2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 3, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Henry Ruckle

Hon. M. Coell

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Quality child care and recipients of Child Care Awards of Excellence

J. McIntyre

Mental Health Week and attitudes to mental illness

C. Trevena

Richmond 911 Awards

L. Reid

1973 oil spill in coastal waters near Vancouver

G. Gentner

Hosting of Allan Cup in Fort St. John

P. Pimm

Protection of drinking water supply

M. Sather

Oral Questions

Moratorium on offshore oil and gas activities

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Lekstrom

R. Fleming

S. Simpson

S. Fraser

Fuel removal from Queen of the North

G. Coons

Hon. B. Penner

D. Donaldson

Appointment of judge in Cranbrook

L. Krog

Hon. M. de Jong

Appointment of judge for Sunshine Coast area

N. Simons

Hon. M. de Jong

Investigation into activities of T. Richard Turner

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. M. de Jong

N. Macdonald

J. Kwan

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

L. Krog

N. Simons

V. Huntington

H. Bains

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

L. Krog

S. Chandra Herbert

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2010

B. Simpson

Hon. G. Abbott

D. Routley

G. Coons

L. Krog

Hon. S. Thomson

Hon. M. de Jong

Hon. B. Bennett

S. Fraser

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

M. Elmore

Hon. M. Polak

N. Simons

S. Simpson

Estimates: Ministry of Environment

Hon. B. Penner

R. Fleming

B. Routley

V. Huntington

M. Sather

[ Page 5101 ]

MONDAY, MAY 3, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

HENRY RUCKLE

Hon. M. Coell: It is with sadness that I rise today to announce the passing of Henry Ruckle. Henry Ruckle and his family have a deep connection to my riding. The Ruckle farm is the oldest operating family farm in the Gulf Islands, and 1872 was the time it first began. Henry Ruckle was often described as a good friend of B.C. parks. I'd ask members to join me in extending sincere condolences to his family and friends.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Yanira Kuper Herrera and Maritzel González-Quevedo, two representatives of the foreign department of the four-million-strong Federation of Cuban Women, who are visiting several cities across Canada to talk about the work they do.

Today several of my colleagues and I met with Yanira and Maritzel and their host, Clara Halber, who is also here. We and our guests agreed it was a very good interchange, and they look forward to establishing an ongoing relationship with the women in our Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

L. Reid: Every summer the legislative tour office hires post-secondary students to deliver tours for the thousands of school children and visitors from all over the world who come to visit the Parliament Buildings.

This summer the tour office is pleased to welcome eight bilingual summer guides. They are Laura Abbott, Otiena Ellwand, Maxim Legault-Mayrand, Geordon Omand, Yianni Pappas-Acreman, Véronique Piercy, Annabel Rixen and Tom Stuart. I'd ask the House to please make them unbelievably welcome — unbelievably.

V. Huntington: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a constituent of mine, Mr. Todd Gates, who is in town for meetings with the Canadian Evaluation Society. Mr. Gates is a well-known thespian and director with our local theatre company, Sidekick Players. I hope the members join me in welcoming him to the House.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome two friends, Sandra Carswell and Jackie Wood. They are realtors with Osborne Realty in Duncan and colleagues of my partner, Leanne Finlayson. They are good friends and good business citizens of the Cowichan Valley. Can the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

QUALITY CHILD CARE AND RECIPIENTS

OF CHILD CARE AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE

J. McIntyre: The benefits of quality child care are significant, and they touch all of us. That's why the province marks each May as Child Care Month in British Columbia. It's a time to celebrate child care as a vital community service and to thank those who provide it for contributing to healthy child development and a strong provincial economy. Children, parents attending school and work, schools, businesses and communities all reap the benefits of the dedication of child care professionals and early childhood educators right across the province.

While parents remain the first and most important caregivers and teachers for their children, they're supported by these skilled individuals who offer their services in a variety of settings: family day cares, large group centres buzzing with activity, care in the child's own home, as well as preschools and other centres of learning. High-quality care in each of these settings is clearly shown to contribute to healthy child development, later academic success and their overall health and happiness.

As we kick off Child Care Month today, we can all celebrate the contributions of the more than 5,000 licensed facilities, thousands of child care professionals, and 10,000 early childhood educators in B.C. — and recognize the 12 winners of British Columbia's 2010 Child Care Awards of Excellence for their outstanding contributions in supporting the children and families of this province.

Please join me in congratulating Caroline Schier, who is the director of the West Vancouver Child Development Centre. Caroline has been working in various roles at the CDC for the past 17 years and played a key role in developing their infant and toddler program. The West Vancouver CDC would not be what it is today without her.

Congratulations also to Ellen Ruth Muirhead of North Vancouver, Christine Eldon of North Vancouver, Verna Adolph of Lillooet, Harlen Jones of Enderby, AnnaRita Best of Nanaimo, Soonock Lee of Vancouver, Shazmina Herath of Burnaby, Mata Papadogambros of Coquitlam, Sheila Marie Kennedy of Eagle Creek, Mie Hoshino of Vancouver and Dee Conley of Vancouver Island's Quathiaski Cove.

[ Page 5102 ]

Thank you all for turning everyday play into learning opportunities for our children.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK AND

ATTITUDES TO MENTAL ILLNESS

C. Trevena: If someone has the flu or a stomach bug, has cancer or MS, we as a society understand. They're sick, and we, on the whole, are sympathetic. We give people time off and do fundraising, and there are no questions asked.

But when it comes to mental health, that common generosity of spirit tends to diminish. The sense of understanding declines. So when people are depressed, they're told to pull themselves together. When they're talking to themselves on the street, we cross the road, worried about what they may do. The bulimic adult just needs to get a grip.

We're both dismissive and frightened of mental illness. We can't see it, and we can't understand it. That's why this week, Mental Health Week, is so important. The Canadian Mental Health Association uses the week as an opportunity to show that mental health has to be part of our overall health for individuals and for communities.

Statistics show that one in five Canadians will personally experience a mental illness in their lifetime. Suicide accounts for a quarter of deaths among 15- to 24-year-olds, and almost half of those who feel they've suffered from depression or anxiety never go to see a doctor about it.

[1340]

We live in an era where cost is everything, but think of the cost of not taking mental illness seriously. Statistics show that ten years ago it cost the health care system almost $8 billion, and it's inevitable that those costs will have gone up. For that reason alone, it would seem to be essential that we take mental health issues seriously and work on supports and education to ensure that we have fully healthy people.

It's also incumbent on all of us to be more aware and inclusive. In Campbell River the Beacon Club is a safe and welcoming place for people with mental illness. The 170 members host classes and clubs, meals and outings. Members run the club, and the open houses — the next one is this Wednesday — are always a pleasure to attend. I hope everyone will mark Mental Health Week by taking the issue of mental health very seriously in their own communities.

RICHMOND 911 AWARDS

L. Reid: The eighth annual 911 Awards, hosted by the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, occurred this past week. For the past eight years, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce has brought the community together to honour the courage and contributions of Richmond's highly dedicated emergency service personnel — the RCMP, fire rescue, Canadian Coast Guard, ambulance paramedics and the community safety sector.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the men and women who devote themselves to the service of others. The work you do benefits our society, and it is fitting that you are recognized and thanked for your acts of heroism and commitment to service.

For the Community Safety Award, presented by the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, the winner is Pathways Clubhouse. For the Community Service Award of Valour, the Richmond winner was Grant Keefer. For the career achievement award, British Columbia Ambulance Service, the recipients were support paramedic Clarke McGuire and paramedic Richard McClellan. They were honoured there by Supt. Pascal Rodier.

The Richmond fire rescue recipient was Deputy Chief Ron Beaman. The RCMP recipient was Const. Barry Edwards. The Police Officer of the Year was Const. Dave Purgart in care of the Richmond RCMP detachment. Firefighter or Fire Rescue Crew of the Year was F. Nathan Bavis in care of the Richmond fire rescue.

For the Ambulance Paramedic or Paramedic Crew of the Year, the winner was advanced care paramedics John Richmond and Brad Campbell, again joined by their superintendent, Mr. Pascal Rodier.

The Coast Guard Employer Volunteer of the Year was Dave Schur, leading seaman rescue diver, and he was joined by Brian Wootton, who is a representative of the Canadian Coast Guard.

I am grateful for the work that you all do on behalf of our community. First responders are amazing people. I believe in the 911 Awards as they offer us a chance to pay tribute to individuals whose courage, skill and professionalism contribute to the well-being of our community. My gratitude to the chamber of commerce, who continue to strengthen our community. My thanks to Craig Jones and Carol Young for another wonderful tribute.

1973 OIL SPILL IN COASTAL

WATERS NEAR VANCOUVER

G. Gentner: When the House resumed on Tuesday, September 25, 1973, Premier Dave Barrett stood up and gave details of the early morning oil spill caused by a collision of two freighters just off Point Atkinson. The Erawan had been struck amidships by the bow of the Sun Diamond .

[ Page 5103 ]

However, by the next day a quarter of the oil washed up on the beaches. Dying mallards and gulls smeared with oil were reported on Bowen Island at Snug Cove hotel in Deep Bay. As the Vancouver Sun reported, Caulfeild Cove, once one of the prettiest inlets, was an oil-covered mess, its rocky shores black and gooey.

A three-mile stretch of oil reached over beaches from Sandy Cove and Ambleside, including Dundarave, Garrow Bay and Whytecliff. By Thursday, along with oil globules and oil-soaked seaweed washing up on Kitsilano beach and the Stanley Park shoreline, there were dead fish rolling up over the waves. With the sponge-like properties of bales of straw and peat moss and with thousands of feet of oil booms and towed slick-lickers, a large part of the oil was contained.

After the Premier's remarks, MLA David Anderson responded: "The spill is an indication of the problems we may well face due to the failure to properly understand and appreciate the difficulties in opposing a far more dangerous and far more difficult problem, that of the Alaskan shipment of oil from Valdez to Cherry Point." Prophetic words indeed.

[1345]

But as details of the current catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico begin to unfold and memories of the far distant oil spill of the Exxon Valdez …. No one, not even urbanites, is immune to the impacts oil has on marine habitat and our own immediate environment.

HOSTING OF ALLAN CUP

IN FORT ST. JOHN

P. Pimm: This year on April 19 to 24, my hometown of Fort St. John hosted one of the most prestigious events in Canadian hockey. The Allan Cup has a history of 102 years as an AAA Senior Hockey Championship, and as always, this year was another great success story.

This year's qualifying teams were the Powell River Regals, Bentley Generals from Alberta, South East Prairie Thunder from Manitoba, the Dundas Real McCoys representing Ontario, Clarenville Caribous from Newfoundland, and the host team, Fort St. John Flyers.

The event was chaired by Paul van Nostrand of Fort St. John. Paul and his committee of 25 subchairs, along with approximately 200 volunteers, did an extremely great job of hosting this event, and I'd like to extend my congratulations for a job well done. Everyone I talked with told me that this event hosted in Fort St. John was as good as or better than any Allan Cup they'd ever been at.

Something I didn't realize is that the host community has to help out with travel and accommodations for all the travelling teams. This cost is substantial — close to $250,000 out of a $350,000 budget. Thanks to all the great work from the volunteers and support from the community, the Fort St. John's Allan Cup committee will at least break even with their event.

Every year there's some fantastic hockey played at the Allan Cup, and this year was no different. This year, the host team, the Fort St. John Flyers were not the most gracious hosts. As they went undefeated in the round robin, they beat the South East Prairie Thunder in the semifinals and met up with their old nemesis, the Bentley Generals, in the final.

The Bentley Generals were the defending champions of a year ago and had beaten Fort St. John out in the last three previous years. However, this year it would be different. The host team beat Bentley in the tournament opener and went on to beat them again in the final to win their first ever Allan Cup national championship.

What an extremely great feat for a small, northern British Columbia community. Congratulations to the Flyers and, again, a big thank you to the organizing committee and the community of Fort St. John.

PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

M. Sather: May 2 to 8 is Drinking Water Week. In the words of the B.C. Water and Waste Association: "A safe, reliable water supply is critical to the success of a community. It creates jobs, attracts industry and investment, and provides for the health and welfare of citizens in ways ranging from disease prevention to fire suppression. Water is a limited resource that must be protected and conserved."

I believe that drinking water will be a greater concern than declining fossil fuels in the coming decades. Drinking water resources are under threat in North America and in British Columbia. Oversubscription to groundwater has led to dropping water tables, particularly south of the border.

We have problems with water shortages in the dry interior and even on the coast from time to time. Boil water advisories in the province are not uncommon.

British Columbians have concerns about the direct and indirect uses of potable water. Water allocation and stream health is widely recognized as a significant issue in the province. British Columbians also have questions about the steep increase in water licence applications by resource companies.

Many are concerned about the explosion in the use of bottled water which requires a lot of petroleum resources to produce and oftentimes has no health advantage over tap water. Millions of water bottles end up in our landfills or will be incinerated.

There are many things we can do to conserve water: water your lawn less or not at all, reduce or eliminate washing your driveway, take shorter showers, check your toilets and faucets for leaks, turn off the water while brushing your teeth, purchase water-efficient appliances, install low-flow showerheads and toilets, and wash your car with a bucket instead of a hose.

[ Page 5104 ]

Let's all do our part to protect and conserve our drinking water.

Oral Questions

MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

J. Horgan: Since 1972 there's been a moratorium in place protecting our wild west coast from oil and gas exploitation. In light of this government's desire over the past ten years to urge the federal government to lift the moratorium — as early as 2003, in the throne speech; the Premier to a private audience of business people in Hong Kong in 2009; and as recently as last fall, when the minister said it was the objective of this government to encourage the federal government to lift the moratorium….

[1350]

In light of the disaster facing us in the Gulf of Mexico today, will the minister join with the vast majority of British Columbians and call on the federal government to keep the moratorium in place at all costs?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What we want to do, first and foremost — and I think I can share for both sides of the House — is express our deep concern and our condolences to the families of the men and women that were lost in this tragedy in the Gulf.

What I do want to point out is that we do not have offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia. What we have said as a government is that we are willing to look at it only if it can be done in an environmentally sound, scientifically safe and socially responsible manner. We have never wavered from that position, nor would we.

I think I can speak for all British Columbians when I say that we watch what is taking place in the Gulf with great concern. I hope that they can contain this, they can do their best, do the study that's necessary to find out what went wrong, and the world can learn from that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I think the science is in, on our television screens and in reports from the Gulf Coast. The livelihood of literally millions of people evaporated for the profits driven by British Petroleum in the Gulf. We want — on this side of the House and British Columbians right across this province — this government to stand up today, identify the obvious environmental catastrophe that's taking place in the Gulf and ensure that it will not happen here by putting the precautionary principle first, saying to the federal government: "Leave the moratorium in place." Will the minister do that today for all British Columbians?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will go back to what I said earlier to the member. We have made a commitment that we are not in favour of extracting resources at any cost. What we have said is that we would be prepared to look at it, if it could be done in an environmentally sound, scientifically safe manner, one that needs a great deal of work.

But what I do want to point out…. I'm going to read something into the record from the member opposite, who just asked the question, the member for Juan de Fuca on CHNL radio, July 15, 2008: "We should look at offshore ten or 20 years from now when supplies are absolutely critical."

I guess the only difference between our side and your side is the time frame, Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: If it's duelling quotes, let's try this one from the throne speech, which I believe was laying out the government's platform in 2003: "…your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running…." In 2006 the Premier said he wanted to see the moratorium lifted in two or three years.

In light of 30-foot waves on the north coast, hundred-mile-an-hour winds and a couple of fault lines, won't the minister agree with me and the majority of British Columbians that putting what's happening on the Gulf Coast on the north coast is the wrong way to go, and will he advise the federal government to maintain the moratorium now and into the future?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What we have said and what we stand by is that our resource extraction will only happen in this province if it can be done environmentally safe, scientifically sound and socially responsible. I think we have a great and proud history in this province of making sure we look after the environment, making sure we meet the needs of the people of British Columbia in a socially responsible manner. We're committed to doing that, and that's where we're going to stay standing on this issue.

Let's make it very clear. This is an issue for all of us, not just in British Columbia, but around the world — watching the incident unfold in the Gulf of Mexico. We all wish everybody the opportunity to clean this up, get on and learn from this.

[1355]

R. Fleming: The Minister of Energy makes it sound like the people of Louisiana signed on for unsafe and unscientific drilling when he stands in this House and gives the same assurances that they were given by British Petroleum executives and politicians down there.

You would think that on a day when what could be the United States' worst oil spill in history…. You would

[ Page 5105 ]

think, with that leakage continuing uncontrollably, that the Energy Minister might take the day off instead of promoting yet again an end to the federal moratorium on oil drilling on British Columbia's coast. But no, he didn't do that.

So will somebody — the Premier or his designate — on that side of the House open their eyes to the risks that offshore drilling posed in Louisiana for British Petroleum? Will this government instead today assure British Columbians that this disaster won't happen here because it won't ever be allowed to happen here — period?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to point out again for the member and all British Columbians, so that people are clear: there is no offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia today. What we have said is that if this resource is ever to be looked at, it can only be looked at as we look towards an environmentally safe and responsible manner.

Let's be clear. Both sides of this House have agreed that they would look at it. I just read a quote into the record for the member. Member, I want to tell you that it doesn't matter whether you're a New Democrat, whether you're a Social Credit member, whether you're a B.C. Liberal. The issue of looking after our environment, the issue of making sure we maintain a quality of life in this province is shared by every British Columbian, including myself, and I'm going to ensure that continues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Deepwater Horizon was a state-of-the-art oil rig, yet the disaster in the Gulf has demonstrated that no technology can ever stop devastating oil spills from occurring. This minister knows or ought to know that an oil spill off British Columbia's sensitive coast would be devastating. It would wipe out the orca population. It would wipe out our salmon species. It would wipe out species at risk up and down the coastlines of British Columbia.

Given the massive destruction we're seeing in the Gulf, will somebody from this government stop pushing the federal government to lift the moratorium on coastal drilling in British Columbia unequivocally?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: One more time. We have said that when we look at resource development in this province, we are going to ensure that if it is ever to proceed it will be done in an environmentally sound, scientifically safe and socially responsible manner. I can't think of something more determined for British Columbians than to ensure those guidelines are met.

What I do want to let the people of British Columbia know…. Again, I'll speak for both sides of the House as we move forward. We will ensure that we meet the highest environmental standards to ensure that we maintain the quality of life that British Columbians enjoy.

More importantly, we all have to live in this world. We all have to find and extract the resources that you and I, on both sides of this House, utilize every day, Member. We're going to ensure that continues at the highest standards possible.

S. Simpson: The problem is this. Based on the throne speech, based on the comments of the Premier, based on the comments of this minister, if the government had its way the moratorium would be gone today and the process would already be in play. That's the problem here.

Will the minister commit today that this government will ask — will call on — the federal government to reject any lifting of the moratorium now?

[1400]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What we have said is that we will develop our resources only if it can be done in a scientifically safe and environmentally responsible manner. Also I want to point out that we have no offshore oil and gas development in this province today, and there will be none unless it can be done in a way that is sound scientifically and environmentally responsible. We will not jeopardize the environment in which we all live and enjoy the quality of life.

What I do find interesting is that this issue happened on April 20, two weeks ago tomorrow. The first question we get today is on a disaster like this.

Member, I'm pointing out that we'll maintain the highest environmental standards not only in this country but in North America when it comes to ensuring that resource extraction is done in the proper manner.

S. Fraser: The problem with this government is that environmental policy is usually eclipsed by who donates to the party.

As the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I represent the outer coast of Vancouver Island, from Huu-ay-aht territory….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Member.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: As the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I represent the outer coast of Vancouver Island from Huu-ay-aht territory in the south to Hesquiaht territory in the north. That includes Bamfield; the Broken Islands group; Barkley Sound; the Alberni Inlet; Ucluelet; Tofino; Long Beach; all of Clayoquot Sound, a UNESCO biosphere reserve. As well, I represent the inner coast of Vancouver

[ Page 5106 ]

Island from Qualicum Beach to Deep Bay. There is so much at risk, hon. Speaker.

To the minister — let's try the Minister of Environment: will he assure this House today, my constituents and the people of British Columbia that there will be no gas and oil drilling off our coast?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What I can tell the member opposite is what we have said: as a responsible government, there will be no offshore oil and gas drilling unless it can be done in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. We've made that commitment.

Again, I want to read a quote. "We should look at offshore ten or 20 years from now, when supplies are absolutely critical." The issue for the opposition appears to be not about the environment but about the timing of the decision. We've stood firm on our decision that we will not pursue this resource unless it can be done in an environmentally sustainable manner, one that maintains the quality of life for your constituents and for every British Columbian.

FUEL REMOVAL FROM

QUEEN OF THE NORTH

G. Coons: When the Queen of the North sank, the Minister of Environment promised the Gitga'at of Hartley Bay that the wreck would be cleaned up. Hon. Speaker, 250,000 litres of diesel and 30,000 litres of oil and hydraulic oil were on the ship when it sank.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. It's been over four years. Why hasn't he fulfilled his promise to the Gitga'at and cleaned up the wreck?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. At the time of the tragic sinking of the Queen of the North and the loss of two lives, the Ministry of Environment as well as federal agencies responded to that incident and, working with an organization known as Burrard Clean, put containment booms in place and worked to recover as much of the diesel fuel that had escaped as possible.

However, the Canadian Coast Guard advised that it was not practical to drill down a thousand feet under the surface to extract the fuel that might be remaining on that vessel. That was the advice given by the Canadian Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: The Gitga'at as well as British Columbians have no reason to trust this government. The Gitga'at continue to be concerned about the upwelling from the Queen of the North . Here's a quote: "Daily monitoring of the area reveals a continued release of hydrocarbons, and as the ship deteriorates, it will leak more toxic substances, including asbestos and heavy metals, into a rich sea life habitat."

My question is to the minister again. What has he done to address these concerns, and why hasn't he kept this promise to clean up the Queen of the North wreck?

Hon. B. Penner: The member might want to do some homework and check his facts, because at no time did I make the statement that he's alleging. What I did say is that we would work with those communities to reduce the risk, and we did that. We worked with federal agencies to recover as much of the diesel fuel as possible and to contain its spread.

If the member wants to disagree with engineers….

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: If the member thinks his opinion should supersede that of engineers who work for the Canadian Coast Guard, who said that the risk of extracting the remaining fuel exceeded the benefits, and if he wants to put in jeopardy the shellfish beds in that area by recklessly pursuing his idea instead of that of professional engineers, then we have a legitimate disagreement.

D. Donaldson: First Nations all across the northwest — the Wet'suwet'en, the Haida, the Haisla, the Gitga'at and many others — have grave concerns about oil spills in our waters. It's been four years since the Queen of the North sank.

This government says it cares about the environment. It says it cares about oil spills. So to the Minister of Environment: when will he and this government finally get around to cleaning up the wreck's dangerous cargo? If, as he says, the engineers say it's impossible to clean up oil from a ship that's sunk this far down, then will he commit today to see no oil supertankers on the coast of northwest B.C.?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm surprised that a member coming from the part of the province, as he does, hasn't done his homework on this issue about the Queen of the North . If he had, he would find that the professional engineers have written a detailed report that said that with a vessel down a thousand feet below the surface of the waves, the risk of trying to drill down through the superstructure of that vessel and extract the fuel from the Queen of the North exceeded the benefits. I'm surprised he hasn't done that amount of homework.

There's something else he hasn't done. Apparently, he doesn't read his local newspaper.

Interjections.

[ Page 5107 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: It appears he also doesn't keep up with the local newspaper, because on August 20, 2008, here's what the Northern Sentinel newspaper reported. In regards to northern tanker traffic, the Leader of the Opposition said: "We've certainly given it a yellow light and a caution about looking at the environmental concerns." The member's own leader certainly didn't say no to tanker traffic when she was in Kitimat talking about potential job benefits, so it's a little bit rich to hear it from him here today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Member.

Member for Nanaimo.

APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE IN CRANBROOK

L. Krog: An accused cocaine dealer in Cranbrook argues successfully that it takes too long to get to trial. As a result, he walks free. The problem? There aren't enough Provincial Court judges. So my question to the Attorney General is very simple. When is he going to appoint another Provincial Court judge for that region?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's question related to an appointment in Cranbrook. That appointment has been made.

APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE

FOR SUNSHINE COAST AREA

N. Simons: In addition to concerns around appointments of Provincial Court judges and the length of time between vacancies and those appointments, those court judges also deal with family matters. In my constituency of Powell River–Sunshine Coast we've been without a judge for approximately six months. My question is simple, and I'm hoping I get the same answer from the minister. When will he appoint a judge for the lower Sunshine Coast?

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. I had an opportunity to meet with mayors and chiefs from the Sunshine Coast. We reviewed the circumstances that exist within the court there, including the fact that the court continues to sit for between three and four days per week. To suggest that the court is not sitting would be incorrect.

I understand, however, the preference of the communities on the Sunshine Coast to have a resident judge. I indicated to the local leaders, mayors and chiefs that we would be engaged in discussions with the chief judge about that matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: The problem is that it takes approximately eight to ten months to set a date for a family court hearing. These are families that are going through crises. These are families that need some resolution offered by the courts.

Why has it taken this government so long to address this issue — letter after letter, and finally a meeting with local government representatives? What is taking so long for the Attorney General to appoint a judge for Sechelt?

Hon. M. de Jong: We work closely via the auspices of the court services branch with the office of the chief judge. We have a new chief judge, His Honour Judge Crabtree. We have worked closely with that office, and we'll continue to do so to ensure that the justice needs, both civil and criminal, are met right across the province.

INVESTIGATION INTO ACTIVITIES

OF T. RICHARD TURNER

S. Chandra Herbert: My question is to the Minister of Citizens' Services. The Lobbyists Registration Act has precluded the registrar of lobbyists from investigating potential lobbyist violations predating April 1 of this year. Given that, it's incumbent upon this government and this minister to answer questions about how T. Richard Turner, this government's appointed chair of ICBC, conducted himself in the B.C. Place roof and casino project.

Has this government done an internal investigation into Mr. Turner's potential violation of the public service code of conduct, and if so, what did it find?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I understand it, the registrar examined the matter with respect to the legislation that was in place at the time and issued a report — which, I think, the member has had an opportunity to review — and has dealt with it on that basis.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I don't think you can pass the buck on this one. We had questions about lobbying, and we had questions about breaking the public service code of conduct — two separate issues.

The Premier told this House that he agrees with the public service code of conduct, which states that it's a conflict of interest if a government appointee "benefits from, or is reasonably perceived by the public to have

[ Page 5108 ]

benefited from, a government transaction" over which he or she "can influence decisions."

The Minister of Tourism confirmed that government appointee T. Richard Turner called him, urging that $563 million of taxpayers' money be spent on the retractable roof, as it was, according to the minister, "essential" for the private company that Mr. Turner sits on the board of.

The registrar has said that he can't look into this. We understand that. The public service code of conduct goes to the higher power — that is, this government and this minister. What steps has this minister taken, if any, to determine if the code of conduct has been broken? Will he release that information today?

Hon. M. de Jong: The chair of the ICBC, Mr. Turner, has served the province with distinction in a number of capacities, most recently as chair. As I recall, his term in that office is coming to a close. We are grateful for the contribution that Mr. Turner has made.

[1415]

I find it unfortunate that the member would return and suggest that perhaps Mr. Turner has not conducted himself in accordance with the highest possible standards.

N. Macdonald: This speaks to the standards of this government. There are questions around what took place with T. Richard Turner. Has there been an investigation into T. Richard Turner — his conduct in this manner? And if there is, when is the government going to make that information public?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Turner has conducted himself as chair of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with distinction. We are grateful and thank him for that contribution. It is a…. His term in that office is drawing to a close. If this member or any other member has a specific allegation that they wish to make about Mr. Turner, then they should step outside this chamber and make it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, I mean, these are legitimate questions that go to the heart of the government's standards for how they're going to conduct themselves. For the minister to stand up and just say, "Trust us on this" as a government…. I mean, how exactly is the public supposed to trust this government? Same way that they…. Are they supposed to trust them like when this government promised not to bring in the HST? Is that how they're supposed to trust them? Or is it not fair to ask the government to account and to explain something that people have legitimate concerns about?

The question is: how has this government gone about investigating the activities of T. Richard Turner? When that investigation is completed, will it be made public? That's a simple question, a straightforward question. Who is going to conduct that investigation? When's it going to be reported?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I recall, this member and others spent considerable time canvassing this very issue in another debate in this chamber — in an estimates debate.

It may serve the opposition's political agenda to come into this chamber where protections are afforded and cast aspersions on the character of an individual who has served the province well, but the real test is whether or not this member or any other member is prepared to step outside of the protected confines of this chamber and make the same sort of allegations that they are prone to make in this House.

J. Kwan: The minister knows very well that in the case of T. Richard Turner, the case was not looked into by the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, because of a technicality. What we're asking about on this side of the House is: has this government done any work looking into potential issues of misconduct related to the violation of the code of conduct that the government has set out for its own appointments — if they've actually examined that issue with regards to T. Richard Turner's conduct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Interesting way to put the question. Absent any shred of evidence that the individual involved, that Mr. Turner…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …has not complied with all of the rules and all of the laws that were in place at the time. The members come into this chamber and want to besmirch that individual's reputation, the reputation of someone who has provided a service to the people of British Columbia and for which we are very grateful.

[1420]

I think it's unfortunate that members would succumb to the political temptation of besmirching someone's reputation for nothing more than the attempt to score political points. I think it's a very sad day.

[End of question period.]

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 5109 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome the grade 5 class from Corpus Christi elementary. They're here in the Legislature today. They're accompanied by their grade 5 teacher, Mrs. Olympia Monteiro; their teacher's assistant, Mrs. Melanie Larabie; the computer and library teacher, Mr. Anthony Chung; as well as a number of parents: Mrs. Seban, Mr. Lore, Mrs. Au, Mrs. Wang, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Don Remedios, Mrs. Lee, Mrs. Tan and Ms. Gladyz Velasco. A very lively group, and I hope everybody makes them feel very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development — and in this chamber, we'll begin with second reading of Bill 12.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Gunshot and Stab Wound

Disclosure Act

Hon. M. de Jong: I move Bill 12 be read a second time now.

This legislation, the new Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act, will, in effect, require health facilities to report the fact that they are providing treatment to patients with gunshot wounds — all gunshot — and, in certain cases, stab wounds. It derives in part from one of the commitments made about a year ago in the government's seven-point plan to combat gang and gun violence.

Members may recall that in 2008-2009, gang-related activities seemed to be on the ascendancy, and the carnage, even insofar as innocent bystanders, was seen to be and was escalating. The proposed legislation before the House will, in our view, enhance public safety by increasing the consistency of reporting these violent injuries. The objective there is to provide the police and investigating authorities with every opportunity to respond in a more timely way to high-risk incidents involving firearms or knives.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I can tell members of the House that similar legislative provisions exist in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, and I am advised that Alberta announced the introduction of similar legislation just last month.

Our legislation, Bill 12 here in British Columbia, would establish that every health care facility — and health care facility is defined within the context of the act — that treats a person with a gunshot or stab wound, and there are exceptions in the case of stab wounds, would be required to verbally report the following information to the police of the local jurisdiction in which the health care facility is located: the person's name, if that's known; the fact that the person is being treated or has been treated for a gunshot or stab wound; the name and location of the health care facility; and any other information that the regulations may require.

Most health authorities, I'm advised, have already adopted and implemented reporting procedures that permit staff to report these kinds of incidents to the police. What this statute does — or will do, if and when it's passed — is make reporting mandatory, and it requires other types of health facilities, such as walk-in clinics or even doctors' offices, to also be responsible for reporting.

[1425]

It will make the disclosure of these gunshot and stab wounds consistent across the province, and it will clarify the obligations that exist for health care facilities. As I said a moment ago, the legislation will define what is meant by health facilities that would be required to report.

As a way of

summary, though, it will include hospitals and other institutions and organizations that deliver health care: clinics, doctors' offices, paramedics. Each facility would be required to ensure that a person has been designated for the task of providing the disclosure, although I should emphasize that the obligation accrues to the facility as opposed to individual health care professionals.

Health facilities will be expected to notify the local police as soon as is reasonably practicable, but the point here is that the legislation acknowledges that the first priority will be providing the injured person with treatment. So the reporting requirement will not and must not be allowed to interfere with the primary priority and the primary obligation, which is to provide adequate treatment.

There is, within the provisions of the legislation, protection from liability for health care professions, and that's addressed specifically in the bill. The legislation would not place health care professionals in conflict with their respective professional ethical codes and the existing legislation that protects patient confidentiality.

Some have observed, in what I think has been a generally favourable response to the legislation, that the bill does not create an offence per se — and that is true — for failing to report to police. The government has taken the view that health care practitioners are self-regulated professions and that their respective colleges have well-established standards or practices and codes of conduct for addressing the issues around enforcement.

[ Page 5110 ]

As I said, the legislation governs all gunshot wounds regardless of who is responsible for inflicting the wound. There is something of a subjective test attached to the definition of "stab wound." It is defined in the legislation, and health care facilities would not be called upon to report stab wounds that are accidental injuries or self-inflicted.

In part, the concern, aside from practical considerations, was to protect patients who may be suicidal or mentally ill and who are being treated for self-inflicted wounds and not have them find themselves caught up in a criminal justice investigative process.

There have been fairly extensive consultations leading up to the introduction of the bill. The following health sector groups were consulted on gunshot wound reporting: the B.C. Medical Association and the association's emergency medicine committee; health authorities at the CEO level, through the Health Leadership Council; the College of Physicians and Surgeons; the College of Registered Nurses; and the College of Licensed Practical Nurses.

The government has also consulted with victim services organizations and agencies, including the Ending Violence Association, Battered Women's Support Services, Surrey Women's Centre and the Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services. We also consulted with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

By way of

summary, I can advise the House that all of these groups have expressed positive support for the introduction of mandatory gunshot and stab wound reporting.

The reporting of this information, in our view, will ensure that the police can follow up on critical incidents in a timely way. It means that they can ensure that they can enforce rules respecting the proper registration and storage of guns, ensure that victims are provided needed services and, just as importantly, prevent any further harm to other people in their community.

[1430]

The logic, particularly with respect to gunshot wounds and any stab wounds relating to violence, is that if you are involved in that kind of activity…. As it relates to gangster activity, there are apparently some people out there that think it's okay to play with guns, but if you are injured as a result, you are going to speak to the police if you are seeking medical treatment.

The government believes that that is an appropriate step to take and an appropriate requirement and is pleased that the agencies with whom we have consulted in the medical and public safety fields agree.

With that, I will look forward to comments from other members on Bill 12.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to second reading on Bill 12, the gunshot- and stab-wound-reporting legislation. I think it is an important bill.

I have some comments, wondering why it has taken so long. The fact that it's tabled in the week when most of the people in this province are focused on the HST and the need to defeat that, and government members feeling under pressure around the HST and is there any way to divert the attention away from that issue…. I don't know whether or not the government's rationale for introducing it at this time was to try and do that.

I'll talk about that in a minute. At the moment what I want to talk about is this particular piece of legislation, a bit on how it came into being, how I believe it can be a useful tool, the fact that the opposition does have some questions around its implementation, which we will want to talk about in committee stage, but also some concerns that have been raised that are legitimate that we will want to see answers to in committee stage and that I think are important to get on the record.

The Attorney General has said that this had its genesis over a year ago when the Attorney General said that gang-related activities seemed to be increasing. That is one way of putting it. I think the public and the opposition had other words for it: there was a gang war. There was an all-out gang war in this province that resulted in the killings of innocent people.

It was a war in which the government was initially slow to react. It was at a time when we saw cuts being proposed to budgets, not only in the Solicitor General's ministry but also in the Attorney General's ministry, that would have potentially hamstrung some efforts in terms of dealing with that gang war. In fact, as I recall at the particular time, there was a throne speech delivered where crime and public safety were not even mentioned.

I think it's important to put that on the table. At a time when we had a throne speech in September of '09 — a throne speech in '08 as well — crime and public safety was not even mentioned. We went through months of a gang war in the Lower Mainland and other parts of this province where people were literally terrified of what was taking place.

You had shootings in broad daylight, not only in Abbotsford but in Langley. The government's response at that time, the initial response, was to hold a press conference with the Premier and the chiefs of police and E division, everybody standing shoulder to shoulder: "We're going to do something." But it continued.

Finally, public outrage, I think, shamed the government into being more proactive, and they announced a seven-point plan. That's over a year ago.

[1435]

The seven-point plan included some changes at the federal level, which the opposition supported — two-for-one credits, for example — and felt were changes that needed to be made. It included additional policing resources, again which the opposition believes are necessary.

[ Page 5111 ]

There were other things which we think should have been included which were not included. One of the things I have said in the past that I would like to see is an increase in the number of auditors we have to be able to better track the money — that we try and get an agreement with Ottawa around, for example, having teams of dedicated auditors, over and above what we have right now, whose sole job is to track the money of those involved in gang activity.

We've seen a number of cases whereby money appears to be linked to family businesses, where there is a denial of involvement of the gangster, yet the reality is that that business is involved to some extent in terms of either the potential for laundering money…. This side of the House, for example, said that those were some initiatives we should be looking at.

Another thing that I have said I would like to have seen in the seven-point plan at the time was around the ability, for example, on passports. People associated in drug trafficking, gang activity, violent criminal types — how are they able to obtain passports and travel to jurisdictions to conduct illegal activity?

As I said, I'd like Ottawa to be taking a harder line on that, and I think there are opportunities to do that. Again, that's something I would like to have seen in the seven-point plan. It wasn't, but those are things that we will continue to push for.

This was one of those things that was in the plan, and I'm glad it's here now. I just want to know why it's taken so long, because it seems pretty straightforward to me. The issue here is around the reporting of gunshot wounds to individuals who show up into a hospital, a medical facility, for example. It would require the reporting not by the doctor but by the medical facility. I think that is potentially an important tool for law enforcement in helping to deal with the fight against gang crime that we have in this province.

I think we're all aware of cases and stories where individuals have shown up at hospitals suffering gunshot wounds, are uncooperative and just want to get in and get out and be discharged. This is something that hampers the police investigation into what's taking place, and that's not acceptable.

I think one of the things we need to do, as much as possible, is to have those tools in place that will allow the police to do an even better job than what they're doing right now, to allow them to get on top of every possible angle, every possible lead, to use every possible opportunity to either do a thorough investigation, particularly when weapons are being used…. One of the obvious, clearly, is a gunshot wound. That's one of the reasons why we will be supporting this particular piece of legislation.

The other issue that's dealt with in this legislation is around knives and stabbings. Again, much of that is related to gang-related violence in British Columbia. Again, it's been a serious problem. There has been no requirement for the reporting of that in this province.

Other provinces have already taken that step. As the Attorney General stated a few moments ago, Alberta is considering upgrading their legislation to what we have here in British Columbia. Legislation such as this, what we have in this province, already exists in Saskatchewan, Ontario and, I believe, Manitoba, where it originated. So it is not something that is new, but I think it is a commonsense approach to what is a very serious issue.

[1440]

One of the questions that always comes up in discussions of this nature — around the mandatory reporting, for example — is the issues around privacy — issues concerning physicians, for example, and their responsibility and people acting in good faith and questions around liability.

One of the things that I am pleased with in this legislation is that both the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the BCMA have said that they approve of it, that it has their support. The Civil Liberties Association has raised some concerns about issues of privacy, and I think it's important to ask those questions.

I think it's important to put those questions on the record so that in committee stage we can ask the minister those questions, get them on the record so that the minister is able to answer them and, hopefully, put to rest the concerns of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association that, you know, there is a potential — I don't believe there is — that people will not seek medical treatment.

The issue that I think is of even a greater concern is the issue of spousal abuse and violence against women. Again, I think the legislation is a good piece of legislation, but we will certainly put those questions to the minister and get answers on the record. I think that we will be able to satisfy those particular concerns but also address other issues on how this may fit into a much broader overall gang strategy in the province of British Columbia.

The penalties are, I think, important in this particular case. I notice that in other provinces, for example, the potential for fines are up to $25,000. In this legislation, they are around $100,000. Again, I think that is a significant improvement.

I think the one area that this particular piece of legislation doesn't address…. In some ways, I'm not sure how you would. I think it's one of those questions we will explore in the committee stage debate on this bill. It is around — and we have seen cases of it in this province — where someone involved in gang activity tries to seek out a physician outside of a hospital or outside of a medical clinic, either in a physician's home or in a private setting, to get treatment.

There was a case that I think occurred last summer where the individual…. The phone calls were intercepted in terms of the surveillance of this person, who

[ Page 5112 ]

I think is now awaiting trial or has been sentenced to jail in the States. Part of the evidence was that they were trying to locate a physician in the Okanagan who would be able to treat the individual outside of a hospital. My understanding is that did not take place, but I think it gives an indication of some of the problems that we may still face with this particular piece of legislation.

Again, those are questions that we will ask in committee stage, which brings me back to the point, as I said, that we're going to be supporting this legislation. It is something that we have called for in the past. It is something that I think is long overdue in this province. I think it sends a strong message.

I think it sends a message to the community that, you know, if someone's shot and it's not a self-inflicted wound or it's not accidental — and physicians are pretty good at determining many of those things — then that's okay; that's not going to be covered. But clearly, when something is used in this particular situation where it's of a violent nature, then I think it is the right thing to do to have that reported to the police.

I know in the legislation, I think, one of the questions that first comes up, for example, is around stab wounds. People do accidentally stab themselves. I know I have cut my thumb or finger on more than one occasion when….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: It's not a stab wound? But I have cut myself and once accidentally stabbed….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: When cooking or cutting something. Those things happen.

[1445]

If people think that the legislation is broad enough that it deals with those things and causes problems in that, one of the things that the opposition has looked for in its examination of the bill is to ensure that that does not take place — that we're not creating unnecessary problems there.

Again, those are issues that will be dealt with in terms of looking at committee stage on the particular piece of legislation to ensure that the sections that are there to deal with that are, in fact, the right sections to do that.

During the discussion around committee stage on this particular piece of legislation, if we find that there are ways that it could be improved, I would encourage and commend to the government side, if the opposition makes a constructive improvement by way of an amendment, to seriously consider the amendment and not to be afraid of adopting an amendment that would improve a bill, make a bill potentially more effective and a better tool for the police as a tool in helping to combat gang violence.

I know that other colleagues of mine in the House want to say some words on this, because I think this is an issue that has touched or is of concern to British Columbians right across the province, but particularly some of the areas that have been infested, I would say, with gang violence over the last number of years.

I think it's appropriate that we take some time just to acknowledge that, to recognize that that's a serious problem that the public does want action on. I think it's important that we recognize that in this particular piece of legislation — that this is another tool, and it's an important tool.

My one criticism is that I just wish it had been brought in earlier. Had it been brought in earlier, we probably could have given it even more attention than it received when it was tabled, as opposed to being overshadowed by the HST debate in this province.

Having said that, I look forward to the debate on this particular piece of legislation, and I look forward to the committee stage discussion on the bill. With that, I will take my seat and look forward to the comments of other colleagues.

L. Krog: I'm sure all of us have seen at some time that Jimmy Cagney movie where he talks about: "You dirty rat." Well, I'm not suggesting the bill's a rat, but whenever I see a bill that only runs to three pages, you sort of have to ask the basic question: why a three-page bill? Now, is this some problem that's just arisen, some emergency, some dramatic piece of public need that gives rise to this? Or is it — and this is where the opposition is always suspicious — a bit of a public relations exercise?

The House has before it now a bill, Bill 20, 93 pages long — 93 pages covering all sorts of ministries, numerous changes. Yet, for something which on the face of it appears relatively straightforward — and I say on the face of it — we have before us three pages of a separate act with that rather disturbing title: Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act.

I am led to the conclusion, as a member of the opposition, that this really isn't about attacking crime in the province. This is really about assisting the government's image in the province. You don't have to be an advertising executive from Wall Street to recognize a sales pitch when it comes into your home on the TV or in the glossy pages of a magazine nor, indeed, in the plain, white paper of this chamber. What we have before us is a public relations exercise.

[1450]

If we are really serious about this, what is it that this bill is intended to do? What is the point of it? If the point is to assist the police in determining who are the real victims of crime, that's one thing. If the point is to assist the police in determining who caused these people to

[ Page 5113 ]

be victims of crime, then I'm just not sure how this bill, particularly given its wording, is going to significantly advance that cause. That's assuming that is the point of the bill — one or the other.

There may be some other point to this legislation that the Attorney General will disclose during the course of closing debate on second reading or during the course of committee stage of this bill, but what we really have here is a fairly narrow approach, if you will.

We know significantly — and other members, I know, are going to comment on this — that many times the victims of crime are not shot or stabbed. They're strangled, they're beaten, they're struck, they're run down in motor vehicles, or they're blown up in cars. There are all kinds of things that lead to death and injury.

So with this fairly dramatic Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act, again, I am drawn to the conclusion that this is about public relations. I'm even more convinced of that because of what the Attorney General had to say in his opening remarks this afternoon.

If you go to the act itself, it talks about emergency medical assistant means "an emergency medical assistant as defined in the Emergency Health Services Act ." I checked that. That doesn't particularly — I don't think in my brief reading of it — include a doctor. The Attorney General went on to speak about doctors and others being covered by their own colleges, etc., as if that could somehow be handled out there.

I guess I have to ask: which is it? If this is a serious matter, if this requires a separate stand-alone piece of legislation and if that's in fact what it requires to address this problem, then why isn't this bill broader? Why doesn't it say that literally every British Columbian who comes into contact with an individual who appears to be the victim of crime — a violent crime, whether that be a gunshot wound or a stab wound or a beating or whatever…? Why isn't there some piece of legislation that says you've got to report it immediately to the authorities? Why are we narrowing it down to emergency medical assistants?

If you look at the definition, for instance, of "health care facility" under the act, it includes "(

a) a facility operated by a regional health board designated under the Health Authorities Act , (

b) an organization or institution that provides health care services, (

c) a clinic that provides health care services, (

d) the office of a medical practitioner, or (

e) a prescribed facility."

I'm Dr. John Smith practising — I don't know — in Nakusp. I've got an office somewhere down the road, maybe in Nelson or something. Someone comes to my home. I don't think this act catches me, because that's not the office of a medical practitioner. That's my home. So there's a loophole on the face of it, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm just a simple member of this assembly reading this act as best I can and trying to interpret it. That's the way I read it.

Why doesn't it apply to all doctors? It's amusing. If this individual shows up at my house and I'm a doctor and I treat them, there is no requirement under this act that I do any of the things required in

section 2. However, it appears, on the simple reading of it, that my office…. If I'm working in a clinic in Nelson, for instance, with two or three other doctors, it appears that the office of the medical practitioner involved has to report it.

I appreciate that there are many members in this chamber who come from the Lower Mainland where you're talking a few miles across town, but there are many practitioners in this province who travel miles and miles to their offices and deal with people who live in hundreds of square miles. Reasonably speaking, I'm not sure I understand how the act, the way it's worded, is really going to assist in a timely — and I presume timely is important here — fashion to have those people identified to the authorities.

If we're talking about crime prevention or crime detection, for instance, how does that work? Why doesn't it say in

section 2: "A health care facility, emergency medical assistant, a doctor or any other person who treats a person for gunshot or stab wounds"?

[1455]

I'm in a rural community, and there's a retired nurse living there. That may be the only medical practitioner nearby. I'm in an aboriginal village, isolated. The woman in that village who looks after people who are sick because there's no other health care facility available — why isn't that person required to disclose the information to a police authority?

Why doesn't this bill really address the issue in a meaningful way as opposed to what I suggest, with great respect, is a rather arguably tepid approach? Because if you really want to capture all of the individuals who are victims of crime or use it as a method of detecting those who cause the crime, again, why limit it to gunshot and stab wounds? Why limit it to emergency medical assistants or health care facilities? Are we simply following willy-nilly the other jurisdictions in the country that have passed legislation? Are we trying to do something really meaningful?

Is there a problem, for instance, in the Lower Mainland, where we know gun violence and gang violence is a significant issue? Is it apparent through the authorities? Is there evidence? Is there information? Are there studies? Is there something that says that the existing system isn't working appropriately?

When I say "existing system," I just mean the common sense of medical practitioners who…. If somebody shows up at the door of VGH with three bullet holes in them, it might be incumbent on somebody to phone the police and suggest that there might have been a crime committed, unless of course they're the most negligent hunter in the province of British Columbia and managed to plug themselves three times accidentally, and that's their excuse.

[ Page 5114 ]

Interjection.

L. Krog: Or, as my friend, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast just suggested, they went hunting with Dick Cheney.

Again, I come back to my point about this being a public relations exercise. If we are serious about addressing the issue and attacking crime, then this act doesn't go far enough. I must admit that I'm a little disappointed by the lack of courage, if you will, that is apparent to me in

section 2.

This is the guts of the bill, if you will, which, as I suggested earlier, could easily, easily have been included in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, where it says:

"A health care facility or emergency medical assistant who treats a person for a gunshot or stab wound must disclose the following information to the local police authority: (

a) the injured person's name, if known; (

b) the fact that the injured person is being treated or has been treated for a gunshot or stab wound; (

c) in the case of a health care facility, the name and location of the health care facility; (

d) in the case of an emergency medical assistant, the location where the treatment occurs" — which wouldn't apply to the doctor in his home or her home — "(

e) any other information required by the regulations."

Here we go again. The good old regulations. We haven't quite got the courage to put what we really want to do in the bill. We're going to deal with it in regulations.

I don't think there's a British Columbian who's literate who could read this

section and not come to the conclusion: "Well, gosh, if you're asking for the injured person's name and we're interested in stopping crime or preventing crime, why doesn't it say that they have to disclose the person's address and occupation and place of work or medical history?"

I mean, maybe this is the fifth or sixth time poor George has been in VGH with some untimely bullet holes. I suggest that it's because…. Well, there are several explanations. This bill was hastily drawn in order to combat the government's declining popularity and its lack of ability to demonstrate that it's really committed to fighting violent crime in British Columbia. Or it's because they lack the courage to say to those of us who are concerned about privacy….

They're afraid to state right in the body of the bill the things I just suggested: the person's address, the person's occupation, the person's medical history, any other relevant facts that would assist the police authorities in dealing with what — on the face of it, if it's a gunshot or stab wound — would be a criminal act.

[1500]

It talks about local police authority. The whole concept of this bill is to get the information before a local police authority. If that's the case, and we're designing this bill to assist the police authorities, then why aren't the requirements set out in

section 2(1) much more extensive? Why are we leaving it to regulation? That's my question.

If this is what it's really designed to do, if it's designed to be a sincere and serious attempt by this government to address crime, where is it? I mean, I don't see it. With great respect, "the injured person's name, if known…." Now, there may not be a lot of Leonard Krogs in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

L. Krog: I know the government benches want more, but I would suggest that there may be a number of John Smiths. There may be a number of William Smiths. There may even be a couple of Spencer Chandra Herberts. I don't know.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, you do know that is not appropriate. Your name and his name — withdraw.

L. Krog: Sorry. Yes, you're quite right, hon. Speaker. I withdraw that.

An Hon. Member: Apologize, too.

L. Krog: And I apologize.

But my point is this. The mere identification of a person's name in and of itself may provide precious little, if any, assistance whatsoever to the police.

I come back to my point about this bill. Is this going to advance the cause of fighting crime at all? Even more interestingly, hon. Speaker, if you go to

section 6, it says specifically: "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or the regulations."

Now, if it were to apply and someone breached the act by failing to contact the police authorities, they could be convicted of a general offence and fined up to $2,000 or six months imprisonment. In other words, there would be some real meat here. There would be an opportunity, if you will, for a person to seriously consider whether they wanted to, for instance, fail to comply with the provisions of this act. Right now, on the face of it, what's it going to do?

I presume there will be some provision in the latest collective agreement that will say that if Bob is working in the emergency room at VGH and provides some assistance, under the collective agreement that governs Bob's workplace Bob will have to comply with all provincial statutes, which means that indirectly he will have to in fact provide this kind of disclosure. If not, he will be subject to discipline or a letter of reprimand in his file or whatever. But there will be something.

If you are someone working in a medical practitioner's office and you're not covered by a collective agreement, then what's the sanction? What is it? Is it because you work for a highly ethical physician who is going to insist that if you don't do this…? Or are they going to have a contract of employment drawn that says you have to comply with all provincial statutes, and if you don't,

[ Page 5115 ]

you're subject to being fined or demoted or dismissed or put on unpaid leave for a few days?

It even goes so far as to say, in

section 5:

"Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against (

a) a health care facility, (

b) a director, officer or employee of a health care facility, (

c) an emergency medical assistant, or (

d) any other person acting under the authority…because of anything done or omitted in the performance or intended performance of any duty under this Act."

In other words, you can't even be sued civilly. It's not just that there is not a penalty; you can't be sued civilly. It sounds like the worst you'll get…. Well, you won't even get your wrist slapped, hon. Speaker, because that's not provided for in the bill either.

Now, it says: "Subsection (1) does not apply to a person referred to in that subsection in relation to anything done or omitted by that person in bad faith." I take it to read that if you're doing it in good faith and think you're doing the right thing or you're really, really stupid and don't realize the three bullet holes in George might be related to a criminal act, then it's okay. I won't call it a "get out of jail free" card, but you get to pass the courthouse and not be sued.

[1505]

What we're left with, when I look through this bill, is the government's attempt, obvious as it is, to try and portray themselves as being really concerned about crime in British Columbia, really working hard to ensure that those who are either victims of or perpetrators of crimes get reported to the appropriate authorities and that they're dealt with.

Now, hon. Speaker, I've got to tell you that when it takes nearly ten months to appoint a chief Provincial Court judge — and that's the court that deals with most of the criminal matters in the province of British Columbia — I don't get the sense that this government's interest in crime is that high. It's not terribly high on the government's agenda, because if this is the government's attempt at proving and showing that it's seriously concerned about crime in British Columbia, I don't see where it cuts it. I don't see where it works for British Columbians. I don't see that this is good public policy.

Why should we place a burden, if you will, to be a good citizen, arguably, on only those who are defined as emergency medical assistants or health care facilities? Why not place it on all of us?

I'm sure everyone in this chamber went through a school, got through a public school perhaps or a private school, and understood what it was to be the rat fink in the class — you know, the one who went to the teacher and told on somebody. It's not a popular thing to do. But you know, it's that culture of not telling that probably helps promote bullying in our province too, and that's not a good thing. So if this is a good thing for us to report to the police authorities, to local police authorities as defined in this bill…. If it's a good thing to do that, why does it only apply to emergency medical assistants?

Why do we exclude those at the top of the chain of medical treatment, if you will — doctors? Why are we relying on the college to have appropriate rules to deal with this? Why aren't we imposing what is really a statement of good intention, at best, only on a limited segment of our society?

I acknowledge that it's a segment of society that, arguably, logically is most likely to come into contact with people who have been the victims of gunshot or stab wounds. But as I said, there are a number of easy examples that spring to mind, which I've already outlined today — the healer in the aboriginal village, the doctor in their private dwelling far from their medical clinic, the retired nurse in some out-of-the-way community who actually has some medical abilities.

There are a whole range of people who one could see would be providing medical treatment, the way all of us commonly understand it, who are not going to be covered by this "Oh, go and do the right thing" bill — this statement of good intentions, this requirement that you do something, this "Oh, by the way, you can't be sued, and there's no offence if you don't comply" act. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If the government is really, really serious about ensuring that every victim of crime and those who perpetrate those crimes, those people who suffer violence and injury…. If the government is really concerned about that, then the government needs to step up to the plate and impose this duty on all of us.

I think there's a general duty for all of us to report an incident of child abuse if we become aware of it. It's the law of the province of British Columbia, and if I'm correct it's been the law of the province of British Columbia for a very, very long time.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that it isn't breached by many people on a daily basis — the neighbour on one side who doesn't quite have the courage to go to the authorities and report that they hear crying from small children in the house next door more often than they should.

[1510]

But it is a statement, if you will, of our values that those who are vulnerable should be protected, that they should have the opportunity to be saved from further victimization and violence.

Again, this act doesn't do that. This act doesn't impose the duty on all British Columbians. It imposes it, yes, on a significant

section of the population, who will presumably be dealing with victims of gunshot and stabbing, but it doesn't impose it on a larger cross-section of health care workers. It doesn't impose it on every British Columbian.

Even then, it doesn't begin to address what we know statistically — include all the other ways of committing violence. I mean, in theory under this bill, in good

[ Page 5116 ]

conscience, arguably, technically you can take into an emergency facility someone who has been beaten within an inch of their life by a baseball bat, and you don't have to report it under the tenor of this bill. Someone who has been strangled to the point of death doesn't have to be reported.

But anyone who has a gunshot or stab wound, which is less likely — indeed, it doesn't even meet the majority of cases — is less likely to die from that than in the other methods I've talked about. That person, that victim, that person's name — not their address, not all the other relevant information to help the police — is going to be disclosed.

Again, you ask yourself: what's the point of this? Why are we doing this? Indeed, the regulation

section of the bill provides, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (

a) prescribing a wound for the purposes of paragraph (

b) of the definition of "stab wound…." I don't know. Presumably it's got to be more than an inch deep and more than a half an inch wide or whatever.

It's got to define terms that are used but not defined in this act. Again, we don't get to determine that in this Legislature. We don't get to hear it. It gets to prescribe the facilities or classes of facilities. It gets to prescribe information that must be disclosed.

Again, I come back to my point. The government doesn't have what I will say is the courage of its convictions, if you will, to specify the kinds of information that I've talked about in my remarks under

section 2, which would really assist the police — other than simply a person's name and where the treatment occurred. They don't have the courage to put that in the body of the bill, but presumably that may be dealt with under regulation.

It can prescribe the "person or class of persons responsible for making disclosure on behalf of a health care facility." God forbid that the person who is supposed to make the disclosure isn't on shift that night. That will have to wait till the next morning, and I'm sure that will assist the police in the execution of their difficult duties.

In addition, notwithstanding that we've already got this narrow class, the bill itself allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — thank God, for a change it's not just the minister; it's the actual Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; it is cabinet this time — to make regulations "exempting persons or classes of persons from the requirements of this Act."

The bill only applies to a limited number of persons. Then in addition, even though it's a limited number of people, the very bill itself,

section 7(g), allows you to exempt some of those people. In addition, it allows you to exempt certain facilities or classes of facilities.

I don't know. Are we going to exempt the doctors' offices in Surrey and keep in the doctors' offices in Kamloops? Are we going to exempt the hospitals on Vancouver Island, because we're all retired and peaceable over here, and not exempt the hospitals and health care facilities in the city of Vancouver? I mean, what exactly are we doing with this, hon. Speaker?

[1515]

Moreover, there's also a civil liberties issue here. The Attorney General may suggest, I'm sure, at some point during the course of speaking to this matter that I'm trying to play both sides of the street on this. Well, that's the opposition's job.

So we have the B.C. Civil Liberties Association who have expressed concern that "trying to mandate health care providers as some agent of national security or domestic security is profoundly misguided." You have to consider, in an age where privacy is important, the views of those who would oppose this bill.

I don't oppose the concept of catching the bad guys, and no one on this side or that side of the House does. If this were a sincere attempt to do so, I'd be pounding my desk over here. But everything I have read and everything I have tried to point out during the course of second reading debate in this bill tells me that it is an absolutely inadequate approach if one really wants to tackle this head-on.

It may be a tepid first step. It may encourage a culture of disclosure where crime is observed, but it doesn't really do the kind of job that I think the public, hearing this rather gruesome title, would expect it to do. It is not going to advance public safety or assist in catching the bad guys in the way it was intended to do.

I look forward to the committee stage of this bill and the opportunity to question the Solicitor General, in his capacity, as to why this is really going to advance the cause of public safety in British Columbia. From what I see in this bill, I don't see it. I'd love to be convinced, but I don't think it's there.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Peace River North seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

P. Pimm: Today in the precinct we have a group of students, grades 9 to 12, from Christian Life School in my riding of Peace River North. These students are accompanied by their teachers, their principal and some parents — Tami LeClerc, Mary March, Don Irwin and Trish Brousson. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

Debate Continued

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill 12, the Gunshot and

[ Page 5117 ]

Stab Wound Disclosure Act. While we are supportive of this bill, there are obviously responsibilities in opposition to point out, perhaps some shortfalls or ways it can be improved, and I'm pleased to do that. In addition, I believe it's our responsibility to ascertain the full reason for the introduction of this legislation. I think that is where I have some questions.

Having worked in the area of child protection and social services, in my job I ran across people who had been injured and were hesitant to seek help because of the fear of consequences from their partner. In those situations I have always been able to encourage them that their reporting and discussion with their doctor has been one of confidentiality. It is in a supportive environment. There are some concerns that I have around this bill with respect to that, the required reporting.

The vast majority of gang violence does not involve guns or stabbings, knives. They involve beatings. In fact, approximately 60 percent of gang violence involves beatings. I'm curious as to whether or not this is just a statement to make it appear that government is tough on crime.

[1520]

We also know there's a direct connection between the proliferation of gang violence and the continued policy of prohibition. I think we need to make sure that we look at underlying causes. It's our responsibility as legislators to do so.

Neil Boyd, the eminent professor of criminology at Simon Fraser University, points out that prohibition hands responsibility for product quality and price of drugs to gangs and guarantees them a lucrative business. In fact, violent crime is often a result of the high stakes involved in the activities of gang violence. I'm hoping that this marks the beginning of a sincere attempt to address the underlying causes of crime, including gang violence.

The Solicitor General, in his published comments, suggested that any reasonable person would expect that reports of violence or obvious injuries resulting from a criminal activity would be reported. So that sort of leads me to wonder whether there has been a problem with doctors not reporting. Is this a statement about the failure of the medical profession to act in accordance with what we obviously expect reasonable people to do? That concerns me.

I believe that most professionals are interested in protecting the public interest in any way. Perhaps the removal of liability is necessary. I do think that further discussion we can engage in, in committee stage will perhaps answer some of these questions, and I'm looking forward to that opportunity in committee stage. But overall, I believe it's sort of hard to say that it's a bad idea that crime gets reported when it's witnessed or when evidence of its existence has been witnessed. For that reason, I will be supporting this bill.

I believe there are some serious problems with it in terms of the impact on people seeking medical help when it changes the relationship between that patient and their doctor. I think that's something that needs to be addressed. That fundamentally is one of the issues that I'm hoping to canvass the minister on — any sort of research that they've done which would have been, of course, part of due diligence to assess whether or not this would have a negative impact on people seeking help for injuries they've sustained, however they've sustained them.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up these few points, and I cede my place to the next speaker.

V. Huntington: It's interesting to find out that we have a bit of a system here whereby the lone independent walks in and finds out we're not in committee stage for Bill 11. So my remarks are going to be very short and to the point as a result, regarding Bill 12, the Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act.

I think this is, for me at any rate, a classic example of the incredible influence of U.S. entertainment media. I thought that this legislation had been in place all along and found myself bowled over to find that it wasn't and that we did not have this protection for the public in place already. I can't imagine why it's taken so long, given the acute gang violence we've been experiencing especially in the Lower Mainland, and I welcome the bill as such.

I do, however, share the concerns of the member for Nanaimo with regard to the definition section, specifically part (d), "the office of a medical practitioner." In committee stage I would be very pleased to hear the Attorney describe why his department feels that confining the definition to "medical practitioner" rather than "the office of" would not be a safer way to go throughout the province.

[1525]

I think if we even go back to those U.S. movies and entertainment, there is no assurance that there isn't a Dr. Bad Guy out there. There's no assurance that threats or money or the proverbial knock on the door at midnight can't influence a medical practitioner to undertake work on a gunshot or stab wound, and I think that is a major flaw within the act. I think that issue should be covered, and I think the time to do it is probably now rather than later, when we find that there is a problem.

My other concern is that there are other medically trained professionals out there, such as veterinarians, who are fully capable of assisting in these situations. I don't believe the act contemplates protection of the public in those instances.

I would welcome comments in committee on those two issues and hope that the Attorney can see his way to looking at those flaws in the act and perhaps amending them before we pass it.

[ Page 5118 ]

H. Bains: I'm also standing here to throw my support behind Bill 12, called Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act. But I will be very cautious in my approach because the history of this government is that they do come up with very catchphrase kinds of announcements with very little action to back them up.

I want to say this. For the last ten or 15 years communities, especially in the Lower Mainland, have been crying out for help to stop gang wars and drug-related crimes in their neighbourhoods. This government didn't lift a finger in order to curb what was going on in the streets around their neighbourhoods. No wonder the Lower Mainland was described as the gang capital of Canada.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I mean, that statement on its own is embarrassing to us as British Columbians. I think it also puts fear in those men and women, parents who actually are out there working hard trying to raise their families and raise their children, not knowing what is going on in schools.

This bill talks about dealing with an issue or crime after the fact. It means that the crime has already occurred. Someone has been stabbed or has been shot. Now, yes, there will be a responsibility for those people who are working in those facilities to report such wounds to the authorities.

Where is there in this bill anything to do with prevention? When I'm talking about our communities, the South Asian community itself has been asking this government for the last ten or 15 years to do something so that their children are safe in high schools. What resources is this government prepared to give to the local authorities so that their children are not targeted in high schools by those drug dealers who want to recruit those children from high schools? There's hardly anything in that area.

Prevention is what will take those kids from moving from being good children in schools and getting their education into the world of gangs and drugs. There's nothing in there to deal with that issue. As I said, this government has been known to make all those very catchy announcements but hardly any actions behind them. I hope this bill will go partway in dealing with some of the issues that our communities are facing.

I will let you know, Madam Speaker, that I was speaking to Surrey RCMP, and they're concerned about what's going on in Surrey. I looked at some of the statistics that were brought down by Statistics Canada. Surrey has one of the lowest ratios of police officers on a per-capita basis of all the major cities in Canada. Why is that? How could they do a job in a community that is growing at such a fast pace and is going to be the largest city in British Columbia in the next ten or 15 years? Those are some of the concerns.

[1530]

I do have a concern that we should not ignore from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. They do have a concern listed that it may discourage people, those victims of crime, from going and seeking treatment in those facilities where they know that such wounds, or that the crime, will be reported to the police. They may try to hide it by not going to these facilities. Those are some of the concerns that I had.

I would like to see this government taking real action in prevention — prevention of a drug war that is going on and the gang wars that are going on in the Lower Mainland. There's hardly anything in this bill.

If this government was serious about dealing with gangs and drug violence in the Lower Mainland, they would be coming down with a bill that would actually talk about prevention and having resources put in place so that they can actually go in there and interfere with the recruitment of young men and women that these folks like to bring on board.

There are all kinds of questions that the people here, the members here before me, have brought out. They have some concerns. I'm sure that at the committee stage, those questions will be asked, and hopefully, we will get some of the answers.

All in all, I do support this bill, but those are my cautions and concerns that I have about this government: whether they will walk the talk or they will continue to do what they've been doing in the past nine years that I've watched them — make all kinds of statements but don't back them up with any actions.

With that, I will take my place. Hopefully, we will find some answers to those concerns that we have raised.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: To the members who participated through their comments in the debate today — the opposition House Leader and the members for Nanaimo, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, Delta North and Surrey-Newton — I'll just take a moment. To the extent that I could discern any sort of theme to the comments that were made, I should say this.

Although the member for Nanaimo and I frequently disagree in this chamber, I'm not reluctant to admit that there are days he presents a coherent argument or point of view. Sometimes it's not one I share, but it is coherent and represents a logical thought process. Sadly, today was not one of those days, in my view.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Look, I think the search for legislative perfection, perhaps, carries on in vain, but I have difficulty. First of all, I have difficulty reconciling what the member for Nanaimo said with what the opposition House Leader

[ Page 5119 ]

said. I think the opposition House Leader characterized some issues that derive from this piece of legislation, and that's fair enough. There are some questions that emerge.

I don't know, based on what the member for Nanaimo said, how he could vote for this bill. There appears nothing worthy of support. The very motive is in doubt in his mind. In the same address to this chamber, he argued for extending the obligation to everyone in the province and in the next breath argued that it should accrue to no one in the province, speaking to the concerns of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

I think there is a role for presenting concerns. I think there is a responsibility for developing some measure of coherence to that and actually revealing during the course of debate what it is the member believes constitutes an appropriate balance, because this is about striking a balance.

[1535]

A couple of the members, I think, seized upon something the member for Nanaimo repeated a number of times in his remarks, when he talked about the obligation for individuals. Now, this may have been one of his criticisms. I'm not entirely sure. But, of course, the legal obligation does not accrue to individuals under the provisions of this proposed statute. It accrues to health care facilities as defined in the act. There are pros, and there are cons to doing that, but it is important to recognize that that is done so purposely and with a particular approach in mind.

The phenomenon that has occurred — and I think the members, all of them, know this — is that when dealing with gang-related activity and gangsters, people engage in gunplay, they get shot, and they show up at the hospital. They want to get patched up and sent on their way, and they don't want to talk to anyone.

Yes, there are other circumstances where violence occurs. There's no doubt about that. But there is a particular phenomenon that has been taking place where people are driving around or walking around, armed to the teeth, getting involved in gunfights. Then when it turns out badly for them, they want to go into a health care facility, get patched up and be on their way and not talk to anyone about it.

There has been uncertainty on the part of those facilities and the people that work in them about what their obligations are. Yes, there have been protocols. I think the member for Delta South talked about her surprise that this law was needed at all. There have been protocols, but this will create for those people that work in those health care facilities some additional measure of certainty about what they are able to do and ensure that they are not exposed to some additional liability.

I know that we will have an opportunity to canvass some of the issues that were raised. Some of them are more legitimate than others. I think that, unfortunately, we're at a point where some members of the opposition are looking to present issues or manufacture issues that aren't there, but some of them are legitimate issues that deserve to be addressed. The opposition House Leader raised some of them in his remarks.

I suppose that during the course of that discussion, we will determine whether the bill is, as was described by one member, on balance a good piece of legislation or, as by the member for Nanaimo and one of his colleagues, hardly worthy of consideration or support.

The last thing that I might talk about…. I thought I heard an invitation from the member for Nanaimo to include a provision like this in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. That may not have been his intention. It may also not be possible when we're not actually amending any other statutes. So it's an interesting approach to the notion of statutory construction. I've noted it, and I'm certain that the next time an opportunity presents itself, I will be able to turn my mind to that question.

However, the purpose is not to delay debate; it is to move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act, 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 Bill 16, Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act.

[1540]

Bill 16 — Armoured Vehicle and

After-Market Compartment

Control Act

Hon. M. de Jong: Armoured vehicles, armoured cars…. I thought an armoured car was something that companies like Loomis or Pinkerton drove, and they took valuables and cash from banks to other security instruments of value around town in secure circumstances.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

As it turns out, there is a developing, emerging phenomenon where people — particularly, it seems, those engaged in criminal activity — have decided that as a way to enhance their own feelings of invincibility, they will purchase vehicles and have them altered and have armoured plating attached to them and in effect create a form of civilian tank — a tank on the road that they

[ Page 5120 ]

can drive around. If they become involved in violence, gunfights or that sort of thing or are confronted by other elements, criminal elements with whom they have disputes, they will feel better protected.

It gives these people a sense of invincibility. It seems clear that it is influencing their behaviour and, as a result, putting the vast majority of law-abiding citizens at risk in the process.

We have Bill 16, which addresses this phenomenon of gangs and gang members modifying ordinary vehicles and inserting armoured plating into the doors and replacing the windshields with bulletproof glass. They've done something else that is reflected in, I think,

section 7 of the bill, which I'm sure we will have a chance to discuss. Again, in trying to seek an appropriate statutory balance, there are decisions that have to be made about drafting. That is this notion of installing, after the purchase of a vehicle, secret compartments where they can hide guns and hide illicit materials like drugs.

I should say that if this were simply a case of removing a panel and having a place to hide something…. I'm told by police that this is getting elaborate in almost a James Bond–ish sort of way. You turn on the radio, you push a button, you slip it into a particular gear, and a particular panel either moves or disappears, and you have access to a very well concealed compartment where gang members can put guns, drugs and cash.

The government has decided to try and address this, recognizing of course the challenges associated with striking an appropriate balance and understanding who the target of this is. A few other provinces have done this. Alberta is one of them, and they've passed some highway safety regulations that allow the police to seize vehicles which they suspect have been outfitted with armoured plating and bulletproof glass.

Manitoba has also done two things, one of which we've already done around body armour. The second now combines it with fortified vehicles, armoured vehicles. They, too, are addressing this phenomenon that we see on the part of the criminal element where they are going to extraordinary lengths to try and protect themselves from the very violence they seem content to inflict on others.

This bill will create an offence for operating an armoured vehicle unless the operator is exempted by regulations. I've already mentioned some obvious exemptions — armoured vehicles for law enforcement purposes or licensed security companies.

[1545]

It may be possible, as well, that you may have a celebrity of one sort or another who seeks additional protection, but the operator would have to be registered and permitted. This does focus very much on the operator. Anyone other than those law enforcement or licensed security exemptions will have to apply for a permit from the registrar of security services under the Security Services Act. The permitting policy and procedures will be similar to those that have already been implemented with respect to the Body Armour Control Act.

Personal protection, I can advise the House, will be the key criteria in deciding whether a person should be permitted. The registrar, I can advise the House, will conduct background checks on applicants and will determine their suitability for a permit, and that will be work undertaken by the registrar.

This legislation, Bill 16, will permit the registrar to refuse to issue or renew a permit to a person seeking to use an armoured vehicle in a number of circumstances: if the applicant has failed to comply with application provisions, fails to demonstrate a need to operate an armoured vehicle or contravenes the act or regulations. A permit can also be refused if the registrar considers that the applicant's or licensee's conduct or character makes it undesirable that he or she should operate an armoured vehicle, and those are also reasons that can be utilized by the registrar to cancel or suspend a permit.

There is an element of discretionary authority involved here that is vested in the registrar, and I suspect that during the course of the committee stage debate, we will have a bit of a discussion about the manner in which the government believes that that discretionary authority will be exercised.

Drivers of an armoured vehicle will have to possess their permit at all times, and if they don't, they risk having their vehicle impounded or seized. They'll have to be in a position to demonstrate immediately that they are properly authorized to operate the armoured vehicle.

Under the bill, if it becomes law, it will be an offence to own, operate or use a vehicle which has what I called earlier a secret compartment. I think the term used under the act is an "after-market secret compartment." The notion there is that there would be very few legitimate reasons for requiring the kind of after-market compartment that this act is designed to outlaw. There will, however, be a provision by which exemptions can be provided, and that authorization will exist in the regulatory enabling

section of the bill.

This legislation will allow the police to seize armoured vehicles that are operated by persons without a valid permit and also to seize vehicles that they have reason to believe may contain a hidden after-market compartment. If the police determine they have seized one of these vehicles which has been used for criminal purposes, under the Civil Forfeiture Act…. They may choose to refer the investigative file to that office, the Civil Forfeiture Act, after having confirmed what the Crown's intentions are in terms of the overall investigation.

I should advise the House that the bill we are debating has the support of the police community. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution in June of last year calling on the province to take legislative

[ Page 5121 ]

action against armoured vehicles used by gang members, and we have been guided by that request in the development of this legislation.

More recently, police officers in charge of gang and organized crime units have recommended that action be taken specifically to address this phenomenon of the secret compartment, or secret after-market compartment, as they are apparently encountering these more and more often, and they are getting more and more elaborate.

[1550]

Given the discussion we have just had, I will end my contribution to the debate at this stage by making the following points or offering the following acknowledgments. This is about trying to find an appropriate balance and recognizing that in the course of so doing, the vast, vast majority of the citizens in this province go about their business lawfully, in accordance with the law, and deserve to have that recognized and have rights vis-à-vis the state.

What we are trying to do is create some additional tools, investigative tools that the police and our investigating authorities can put to work to curtail and address behaviour that is not acceptable by any standard or by any measurement

That is specifically people who have chosen or allowed themselves to become seduced into a lifestyle of violence and criminal activity and, having made that choice, think nothing of inflicting violence and suffering on others, oftentimes innocent bystanders, but wish to protect themselves from violence and make themselves feel invincible to that violence through the installation of armour, body armour or, in this case, armoured plating in vehicles.

That is not behaviour that the government believes is appropriate, and we want to arm the police, pardon the pun, with additional tools to root it out, make it unlawful and take these vehicles off the street except when they are being operated in accordance with a strict legal regime and the exceptions noted here.

I'll look forward to the comments from other members addressing this particular provision. Those are my initial comments on second reading, and in the process I move second reading of the bill.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 16. This is a bill that would deal with the issue of armoured cars and illegal concealed compartments in cars after-market, as the Attorney General described them.

The Attorney General stated that the vast majority of British Columbians who operate motor vehicles in this province do so legally and within the framework of the Motor Vehicle Act and operate them responsibly, and that's absolutely correct.

The trouble is that we have a minority, a small minority, and let's call them what they are. They are thugs, gangsters who use the ability to armour-plate a vehicle, to put in place hidden compartments to intimidate people, to intimidate other thugs, other gangsters and to intimidate the public, particularly in areas….

You see it downtown, in club areas, for example. You see it in other parts of the Lower Mainland. It is a deliberate way to try and conduct their activity and to intimidate people, and that's not right. We cannot stand by and let that happen. That's why we need this particular piece of legislation.

The government first made this announcement…. My criticism here will be similar to the last bill, which was well over a year ago. My question becomes: why has it taken so long to get this on the table? It strikes me as a relatively straightforward piece of legislation, particularly when a lot of it is being done by regulation and the powers will be done in cabinet. Nevertheless, it's here. It's a piece of legislation that we will be supporting.

I think nothing infuriates the public more than the idea of individuals deliberately trying to flout the law, to do something to a vehicle that will somehow encourage or allow violent activity to not only continue but to escalate, and that is exactly what is happening.

[1555]

It starts out trying to put in tinted glass, so you can't see what's in there. Then it becomes going to bulletproof glass. Then it becomes going to armour plating. Then it becomes modifying engines. Then it becomes modifying the vehicle further.

There has been a growth in a black market, underground industry around remodelling and revamping these types of vehicles — frequently high-value SUVs, Escalades for example — so that they are impenetrable to bullets. They give these thugs, these gangsters, a sense of invincibility and the ability to sort of carry on unimpeded and with a complete lack of respect for law-abiding society or law enforcement or any of the rules and the moral and ethical codes of conduct that 99.9 percent of the people of British Columbia live by. And that's not acceptable.

This piece of legislation deals with that. The Attorney General has laid out some exceptions, where people have a legitimate permit. He said that there will be some exemptions. Those are areas that we want to explore in the committee stage to see exactly what form those exemptions take, how the regulations will be developed, what type of consultation has taken place.

But it's our view that those regulations should be narrow in scope. The exemptions should be narrow and focused and very specific. The ability for discretion, I think, should be narrow and not broad. When you start to think about it, you have legitimate security companies. They take a specific type of vehicle. You see them — for example, Brink's armoured vehicles, things like that. That's pretty straightforward.

If it's a visiting head of state, for example, we have a national security service that comes into play and has

[ Page 5122 ]

vehicles that are suitable for the protection of visiting heads of state and visiting dignitaries.

When it comes to VIPs, again, I think the question has to be: what's going on here? My idea is not that this should be used so some visiting rap star from LA seems to think that because they're some, you know, "very important person," they should be able to get a licence to have some armour-plated vehicle as more of a status symbol than something that actually and accurately reflects the security needs of an individual — for example, if there is a real, police-determined threat.

Driving a car and a vehicle is a privilege; it's not a right. Likewise, driving around in an armour-plated vehicle with bulletproof glass and hidden compartments is not a right in this country or this province.

One of the things that we often forget is the unintended consequences when these types of vehicles are on the street. You know, during the process of revamping one of these vehicles the weight of the vehicle changes significantly. When you have quarter-inch armour plating or half-inch armour plating on a vehicle, the weight on that vehicle changes substantially. The results of that weight change….

If a vehicle like that is going through an intersection, for example, and is involved in an accident, it can be catastrophic for the vehicle that it is in collision with. What may be a terrible accident of an SUV plowing into another vehicle will be magnified ten-fold by an armour-plated vehicle crashing through an intersection into another vehicle.

[1600]

That alone, I think, is reason enough to regulate it. But the fact that they are driven by thugs, gangsters whose sole purpose for this is to intimidate other gangsters and the public, I think, is without doubt one of the prime reasons to pass this particular piece of legislation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Attorney General makes, I think, a really sound point on how sophisticated the issue has become in terms of the panels and the ability to hide the secret panels. I think that speaks to exactly what the nature of the problem is. It's not a case of having just a secret compartment that's under the dashboard, where something can be hidden. No, this is an exercise in looking at every possible, conceivable way in which you can stay one step ahead of law enforcement, stay one step ahead of the ability to detect what's in there, to use whatever technology is available to hide weapons, to hide contraband, to hide ill-gotten cash — and, hon. Speaker, that's just not right. It's just wrong.

If this legislation provides — which I believe it will do — another strong tool to police departments throughout this province to deal with this issue, then I say yes, and this side of the House says yes. It's the same as when we dealt with the issue around body armour. You know, the police are the ones who should be wearing body armour. Legitimate security guards should be wearing body armour, not gangster thugs. Likewise, with vehicles it should be police vehicles that have bulletproof glass, not vehicles driven by gangsters.

One of the sections that I have some questions about, and that I want to deal with in committee stage…. That's on some comments that the Attorney General said about the vehicles. If it's determined that a vehicle has been engaged in crime, civil forfeiture will come into play, and I think that's a good thing. But if one of these vehicles is found, I don't want it just impounded. I want it destroyed and off the street. In Ontario they're crushed. I do not want to see a situation where a vehicle is taken off the street, only to turn around and end up back on the street.

It may not be armoured. It may have a compartment. But I want it off the street and out of commission, so that nobody else can come along and buy it. I want to make sure that that is not a flaw in this particular piece of legislation.

I want to make sure that when we deal with this — and I understand that parts of it are through regulation — the Attorney General hears loud and clear from the opposition and, hopefully, from government members and that we don't have a situation where these types of vehicles somehow end up on the street. They should not. They should be off the street. If they're used in criminal activity, they should be destroyed, crushed, however you want to do it — plain and simple.

You know, this is a piece of legislation that is worthy of examination in committee stage to make sure that we've got all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed, to make sure that we fully understand some of the key issues in the main sections, such as what regulations will be in place to refuse an armoured vehicle permit. In the cancellation or the suspension process, what happens when an armoured vehicle, or one containing an after-market compartment without authorization, is seized? How is that dealt with?

The other final question I have is some thinking on the rationalization about the time limit for commencing a prosecution: one year after the date of the alleged offence. I'm wondering: is that in fact long enough? Is there a reason why it could not be two years or three years if, in the case of an investigation, something comes to light? Anyway, those are questions for committee stage.

[1605]

The bottom line is that the opposition supports this piece of legislation. We think it's a good opportunity to implement an important tool for the police in terms of their fight against crime, gang violence and the thugs who would intimidate law-abiding British Columbians. So I look forward to comments that other colleagues of

[ Page 5123 ]

mine have on this particular piece of legislation because I can tell you, as I said earlier, the police should have armoured vehicles — not gangsters.

So with that, I take my place and look forward to the comments of colleagues in the House.

L. Krog: I'm always delighted to rise in the chamber and make a few comments about any bill that's introduced by the busiest person in the Legislature: the Government House Leader, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. I'm always inspired by his temperate remarks and his kindness. I think it only appropriate to stand and recognize that this legislation, as was pointed out by the Opposition House Leader, is long overdue.

We have seen violent crime increase in our province, particularly in gang violence in the Lower Mainland. Speaking as a member for a community that includes what I hope will soon be the former home of a Hell's Angels chapter, I say that it's time to go after, in a very direct way, those who are flouting the law, who are endangering our citizens, endangering those who work in our police forces, who put their lives on the line every day, and doing that with the assistance of willing folks who think it's appropriate to doctor, if you will, vehicles to ensure that illicit drugs can be kept from public view, that dangerous weapons can be kept