2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th 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)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2004 (Bill 74)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Victoria harbour terminal project

J. Bray

Quality of life in B.C.

R. Nijjar

Rural B.C. economy

B. Bennett

Oral Questions

Problem gambling and role of Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. B. Locke

Facility for former addicts and mentally ill in Vancouver

J. Kwan

Hon. B. Locke

Legal aid funding

P. Nettleton

Hon. G. Plant

Addiction services in Surrey

D. Hayer

Hon. B. Locke

Facility for former addicts and mentally ill in Vancouver

J. Kwan

Hon. B. Locke

Auto theft and bait car program

M. Hunter

Hon. R. Coleman

Second Reading of Bills

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 66)

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. G. Plant

K. Krueger

J. Bray

J. MacPhail

D. Jarvis

B. Penner

K. Johnston

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Land Title and Survey Authority Act (Bill 68)

Hon. G. Abbott

Reporting of Bills

Land Title and Survey Authority Act (Bill 68)

Third Reading of Bills

Land Title and Survey Authority Act (Bill 68)

Committee of the Whole House

Expropriation Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 67)

Hon. G. Plant

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Expropriation Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 67)

Committee of the Whole House

Trespass Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 72)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

J. Bray

[ Page 11557 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2004

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

J. Bray: It is my pleasure to introduce a number of

gentlemen in the gallery today. We have Michael Cormier, who is the CEO of the

Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. We have Lorne Whyte, who is the CEO of

Tourism Victoria. We have John Sanderson, who was one of the originators of our

Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. We have Bruce Carter from the Greater

Victoria Chamber of Commerce, and we have Steven Seltzer from the Greater

Victoria Chamber of Commerce. These are individuals who work very hard in

Victoria to make us one of the strongest economies in the country as well as one

of the great tourism draws for the province. I'd ask the House to please make

them all very welcome.

[1405]

G. Hogg: On this most auspicious day, we have three special

guests from Surrey–White Rock in the gallery: Clark Shewfelt, who is a renowned

shuffleboard player, a volunteer and an affectionado of Casey at the Bat ;

Nancy Shewfelt, who is a renowned golfer, community worker and today a birthday

celebrant; and Mark Shewfelt, who is a renowned student and this past summer

played for Team Canada at the Cal Ripkin World Series in Maryland, representing

our province and country extremely well. Would the House please make these three

distinguished British Columbians most welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: It has taken only eight and a half years,

but at long last I have the pleasure of saying that we are joined in the

legislative gallery today by my neighbours and very good friends, Craig and Lynn

Jones, who have brought along as their escort my partner in life and my most

valuable supporter, my wife Janet. I hope the House will make these people

welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd like to introduce executives from the

Automotive Retailers Association of British Columbia, in Victoria today to meet

with members and ministers, and wish them well in their meetings. I'd like to

introduce the president, Michael Bailey; the vice-president, Randy Sorley; the

secretary-treasurer, Dave Cant; and the division chair, Paul McFarlane. Would

the House please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: There's more.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I've got some more, Mr. Speaker.

In the gallery today visiting us from Summerland are 30 students

from Summerland Secondary School, obviously located in the great riding of

Okanagan-Westside. They're here with their teachers today. Would the House

please make them welcome to Victoria.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2004

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

3), 2004.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 74,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2004.

Bill 74 amends various statutes to clarify provisions, correct

inadvertent errors and make a number of minor housekeeping amendments. Thank

goodness for that, Mr. Speaker.

Specifically, Bill 74 amends the following statutes: Community

Charter; Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and

Other Amendments Act, 2003 — always one of my favourite statutes; Court Rules

Act; Environmental Management Act; Gaming Control Act; Medicare Protection Act;

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004; Motor Vehicle Act — I thought we

already did that one; Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3);

Personal Information Protection Act; Police Act; Protected Areas of British

Columbia Act; Securities Act, 2004; Strata Property Act; and Vancouver Charter.

There was a minor provision that is untitled, which has to do with

the status of the official opposition, but I didn't think it was worth referring

to at this point.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Plant: It was a House amendment.

I will elaborate on these amendments during second reading and

committee stage debate. For now, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of

the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 74 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) VICTORIA HARBOUR TERMINAL PROJECT

J. Bray: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Legislature is

framed by one of the world's most beautiful harbours — the Victoria harbour.

This is a harbour with history. It is where the colony of Vancouver Island first

rose up with Fort Victoria's legacy only a few blocks from here.

[ Page 11558 ]

With the creation of the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority a few

years ago, this working harbour is now locally and democratically controlled for

the benefit of the region. It is also one of the key points of entry for

tourists to Vancouver Island.

This year Victoria saw a record 143 cruise ships visit. With the

Legislature, the world-famous Empress Hotel and the Royal B.C. Museum, along

with kayak operations and the little harbour ferries, Victoria's harbour is

becoming a world-class tourism draw. The last need identified by the city and

the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority is an upgrade to the Belleville Street

terminal.

[1410]

This ferry terminal is the Island's gateway to the U.S. It is in

fact our border, but the facilities, which include a very old dock and portables

that act as check-in buildings and customs and clearance centres, are obsolete.

This facility acts as our U.S visitors' first and last sights of

Victoria and British Columbia. With our government's commitment to double

Tourism B.C.'s marketing budget, more U.S. visitors will pick B.C. and Victoria

as their destination. After all, Condé Nast magazine recently picked

Victoria as the best city in the Americas and Vancouver Island as the best

island in the Americas. This world-class reputation demands world-class

facilities, and the final piece in Victoria's arsenal is the Belleville Street

terminal. This $16 million project has the broad endorsement of the Greater

Victoria Harbour Authority, the city, the chamber of commerce and Tourism

Victoria.

For Victoria to be a full partner in doubling tourism by 2015,

this strategic infrastructure investment is needed. Completion of the Belleville

Street terminal will ensure that Victoria is an economic driver in the province

for a generation to come. I urge the provincial government to work with the

federal government and local government to ensure that this significant project

goes forward.

QUALITY OF LIFE IN B.C.

R. Nijjar: We have the best in almost everything right here

in British Columbia. We are not only ranked as the most livable place on Earth,

but we are also beginning to believe in our dreams once again.

Union executives would have you believe that our post-secondary

education system and the 25,000 new spaces for students aren't a good thing.

They would have you believe that a post-secondary education system independently

ranked as one of the most accessible for people of lower socioeconomic

backgrounds has not been a good thing.

Our universities and colleges rank at the top across the country,

leading North America in research that spins off into commercial companies

employing thousands of British Columbians. We are the best place in the world to

further one's education, and we are going to be the most literate place on Earth

by 2010. Why do we do this? Because a strong education system is the backbone of

a sustainable and healthy economy that offers a good living for everyone right

here in B.C.

Today British Columbians are more optimistic about their future

than in any place in Canada, including Alberta. More people are coming back to

B.C. than in years. If this isn't a telling story, then nothing is. Forget what

politicians say from either side of the Legislature. In 1997 people were leaving

B.C. for the first time ever. Now they are coming back by the thousands.

Doctors across Canada rank B.C. and Alberta as the provinces in

which they'd most like to practise, because of the healthy relationship with

government. We have the best cancer outcomes in the country and throughout the

world. Nine of 13 wait-lists have come down, this at a time of an aging

population.

But it doesn't stop here. MSP costs remain the lowest across the

country and are astoundingly affordable compared to other countries. Our

Pharmacare program is considered the most generous in the country and is the

envy of the world.

Wages are increasing at a faster rate than the national average.

Disposable income is increasing faster than the national average. More people

are working for more than $16 an hour than anywhere in Canada. And of course,

jobs, jobs and jobs — more than any other province — created right here in

British Columbia.

RURAL B.C. ECONOMY

B. Bennett: Carole James was recently in the Kootenays

saying that there are two economies in British Columbia. It seems that the NDP

leader thinks that our economy in rural B.C. is inferior to the lower

mainland's. If she knew anything about rural B.C., she would know that our

economy in the East Kootenay — where I'm from — is generating the same good-news

stories we've been hearing from the lower mainland.

Take real estate. The hyperactive B.C. real estate industry has

moved $2 billion worth of properties in each of the last nine consecutive

months. In all four of my communities in the East Kootenay — Elkford, Sparwood,

Fernie and Cranbrook — houses are selling fast, and they're selling for more.

That 32 percent increase over last year in the exports of wood

products from B.C. — East Kootenay loggers, millworkers and their families are

all sharing in that good news as well.

The East Kootenay coal industry is booming as well. The Elk Valley

mines have regained their confidence in British Columbia and are reinvesting and

hiring new workers. Mining exploration will triple in the East Kootenay this

year, thanks to the work of the government and the Minister of State for Mining.

Interjections.

B. Bennett: He must have known that was coming.

The tourism industry. Ski and golf resort investors from around

the world are literally bumping into each other looking for development

opportunities. Greg

[ Page 11559 ]

Norman is developing a course in Fernie called Blackstone that will rival any

course in the province.

[1415]

Try to hire a tradesperson in Cranbrook. You can't. They're all

too busy. Auto sales — up. Non-residential building construction — B.C. has the

second-strongest rate in the country. Look at the new stores in Cranbrook:

Winners, Wal-Mart, Real Canadian Superstore, Staples — a huge home-building

supplies expansion. These corporations would not invest millions in our region

unless they saw a bright future.

Yesterday the National Post confirmed what my constituents

already know, even if Carole James does not: "Canada's western-most province

seems finally to have recovered from the mismanagement that plagued it during

the 1990s…. While no government ever deserves all the credit for good economic

news, Mr. Campbell's Liberals should take pride in having brought the province

so far in such a relatively short time."

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

PROBLEM GAMBLING AND ROLE OF

MINISTER OF STATE FOR MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTION SERVICES

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the minister of addictions refused

to answer questions about problem gamblers. She said it wasn't her issue. That's

despite the fact that problem gambling is one of the most significant addiction

issues facing British Columbia. But later the Solicitor General was more

generous toward his colleague. He said the minister of addictions would get

involved in this issue as she got up to speed in her portfolio, and if she

needed more resources to deal with it, he expected her to come and ask for those

resources. That was outside the chamber.

My question is to the minister of addictions: what is she doing to

get up to speed on the issue of gambling addiction, and does she believe more

resources are needed to cope with it as a result of the Premier's massive

expansion of gambling?

Hon. R. Coleman: The program for problem gambling was

established in 1997. The budget is $4 million this year. That's double what it

was in 2001. There is a 24-hour toll-free help line for people that have a

difficulty.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Please.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's a total of 31 professionals who

are contracted with the program across B.C. Professional clinical counsellors

provide provincewide counselling service at no cost to the client. Counsellors

meet with clients during evenings and weekends as required and will travel to

meet the clients in their community. Prevention workers work with health

organizations, schools, first nations, communities, seniors and youth groups,

and the gaming industry to provide information on gambling and addiction and

related issues.

On top of that, the corporation itself invests money in

self-exclusion programs for those wanting to stay out of casinos and bingo

halls. Problem gambling program resource materials are posted in all gambling

venues as well as on any ticket printed by the corporation. Referral to

counselling service is offered by the problem gambling program. There's an

awareness program and appropriate response training for all gaming workers to

identify clients experiencing distress in a gaming facility.

In addition to that, we tracked this. Over the last number of

years there have been three trackings in three different things — the last one

being in 2003 — and there has been no increase in gambling addiction in the

province.

J. MacPhail: Oh, that's good. The fox in charge of the

henhouse is saying there is no increase in gambling addiction. It was this

government that put the responsibility for gambling addiction right in the

portfolio of the minister who is responsible for the doubling of gambling.

The minister of addictions makes an extra $25,000 a year to do her

job, and British Columbians have a right to know what they're getting in return.

The minister tried to wash her hands of gaming addiction, but she can't wash her

hands of substance abuse and alcoholism. Can the minister of addictions tell us

if problem gamblers suffer from alcoholism more than the general public?

Hon. B. Locke: I am responsible for over a billion dollars

of mental health and addiction services delivered through the Ministry of Health

Services and the health authorities. Also, my role is to advocate for mental

health across government to fulfil our commitment to making mental health a

priority.

Here are some of those highlights. We have integrated mental

health and addiction services across the province to improve care, we are

implementing Canada's very first child and youth mental health plan, and we are

spending $138 million to build new mental health facilities throughout our

province.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

further question.

[1420]

J. MacPhail: How dare the minister responsible for

substance abuse give that answer.

According to Stats Canada, problem gamblers are afflicted with

alcohol dependence at a rate seven times greater than those without a gambling

addiction problem. The minister of addictions is charged with reducing

alcoholism in British Columbia. There is a direct,

[ Page 11560 ]

irrefutable correlation between substance abuse, addiction to alcohol and

gambling. So what is she doing to ensure that her government's massive expansion

of gambling doesn't lead to more substance abuse and alcohol addiction?

Hon. B. Locke: We recognized that the health care system

needed to respond more effectively to the needs of people with addictions. That

is why, for the very first time in B.C., we have brought addiction services

directly into the regional health care delivery system. That is why we funded

$3.2 million for the first supervised injection site in North America. That is

why we are partnering with stakeholders to provide education, and that is why we

have integrated mental health and addiction services across this province.

We have done more to strengthen addiction services than the NDP

ever could have dreamed of doing in their ten years.

FACILITY FOR FORMER ADDICTS

AND MENTALLY ILL IN VANCOUVER

J. Kwan: The minister of addictions did not answer the

question from my colleague. Let me ask her another question.

To the minister: the government of British Columbia is funding a

35-unit complex in Vancouver for former addicts and the mentally ill. This

project was agreed to through the Vancouver agreement and has the full support

of the city and the federal government. But the minister of multiculturalism is

fighting the project in his community. What is the Minister for Mental Health

and Addiction Services doing to ensure that this critical project for people

with addictions is not halted by the actions of her colleague the minister of

state for multiculturalism?

Hon. B. Locke: I am responsible for over a billion dollars

of mental health and addiction services delivered through the Ministry of Health

Services and through the health authorities. Also, my role is to advocate for

mental health across government to fulfil our commitment to making mental health

a priority.

This project in Vancouver is a partnership between Vancouver

coastal health, B.C. Housing, Triage Services and the city of Vancouver. When

it's completed, it will provide the most up-to-date care for people with mental

illness and addictions. The city of Vancouver is considering the approvals at

this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

supplementary question.

J. Kwan: Well, according to news reports and Vancouver city

councillors, the minister of state for multiculturalism is fanning the flames of

fear about this project, actively organizing an effort to kill it. If the

minister of multiculturalism succeeds, the director of the Coast Mental Health

Foundation says that the people of Vancouver will have lost an opportunity to

stem the tide of homelessness and addiction.

Will the minister of mental health and addictions stand up for the

people that she's supposed to represent, that she's supposed to advocate for,

and tell her colleague in this House to stop the fanning the flames of fear?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. B. Locke: You know, Mr. Speaker, if the member was so

interested in mental health, why didn't she fund the mental health plan in the

beginning?

Why did she ignore depression and anxiety disorders…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[1425]

Hon. B. Locke: …when they are the two most common mental

illnesses? Why did she let the dedicated workers in the addictions field

languish for ten years without any support or direction from her government? Why

did she fail to address the needs of children with mental illness? We've

corrected her failures, and we will continue to give mental health and addiction

services the priority they should have been given under the previous government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

LEGAL AID FUNDING

P. Nettleton: The Attorney General has indicated through

the media that he will push for a restoration of legal aid funding. Those are

his words. This, of course, follows some 24 courthouse closures; the cuts to, I

think, 53 of 60 legal services offices; and other cuts associated with the

administration of justice to services associated with legal aid.

My question would be to the Attorney General. Is he now

acknowledging his role in denying justice to thousands of British Columbians?

Beyond that, is he prepared to provide this House today with details with

respect to the restoration of funding for legal services?

Hon. G. Plant: I was glad to have the support of the member

for the budget that we introduced in early 2002, which gave effect to the

beginning of a three-year plan to restore the province's fiscal health. In doing

so, we have made some great changes in the justice sys-

[ Page 11561 ]

tem. Over 99 percent of British Columbians live within an hour of a

courthouse. I think that's accessible justice.

We've changed the way courthouses operate to open up the use of

things like facsimile filing. We're going to introduce electronic filing in the

court system. We've transformed the idea of legal aid to include a range of

services from information to advice to representation. We've moved away from

adversarial models of legal aid funding towards models that encourage

accommodation and agreement in settlement and negotiation, which I think builds

stronger settlements. There's lots more work that we need to do, and I am going

to continue to be an advocate for an accessible justice system because I know

all members want our justice system to be as accessible and as good as it

possibly can be.

ADDICTION SERVICES IN SURREY

D. Hayer: My question is to the Minister for Mental Health

and Addiction Services. Drug addictions are a major concern for youth and their

families, particularly in Surrey. Sadly, these problems can put youth at risk.

The recent increase in use of crystal meth by youth at risk is extremely

troubling.

To the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services:

what is she doing to ensure that youth in Surrey have a place to go and receive

timely treatment for their addiction problems?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Locke: I would like to thank the member for his

question and his caring about this issue. He is quite correct that the youth

addictions issue is a major concern for Surrey residents. I am pleased to inform

the member that the Fraser health authority is partnering with the Surrey

Memorial Hospital Foundation to develop a centre of specialized addiction

services for youth, for adults and for seniors. New funding has enabled this

facility to increase detox beds capacity to 30, including 24 adult beds and six

youth beds, further establishing B.C.'s lead in providing youth detox services.

It is also being proposed for this new facility to increase

services through a daytox program and home withdrawal support services. We are

looking forward to this groundbreaking new facility this winter.

FACILITY FOR FORMER ADDICTS

AND MENTALLY ILL IN VANCOUVER

J. Kwan: I have a simple question for the minister of

addictions. Has she told her colleague the minister of state for

multiculturalism to stop advocating against the project?

Hon. B. Locke: I wonder if the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has spoken to her leader. I'll just read what it says here. A reporter

asked….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

Hon. B. Locke: Carole James was asked about the transition

home for the mentally ill in East Vancouver, and Ms. James' comment was: "I

haven't talked with the community about that yet."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, if we can have

some order, we will continue with question period. Will the Leader of the

Opposition please come to order. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. Government

House Leader, please come to order. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

AUTO THEFT AND BAIT CAR PROGRAM

M. Hunter: Thanks to the economic policies of this

government, my community in Nanaimo is seeing unprecedented, exciting growth,

but as we grow, we are starting to see some of the less desirable aspects of

urban behaviour. In particular, auto thefts are becoming a problem in the

mid-Island.

I'm pleased to say that the member for Nanaimo-Parksville and I

have been working with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to try to

address this issue, but I am being asked whether or not ICBC is prepared to

introduce the bait car program into my region. Can the Solicitor General advise

me whether or not that is going to happen, and if so, when?

Hon. R. Coleman: This has actually been a very good program

of ICBC in cooperation with law enforcement. We've seen, year over year — from

April, May and June in 2003 to April, May and June in 2004 — a 13 percent

decrease in auto theft on the lower mainland since we put the bait car program

into place.

That's good for everybody, because it helps keep rates down, helps

lowers crime and helps law enforcement do their job. We should point out that

that is in addition to whatever budgets the municipalities are paying for law

enforcement, because this is being paid for separate from that.

We said all along that the bait car program would be first

expanded to the lower mainland of British Columbia and that we would then start

to target other communities in the province. The impact group will be assessing

that, looking at Nanaimo and other communities in the near future, to decide

whether we can put

[ Page 11562 ]

bait cars in those communities. If it makes sense, they will do it.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading on Bill 66.

Second Reading of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to rise and speak with regard

to Bill 66 in the Legislature this afternoon.

I'd like to go back, first of all, and give a little bit of the

history of this initiative for the House. In June 2003 a discussion paper that

was developed in consultation with communities was put on the Internet for

communities and individuals to comment on with regard to what they thought might

be initiatives they could put in place to improve the stats on impaired driving

and reduce the incidence of impaired driving on our streets.

[1435]

Impaired driving takes a devastating toll on the families in

British Columbia. In 2001, there were 118 people who died in alcohol-related

road crashes, and last year, 101. There has been considerable improvement over

the last 25 years in those statistics on road crashes and injury accidents

related to alcohol over a period of time. In 2000, some 30 percent of passenger

car fatalities included drivers whose blood alcohol content exceeded the legal

limit. This represents a dramatic improvement over the peak year of 1981, when

65 percent of fatalities involved drunk drivers.

Unfortunately, these gains have levelled off over the last few

years. The drinking and driving initiative was based on discussions leading to

that approval. We have fine-tuned this initiative and spent some time really

thinking about what is best for and what could work best for communities when it

comes to impaired driving.

One of the challenges we face when we try and develop legislation

and law like this is the fact that some people will always want us to go

further, and other people will always think somebody went too far. There are

groups that are so emotionally attached to the issue that they are never quite

satisfied with the progress that is made.

I recognize that. I recognize the compelling pain that people feel

when they've lost a loved one to an impaired driver. I recognize and have

personally seen the damage done by an impaired driver on a family, on people in

my community and even in the times when I was a law enforcement officer.

I also recognized as a minister, when I reviewed the entire

impaired driving package, that we had to do something to try to raise the level

of understanding within the community — educate that anybody that has a drink

should never get behind the wheel of a car — but also to recognize that we had

to have some penalties in place that would refocus the minds of people when it

came to making this decision.

There are two aspects of impaired driving. There are the Criminal

Code provisions that are federal, which the federal government deals with in

regard to their laws. Those provisions are in place. Those legal limits are

established, and they are in place today in Canada, along with the penalties. We

as a province, however, have some abilities on administrative penalties and

suspensions and other areas where we think we can improve the entire aspect of

how impaired driving is dealt with in our province.

As we started this process, a couple of things concerned me. About

7,000 people in British Columbia were charged on an annual basis with impaired

driving. When I compared that statistic to the year before of the number of

people that had actually received 24-hour suspensions — 44,000 of the 24-hour

suspensions were issued and 7,000 charges — I had a concern.

The first concern I had with the Attorney General is: how much

time is it taking to process a criminal charge of impaired driving through the

charge approval process? Is it making it so that the police are doing a 24-hour

suspension rather than moving down to the aspect of the criminal charge? If it

isn't that, then what can we do to enhance the value of the 24-hour prohibition

for drivers to recognize that we don't want them driving with any alcohol on

their breath in the province?

A year ago, through regulation and change, I allowed the

superintendent of motor vehicles to actually suspend a driver's licence for

people that had two or more 24-hour suspensions in a two-year period. We did

that because we thought, administratively, that it might start focusing the mind

a little bit for some people. In addition to that, we felt it was important to

move forward and say: how else can we improve the 24-hour prohibition, and what

else do we need to do with regard to impaired driving?

[1440]

Over this extensive consultation period, with a document that was

on the Internet for people to respond to…. We received a great deal of response

to this particular paper. We came up with B.C.'s drinking-driving initiative.

There are a number of pieces to this: user-pay rehabilitation, user-pay ignition

interlock, enhanced 24-hour prohibition, enhanced driving while prohibited

penalties, coordinated cooperative public education and awareness, and an

improved justice system response.

The objective of all of this is to reduce the incidence of people

getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming alcohol. The objective, in so

doing, is to reduce the number of fatalities and injury-accidents caused by

impaired drivers in British Columbia. The objective is to reduce the $880

million that this costs our society on an annual basis, in vehicle accidents

alone, in injuries and deaths.

The objective is to make people aware that we're dead serious

about impaired driving in this province. But the most significant thing is to

make sure that our communities are safer, that our communities are better

[ Page 11563 ]

policed from the standpoint of impaired driving and that we give police the

tools to do the job. This is what we're doing in this legislation.

A 24-hour prohibition now…. When somebody is stopped by the

roadside and given a roadside test, or if a police officer decides to give a

24-hour suspension, the police officer will now be able to also seize the car

for 24 hours. That'll send the message to the driver who has consumed alcohol

and to anybody associated with that vehicle that we're dead serious that we want

that car and driver off the road.

If a person that gets a 24-hour suspension gets another one within

a period of time, the superintendent of motor vehicles will suspend their

driver's licence, taking into account their driving record. If they get three

within a certain period of time, they will find themselves also having to go in

for some mandatory rehabilitation, and they will see their driver's licence

removed.

The other aspect is this: when we make that move, we also have to

take into account that there are a number of people in our province who get

their licences suspended or prohibited and who think they can just get behind

the car's wheel, ignore the law and drive anyway. When you enhance enforcement

with regard to the 24-hour suspension, you also need to enhance the ability to

enforce with regard to prohibited and suspended driving.

As we went through this exercise, we found a couple of things that

were of interest to us. The first one is that we found that bail conditions, as

set by the courts, where a judge actually says to someone that one of their bail

conditions is that they can't drive…. We had no vehicle in legislation that

allowed the superintendent to take the driver's licence. We will, in this

legislation, be able to take it as a part of the bail condition.

More important is this: if somebody decides, when their licence is

suspended or prohibited, to get behind the wheel of a car…. Understand this on

your first offence: it's a minimum of a $500 fine when this legislation comes

into force, and we can take your car for up to 60 days.

We don't believe that people who are serving a sentence that has

to do with the prohibition of a driver's licence should be getting behind the

wheel of a car during that period, and we believe that penalties have to be

there to actually deter that level of behaviour. This legislation includes that

in it as an enhancement to the 24-hour suspension, to our ability to prohibit

driving and the issues in and around that.

We also have in this legislation a user-pay rehabilitation

program. People that are repeat offenders under the Criminal Code, people that

are first-time offenders under the Criminal Code and people that have habitual

difficulties with 24-hour suspensions will find themselves taking mandatory

treatment for alcohol. That treatment can vary, but every single person will be

basically assessed and given a plan of treatment that they'll have to go into,

and all will pay.

In addition to that, we are going to put in place a user-pay

ignition interlock system on the cars of repeat offenders in British Columbia.

Some of you may have seen the news last night. Basically, what we're talking

about is a device that is attached to the ignition of a car. You have to blow in

it before you can actually turn your vehicle on. If you have alcohol on your

breath, you won't be able to start your car.

This is for people that have, obviously, a problem we need to

address. It also provides a monthly printout, so it tells us if anybody has

tampered with the device, if anybody has tried to disconnect it or if any

incidences occurred where someone actually tried to start the vehicle on the

interlock device when they had alcohol on their breath.

[1445]

These are good initiatives. As we move through the entire aspect

of discussions in committee stage of this debate, we're going to find that we've

done some groundbreaking things with regard to impaired driving in B.C.

We're also funding this program. Although we have a user-pay

program within this, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General will

receive an addition to the vote to be able to take care of the shortfall of cash

in the transition into full user-pay with rehabilitation, interlock and other

aspects of this program.

Let's take a look at what we've done with regard to impaired

driving in British Columbia in the last two years. In the summer of last year,

we made it possible for the superintendent of motor vehicles to seize a vehicle

for 24-hour suspensions that were repetitive, taking into account the driving

record of the individual.

In the fall of 2003, we did an enhancement to the graduated

licensing program in the province, making it so that a learner will now take a

year to get a learner's licence and two years under novice. We put in place the

restrictions on passengers to take away the peer pressure that our young people

are experiencing in the vehicles, knowing full well that that one change of

going to one passenger under novice will save us 15,000 accidents and numerous

injuries every year.

Through that three-year period, of course, there is zero tolerance

for the driver of a vehicle to have alcohol on their breath. Zero tolerance

means that anybody in any of those stages of driving would find themselves going

back to the start of day one of their driver's licence should they have alcohol

on their breath.

In addition to those two initiatives, we brought through what

we're doing today. We worked it through a process, taking into account the

issues around the Charter, issues around what we could and couldn't do and what

we felt could be accomplished on behalf of all British Columbians with regard to

impaired driving.

It is a big step to go out there today and say to people: "If

you're going to drive and get a 24-hour suspension, you could lose your licence."

I want people to understand that. That's why we will get the education out

there, as we move forward with ICBC and our other cooperating agencies and

partners, in addition to all the changes we make to let people know the scourge

that alcohol is on our society with regard to deaths and injuries on our

highways and roads.

[ Page 11564 ]

More importantly, you'd better be aware of the fact that the rules

have changed, folks. We do not have the patience for you to go out and drive

when you're prohibited. We do not have the patience to accept that you think you

can continue to drive and get 24-hour suspensions without a result on your

driver's licence. All of these changes allow us to move down a road to where we

can actually make our roads safer in British Columbia.

While we do that, Mr. Speaker, we're doing some other things. As

you know, in this House I've discussed and talked about the fact that we want an

integrated traffic unit up and running in B.C. We had $13.5 million going out in

overtime from ICBC to police forces to pay for CounterAttack, rather than

actually putting police officers on our streets.

I was talking to somebody the other day, and they said: "Man, I've

really noticed that there's an increase in road stops for impaired driving, for

IMPACT and those types of things lately." That's because we're starting to ramp

up the integrated traffic units, and they're starting to have an effect. Not

only will the visibility of policing be increased, but when they have it out

there with the visibility of policing, they will have additional tools like

those I've described and what was included in this legislation.

The whole aspect of this is education, visible enforcement and

results that mean something to communities, on the penalties people will have

when they want to break the law. If you can combine all those and make it work

on behalf of communities, you've got to have success in reducing accidents and

fatalities related to impaired driving. That's what we're trying to do here.

[1450]

There will be naysayers. I noticed that the Leader of the

Opposition yesterday said we didn't go far enough. That strikes me as ironic,

given the fact that they did nothing in ten years. It's about sitting down with

law enforcement in an integrated relationship in regards to enforcement, about

having a policing plan that worked for British Columbia, about having integrated

units related to traffic — or actually having the guts to address the issues in

and around impaired driving in our society.

This was a very extensive process on behalf of members of the

government caucus, on behalf of the public, of British Columbians. I want to say

that I'm proud of the fact that not only did we initiate the process, not only

did we have the temerity to put out there options that were controversial and

not only were we prepared to have those discussions, but we were prepared to

work towards the solutions and find, at the end of the day, the additional tools

for communities and police to reduce the scourge of impaired driving.

That's what we've done here. We've had the ability to sit down and

look at our communities, listen to the people of British Columbia, listen to the

interest groups, including law enforcement, and to come up with some things they

tell us are going to work.

There's another little thing in this legislation. It is a little

thing, but it's also important. As we deal with the issues in and around alcohol

and driving, we also recognize where the activity takes place and when the

activity takes place.

Our police, in the past, have had the ability to write a ticket

for someone who is drinking in a bar, pub or restaurant and is under-age.

They've had the ability to write a ticket to a person working in a bar who

serves people that are intoxicated. They've actually had the right to write a

ticket for somebody who's intoxicated in that public place.

The problem is that those tickets have added up to about $4.7

million owed to government today. About $600,000 in liquor tickets are written

in the province every year, and 80 percent of those tickets aren't collected.

They became a useless tool from the standpoint of actually having a result at

the end that meant something with regards to the ticket you got when you made

the offence.

Now, 94 percent of the tickets for traffic offences in British

Columbia get collected. If you're speeding, if you run a stop sign, if you run a

red light, if you fail to yield, if you pass on a double solid line, you'll get

a ticket. There's a fine, and 94 percent of those tickets get collected. What's

the difference? The traffic ticket is tied to your driver's licence. When you go

to renew your insurance or you go to get your driver's licence, if you don't pay

your fines, you don't get the licence.

This legislation, for the first time, takes another provincial

offence — that being liquor tickets — and ties it to the driver's licence in

British Columbia. It makes the tool meaningful to police in B.C. as an

enforcement tool they can now use and know the end result is that the penalty

will stand and that people will have to start to recognize those behaviours will

no longer be something that are going to be brushed aside or ignored.

Law enforcement asked for this tool two years ago. As we've done

our work through the drinking-driving initiative, we felt it was important to

give it to them. They tell me that in the city of Vancouver, if they had this

tool, they could reduce a lot of the difficulties they're experiencing in their

bar scene downtown. We're giving them the tool.

As we give them that tool, I hope it'll also, frankly, focus

people's minds on the fact that — you know what? — there are penalties for bad

behaviour, whether it be drinking and driving, drinking in a public place and

getting so intoxicated that you can't handle it anymore, serving somebody who's

intoxicated or thinking you can get into a bar when you're under-age and have no

penalty whatsoever for your action.

[1455]

Whether you have a 24-hour suspension, whether you have a criminal

record now for impaired driving or whatever the case may be, there will be

penalties and results and things we want to accomplish as a result. People have

to take responsibility for their actions in and around alcohol.

Our expectation is that they will, but our expectation is also

that we will give the police and communities the tool to make sure they

understand where our

[ Page 11565 ]

expectation is for them to have that behaviour modification, and our

expectation is that we will have success in reducing impaired driving in British

Columbia.

As I have walked through this exercise for the last two years and

met with families and people that have been affected by alcohol-related

incidents in their lives, I have known we're on the right course to achieve

something. I knew it even more so yesterday after I introduced the legislation

and returned two phone calls last night — two phone calls to people that I know

lost somebody to an impaired driver.

Those were two phone calls from people who said: "Thank you. You

have done the right thing. We know we can't go all the way sometimes with these

things, but at least you have done the job to get people off the road so that I

will not see another family, or as many other families, affected by the scourge

of alcohol and an impaired driver."

When the families see that you have actually decided it is time to

put the penalties, the rehabilitation, the community education, the

driving-while-prohibited penalties and the issuing and changing so that people

can't avoid the law under bail conditions — which has been one of their

bailiwicks for a long, long time — they know you listened.

They know you listened, and they think you have made a big step.

They will also tell you that they would love to see that there would be nobody

who would ever get behind the wheel of a car again. Some would tell you they

would like to see all people that are impaired drivers incarcerated. They also

know the reality that you need the tools in your law enforcement community with

significant-enough penalties to change behaviour.

I had a lengthy conversation with one of the individuals last

night. He got quite emotional at one point and said to me: "You know, Rich, this

is the right direction. After explaining the legislation and what we're doing, I

now understand what you are doing. I understand that you've got it in your mind

and figured out that you are not going to accept people thinking they have an

excuse by getting a 24-hour suspension or have an excuse by ignoring the law and

driving while prohibited. You are going to actually change behaviour, because

you're going to penalize them on the one side and take the car away on the

other. You're going to have some impact."

The individual was also very supportive of ignition interlock and

is of the mind that all manufacturers should start putting them in their cars,

like Saab is evidently doing in Sweden. That may come down the road. The one

thing we have accomplished here is a piece of legislation that has come together

through a group of people working together: law enforcement, community, people

that are special interest groups with regards to impaired driving.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation. I'm proud of it

because we actually had the guts, frankly, to break the mould a little bit. We

had the guts to say that we're not putting up with some of this stuff anymore

and that we're going to give tools to our communities and law enforcement to

push back. We give them those tools, and we're going to tie it into an

educational program to get the message out to everybody.

This is a good piece of legislation. This is something that is

good for communities. It is something that is going to change lives for those it

saves and for those that don't get maimed by an impaired driver. We will be

continuing, as we move through this process, to be ever-vigilant to see if there

are any other tools we can find that would assist us in reducing impaired

driving in the province.

This legislation should be supported by all members of this House.

This legislation does go far enough, considering the realities of what we're

allowed to work within, within the law. This legislation gives us an opportunity

to change behaviour and to measure that change as we go forward and see how the

statistics related to impaired driving improve in British Columbia. If they

improve and if we are successful, it is a proud day for everyone in this House.

[1500]

Hon. G. Plant: I am delighted to be able to rise and follow

my friend and colleague the Solicitor General, and to express my support for the

initiative that is before us here this afternoon and on which I have worked with

the Solicitor General for the last couple of years and more.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

I don't want to spend time talking about the range of issues that

are dealt with in the legislation. I only wanted to spend a minute to speak

about one particular issue. As long ago as about 1997, I think, I stood in the

House as an opposition member of the Legislature, an opposition justice critic,

and introduced a private member's bill that was called something like the

substance abuse assessment and rehabilitation act.

The gist of that legislation was to try to introduce into the law

of British Columbia for the first time some recognition that there are people

who get behind the wheel and drive while they are drunk because they are

irresponsible and also people who get behind the wheel of a car and drive while

they are drunk because they are suffering from a drug addiction or alcohol

addiction — and that if we could introduce into the regulation of motor vehicles

and licensing in British Columbia some recognition of that reality and actually

give the superintendent of motor vehicles or the appropriate official the tools

to require the repeat offender who has this problem to be assessed for it and

then to take counselling or therapy for it, we would fix the health problem that

lies at the root of the criminal behaviour.

That's not for a minute to diminish the fact that driving while

impaired is a crime. It should be regarded as a crime and dealt with seriously.

But we can, in this House, ensure that the laws of British Columbia also have

the tools to strike at the heart of the causes of criminal behaviour. In this

case, one of those causes is

[ Page 11566 ]

the fact that there are people who are alcoholics or who are drug addicts and

who just can't help themselves because of their addiction. They get behind the

wheel, and they cause all of the havoc and the anguish and the loss that the

Solicitor General has referred to in his second reading remarks.

It was a bit of a mystery to me. I stood up and I tabled the bill,

and my sense of the Legislature that day was that all sides — all parties —

supported the initiative. But it has never come to be until now. A year or so

after that initiative, or sometime shortly thereafter, the NDP did introduce a

provision into their traffic legislation that went some distance down the road

that I was arguing in favour of. But having introduced that provision and having

passed it, I don't think they ever brought it into force. That's unfortunate.

When the Solicitor General and I, a couple of years ago, sat down

and realized that it was time to take some forward progressive steps in the area

of impaired driving, we both put this issue on the table at the outset, this

issue of what we can do to ensure that in the appropriate case — and the

appropriate case is most typically going to be the case of the repeat impaired

driving offender who just has this problem — legislators have given regulators

the tools to ensure that the driver doesn't get behind the wheel without

addressing the problem which lies at the root of the criminal behaviour.

So we have in this bill the requirement — the option — for

substance abuse assessment, rehabilitation and treatment. Really, at long last,

I think we are finally going to see out there on the streets of British Columbia

an idea which we should have had in our law and in our administration of this

law years and years ago. It may be late, but it's a good time and as good a time

as any to finally get it done and get it done right.

[1505]

As the Solicitor General was speaking, I noted he made the point,

which I think is important to emphasize, that both the rehabilitation initiative

and the ignition-interlock initiative are user-pay. I think that's an

appropriate allocation of responsibility in terms of these issues. The person

who wants the right to be back on the road someday should have the

responsibility of paying for the treatment that may help make that a reality.

So it's been a long time waiting, for me anyway. But I'm

absolutely delighted to be part of a government which, these years down the

line, is finally moving forward to implement something that I was privileged

enough to introduce to this Legislature back when I was first elected as an MLA.

For that and for all of the reasons that the Solicitor General talked about in

his remarks and all of the other initiatives that are in this bill, I am

delighted to have a chance to stand and speak in support of this bill.

K. Krueger: I'd like to join the Attorney General and the

Solicitor General in supporting Bill 66. I also am proud of a government that is

moving forward on these important initiatives.

I've worked over 20 years in the investigation of motor vehicle

crashes. I pretty much have stopped calling them accidents, because most of them

aren't. They're the result of negligence. They're the result of poor decisions,

irresponsible decisions and carelessness. Very few of them are actual accidents,

but they wreak terrible havoc in people's lives, and the consequences are an

awful thing to see.

One of my tasks as an accident investigator was often to try and

determine the truth about who was sitting where in the vehicle and who was

driving. Very often crashes that result in quadriplegia, paraplegia, brain

damage or the death of occupants involve a number of factors. Irresponsible

behaviour like excessive speeding, very often along with failure to use

seatbelts and the protective equipment of the vehicle, and almost inevitably

driving while impaired are factors in many of these very severe injury-causing

crashes.

Working for ICBC and having to go and look at these vehicles,

often after having spoken to a bereaved family, grieving parents or mangled

young people in hospital, I was often horrified by what I saw. You would look at

the smashed windshield, and there would be pieces of human scalp embedded in the

broken glass with hair hanging down. There would be fragments of people in some

of these vehicles. I saw a beautiful young woman whose face was so scarred up

and had required so many stitches that it looked like a jigsaw puzzle. I doubt

that she ever looked beautiful again.

I met a young woman who was sitting in the front seat of a pickup

truck between two good old boys who had been boozing it up. They hit an

immovable object. She was thrown forward so hard that all the bones in her foot

broke, and they protruded through the skin. I saw terrible things — things that

made me sick to my stomach. Very often these were the factors that led to those

crashes. A crash that occurs because the driver was impaired is absolutely not

an accident.

Many of these things happen because people regard driving as a

right and something that they're just entitled to do. Of course they aren't.

Driving is a privilege. Our highways and our law enforcement system are paid for

by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer deserves the right to enjoy those highways in

safety and without having to be fearful of encountering a drunk in the middle of

the night. When my children head home to Salmon Arm — some have moved to Salmon

Arm; I still live in Kamloops — I am fearful if they do it at night on the

Trans-Canada Highway because of the high incidence of impaired drivers on that

road.

For many years at ICBC, we experienced the frustration of people

thumbing their noses at the law. They would lose their driver's licence; they

would keep right on driving. Eventually we got the ability to remove their

ability to insure a vehicle again if they were behaving in that way. They

started insuring the vehicle in their mother's name, their girlfriend's name or

some buddy's name. I've been very thankful, as these changes come on over the

years, that government can

[ Page 11567 ]

and does seize the vehicles, impound them and make life difficult for that

sort of irresponsible person.

[1510]

I applaud the Solicitor General for beefing up British Columbia's

ability to respond to such people significantly with this legislation. I've seen

some of the criticism — people who think the bill doesn't go far enough. We work

with realities, of course, in this Legislature — the reality of people's rights,

their Charter rights as Canadians under the constitution. We can't just lock

people up and throw away the key because they've committed an offence of driving

while impaired, but we can be intelligent about how we respond. This is

intelligent legislation that I believe will go a long way toward decreasing the

number of crashes related to driving while impaired and the number of terrible

incidents such as those that I've been describing — the grief in families, the

heartache for the victims themselves.

Often people are victims of themselves. I have a young constituent

whose family I have been working with for months now. Although he was a

brilliant young man — very motivated, very hard-working — he made a terrible

mistake and got behind the wheel of a car when he shouldn't have, when he had

been drinking. He is such a bright young guy. He'd graduated when he just turned

17. He was only 19 years old when he had this car crash, and he already had two

full years of carpenter's apprenticeship under his belt. He was heading for a

very good career — a responsible young man — until that night. He crashed into a

neighbour's basement with his vehicle. When they extracted him from the vehicle,

he was a quadriplegic. His whole life has been changed, and his family's life as

well.

ICBC reached the point in the seventies, while I was working for

them, when they began to face up to the fact that there are some drivers amongst

us who will never change their attitudes about some issues — like wearing

seatbelts, drinking and driving, irresponsible driving behaviour — and decided

to respond in a two-pronged counterattack. One of the prongs was to increase the

tools that the government and the insurance corporation have to deal with people

who behave in these ways through things such as this legislation sets out —

increased prohibitions, seizing of vehicles, 24-hour suspensions — and all sorts

of things designed to deal with people who are perpetrators of this offensive

behaviour. The other prong was education, particularly of young people starting

at the elementary school level, recognizing that children will accept messages

like the messages of traffic safety. They'll take them to heart, and they'll

grow up remembering those and actually being committed to them.

I had some dramatic illustrations of that in my own family. I

consider myself a good driver and try to be a responsible driver. My children

were picking up on these messages. If they sensed that I was going to accelerate

to get through an amber light, they'd shout, "Fools rush in, Dad," because that

was one of the slogans being taught to them in elementary school.

One day when I was going to drop my children off at my mother's

place five doors down the road from where we lived, my oldest one, who was six

at the time, shouted: "Dad, you haven't done up our seatbelts." They all had

infant car restraints. I said: "Well, that's okay. We're just going five doors

down to grandma's house." There was a shocked silence in the vehicle, and then

his little voice: "Dad, does God say it's okay to break the law if you're just

going five doors down to grandma's house?" They took it very seriously, and they

still take it very seriously. They all wear their seatbelts as a matter of

course. They had the traffic messages drummed into them at school early on.

ICBC actually paid teachers to come and work for the traffic

safety division and write curriculum and go and teach other teachers how to

include it in the education of these youngsters. It was a very good thing.

Sadly, in 1992 a new vice-president at ICBC discontinued that program. We've had

a lot of drivers turn 16 and begin driving, who haven't had the traffic safety

message as a result and who don't have those things built in.

I've been talking with the Solicitor General and encouraging him

to encourage ICBC to resume those elementary school programs. I have a

colleague, Mavis Johnson, who worked with me in traffic safety at ICBC. She

travels the world incorporating other countries' successes in traffic safety

programs and bringing them home for organizations here in British Columbia.

Again, she has met with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services. I hope that the communities of this province, as they receive the

funding from traffic violation fines, will use a lot of that in traffic safety

programs in their communities and will use the expertise of people like Mavis

Johnson as they do so.

[1515]

In Prince George in the late seventies, people horrified by the

dozens of young people who were being killed and maimed in crashes — often

involving those same factors of driving while impaired, speeding, failure to use

protective equipment, seatbelts — formed a group that they called the carnage

committee. Their slogan was: "We're going to take the car out of carnage." They

went after that very seriously with billboards about the carnage, with car

wrecks that they would put alongside the highways to slow people down and

illustrate the consequences of those behaviours. That worked very well. The

number of fatalities, the number of serious injuries and the number of crashes

involving driving while impaired were reduced dramatically.

It's something we should all focus on in our communities and

certainly in government. I'm proud of the Solicitor General, who has gone so far

out of his way to do that. I think this is a key piece of legislation that I

trust everyone in this House is going to support.

I like a whole lot of things about this legislation. I like the

way it focuses on changing the attitudes of drivers. It will require drivers to

undertake training where, reluctantly or otherwise, they're obliged to open

[ Page 11568 ]

their eyes to the risks they're taking themselves and the risks they're

making other people subject to if they make that terrible decision to get behind

the wheel when they're impaired.

The focus on 24-hour suspensions, again, will oblige people to

think very seriously about the second or third drink in a restaurant, about how

they're getting home, about planning a safe ride home. Lots of times people

never intended to get themselves in a situation where they were driving a

vehicle while impaired. They just don't think about it in advance, and people

have to be trained to think about it in advance. They have to be trained to

realize that driving is a privilege, that it's not something they're entitled to

and that it's a privilege that will be taken away if they misbehave in these

ways.

I like the increased ability to impound vehicles and the extension

of the length of time that a vehicle can be impounded for from 30 to 60 days.

It's a good thing to get that weapon out of people's hands if they're falling

into the habit of driving while impaired, because a vehicle does become a weapon

in those circumstances. People often have no realization of the deadly force

that the momentum any vehicle has when it's being operated at pretty much any

speed, but certainly at significant highway speeds.

I'm tremendously pleased with the government for bringing forward

this legislation. I certainly support it, and I hope that everyone in the

Legislature will. I commend the Solicitor General for having introduced it.

J. Bray: I join with my colleagues in rising in support of

this bill. Certainly, I know that in my community, issues around drinking and

driving are always at the forefront when we talk about concerns we have for the

safety of our families, for our children and indeed for ourselves.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about one of the key reasons

why I believe this is such a strong piece of legislation and such a good piece

of public policy. There are lots of issues that revolve around drinking and

driving, and there are lots of groups out there that have opinions and express

concerns all around that issue. It's not easy to venture forth with a

comprehensive plan with consultation — to actually ask for feedback from those

groups specifically as well as from the population at large. Yet the Solicitor

General did that, and what we've come up with is the result of meaningful, real

consultation.

One of the groups that the Solicitor General spent a lot of time

talking to was, in fact, our front-line police officers — the women and men who

actually have to enforce the rules and are trying to work to make our roads

safer. Some of the criticism I've heard from pundits and others that I find

really shocking is the suggestion that this legislation gives police officers

too much control, too much discretion, too much power.

[1520]

At the same time, many of those pundits complain about the fact

that we don't seem to be doing a lot about drinking and driving. Yet they argue

that giving front-line police officers some tools to actually deal with it at

the roadside, based on their own professional experience, is somehow

problematic. I find that quite dismaying.

We have the best law enforcement forces in the world here in

British Columbia. Of course there are incidents that make it into the media, but

day in, day out, day shift, night shift, long weekends, Christmas, Thanksgiving,

our police officers are out on the streets doing their best to make sure that

our streets are safe. We take it for granted.

When the police officers meet with our Solicitor General and say,

"Solicitor General, here are some tools that can make our job more effective,

that get people — especially problem drinkers — actually off the road and make

it physically impossible for them to get back in their cars to drive again, that

keep us on the street catching other offenders and that drive home the message

that drinking and driving will not be tolerated in British Columbia," I think

that's something to celebrate.

I know that when the opposition was in power, with the exception

of a few dozen criminal investigations, they never bothered to talk to the

police in this province. They completely ignored professional law enforcement.

We've actually engaged them. The Solicitor General actually made it a point when

he was first appointed in 2001 to engage professional law enforcement. Guess

what. They've got some really good ideas. Greater powers are not what we're

talking about here. It's actually giving them the tools to enhance the service

they already provide. If that gets one drinking driver off the road who

otherwise might have plowed into a family or killed themselves or injured

someone else or themselves, I don't see how anyone could have a criticism about

that.

What we're also doing with this legislation is sending a clear

signal to those who do engage in drinking and driving that this is a serious

offence in British Columbia. Some of these changes, to me, are actually good,

solid, commonsense changes. If you get a 24-hour roadside suspension, you can't

say, "Thanks, Officer Smith," walk away and come back an hour later, when the

officer's moved to another location, get back in your car and drive again,

because we can impound that car, actually get it off the road for 24 hours and

make it a real suspension.

The

part I am particularly pleased about is the recognition….

Again, by combining mental health services, addiction services and health

services together, we recognize that alcoholism is a health issue. There are

criminal aspects to it, no question, and drinking and driving is a criminal act,

period. But the underlying cause of that may, in fact, be the disease of

alcoholism.

At the end of the day, the goal is to make our roads safer. I

think one of the great programs is, in fact, directing repeat offenders to

treatment in order to get their driver's licence back and to make sure they're

getting the treatment they need. It's actually a user-pay system. I think that

is one of the big deterrents. It's going to cost you to get your licence back as

a repeat user.

[ Page 11569 ]

Now, you might not receive the same treatment, based on an

assessment that you'll receive. You may only get an educational program, or you

might get intensive alcohol treatment. The cost is spread out among all so that

it doesn't become overly cost-prohibitive for those that might need more

intensive treatment, because those are the people we want to make sure actually

receive treatment for their alcoholism.

We're also saying, and this was always the one…. I know I talked

to constituents who often shook their head at this, that somebody would receive

a driver's licence suspension and would constantly get pulled over driving

again. People felt frustrated by the lack of the ability to deal with that, and

no more so, I think, than front-line police officers who got tired of seeing the

same person driving. The ability to impound the vehicle and actually put some

pressure on that individual to get the car back or to make sure that they're

upfront with family members and that family members are upfront with them…. They

don't want to lose their vehicle because someone who has a driver's licence

suspension gets in the car and drives anyway. We're really saying that that's a

serious offence as well.

[1525]

We've got an appeal provision there to make sure that in cases of,

say, a commercial operator, where the employee doesn't tell them they're under

suspension, they have the opportunity to get their vehicle back within a day or

two, or in situations of potential hardship for a family who says: "We didn't

know so-and-so was going to drive, and we have to get our children to day care."

There are appeal provisions.

We're saying in this province that it's a crime to drink and

drive. You're going to pay severe penalties, and it's going to start right on

the roadside. If you continue to do things like driving without a driver's

licence, it's going to cost you.

Another issue I am really pleased with is recognizing not only

that treatment is important but that we actually want to make sure you can

re-establish that you can now drive without consuming alcohol. The interlock

system to me is a great innovation. It's done in other jurisdictions — very

successful. I think it's brilliant that we've brought this here to British

Columbia so that repeat users actually, once they finish treatment, are going to

have an interlock installed in their car, and they are going to be required to

blow to start the vehicle but also periodically to ensure they're not drinking

once they're driving.

Again, there's a financial implication to that. The actual person

is going to be paying the cost of the installation and the removal of the unit,

as well as the calibration. It needs to be calibrated on a regular basis. We are

putting real physical impediments to the penalties, but we're also putting some

financial impediments — real financial impediments — that hopefully will make

people think twice about whether or not they'll have a couple and get in the car

and take a chance. It's that type of behaviour that we need to curb, and it's

those with alcohol problems that we need to actually get to and get them so that

they're not drinking and driving. Preferably, it's because they're not drinking.

It's important that we support our front-line police officers as

they go about their daily business of trying to keep our streets safe. When they

come to government and say, "We have some suggestions that allow us to achieve

the goals everybody wants," then I think we need to rally behind our law

enforcement officers.

We need to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving. We need

to reduce the incidence of accidents and of death. I think that this legislation

is an excellent step in that direction. I commend the Solicitor General for

tackling this issue, for consulting widely with the public. I am very pleased to

support this bill.

J. MacPhail: I will begin my comments by saying that the

New Democrat opposition will be voting in favour of this legislation. So,

anybody who likes to allege otherwise: stop.

I do want, though, to put on the record some of the discussion

about what more needs to be done. I think it's fair to turn to the organization

Mothers Against Drunk Driving — to put on record what their views and what their

proposals are. Of course, over the last two years they have sometimes been

forced into commenting on activities or events in this province in a way that

they would have preferred not to, and yet they have been drawn into the

discussion by the government and by others. So I think it's fair that they be

highlighted as a model organization of a group who tackles as their only agenda

getting rid of drunk drivers.

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I met with the

senior officials of Mothers Against Drunk Driving within the last few months.

I'm pretty sure it was the summer. I don't think it was much before that, but my

memory is…. In fact, it was this summer.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: Yes, my memory is slipping. Yes, I confess.

Never deny the obvious, is what I say. A lesson for all of us.

Anyway, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has some interesting

comments on this legislation. But first let me just read what my view is of what

the legislation does. I had a nice little analysis here that Bill 66, the

legislation we're debating…. This is what the bill provides. Drivers who receive

24-hour roadside suspensions may also have their vehicles impounded for 24 hours

— they may. Chronic offenders with serious drinking problems may face mandatory

rehabilitation.

[1530]

Drivers with three or more alcohol-related Criminal Code offences

may be forced to use an ignition-interlock device that requires a driver to

submit an alcohol-free breath sample before the vehicle will start. Costs

associated with the unit are to be paid for by the driver. The Solicitor General

has estimated that about 230 drivers are expected to enter the user-pay program

each year.

[ Page 11570 ]

People who get caught driving while prohibited from driving will

face increased fines. The fine is increased from $300 to $500, and there's an

option of an extended vehicle impoundment, up from 30 days to 60 days for a

first offence.

A driver's licence may not be renewed or obtained without

outstanding fines for liquor offences such as underage possession of liquor

being paid. If a driver disputes the 24-hour prohibition, police can use the

roadside screening device as an approved breath test, rather than having to

conduct the test at a police station.

Well, I think it won't come as any thunderbolt from anyone that

British Columbia has been the focus of intense scrutiny around drunk driving.

Many lives have been affected by that in the course of the last two years. Lives

have been unalterably affected by the scrutiny of the last two years, and I wish

nothing but the best for those who have had to face that intense scrutiny.

It's also important that we learn lessons when people look upon us

in a way that is less than favourable on the basis of our actions. Mothers

Against Drunk Driving has done exactly that, to see what lessons have been

learned by this government, by the leader of this government, by the province as

a whole.

Now, what has MADD, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving

organization, said about British Columbia's record on tackling drunk driving

over the course of the last years? Well, in the year 2000, Mothers Against Drunk

Driving gave British Columbia the second-highest rating in all of Canada for the

provincial efforts to stop drunk driving. In 2002 that rating slipped to a much

lower rate. By 2003, Mothers Against Drunk Driving gave British Columbia a

D-plus rating for progress in tackling drunk driving.

This year, in June, British Columbia got the lowest rating

available by Mothers Against Drunk Driving for the province's efforts to tackle

drunk driving. The rating was called "needs improvement." The other ratings are

"setting a good example," "promising" or "needs improvement," and British

Columbia got the lowest rating. There are other provinces that got the lowest

rating too, but I know this government likes to be either the lowest or the

highest. Well, in this case they're the lowest in the rating.

Here's the opportunity for this government, the Liberal

government, to change that. I'm sad to say that the countrywide experts, Mothers

Against Drunk Driving, have described the changes listed in Bill 66 as neither

innovative nor unique and falling short of laws in provinces such as Manitoba

and Ontario. "It's very disappointing," said Andrew Murie, chief executive

officer of MADD. "There's nothing progressively new in this. There's no

leadership. All they've done is replicate what other provinces have done. If

they wanted to be mediocre, they've achieved that."

Bob Rorison, interim president of the greater Vancouver

chapter of

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said the new law is not strong enough. "We're

disappointed," he said. "We expected a lot more from Mr. Coleman. All we're

doing is playing catch-up with other provinces."

[1535]

What are we doing in the way of catch-up? Remember, this

government had the second-highest positive rating by Mothers Against Drunk

Driving in the year before this government took over, so there won't be any

opportunity for any Liberal government caucus member to stand up and say: "Yeah,

but what did the previous administration do?" There is just no opportunity, and

the proof is in the ratings by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and how the rating

has inexorably slipped under this administration.

In June 2002, Mothers Against Drunk Driving called for substantial

reform of British Columbia's legislation, including a call for an interlock

program and authorization for police to use passive alcohol sensors and demand

breath samples from drivers involved in crashes that result in bodily harm.

In January 2003, Mothers Against Drunk Driving issues a news

release that states that the Liberal government's legislative agenda is "a

recipe for increased drinking and driving and an inevitable increase in impaired

driving." Among the Liberal British Columbia government policies to which

Mothers Against Drunk Driving objected in January 2003 were these: allowing for

the extension of bar hours to 4 a.m., privatizing liquor sales without

adequately addressing regulation and enforcement, making liquor available at

more outlets, and possibly allowing alcohol to be sold on B.C. ferries. I might

just note that three of these four policy initiatives speculated upon by the

government are realities and are all still in place.

Anyway, the events of January 2003 in this province unfolded, and

Mothers Against Drunk Driving praised the Premier for his meeting with Mothers

Against Drunk Driving and making commitments to change in the province. Well,

after that meeting, the report card by Mothers Against Drunk Driving showed that

B.C. had slipped from second to eighth out of ten provinces in dealing with

impaired driving. The day after that report card was released by Mothers Against

Drunk Driving, the Campbell government announced some limited proposals and said

that they would consult with the public until August 31, 2003.

The proposals under the new proposals highlighted in this

discussion document listed that a driver given two 24-hour roadside suspensions

in a two-year period would lose his licence for 90 days and that there would be

a mandatory user-pay rehabilitation program for serious offenders. Now, I'll be

questioning the Solicitor General on whether this legislation is even as tough

as that proposal on their initial discussion document, because there is some

question that this legislation isn't even as tough as their original proposals.

What did Mothers Against Drunk Driving say about those proposals?

Well, they stated that they weren't impressed by the Liberal government's

proposals that came six months after the Premier's personal incident. "They're

not strict enough at all, and their proposals are no real solution," said Bob

Rorison

[ Page 11571 ]

of MADD's greater Vancouver chapter. "The user-pay rehabilitation sounds nice

on paper, but they don't tell us what rehab is, and they don't tell us what is a

serious offender. If a drunk driver has killed somebody, then rehab is too

late."

[1540]

On August 31, 2003, the public consultation process ended. On

March 12, 2004, there was an interesting report released by a physician, I think

it was, and the report shows that almost 90 percent of hospitalized drunk

drivers escape criminal convictions. "That report proves that B.C. police need

greater powers," said Mothers Against Drunk Driving. That report showed that

only 11 percent of hospitalized drivers whose blood showed they were legally

impaired were later convicted of drunk driving offences. Of a total of 1,697

drivers who were hospitalized, 619 were impaired, with an average blood alcohol

level more than twice the legal limit.

In that news report in March of this year, the RCMP said that a

new training program is being launched to teach B.C. officers how to obtain

reasonable grounds to demand a blood sample for injured drivers. While he

welcomed the move, Bob Rorison, the head of the Vancouver

chapter of Mothers

Against Drunk Driving, said that police need stricter legislation and more tools

to get drunk driving convictions.

I'll be exploring at committee stage what exactly the RCMP program

is around improving their ability to get reasonable grounds to demand a blood

sample from injured drivers. The legislation we're debating today does not

address that issue at all.

On June 19 of this year Mothers Against Drunk Driving released

their 2004 report, which I've already stated was the lowest rating, "needs

improvement." Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada's national president, Louise

Knox, accused the Liberal government of "dragging its feet" on new legislation

aimed at reducing drinking and driving. "Since our last report card in 2003, the

province of B.C. hasn't done anything to address impaired driving other than

some of the changes made to the graduated licensing program," Knox said.

She also noted that other provinces had taken action and were

given the highest rating of setting a good example. Those provinces were

Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Northwest Territories. "It

surprises me in any province, because impaired driving is our country's number

one criminal cause of death," Knox said. "Four Canadians are killed every day,

and under 200 are injured, so it's a huge problem in every province."

The Solicitor General's response to Mothers Against Drunk Driving

of Canada's comments about the Premier's misadventure was that he was

disappointed with MADD Canada's comments, and he was puzzled about MADD's

criticism, especially considering that B.C. had introduced a tougher graduated

licensing program in the summer of 2003 and had cracked down on drivers who have

two roadside suspensions in a 24-hour period.

That's the history of this…. Oh, I'm sorry. There's been one other

incident since then. In September of this year, 2004, Mothers Against Drunk

Driving expressed outrage at a proposal to sell wine at a new mall at the

Tsawwassen ferry terminal. "'The provincial government should see it as a highly

risky idea and not allow it to take place,' Bob Rorison, interim president of

MADD's Greater Vancouver chapter, said yesterday. Rorison promised his

organization would fight the idea by writing letters to MLAs and personally

lobbying them to take action."

Then now, this week, we have the legislation introduced. I must

tell the Solicitor General that I'll be trying to extract a very firm commitment

from him that that liquor outlet at the Tsawwassen ferry terminal will not be

proceeding.

[1545]

I will also be questioning the Solicitor General at length about

the expansion of private liquor outlets throughout this province — particularly

in my own home city, Vancouver — and about how many municipalities simply are

saying to the government that this issue of zoning for private liquor outlets

has been downloaded onto the municipalities. They have neither the time nor the

resources available to properly deal with this issue, yet the Solicitor General

is going full speed ahead without listening to the concerns of either

neighbourhoods or the municipalities.

I'll also be quizzing the Solicitor General very closely about

how, indeed, he is enforcing his own rules about private liquor stores having to

be so many feet or kilometres away from public institutions such as day care

centres and schools. We have evidence to the contrary that if those rules do

exist, they aren't being enforced.

Why is that important? I know that this government doesn't like to

admit there are already good ways of handling addictions, but there is evidence

— solidly based, academic evidence — that improperly controlled distribution of

alcohol increases addiction. Why? Because people who are not allowed to drink

may have access to alcohol. Increased access to alcohol increases addiction.

Yes, this is a legal substance, but it is…. Well, until this government came in,

anyway, it was a controlled substance.

Those are all the questions I'll be asking the Solicitor General

about perhaps what are mixed messages this government is saying about their real

intent in dealing with drunk driving.

D. Jarvis: It's always a pleasure to follow the Leader of

the Opposition. I'm really pleased that she has now said their party is going to

support this bill, although her speech sounded as though she came to bury

Caesar, not to praise him. There are a few things she has said that have

bothered me.

I wanted to say that I am here today to support the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General. He holds down the two positions. I am

really quite proud of the fact that he has brought forward this bill. Later on

I'll explain a situation that has happened to me.

[ Page 11572 ]

This bill certainly is a rather interesting bill and brings some

new aspects to the drinking-driving situation in this province. I am one of

those people that is probably a little stronger than what the minister has put

forward with regard to penalties. We all know that the really strong end of the

penalty aspect of it has to come through the federal government, with changes to

their Criminal Code.

The mothers of MADD have suggested that the penalties should be

stricter, but I'm afraid that aspect is covered under the Criminal Code. We in

this province are left with the point that we have to put legislation through on

the margins of the legislation — the licensing aspect and perhaps the

rehabilitation. We cannot put in the heavier penalties with regard to the

Criminal Code, and that somewhat restricts us.

This bill adds some new aspects to strengthen British Columbia's

aim to reduce the perils caused by drinking and driving. This bill imposes the

toughest measures available as yet, without having challenges come from the

Charter, which also curtails the measures in which we should put forward the

penalties for the offences of drinking and driving. As I said, it is a federal

matter.

[1550]

Impairment is no longer an acceptable challenge in this world, in

this province especially. I'm encouraged that this government has given a strong

emphasis to enforcement measures aimed solely at deterring, if not stopping,

impaired and drunk driving in this province. It's an offensive behaviour. I come

from a generation that actually grew up…. I know people, probably myself

included, thought that maybe impairment, when we were young, was a badge of

courage, if you could drive home safely. Those things are changing. The next

generation behind me, my son and my daughter, for example…. I know for a fact

that if they intend to drink, they do not drive. They take a cab. I know now

that children in the high schools, in the majority of cases, are looking at the

situation — that it's very repugnant to be caught drinking and driving.

Things are getting better, and it's measures like this bill here

that will only emphasize the fact of how unacceptable it is to drink and drive.

As I said, some say we haven't gone far enough. I tend to agree with that to a

certain degree, but how far do we go without having problems with our

legislation here? If we do what the opposition felt that we should do or the

Mothers Against Drunk Driving have felt that we should do, it would probably

result in challenges to our legislation. The federal government is the one that

has to change the Criminal Code so as to allow the province of British Columbia

to make tougher laws that cannot be challenged. As I said, this is probably the

best that we can do at this time.

My dear cousin, some time ago, was leaving a party, a family

affair on the North Shore, and she was hit by a drunk driver who had crossed the

centre line at Marine Drive in the lower part of Vancouver. She was killed

instantly. This was a driver that happened to have been on suspension at that

time for drunk driving. In this same accident he killed her husband, her son and

one of her two daughters. He was obviously sick. The fact is that while he was

awaiting trial, for example, he went out and got drunk again and was involved in

another serious accident in which a passenger was injured. Obviously, he was a

troubled young man and needed help.

This is something that this bill will help in a lot of cases in

the future. You know, it won't be the answer to everything. We always have our

non-conformists out there that will do something regardless of what the law is.

If they get stopped for suspensions or if they have too many charges against

them under the lesser charge of drunk driving, if the police pull them over

through roadblocks and all the rest of it, then they'll end up in a position

where their licence will be taken away, and they will be forced to go through

rehabilitation. That is a good thing.

As I said, there is certainly no place in our society today for

drunk driving. In many instances, it's a mistake in judgment. In most of the

instances, the alcohol or the addiction that they're involved with has taken

over. It's unfortunate for that individual if he or she ends up in jail, but we

also have to consider — and this is what this bill is going to help, I think —

the people and the families that are helped afterwards because of losing someone

in that situation.

I want to again commend the Solicitor General for this bill. It's

going to be a good bill. As I said, it's a start to something better. Nothing is

ever perfect in our society. Drinking and driving is something that cannot be

tolerated, and that is why I intend to support Bill 66.

[1555]

B. Penner: I, too, rise in support of Bill 66, which I

think is a progressive piece of legislation that adds to the toolkit for the law

enforcement community in British Columbia to deal with the scourge of drinking

and driving. I was startled by the statistic I heard yesterday from the

Solicitor General, the minister responsible for this bill, that apparently 101

people died last year as a result of drinking and driving just in British

Columbia. That's a completely needless kind of carnage that we simply can't

tolerate. I'm pleased to see this government taking action in terms of creating

more tools for law enforcement to utilize, when we certainly saw the previous

government fail to do so.

I remember being a member of this Legislature sitting on the

opposition side challenging the previous government to move forward with the

interlock system. They refused. It's the height of hypocrisy for the Leader of

the Opposition to stand here today and be critical of our government when we're

taking steps to give law enforcement greater tools to crack down on drinking and

driving. When she was in government for ten years, they failed to do so. She had

plenty of opportunity, and she was completely a failure in that regard, as her

government and she were on so many matters.

The interlock-ignition system, for those people who are not

familiar with it, has been around for a number of years, and it was presented to

the previous govern-

[ Page 11573 ]

ment as a partial solution to drinking and driving. I was befuddled then and

I'm still curious now why the previous government was reluctant to consider it.

The way it's worked in other provinces and the way it will work

here is that when it's required as a term of getting a person's driver's licence

back after serving whatever their sentence is or paying whatever the fine is

after a conviction for impaired driving, the individual will be responsible, at

their own expense, to install this piece of equipment in their vehicle. It will

require the would-be driver to provide a sample of his or her breath prior to

the vehicle actually starting. If there's even a trace of alcohol detected in

the person's breath, the ignition system will fail to start. This will prevent

the chronic drinking drivers — the type that we just heard my colleague, the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour, talk about — from actually getting a car to

work.

I think it's very progressive legislation. It's long overdue. I'm

pleased that we're able to move it forward in the Legislature this week. I was

listening to the tragic tale that my colleague just recounted. It brought to my

mind an incident perhaps I wanted to forget but haven't quite.

When I was just beginning my law career in Chilliwack — a very

short law career, almost as short as the member for Prince George–Omineca —

there was an incident in court where a fellow was before Judge Hoy, I believe.

This fellow had been picked up for impaired driving. He had already been

suspended previously, so he was not supposed to be driving, and he was before

the court again on impaired driving. The judge granted him bail on the condition

that he not operate a motor vehicle, not consume liquor, comply with a curfew,

and report as and when directed to a probation officer.

What happened that night is that individual got out of the court

system, out of the cellblock, went and got himself drunk, got in his pickup

truck and went barrelling along the streets of Chilliwack in a residential area

— just north of the courthouse, ironically, about three blocks from there. I

think it was on Cook Street. He collided at a speed of about 100 miles per hour

— that's the estimate by the police investigators — with a small Chevy Sprint

car that was going across the intersection.

That car contained two teenage girls who were on their way to a

wedding shower for a friend of theirs. One of the two girls in the car I

happened to know. I got to know her when I was a park ranger working at

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. She was a native girl, and she was raised by

her grandparents. They were always very gracious and hospitable to me when I was

on patrol and would often share with me some fresh-caught Dolly Varden trout

from Chilliwack Lake and bannock, which was something they enjoyed eating.

Certainly I did. It prevented the necessity of me bringing my own lunch to work

sometimes when I knew that they were in the campground. I got to know their

granddaughter Jeanette through that summer. Much to my shock and horror, she was

one of the two girls who were in that small Chevy Sprint when it was impacted by

the speeding pickup truck. Both girls died instantly, at the age of 19.

[1600]

This guy was picked up at the scene. As so often seems to be the

case, he was virtually uninjured, had a few scrapes and bruises, was completely

unapologetic and was belligerent to the police officers that dealt with him. I

had a chance to speak to the police officers later that were at the scene. They

brought him back to the court. There he was the next day, making his first

appearance on two counts of impaired driving causing death, and he had a smirk

on his face. He was smirking to the world — couldn't care less. He'd just taken

the lives of two innocent and beautiful teenage girls.

Clearly, some people aren't getting the message despite repeated

encounters with the justice system. They're not learning despite going through

the court process, getting penalties imposed and getting restrictions imposed.

They're still not getting the message that we need them to hear.

As an anecdote, I think this guy ended up being sentenced to five

years in jail for two counts of impaired driving causing death. He was out, I

believe, in three years or so and was released in the general area of the

eastern Fraser Valley. One night the Chilliwack RCMP received a report of a

dangerous driver weaving and careening down Vedder Road on the south side of

Chilliwack. Police attended. At that point the individual was in a gas station

parking lot, and I believe he may have robbed the store or run out with some

stuff without paying. The police officer got out of her car and tried to

approach the guy to stop him — gave him a hand signal to stop. He got in his car

and made a run for her, tried to run over the police officer who was attending.

She was just barely able to get out of the way and save her life as he smashed

into the side of her car. Then he careened off down the road, and the chase was

on.

Eventually a helicopter unit was dispatched and a number of other

cars were involved in the chase. I believe he deliberately smashed into one more

vehicle as they had pinned him in at the end of a dead-end road in Yarrow. He

still wasn't done. He got out of his car and made a run for it. Subsequently, he

was cornered by an RCMP tracking dog.

This is obviously a bad example of the kind of person who is just

not getting the message. If we can do things like require interlock…. People who

have shown a reckless disregard for learning a lesson, who are unable to learn a

lesson, just might have to have this interlock system installed in their vehicle

at their own expense. This will make sure that the car will not operate if they

have even the faintest sign of alcohol on their breath.

It's for that particular reason, if for no other reason than the

memory of Jeanette and out of respect for her grandparents, that I stand here

today and express my willingness to support Bill 66.

K. Johnston: I want to add my voice to those who support —

and I think that's everybody, from what I'm hearing — this proposed legislation.

[ Page 11574 ]

I am moved by the stories of, certainly, my colleague from North

Vancouver–Seymour. The sad reality is that probably everybody in British

Columbia knows somebody or has been directly affected by the misfortune of an

impaired driver hitting, killing or maiming somebody.

I certainly take the personal view myself that if this

legislation, Bill 66, was to even save one person, one individual, one life,

then it is a worthy endeavour. The naysayers could say it's not enough; it

doesn't go far enough; it doesn't do this; it doesn't do that. Tell that to the

families of the person down the road whose family member has been saved by the

fact that this has been brought forward by this government.

[1605]

I think the Solicitor General showed a lot of courage in his

consultations and dealings with the police and the professionals in these

matters in bringing this forward. There are a few areas that I quickly wanted to

touch on that I think are extremely important. I believe impounding a vehicle on

a 24-hour suspension is a very, very progressive step. I am moved by the fact

that the police, according to statistics I see, have 40,000 of these suspensions

a year in British Columbia. I don't think people are getting the message.

They're thinking out there: "Oh well, maybe I'll just get a roadside suspension,

and I can go on my merry way." The fact that now there is a hammer of the

potential for the vehicle being seized, taken and impounded is going to make

them think twice, I believe. You know, for someone whose vehicle has been

impounded, it might be a little bit difficult explaining to the people in their

family: "I don't have my vehicle because it was impounded." I think this will

have a tremendous impact in cutting the 40,000 number down; I really do.

I get the sense when I read the articles about impaired driving

and the terrible tragic stories — and maybe this is just my perception — that a

lot of these incidents seem to be caused by repeat offenders — people that are

on suspension, people who have had their licences already dragged away from

them. I think that having the ability to double the impoundment time for those

particular individuals also sends a very, very strong message.

Recently, about a month ago, a good, longtime friend of mine was

sitting at a stop sign near the Burrard Street Bridge, and some character came

flying through the air at about 120 kilometres an hour. Luckily my friend, after

some time in the brain trauma unit at Vancouver General, is doing fine. He was

very lucky. The other fellow that was driving and flying through the air was, in

fact, impaired and went to see him in the hospital. He had minor injuries, as

seems to be the case, and said: "I'm really sorry." He actually admitted to it

and said: "I need some help." I think the mandatory rehabilitation provisions of

this bill are extremely important, too, because people are out there looking for

help as well, in a lot of cases.

I think this is a progressive step. I'm happy to support it. I

wanted to be on record as saying a few words about it. As I say, to me, saving

one life with this bill — one family not having to live with despair for the

rest of their lives because one of their relatives has been taken out by one of

these irresponsible impaired drivers — is the sole reason for support. I'm happy

to hear the Leader of the Opposition indicate her support for it too, because it

is a progressive move by the Solicitor General to bring this forward at this

time.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate on Bill 66,

the Solicitor General.

Hon. R. Coleman: I want to thank my colleagues and the

Leader of the Opposition for comments with regards to this legislation. I always

find it interesting how the opposition thinks they're going to turn a debate

about impaired driving and the issues around impaired driving into a debate,

evidently, about liquor stores and other aspects which are not part of this

legislation. I think that's just a veiled way of maybe finding a way to say

you're against something that's good for the province because you can't possibly

say it's all good.

At the same time, I know there are groups who think we should go

further. There always will be, because there is always going to be another step

we might find as a tool. I want to correct a couple of things. The Leader of the

Opposition talked about alcohol on B.C. ferries. Just so everybody knows in this

House, there has never been an application, never been a consideration and never

been a thought given to putting alcohol on B.C. ferries. This government has

never, ever discussed it with anybody, thought about doing it or had any

intention of doing it.

With regard to what may happen at a terminal, there is no

application before government, no approval. No approval has been thought about

because we don't have anything applied for. Again, we see that come out as some

kind of a discussion with regard to this.

The fact of the matter is that before us today is the balance that

needed to be struck. In some cases, people say: "Well, you're actually just

catching up to Ontario and Manitoba." Maybe that's because Ontario and Manitoba

went through their process and found out the same thing we did: there's a place

you can go with regard to law that will stay within the ability to be challenged

under the Charter and can work for communities, and if you go beyond certain

levels, it won't have success because the law won't stand up.

[1610]

We've done a lot of work on this. We did a lot of work on it, and

frankly, there are things in this that don't exist in other jurisdictions, that

are tougher than other jurisdictions in Canada. There are other areas. This is a

great tool for communities. This is what it's all about: listening to a

community, finding the tools. Put the tools in place, let law enforcement do

their job, let the education aspect do their job, and together let's reduce

impaired driving in British Columbia.

We will accomplish that because we work together for long-term

solutions, and we're going to do it with

[ Page 11575 ]

this legislation. I am, as I said earlier, very proud of this legislation

because of the work that went into it and how people had to work through the

issues to get to where we are today. As we move forward, and as justice

ministers across the country at a national level dealing with future amendments

and discussions in and around the level of blood alcohol content for a criminal

conviction in this country that are related to the Criminal Code and looking at

the federal government to give us additional tools that can enhance what we're

doing, we'll continue to do the job that we've been asked to do.

We're going to continue to work with communities and law

enforcement to find any additional tool they think will help us reduce impaired

driving in British Columbia. We will continue to enhance education and

enforcement to a level where the visible policing in our province and the

education come together to reduce the incidence of impaired driving in our

province. We're going to do it together because we can work together to

accomplish a goal as a society. We're going to give ourselves the ability to do

that and have the deterrent in the system to make that happen.

Having said that, I move second reading of Bill 66.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 66, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2004, 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. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 68.

Committee of the Whole House

LAND TITLE AND SURVEY AUTHORITY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 68; H.

Long in the chair.

The committee met at 4:13 p.m.

Sections 1 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 40 standing

in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 40, by deleting the proposed

section 40 (1) (d).]

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Sections 41 to 141 inclusive approved.

section 141.1.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to add

section 141.1,

which is in the hands of the Clerk.

[Section 141.1, by adding the following section:

141.1 The

Schedule is amended by adding the

following immediately after the title:

In this Schedule:

"fee" means the amount payable for each transaction described unless

otherwise specified;

"pending" means the time after an application is

received under

section 153 and before the application is

registered under

section 36;

"government office" means an office belonging

to the government from which a title search can be made by electronic

means.]

Sections 141.1 to 146 inclusive approved.

section 146.1.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to add

section 146.1,

which is in the hands of the Clerk.

[Section 146.1, by adding the following section:

146.1 The

Schedule is amended by adding the

following Items:

Item

Column 1

Column 2

Matter

Fee

Cancellation of Lease on Breach

of Covenant

To file an application to cancel, to hold a hearing under

section

247 and to register any order of the registrar

$48.30

Plans

To file or deposit

(

a) a reference, explanatory,

subdivision or strata

plan (including the Schedules of Unit

Entitlement and

Voting Rights and the Strata Corporation Mailing Address)

$37.26

(

b) any other plan not otherwise provided for in this

Schedule

$37.26

(

c) a bylaw plan

$13.80

Cancellation of Plans

(

a) file a petition under

section 123,

serve a petition under

section 125, and prepare and register a registrar's

order

under

section 134

$69

(

b) hear an application under

section 129

$69

[ Page 11576 ]

Cancellation of Interior

Lot Lines

For all matters in connection with

cancellation of interior lot lines under

section 137, including the registration of any

indefeasible title in consequence of the cancellation

$69

Withdrawal of a Pending Application

To withdraw a pending application

Lesser of the fee for the pending application

or $20.70

Refusal of Registration

For each

(

a) refusal notice provided

under

section 308 (1)

Lesser of the fee for the

pending application or $20.70

(

b) cancellation of an

application, under

section 308 (3), consequent upon the expiration of the

21 day period under

section 308 (2)

Lesser of the fee for the

pending application net of the amount paid under paragraph (

a) or $20.70

Certificates

To make, provide or issue

(

a) a Duplicate Indefeasible

Title under

section 176, or a Pro visional Indefeasible Title

under

section 193

$34.50

(

b) a state of title

certificate requested electronically from a location outside

a government office

$5.75

(

c) a state of title

certificate requested over the counter at a government

office

$8.63

(

d) any other certificate not

otherwise provided for in this

Schedule

$8.63

Certification

To certify a copy of the register or

other record, instrument, cancelled title, plan, abstract

of a title, power attorney or any copy that satisfies

section 38 (4), (5)

or (6)

$7.50 plus the applicable

of search and copy

fees payable un der

this Act

Plan Copies

To make, provide, receive or

copy a plan, including an imaged or

microfilmed plan, if the matter is requested, performed,

made or obtained

(

a) at a government office by a

person who is not for that purpose a

government employee

$5.52

(

b) at a government office by a

person who is for that purpose a government

employee

$6.21

(

c) electronically from the computer

system and delivered to the customer's

personal computer

$7.13

Title Search and Copy Computer

Assisted

For a search, copy or both if the

matter is requested, performed, made or

obtained

(

a) by electronic means from a

location outside a government office

$4.02

(

b) at a government office by

a person who is not, for that purpose, a

government employee

$5.71

(

c) at a government office by

a person who is, for that purpose, a

government employee

$6.56

Title Search and Copy

Non-Computer Assisted

For a search, copy or both if

the matter is requested, performed, made

or obtained at a government office

(

a) by a person who is not,

for that purpose, a government employee

$3.45

(

b) by a person who is, for that

purpose, a government employee

$6.90 includ ing a

copy of

the

title searched; and

if the person attending at

the

land title

office

is an owner of the

land

described in the

title,

a copy of

each

docu ment

referred

to in the title searched

Imaged Records

To make, view, obtain or copy

all or part of an imaged instrument or

document other than a plan

(

a) by electronic means by a

non- government employee

$7.13

(

b) at a government office by a

person who is, for that purpose, a government

employee

$8.97

(

c) electronically from the computer

system and printed at the customer's fax

machine or delivered to the customer's personal

computer

$7.59

[ Page 11577 ]

Index Search and Copy

For each search, copy or both

copy of an index for a Strata Plan, Power of Attorney,

General Filing, Standard Mortgage Terms or Standard

Charge Terms requested

(

a) electronically from a location

outside a government office

$0.92

(

b) over the counter at a

government office

$2.76

Name Search

For each name requested

(

a) electronically from a

location outside a government office

$0.92

(

b) over the counter at a government

office

$2.76

Paper Records

To make, provide or copy an

instrument or document not stored electronically or not

otherwise provided for in this

Schedule

$0.69 per page

Documents requested through

Canada Post

To make, provide or copy, at a

government office by a person who is for that

purpose a government employee, each instrument or

document that has been requested by

regular mail through Canada Post

$6.90

Approval of Subdivision Plans

For examination and approval

by an approving officer of a sub division plan tendered under

section 83

$50 plus, if the

subdivision plan covers land

in unorganized terri tory,

$100 for each

parcel within the subdivision

Block Outline Survey

For an application for a block outline

posting under

section 69 (3)

$18.12 per lot

to a maximum

$181.20

Plans Bordering Crown Land or Water

For application for endorsement of a

certificate under

(a)

section 94 (1) (c)

$345

(b)

section 94 (1) (d)

$172.50

(c)

section 118 (1)

$172.50

E&N Railway Company Grant

For approval of an explanatory plan

of block or lot under

section 70 (3)]

$172.50

[1615]

Section 146.1 approved.

The Chair: Members, going back to

section 40, it was a

deletion of

section 40, not a passing of

section 40. Therefore I will call

section 40 again.

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, I have been advised that on

section 40,

it was

section 40(1)(

d) only that was deleted.

Sections 147 to 171 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 68, Land Title and Survey Authority Act, reported complete

with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G. Abbott: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 68, Land Title and Survey Authority Act, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage for Bill 67.

Committee of the Whole House

EXPROPRIATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 67; H.

Long in the chair.

The committee met at 4:19 p.m.

[ Page 11578 ]

Sections 1 to 43 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1620]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 67, Expropriation Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate for Bill 72.

Committee of the Whole House

TRESPASS AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 72; H.

Long in the chair.

The committee met at 4:21 p.m.

section 1.

J. Kwan: Bill 72, the Trespass Amendment Act, 2004 — under

section 1, the

definitions section. It expands the definition of an owner to

make it apply to urban property, it enacts the definition of "occupier and

authorized person" with relation to property owned, and it enacts a definition

of "premises" that extends the definition beyond real property to include

buildings, ships, railway cars and trailers. My first question to the Attorney

General is: would the definition of authorized person refer to, for example, a

store manager or a shift supervisor, perhaps? Who exactly does that definition

refer to?

Hon. G. Plant: The definition that is proposed is as

follows: "'authorized person' means a person authorized by an occupier of

premises to exercise a power or perform a duty of the occupier under this Act."

We contemplate that those words would cover people like the property manager of

a shopping mall, maybe a security guard. It might be that in some circumstances,

if a shift supervisor were in charge of a premises for a period of time, the

shift supervisor might have that duty.

J. Kwan: So in essence, pretty well anybody could be

designated under this act, as long as it is designated by, I guess, the owner of

the property. Am I correct in understanding that?

Hon. G. Plant: Anybody who has the authority of someone who

is an occupier of a premises, as provided for in the definition, would be an

authorized person. It's not limited to any specific class of people. It is a

definition that, I suppose, is more functional than anything else.

J. Kwan: Okay, thank you. I'm just trying to establish that

the definition allows for a very broad sort of application under this act.

Hon. G. Plant: Conceivably, yes.

J. Kwan: In the same vein, would premises here refer to,

for example, malls?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes. Premises is defined to mean land and

some other things. A shopping mall is on property, and a shopping mall is land,

so premises would include a shopping mall. Premises could include both the

building, which is the mall building, and all of the property around it, as long

as it is all one contiguous piece of property.

[1625]

J. Kwan: What about doorways of a store, for example, or

the sidewalk outside of the store or outside of the business? Would that apply?

Hon. G. Plant: There would be a boundary to the property.

Everything inside the bounda