2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Les Leyne

Hon. M. de Jong

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. I. Chong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Day of action on climate change

R. Fleming

Sunnyside Acres Urban Forest

S. Cadieux

Food banks

J. Horgan

Honouring Bill Reid

D. Hayer

Project-based learning program in Alberni Valley

S. Fraser

Comox Valley Child Development Association

D. McRae

Oral Questions

Government purchase of Olympic Games tickets

C. James

Hon. M. McNeil

K. Corrigan

J. Kwan

M. Farnworth

Cowichan residents and Olympic Torch Relay security

B. Routley

Hon. K. Heed

Wildlife rehabilitation programs

S. Fraser

Hon. B. Penner

Annual facilities grants to school districts

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Orders of the Day

Statements

Withdrawal from debate on Bill 7

Hon. K. Heed

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

J. Kwan

R. Fleming

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. K. Heed

M. Farnworth

R. Cantelon

R. Fleming

R. Howard

B. Routley

R. Sultan

D. Routley

D. Barnett

J. Horgan

Hon. I. Chong

N. Macdonald

Hon. K. Krueger

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Heed

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development (continued)

S. Hammell

Hon. M. Stilwell

M. Mungall

D. Black

B. Simpson

K. Corrigan

[ Page 1453 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery I have two good friends and constituents, Timo Sokkanen and Cathy Sainty. Cathy is also the registrar of the Supreme Court of B.C. Please join me to welcome them.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from New Zealand. Earlier this year Claire Eeles was appointed consul general in Vancouver, and she's making her first official visit to Victoria today. I was privileged to have a nice working lunch with her today. Please join me in giving her a warm welcome to this House.

M. Karagianis: I would like to make some introductions today on behalf of the member for Saanich South. She's attending the Smart Growth conference in Vancouver. In the gallery are members of a senior women's group who get together on a weekly basis to discuss topics and issues of the day. They're here today as they're curious to see how the system works, and they're excited to see the process in action.

I would like to introduce them: Valerie Wedekind, Pat Barne, Bev Bowes, Diana Randerson, Linda Clarke, Julie Davis, Shannon Glover, Chris Vogelsang, Carole Perry and Veronica Marquadt. I apologize if I've mispronounced any names. Could we please give them a good welcome.

J. Horgan: To our honoured guests in the gallery today, I say:

Joining us today from Fiji is the Hon. Ratu Kinijioji Maivalili, who is the president of the Senate, of the Upper House, of the government of Fiji. He is a Fijian chief and political leader, and since 2001 he has represented the province of

Cakaudrove. He is joined with us today by his friends from Vancouver, Natanya and Diana; from Victoria, Imore. From Edmonton, visiting us for the first time, are Camilne and Gloria. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

D. Hayer: I would like to make introduction on behalf of my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed. I had the privilege of having lunch today with principal Kathleen Jeffrey and two students: Emily Harrington, a grade 12 student and president of the student council, and Christopher Chan, a grade 12 student from Mediated Learning Academy.

They are here today with 25 other students and 12 teachers. This group of students has visited in this House before, and I hope they enjoy their trip. They're learning about how the government works in Victoria.

Would the House please make them very welcome on behalf of my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed. Also, I would like to thank the Mediated Learning Academy for bringing the students here.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1340]

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce, on your behalf as well as my own, two people who are very well known in their home town of Campbell River: Bob and Linda Brind'Amour.

Yes, the name is familiar, as they are the parents of the Carolina Hurricanes captain and Stanley Cup winner Rod Brind'Amour. In fact, Bob was his first coach and has been involved in his career throughout. Linda, as well as being extremely supportive of her son's excellent hockey career, has also been dedicated to many other young people in Campbell River through her work at school district 72 until she recently retired.

Bob and Linda were given a tour of this wonderful building by a member of the press gallery, who I'm sure has given them a completely different slant to today's proceedings. So I hope that when we do continue with question period, which they're observing, we'll be the voices of calm and reasonableness. I hope the House will give them a very warm welcome.

Tributes

LES LEYNE

Hon. M. de Jong: Earlier this week a gathering took place attended by the who's who of British Columbia journalism. God, I'm sorry I missed that. At that gathering, the Jack Webster Awards — named in honour of one of British Columbia's most honoured journalists — a member of the legislative press gallery was in fact awarded a very prestigious citation. That is the Commentator of the Year, otherwise known as the City Mike Award. I like that name.

I know that part of our parliamentary and democratic tradition in this country depends upon the give and the take, the yin and the yang between what we do in this chamber and what people in the gallery do. I know all members will want to join with me in congratulating Les Leyne of the Victoria Times Colonist for being awarded, at the Jack Webster Awards, the Commentator of the Year award.

[ Page 1454 ]

Introductions by Members

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the gallery today are three assistants from our caucus: Melissa Nowakowski, Ryan Pineo and Evan Southern. Please make them welcome here today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Health Statutes

(Residents' Bill Of Rights)

Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 17 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased today to introduce Bill 17, the residents' bill of rights for care facilities.

In British Columbia many adults receive care and live in a wide variety of residential care facilities, but not all of them know their rights or know where they can find a comprehensive list of their rights. These adults live in residential care facilities as their primary home. As there are many more types of residential care facilities than just long-term care for seniors, we have applied the bill of rights to all adults in residential care.

This bill will further protect the rights of adults of all ages in care facilities. It will also strengthen our government's commitment to quality care. During this year's Speech from the Throne the government set out a clear commitment to care and to the rights of residents living in residential care facilities. Today, with the introduction of Bill 17, we are moving forward with our commitment.

Our plan to legislate a residents' bill of rights for adults in residential care facilities builds on our commitment to care. This includes our government's care facility investment since 2001 along with our 5,000-bed commitment for seniors. Government created the residents' bill of rights to clarify the rights of adults when they move into residential care, as the facility becomes their home.

[1345]

The residents' bill of rights will be publicly displayed in all adult residential care facilities throughout the province to better protect residents. They will help to ensure that facility licence holders, the person in care and family members are all made aware of the standard set of rights.

The rights support a commitment to care, the rights to health, dignity and safety along with the rights to participation and freedom of expression.

This legislation also supports government's new residential care regulation. This bill of rights articulates a collective set of rights for adults who live in facilities that include long-term care, mental health and substance abuse, community living and hospice, acquired injury and private hospitals and extended care facilities which are regulated under the Hospital Act.

Along with promoting the health, safety and dignity of all residents, this bill will improve transparency and accountability in care facilities.

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

Bill 17, Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DAY OF ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

R. Fleming: In two days millions of people around the world will gather in support of protecting our planet. Some 3,500 international events in more than 160 countries will occur on Saturday, October 24, the international day of action on climate change.

In Canada from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, B.C., people are organizing street parties, concerts, even pumpkin-carving contests to both demand and celebrate a better future for all. This worldwide day of climate action takes place six weeks before the United Nations framework on climate change summit in Copenhagen, December 7 to 18.

People around the world are demanding action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with what science says is necessary. October 24 is being billed as the broadest day of environmental action in the planet's history. It was launched by 350.org, an international campaign dedicated to creating an equitable global climate treaty that lowers carbon dioxide below 350 parts per million.

The campaign calls for people around the world to organize an action on October 24, incorporating the number 350. Mr. Speaker, 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide measured in parts per million in our atmosphere. It's the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change.

We've already surpassed this number with 390 parts per million in our atmosphere. That's why it speaks

[ Page 1455 ]

to the urgent need for an international agreement to reduce carbon emissions quickly.

In the capital region there are activities planned at Victoria city hall. Vancouver is hosting the Bridge to a Cool Planet, events across Metro Vancouver on that day, and communities across B.C., large and small, are getting involved.

October 24 is a day to take action on climate change to celebrate a better future and to help make history. I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking organizations, volunteers and businesses that are putting these events together — and members to participate in these events in their communities.

SUNNYSIDE ACRES URBAN FOREST

S. Cadieux: Earlier this month I spoke about the importance of our seniors. Last week I had the privilege of meeting one of Surrey-Panorama's seniors, a man that's contributed greatly to the fabric of our community for the last 33 years.

Dr. Roy Strang obtained his baccalaureate in forestry from the University of Edinburgh and then received his doctorate from the University of London. Perhaps that explains his passion for a particular local park, a hidden treasure in plain sight — Sunnyside Acres Urban Forest.

In 1986 a meeting was held to determine what to do with this majestic and, at that time, undesignated piece of land. To convince the community that the area was worth preserving, Dr. Strang helped found the Save our Sunnyside action group, an initiative formed by concerned citizens. The group had its opponents, but after a great deal of work by these dedicated folks, a 130-hectare area of tranquil forest became a designated urban forest park. The committee became the Sunnyside Acres Heritage Society and continues to steward this preserve today, providing education and management.

Dr. Strang graciously accompanied me on a tour of the park last week, showcasing the accessible trail that was developed. He provided a phenomenal commentary about the flora and fauna and the natural change that is currently underway. We keep watch for birds, blacktail deer and the rare orchid — rattlesnake plantain. It's a wonderful place to walk, to sit, to jog and to bike.

[1350]

I join Dr. Strang in inviting you to visit Sunnyside Acres Urban Forest, perhaps at the end of March for the blooming of the trillium. I thank Dr. Strang and ask this House to thank him along with me for his longstanding and ongoing commitment to preserving this urban oasis.

FOOD BANKS

J. Horgan: A few weeks ago the annual Thanksgiving feast brought fortunate families and friends together to feast beyond filling and to celebrate the bounty of the land. In a few short months the Christmas season will be upon us, and once again many will be gathering, centred on healthy and nutritious food.

But in communities across B.C., many are less fortunate. I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women across this province who volunteer and work to ensure all British Columbians have access to food, regardless of their financial situation.

In particular, I would like to acknowledge an organization in my community, the Goldstream Food Bank. For many in my area, the Goldstream Food Bank has been a place of last resort. Sadly, despite growing prosperity in the Western Communities of the capital regional district, some days the lineup stretches clear around the block. Although the demand is increasing, donations of food and cash are on the decline.

This year to date they have served over 7,800 people — many of those, families with young children. Last year by this time the number was only 6,100. Donations are so low, in fact, that the staff are considering cutting back on so-called extras like canned pasta sauce and meat.

Gayle Ireland, president of the Goldstream Food Bank Society, says that most of the people who are coming through the door are part of the working poor, people who have jobs but can't stretch their meagre incomes from paycheque to paycheque. The number of seniors that are accessing the food bank is also increasing.

For Thanksgiving, the Goldstream Food Bank put together hampers, but this year they could not afford to include a turkey.

Now that we're back in the Legislature, I would like to ask all members from all corners of British Columbia to contemplate their food banks and particularly to see how they can speak to people in their community about increasing their donations as we come to the Christmas season. Let's make sure that everyone this Christmas has access to good, healthy, nutritious food.

honouring bill reid

D. Hayer: This afternoon I would like to speak about the community spirit, volunteerism and generosity that abound in my city of Surrey, within my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Among those who give so much of their time and money are members of the many Rotary clubs within Surrey.

Under the umbrella of Rotary International, there are in and around my riding the Rotary Club of Surrey, the Rotary Club of Surrey Fraser Heights, the Rotary Club of Surrey Guildford, the Rotary Club of Surrey Cloverdale. These organizations and their dedicated members do a great job. They work within our community for our citizens.

There is one Rotary member in particular who is being honoured today by the Rotary Club of Surrey

[ Page 1456 ]

Cloverdale. I would also like to honour him today. He is known by many as Mr. Surrey because he never stops promoting the community and all that it has to offer to British Columbia.

His name is Bill Reid, a member familiar to this House, since he sat as the MLA for Surrey from 1983 to 1991. During that time he also actually served as the Minister of Tourism and was dedicated, as he has never ceased to be, when it comes to promoting the city of Surrey.

Bill Reid is a Rotarian, a former governor of B.C. Kinsmen, a former Delta councillor and has served as the president of White Rock and South Surrey Chamber of Commerce and Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce.

In fact, his resumé of activities, memberships and good work extends more than five full pages. He is an outstanding citizen and an unrelenting supporter of all Surrey activities. I would ask the House to join me in thanking Bill Reid and all the Rotary club members and their families throughout British Columbia, who work so hard to make our province the best place to live, work and do business in.

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING PROGRAM

IN ALBERNI VALLEY

S. Fraser: In 2007 requests for proposals were put out to school districts throughout B.C. for project-based learning. Greenmax Resources, responsible for woodlot 1479 in the Alberni Valley, partnered with school district 70 to submit one of five successful applications and began an exciting and innovative project last year.

The goal of the two-year pilot program is to encourage the students to enjoy learning through a different medium and give them exposure to the skills needed to find employment.

[1355]

It is an educational opportunity not traditionally offered to grade 9 students, giving them a hands-on approach with outdoor classrooms being the learning environment, which appeals to the students.

Woodlot owners Shawn Flynn and Dave McBride have worked closely with ADSS — Alberni District Secondary School — principal Mike Ruttan and teacher Ryan Vorak. All are to be congratulated on developing and presenting activities which encourage the students to experience and participate in an outdoor program that teaches all aspects of forest management.

Students have learned a variety of aspects of woodlot management, including basic silviculture, forest ecology, flora and fauna identification, and students are learning the process and business of manufacturing maple syrup in the Alberni Valley.

The students have been actively involved in the planning for and development of an outdoor learning centre. They have learned about the salvage of blowdown timber and have been involved in milling this wood for the building involved. That building is now complete.

We are going to celebrate that, as well as the amazing success of the program, this Monday, October 26. Please join me in this House to congratulate the people of the Alberni Valley for this innovative and exciting educational program. Let's ensure that we continue to fully support this project — a true investment in our children, a true investment in our future.

COMOX VALLEY

CHILD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

D. McRae: I'm pleased to stand here today and talk about a truly fantastic organization in my community, the Comox Valley Child Development Association. The child development association has been in existence for over 30 years, serving an area ranging from Oyster Bay in the north to Mud Bay in the south. The child development association was initially based in the village of Cumberland and provided preschool classes for children, including those who needed extra support.

As a result of growing demand and a desire to expand its range of services, the child development association moved to its current city of Courtenay location. Today the child development centre offers a multitude of programs and services to the community.

They help young children with autism and their families access the treatment programs so necessary for children to reach their full potential. The centre offers a referral service for families looking for child care. They also provide training and networking opportunities, and have toys and equipment that can be accessed through their lending library.

For children with special needs, the centre offers occupational therapy to provide children with motor, self-care and school-readiness skills so they can succeed later on in life. They also have a community integration program that provides children access to community activities like bowling, swimming, Friday night teen clubs and assistance in organizing family events. The programs I've mentioned are only a few of the multitude of services offered by the child development association, but they offer many more.

While the government of British Columbia, through various ministries and programs, provides a substantial portion of the budget needed to run this invaluable institution, there has been a longstanding tradition by the Comox Valley to assist with and enhance the funding that the child development centre receives.

On November 1 of this year, the 34th Annual Children's Telethon will be held in the Comox Valley at the Old Church Theatre. This is our major fundraising activity. Shaw community television will broadcast the live event between noon and eight o'clock on that day.

[ Page 1457 ]

Local performers and artists donate their time, talent and energy to support this amazing organization. In the past this one-day telethon has been a huge success. Last year they raised over $101,000. Everyone is working hard to ensure that they beat this total this year.

I want to thank both the staff and the board of directors of the Comox Valley Child Development Centre.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I just want to commend the six members that made their presentations today. The two-minute statements were in tune with the way they're supposed to be made.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF

OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS

C. James: Yesterday we learned that the government spent close to a million dollars to buy 2010 tickets for B.C. Liberal MLAs and ministers, without a plan. When asked if there was a policy in place, the minister's response was: "That has not yet been decided."

One of the ministry's own internal briefing notes, obtained through freedom of information, states: "A final version of the provincial Olympic ticketing strategy, along with supporting documents, will be sent to the minister responsible for the Olympics by May 29, 2009."

So my question is to the minister. Can she explain why she told this House that there's no policy in place, when the ministry's own briefing note confirmed that it should have been in place at least six months before this?

[1400]

Hon. M. McNeil: The Olympic and Paralympic Games are an absolutely unique opportunity for this province to host the world. Every jurisdiction that has hosted these Olympic Games, in the history of the games, has hosted guests from around the world to take full advantage of the opportunity of the games.

To be clear, Mr. Speaker, of the 1.6 million tickets to these games, the secretariat has access to 3,000. Of these 3,000, what our goal is and what our strategy is, is to host the world. In essence, it's like every country is having a trade mission to British Columbia, and we want to take benefit from that. We have invited foreign dignitaries….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: We have an opportunity to use these tickets to invite foreign dignitaries, international investors, B.C.'s biggest customers and future customers….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: The minister completely ignored the question. The issue was around the minister's own briefing note, which said that a plan was in place at the end of May. Yesterday the minister said there was no plan in place.

So it's very simple. Either the minister is hiding the plan from the public and doesn't want people to know, or — through you, Mr. Speaker — the minister spent almost a million dollars of taxpayer dollars with no plan in place for how to spend those dollars. Either way, taxpayer dollars aren't being looked after.

This morning on the radio, when asked what the regulations were, the Premier himself said: "Well, that's not the point behind all of this." Well, I'd like to remind the minister that accountability around taxpayer dollars is the point around all of this.

Again, how can the government justify spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on luxury suites and Olympic freebies for B.C. Liberals without a shred of accountability to the taxpayers?

Hon. M. McNeil: The member opposite is wrong. Let me be absolutely clear. None of these tickets will be used by MLAs or ministers unless they are asked to be part of the official hosting business for this province. In addition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: In addition to our hosting plan that we have for many of these tickets to invite B.C.'s biggest customers and future customers in order to make our economy strong, we are also using some of the tickets, as I mentioned yesterday, for GamesTown 2010.

Let me tell you how many communities around the province will be attending the games. We have members from Delta South. We have tickets to Delta North. We have tickets going to Skeena. We have tickets going to Chemainus and tickets going to Kimberley, Maple Ridge, Merritt, and the list goes on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The only thing that's clear here is that the minister is making it up as she goes along. That's what's clear.

[1405]

[ Page 1458 ]

Apparently, we hear today that the policy is that if you're a Liberal MLA, all you have to do is ask and you get the tickets. It appears that's the new policy.

Well, when it comes to demanding accountability for taxpayer funds, the Premier says: "That's not what this is about." The minister says: "I haven't quite decided. We have options." It's incredible. Close to a million dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent on luxury tickets for B.C. Liberal MLAs when this government is cutting funding for kids' sports and Special Olympics. Yet the government thinks they owe no accountability to the taxpayers.

My question is again to the minister. Why is this government spending, through these tickets and Crowns, $2.5 million on Olympic tickets without any trace of accountability?

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd like to suggest….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: There were comments made from the member opposite about what the NDP would do. I'd like to read from Hansard , June 8, 1994, around the Commonwealth Games. The minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: If you go back to Hansard for June 8, 1994, the NDP minister of the day made these comments. "The Games Society has its own policy regarding their clientele. In terms of government, government MLAs and cabinet ministers, the policy is that unless they are on official business for the Games, there will be no free tickets."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: To me, that sounds very familiar.

The NDP minister of the day went on to say: "If I have to be there for special hosting" — for the opening ceremonies or for any official business — "then obviously I am there."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: Well, apparently the difference between the government of 1994 and the government now is that this government had a policy and that government doesn't. This government's response has changed from question….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: This government's response has changed from question period to question period and from question to question. Yesterday the minister confirmed close to a million dollars was spent on tickets for B.C. Liberal MLAs and ministers but that no decision…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Corrigan: …had been made on the policy.

Today we know this government was supposed to have a policy in place six months ago. My question is simple. Why is there no policy in place for free Olympic tickets for B.C. Liberal MLAs six months after the due date, and if there is one, why has she been hiding it?

[1410]

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd like to go back to what I said and try to be very clear again so that we hear this. None of these tickets will be used by MLAs or ministers unless they are asked to be part of the official hosting business for this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the minister saw nothing wrong with failing to have a policy that should have been in place six months ago. Today she says that there is a policy. Will she commit, then, to tabling that policy, which she received six months ago, today in this House?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, something happened this morning that was pretty incredible. That was the lighting of the Olympic torch in Olympia, Greece. I don't know about that side of the House, but this side, this government, is incredibly proud that we are going to be the host province for the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games.

Those visuals that we saw on television and will be seeing again tonight were seen all around the world, and that's exactly the opportunity this province has

[ Page 1459 ]

coming up in the next four months. We will be on the world's showcase. We will have an opportunity to showcase the province all around the world. That's an opportunity that this government is not going to forgo. We will make sure that we host every dignitary, every business leader that is going to come to this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The fact is that the B.C. Liberals got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and now they're changing their story.

Will the minister just admit that the real plan all along was to give the B.C. Liberal MLAs, cabinet ministers and their friends access to first crack of Olympic tickets at the taxpayers' expense? Will she just admit that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: The member opposite is just wrong. For one, I have been in this position since June. I will tell you that since that day, we have been talking — this government has been talking — about a hosting strategy for the games for this province.

I'm struggling to understand why the members opposite don't see what an incredible opportunity this province has. We have the opportunity to host investors from around the world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: We have the opportunity to showcase B.C. like never before. Every jurisdiction that has ever hosted an Olympic Games will tell you exactly the same thing. This is an unparalleled opportunity that this government is not going to pass up.

Interjections.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Continue playing with your binder, Minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: …the only outrage being cued right now is the public. The only showcasing that's going on is a government that is scrambling because it's been caught with its snout in the trough around free Olympic freebies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the government had one set of excuses yesterday, another set of excuses today. But the bottom line is that they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, almost a million dollars, on Olympic tickets with no plan to distribute them.

At the same time, they cut funding to sports groups like B.C. Sport and Special Olympics. Why doesn't the minister and the government get their nose and their snout out of the trough, give those tickets back to VANOC, take that money, and give it back to Special Olympics and the other sports groups that they cut?

Hon. M. McNeil: The only outrage that I know we will hear is if we pass up on an opportunity to showcase this province. Since I took on this role, nothing has changed with respect to hosting this province….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, of the 1.6 million total tickets to the Olympic Games, we have access to 3,000 tickets. We will be using this to host the world and to make sure we take every economic benefit we can for these games, because it's going to result in a strong economy not just for the next year but for the decade to come. And correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is the absolute most important thing that this province should be looking at, at this moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: You know, what is outrageous is the idea that there is a report that has been sitting on the minister's desk since the 29th of May this year, which deals with a distribution plan for Olympic tickets. The minister has refused to even acknowledge that she has seen that plan, and yet the briefing note released under FOI says that it has to be in place so that they can begin distributing the tickets starting November 2009. That's less than two weeks away.

Can the minister confirm — will she confirm to this House — that she has read the report that's mentioned in the FOI that was placed on the minister's desk back in

[ Page 1460 ]

May 2009? It would have been there when she became a minister. And if she has or even has not read it, will she table it in this House?

[1420]

Hon. M. McNeil: On June 8, when I took on this role, it was one of this ministry's plans to make sure that we did make the most of these Olympic Games. Again, these Olympic Games are offering this province an unparalleled opportunity to showcase ourselves, and that's exactly what this government is going to stick to doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

COWICHAN RESIDENTS AND

OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY SECURITY

B. Routley: When the Olympic Torch Relay comes to the Cowichan Valley, many people are planning to wear their Cowichan sweaters as a symbol of pride and to show support for local knitters. But now we have learned that the RCMP have been investigating people organizing this show of sweaters.

My question to the Solicitor General is: does this minister support the RCMP's actions in this matter?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Heed: As you can imagine, the RCMP have an enormous task to ensure that we have safe and secure games in British Columbia. We have security forces; we have military; we have all of that. They're trying to do the best they can. The matter the member opposite is talking about — I'm unaware of that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: Surely this government and this minister and the police have something better to do than to be investigating knitters and spirit drummers in the Cowichan Valley.

To the Solicitor General, the question is: are you really believing that you're going to protect the runners by investigating knitters and spirit drummers?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Heed: As I mentioned, the RCMP are there to ensure that we have safe and secure games. They have a number of tactics that they will utilize to ensure that that takes place so all of us can be proud of the Olympic Games here in British Columbia. I have no idea whatsoever what the member is referring to.

WILDLIFE REHABILITATION PROGRAMS

S. Fraser: The organization known as OWL in Delta, which saves birds of prey, lost $40,000 in funding this year. Funding for existing bear rehabilitation programs is static or on the decline. This government has committed $400,000 to a planned bear rehab facility on the North Shore, even though an expert report on the proposal said: "The author strongly recommends that the Ministry of Environment not fund this proposal."

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Why is the government backing a discredited plan to build a bear rehab centre on the North Shore, while existing and respected wildlife rehabilitation programs across the province are struggling to keep their doors open in the face of these big cuts?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm surprised to hear that the member doesn't support efforts to look after orphaned black bear cubs. A number of years ago, when the province did have a significant financial surplus, $400,000 was set aside for this pilot program, and it's something that I hope we can all learn from.

There were concerns identified by Ministry of Environment staff in the early planning stages. My understanding is that changes were made to the program proposal. We look forward to learning from the pilot program.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: What the minister isn't saying is that the minister has a report, March 2008, that has never been released by respected bear expert Christopher Parker, which says: "Do not give this money to this experimental program." It's $400,000, and there are four accredited bear rehab facilities in the province now that are scraping for any dollars they can get.

How can the minister justify not listening to his own report, which cost $43,000 of taxpayers' money? How can he justify that in the face of the information in the report?

Hon. B. Penner: It's apparent it's the NDP that's not listening, because I just provided the answer in my first answer. We did receive concerns from Ministry of Environment staff about the initial proposal, and changes were made to the initial proposal.

[ Page 1461 ]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think what I'm hearing from the NDP opposition is that they don't support giving black bear cubs that are orphaned a second chance. I do.

ANNUAL FACILITIES GRANTS

TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

R. Austin: Parents, teachers, support workers and school trustees in Vernon recently sent a joint letter to the Education Minister which says this about cuts to the annual facilities grant: "To be informed the week prior to schools opening that the funding is cancelled is totally irresponsible and shows a total lack of respect." Yet the minister told the House that districts were warned in advance about the cancellation of facilities grants.

Can the Minister of Education explain why school districts across the province are directly contradicting what this minister told this House?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In June of this year the ministry staff spoke with and met with secretary-treasurers from around the province and made them aware that we were having financial difficulties this year, that there were some budgetary issues and that they should go cautiously with their annual facilities work.

We were aware at the time that there was almost $100 million in annual facilities reserve accounts around the province at the end of March, the end of the fiscal year. At the time, secretary-treasurers were advised to go slow on their projects because of the difficulties that not only our province but the entire globe was having economically.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: Certainly, the Vernon school district was not aware that they should go slow. The letter goes on to say — and this is very devastating…. This is a devastating indictment of B.C. Liberal education policy: "The cuts and the funding freeze could result in large class sizes and less support for children with special needs."

My question to the Education Minister is this. Does the government believe that delivering a budget which results in larger class sizes and less support for children with special needs fits the definition of protecting education?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm certainly pleased, once again, to refresh the House's memory on this topic. This is a government that — in spite of a global economic crisis, in spite of difficulties, in spite of changes in revenue that were devastating over the summer….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is a government that is investing $4.5 million in classrooms around this province this year.

In contrast to what the member opposite is implying, we've actually increased education funding by $84 million this year. Not only that, but through our accelerated infrastructure capital spending, we're investing $447 million in new schools, in seismic upgrading and in refitting schools this year.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development will continue…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: …and in this chamber, Bill 7, the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act.

The Solicitor General has a statement for the House.

Statements

withdrawal from debate on bill 7

Hon. K. Heed: I would like to read into the record correspondence that I have sent to the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner dated October 20, 2009.

"I write with respect to a request you have received for your opinion regarding my role as Solicitor General and the passage of Bill 7, the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009.

"On September 17, 2009, acting in my capacity as the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for the province of British Columbia, I introduced Bill 7 into the Legislative Assembly. In fulfilling my ministerial responsibilities with respect to tabling of Bill 7, I was unaware of any legal impediments to my participating in the consideration of Bill 7 by the Legislative Assembly.

"To that end, I enclose copies of a letter dated April 14, 2009, and August 10, 2009, from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner with respect to their file No. 2009-4545. These letters indicate the Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner's decision to decline an investigation under

section 55(3) of the Police Act and his findings that the matter had been dealt with conclusively.

"I have subsequently become aware of a complaint received by your office challenging my abilities to participate in the consideration of Bill 7 by the Legislative Assembly. While it is my strong belief that there are no legal impediments to me fulfilling my responsibilities with respect to Bill 7, I am anxious that attention not be diverted away from the important substantive provisions of this legislation.

[ Page 1462 ]

"For that reason and out of an abundance of caution, I believe it would be preferable for me to forgo further participation in the debate or votes that will take place in the Legislative Assembly with respect to Bill 7.

"I hope my suggested approach to this matter, guided as it is by my primary concern for preserving the integrity of this crucial piece of legislation, meets with your approval. I am available to answer any additional questions or provide any further information you may require."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy of that correspondence now.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: On to the second reading debate of Bill 7.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — POLICE (MISCONDUCT,

COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS,

DISCIPLINE AND PROCEEDINGS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong: I do move that the bill be read a second time now.

In making some comments around the operation of the legislation, let me say this. First of all, the presentation, tabling and debating of this bill does fulfil one of the legislative commitments as outlined in the throne speech heard in this chamber earlier this year. The new legislation follows the principles of the recommendations made by Judge Josiah Wood in his report, which examined the police complaint process in British Columbia.

Let me just say this, as well, in terms of the general importance of the subject matter we are being asked to deal with in this piece of legislation. We rely upon the police in so many ways for such important matters. The police put themselves in harm's way on a daily basis in communities right across the province.

[1435]

As we move through this legislation, I know that all members will want to remain cognizant of that invaluable service, that essential service that police render in protecting us from those who would seek to inflict harm or engage in insidious and criminal activities in our society.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Having said that, and having reflected upon the importance and the heroism and the courage that characterize the work of the police, it is also a fact that the hallmark of any democratic society is the ability that citizens have, when they are confronted by what they believe to be inappropriate behaviour on the part of police acting in their capacity as an agent of the state, to complain about that behaviour and, through a recognized and credible and legitimate process, have the opportunity to register that complaint, have it acted upon, and rely upon that process with some reliability that it will be taken seriously and investigated in a logical and complete manner.

That's what this legislation is about. It is about more than just refining — in many ways overhauling — the existing police complaints process. It does so in the following ways. I'll focus on how this act is going to operate in a mechanical way, how this act will operate to overhaul that complaint process.

It is going to significantly increase the oversight powers of the Police Complaint Commissioner. The significant changes to the complaint process are actually the same as those introduced in this chamber when a very similar bill to Bill 7 was first introduced in the spring. Those changes can be summarized as follows.

The intake process for complaints is, I think it's fair to say, made far more accessible to the public and the police. The complaint commissioner is responsible for providing information and outreach to the public. That was a follow-through to a recommendation contained in the Josiah Wood report.

Similarly, the oversight by the Police Complaint Commissioner is increased and will entail giving the commissioner the authority (

a) to contemporaneously monitor or provide real-time oversight of the complaint process, (

b) to direct when further investigation of a complaint is required and (c), very importantly, to order investigations without a complaint actually having been registered.

The commissioner, under this regime, will enjoy an independent ability to initiate an investigation and also to order that an external police force investigate any complaint if, in the commissioner's view, he or she deems it in the public interest to do so.

There will be, under this act, opportunities for expanded use of mediation and other informal resolution processes of complaints that are registered and brought to the attention of the commissioner. Significantly, all in-custody and police-related deaths or incidents involving serious harm must now be reported. They must be reported immediately to the Police Complaint Commissioner and must be investigated by an investigating officer from an external police force.

The importance of ensuring that those who are taken into custody are dealt with properly and appropriately is reflected in the inclusion of these provisions and the mandatory investigating provisions that are contained within this act.

All police officers, including those who are witnesses, are compelled, by virtue of this legislation, to cooperate with investigations. Under this legislation, police officers who retire or resign will be subject to the complaint process as well.

[1440]

[ Page 1463 ]

Fairness and transparency of the discipline hearing process, I think it is fair to say, is improved in a number of ways, including allowing the responding officer to call or cross-examine witnesses, ensuring that complainants and other witnesses are treated fairly, and the requirement to establish a complete record of proceedings.

Since this legislation first was tabled, or a similar version of this legislation was tabled in this House in the spring, there have been a couple of refinements that I want to draw to the House's attention by virtue of this debate. They include, provided that the Police Complaint Commissioner considers it in the public interest, allowing those third parties whose complaints have been discontinued in order to permit directly affected complainants to proceed….

There are provisions here that say when that happens, those third parties should have access to appropriate information in order that they can continue to monitor the outcome of the investigation and the complaint that is being examined.

Further, in view of improving the ability to define "serious harm," the commissioner now has the authority to provide guidelines in determining when serious harm incidents should be reported and also a regulation-making authority for prescribing specific injuries that must be reported. As well, the ability of the Police Complaint Commissioner to advise and consult with his or her counterparts in other jurisdictions and the RCMP has been strengthened by virtue of the provisions that are now before the House in Bill 7.

As well, there have been a few other legal or technical changes to provide further clarity to ensure that the intentions of the specific provisions are properly interpreted.

I believe that the resulting legislative provisions are both extensive and comprehensive. I do believe, and the government believes, that they will enhance the oversight role of the Police Complaint Commissioner, making them contemporaneous to the investigation as well as improving transparency, accountability and ultimately improving public confidence in the police complaints process and therefore in the police.

I said at the beginning and I will say now at the conclusion of my remarks that we are all indebted to the incredibly valuable work that the police perform on behalf of citizens in communities across British Columbia on a day-to-day basis. The fact that we have provisions and legal provisions that provide a means by which citizens can advance a complaint against something they believe is egregious, which has originated out of a police force, is in no way intended to reflect negatively on the work that police perform in British Columbia.

It is, however, designed to recognize the fundamentally important principle that says that in a free and democratic society, no citizen who believes that they have been improperly treated or they have seen treatment that falls short of the standard that we expect…. No citizen should feel that they are unable to advance that complaint and have it properly, independently, responsibly and completely investigated.

This legislation, Bill 7, does fulfil a specific throne speech commitment to introduce legislation that will overhaul the police complaints process to ensure that the police are fully accountable to the public that they serve and protect, and I commend the provisions of Bill 7 to this House.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in debate on Bill 7, which deals with the police complaints process and the recommendations that flowed out of the Josiah Wood report of a couple of years ago now.

As the Attorney General stated, the police do a terrific job. They have a very challenging job. All members of this House and all members of the public are grateful for the job that they do.

[1445]

Yet at the same time, there are occasions when complaints about how they either conducted themselves or have conducted an investigation result in a complaint or individuals feeling that something has happened that's not been right and that it needs to be investigated.

Some of these issues can be very minor. Some, unfortunately, as we have seen in this province, can be very serious in nature. They can involve beatings. They can sometimes involve death. So we need to ensure that we have a legislative framework that allows and ensures accountability of the police, that ensures a process that is accessible by the public and that, just as importantly, it protects the interests of the public and protects the police as well.

Nothing, I think, is more important in dealing with these matters than that both the public and police have confidence in how the process works. In this province we have seen, over the last number of years, that called into question. In fact, there are cases ongoing right now that deal with this very issue.

British Columbia is also facing a challenge when it comes to a police complaints process in the fact that we have two police structures in B.C. We have the RCMP, and we have the municipal police forces, the independent police forces such as Vancouver, New Westminster, Port Moody and Delta, for example.

This piece of legislation only deals with those independent forces. It does not deal with those municipalities, those jurisdictions that have an RCMP force, and that is one of the challenges that we face. I believe it is one of the criticisms that I will give on this particular piece of legislation. I understand the legislation only deals with municipal police forces because that's all it can deal with. So my criticism is not of that.

My criticism is of the fact that in this province we still have a system whereby, in one community, police officers — if a complaint is brought against them — go

[ Page 1464 ]

through one set of procedures that may have one set of outcomes and one set of consequences. At the same time, we have the RCMP who operate under a different set of procedures, under a different piece of legislation, under a different complaints process.

I think we have to get to a place in this province where we have a unified police complaints process. Whether you're in a municipal force or an RCMP force, you are under the same set of rules, the same set of principles, the same set of investigative procedures. We need to get to that model. Unfortunately, this doesn't do that.

I have some thoughts on how we can do that. I know technically that's outside the scope of the bill, but I do believe that the renewal of the RCMP contract in 2012 provides a unique opportunity for the province of British Columbia to correct what I believe is a significant problem in terms of accountability regarding the police in this province. I think that is something that needs to be resolved before we sign that contract in 2012.

I think it's a very important issue, because one of the cornerstones of our system is that the public have confidence that when there is a complaint, the process, as I said, is open, is transparent and is fair and timely. So we need to ensure that that happens.

Now, this piece of legislation is some time in coming to the floor of this House. I think the major reason is because of an election. It died on the order paper. We did not have the time to get to it. That's the fault of neither the government nor the opposition. That's just how these things sometimes work out, particularly in an election year.

[1450]

I am not critical of that, insofar as this. I think what we have seen particularly over the last eight or nine months is that in many ways, events are passing by this piece of legislation.

We'll be supporting this piece of legislation because I think it makes some important changes, but I also think that events of the last eight to nine months have raised other issues that this bill doesn't address. When this bill was first put together, when the Josiah Wood recommendations came out.... Had the Josiah Wood report taken place during those events — and I refer, for example, to the Frank Paul inquiry, the Dziekanski case, which is currently ongoing — I think we may have seen some different formats in this bill and may have seen a different piece of legislation before us.

Also, comments that have been made recently by the B.C. Chiefs of Police — who indicated that they felt there needed to be a new structure in place in terms of how complaints are investigated — again, speak to the fact that this bill is out there. Yet individuals within policing themselves are saying that there need to be changes take place.

The Solicitor General said, in reaction to those comments, that that was a starting point. Well, this is also a starting point, this piece of legislation. What we're hearing from outside — from the Solicitor General, from police chiefs — is clearly, then, that there's a lot more that needs to be done. So the issues, I believe, even with the passage of this legislation, are not going to disappear. Rather, I think this legislation will be a base from which we move forward.

I want to touch on some of what I think are the important changes or the important issues contained in this bill, then also on what I think is one of the key issues that the bill doesn't address — which I think the public is demanding that we get our policy heads around — and at the same time, I think, will be spurred at some point by the report that will come out of the Dziekanski case, for example, but also some of the recommendations that came out in the Frank Paul inquiry.

That is around the issue of police investigating themselves and the issue of greater civilian oversight and whether, perhaps, we move to a model similar to what they have in Ontario. There have even been people who have said perhaps there should be a national model that looks at forces right across the country.

But the bottom line is that this, I think, is a step forward. It will not be the end of how police complaints are handled in the province of British Columbia.

The Attorney General has mentioned some of the important changes, important components, contained in this piece of legislation. One is greater oversight by the commissioner. That is important. I think the ability of the commissioner to conduct a real-time investigation into a complaint is an important change. I think it's an important recommendation that will ensure that the time lag between when a complaint is made and the involvement of the commissioner will be speeded up. I think that's an important issue.

That was one of the key criticisms prior to the Josiah Wood report being conducted — the length of time involved. I mean, these issues need to be involved thoroughly, complaints need to be investigated thoroughly, but they also need to be done in a timely fashion. I think this type of change will allow that to take place.

The ability to order a complaint without a formal complaint having been made is, I think, also an important power for the commissioner. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a complaint may not be made. It may be in the cause of evidence that's received with the complainant not wanting to make a complaint or, as we have seen in some cases where news has come into the media, perhaps through video footage. There is a recognition that: "You know what? This does need to be investigated."

[1455]

We've seen that many police chiefs, for example, now have routinely started to say: "You know what? This needs to be referred to the Police Complaint Commissioner." I think that's a recognition of the acceptance of their responsibility to ensure that everything is on the up and up.

[ Page 1465 ]

Again, though, it comes back to the issue of police investigating themselves, and there's still a lot of public criticism around that. The issue of third-party interest and the ability of third parties to access information and the powers that the commissioner will have — discretionary powers but still important powers — to be able to allow that to happen is also a good thing and is a change that I think will be seen as a positive step forward.

All of these particular issues we're going to explore at some length in committee stage, because it is a fairly lengthy bill. In fact, that was one of the reasons why we were not able to deal with it prior to the last election. These issues raised in committee stage will be explored fully because the consequences are crucial. The consequences are crucial in terms of public confidence, and a good piece of legislation ensures public confidence. But it is a good thing for the police as well.

I want to come to the issue of transparency, which I believe is crucial. There needs to be a sense that the process is transparent and that it's deemed by the public to be fair.

That brings me to the issue which I think we as legislators are going to have to wrestle with. That is that given the recommendations out of the Frank Paul inquiry, we need to move to a more civilian-based system. I know that we will be looking at the recommendations out of the Dziekanski report when it comes down. Even though that isn't an RCMP investigation — the Frank Paul case is a municipal police force investigation — I think those recommendations, when they come out…. There will be a lot of interest in those recommendations.

I think we need to recognize that they are going to have to be taken very seriously and that we are going to have to look towards a model that has greater civilian involvement — if not a system similar to what is in place in Ontario, certainly a system that deals with what is an increasing public concern over the issue of police investigating themselves. I think we need to resolve that. We're not going to do that with this particular piece of legislation. This just, as I said, deals with municipal forces.

One of the responses I am looking for or would like to hear from the government is that they themselves, the government, do not see this as the end of a process. But rather, they see this as one step in a series of steps that are going to have to be taken over the next few years to establish what I think will be a police complaints process that is unified and has greater civilian oversight — if not an entirely civilian model based on what's in Ontario, certainly one that has significantly more civilian oversight than we have right now — and that we ensure that we have, whether it is municipal police or the RCMP police, the same set of procedures and the same set of policies.

[1500]

Now, how that's to be accomplished…. I don't have the answers here today. But I do believe it's important that we put that on the table, on the discussion. Part of it may involve bringing the RCMP under the B.C. Police Act. That may be a step that we need to take. I think that's something we need to be looking at. But the bottom line is that the public needs to have confidence that whatever system is in place, it works for them.

I'm not going to be too much longer on this particular piece of bill because I think a lot of the detailed work is…. As I said, we are supporting it at the second reading debate stage, which is where we are right now.

A lot of the detail work around this bill is something for committee stage. That's where we'll explore each of the aspects of this bill and how they relate not only to transparency, not only to the enhanced powers that the complaint commissioner will have, not only the changes that have been made between the old version of the bill and this version of the bill but other issues, as well, that are related to the, I think, important issue of how police complaints are handled in this province and the real need to deal….

Our situation in this province is pretty unique. Ontario has the OPP. Quebec has the Surêté. Other provinces have solely RCMP detachments. We're unique. Or we're not…. We have both municipal forces and RCMP forces, and that creates challenges.

It creates challenges when we're dealing with the handling of complaints. Sometimes it creates challenges in terms of the delivery of police services. But the real issue today, as I said, is the bill that's before us.

I just want to close my remarks by saying that we will be exploring this bill in considerable detail in committee stage. We will be supporting the bill, but I see it more as a step forward, as opposed to an end result. As I said at the beginning of our remarks, I think in many ways events such as the Frank Paul inquiry, the ongoing Dziekanski inquiry — we're waiting for that final report — have moved past this bill, and we need something more.

With that, I will take my seat. I know other colleagues have comments to make as well.

J. Kwan: I rise today to engage in debate on Bill 7, the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009. This bill, as my colleague has already said, carries a number of amendments which the opposition supports.

However, there is one aspect to this bill that I want to highlight, and it is of grave concern not only to myself and to my constituents but to many people as well. This is the issue that has been around for a long, long time, and change is necessary in this regard for a long time, and that is with respect to the call for a civilian-based, criminal investigation model for the investigation of police-related deaths occurring particularly with municipalities' police forces.

[ Page 1466 ]

The issue has a lot of history for the people in my community. The members of this House will recall the case of Frank Paul, an aboriginal man who died and was dumped in a back alley in the Downtown Eastside. He died due to exposure.

At the time the community — people from the aboriginal community, particularly — was worried and concerned about that death and how it occurred and had called for a variety of things, including a coroner's inquest into the matter. As well, ultimately, it was reviewed later on by the Davies Commission that looked into the death of Frank Paul. The inquiry was entitled Alone and Cold .

[1505]

The Frank Paul situation, I think, highlighted the critical need for a civilian-based investigation process. The commission reviewed that there were many mistakes made in the case of Frank Paul.

"Mistakes marked by indifference, callousness and failure to care, evident in the Frank Paul case, often occur within a system that neither requires nor facilitates best performances, nor holds individuals accountable for the effective discharge of their public duties."

It goes on to say:

"The Vancouver police department investigation into the circumstances of Frank Paul's death was methodically flawed. In particular, the unwritten, unpublished and generally unknown policy of preparing so-called 'neutral' reports into police-related shootings provided an unaccountable environment for the conduct of superficial investigations and inadequate reports to Crown counsel, and hence had the effect of ensuring that, despite police involvement in the death and assignment of responsibility to the homicide squad, facts were overlooked, suspicions unaddressed and clarifying evidence left untouched."

This is just a short excerpt that I'm taking from the report. I think it really says it all.

I think that it says that injustice has been done in the case involving Frank Paul. I think it says that the inadequacies of our act today do not put forward a system, a model, that will ensure that there is confidence in the investigative process involving the police.

I think that that confidence is necessary not only from the victim's point of view, but it is also necessary, actually, for the larger community. I think we must work to rebuild trust in that system. I think we must rebuild credibility, as well, in the investigative process involving the police.

That, of course, is not the only case which has highlighted the need for a civilian model investigative process involving the police. Other cases have also come forward, and the most recent case, of course, was the Dziekanski case. People know about the history of that. It was shocking news as the information unfolded through, again, the inquiry that showed the problems with an internal investigative process. Even the chiefs of police themselves have now come forward to say that this is not a good enough model.

I was, in fact, hoping that Bill 7 would actually be updated with new provisions and, particularly, the provision that calls for civilian-based criminal investigation models where it involves the police.

The recommendations, of course, are in the Davies Commission. Recommendation No. 4 calls for British Columbia to "develop a civilian-based criminal investigation model for the investigation of police-related deaths occurring in the municipalities policed by the 11 municipal police departments."

I have to admit that I was disappointed with this piece of legislation because it lacks that very precise recommendation to bring forward a civilian-based model, which I think is sorely needed in British Columbia. We've had a number of cases that have highlighted that need. If we're to learn from the mistakes of the past, if we're going to, I think, honour the people whose lives were lost through mistreatment in such a way, we owe it to ourselves and owe it to the public that we make those amendments.

I'm hoping that maybe this will be forthcoming by the government side, that there will be an amendment to bring forward a civilian-based model, if not in this particular bill, perhaps in a new bill, a separate bill, that calls for that. The time has come and passed, I would say, for that to happen.

Let's honour the people, let's honour Frank Paul, and let's honour the victims and their families who have lost lives. Let's actually honour the police, as well, because it's unfair for them to have that cloud over them, where people sometimes question whether or not that investigative process is being done adequately, done fairly, in a manner that actually shows confidence for the public. I think that's unfair to the police as well.

[1510]

So you could actually have a win-win on this and also do the right thing on this by bringing forward a model that I think British Columbians desire — a model that would actually be fair and just for all.

R. Fleming: I want to make just a few comments on the bill at this stage of debate. I think on this side of the House, as my two colleagues who've spoken just now have mentioned, we will be supporting the bill. We are supporting reforms to oversight over complaints around police procedure, investigations and how discipline and proceedings occur in the province of British Columbia.

I think the member for Port Coquitlam put it well that what is being amended here today will make some important reforms in the process that we currently have today, in the powers that the independent Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner has and can use judiciously.

I think the member for Port Coquitlam put it well by saying that this bill should be seen as steps along the way — that there are other reforms that the province needs to undertake. He spent some time talking about the inclusion of the RCMP into a unified system of oversight for policing in B.C. and for citizens of British Columbia to have a congruent and similar complaint process, so that

[ Page 1467 ]

they can understand it better and access their complaints, when they have them, better than they currently can.

In the case of the RCMP, it has proven to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs to have the organization investigate its own misconduct. For municipal police forces, of course, one of the benefits we have is that there is an arm's-length and independent relationship in that regard, and that rulings and findings published by the Police Complaint Commissioner are published in that regard and published with a high degree of transparency, but also that he exercises discretion, as well, when there are reasons for findings or the dismissal of complaints when those are the recommendations made by the Police Complaint Commissioner.

I just want to say that in supporting this bill, the opposition looks forward to government introducing further amendments and reforms in the future — as the member for Port Coquitlam mentioned, in looking at 2012 and the potential renewal of the RCMP's contract with the province of B.C. — amendments to either the Police Act or voluntarily or contractually asking RCMP detachments, in their agreements with municipalities, to submit and work with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, to be included in the system that we have for those parts of British Columbia that are policed by municipal police forces.

I think that is a very good idea. We certainly have so many recent cases that would support that. I think there is a measure of dissatisfaction with the first self-investigation in the Dziekanski affair. There have been controversial shootings in cell and investigations conducted by the RCMP in the northern part of British Columbia in recent years. There are serious complaints around the use of excessive force and those kinds of things, where the complainants and the public have not been satisfied with an organization that polices itself.

I hope the Attorney General understands that. I think, just in debate today, he's been reminded of opportunities that are on the horizon to look at improving the system in that regard.

[1515]

I will take my place in this debate, in support of this bill, and put on the record that I think the most important aspect of Bill 7 is that those complaints that deal with officers who are no longer in the employment of police departments are complaints that can go forward, and that potential abuses by officers who may be under investigation, leaving the force or retiring before an investigation takes place…. That will not stop the Police Complaint Commissioner from having the ability to make an investigation and to complete an investigation.

I think that's something that's critically in the public interest, and for that reason primarily, I think Bill 7 deserves support from both sides of the House.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other members, minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the members that participated in the discussion, I am again obliged for the comments and the observations. It is actually helpful to garner an insight into some of the thoughts that members of the House have as it relates to both the bill in its specifics and some of the general areas surrounding the broad area of police complaints and the investigation of complaints that are brought against the police.

I was interested to hear about the interest that exists around a single unified police complaints process that would incorporate the RCMP. I think the member from Victoria who just spoke and his colleague, the Opposition House Leader and critic, are aware of the traditional hesitancy that the RCMP has had in exposing members to a provincially mandated investigative process.

That is not to say, however, that it is not something worth pursuing. We have heard several routes identified for possibly exploring that in the days and weeks ahead.

I did discern from the members that spoke a genuine interest in some other areas as well — some of which, to be fair, are not dealt with by these amendments to

part 9 of the act, which deals specifically with the powers and procedures of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Nonetheless, I have listened carefully to the interest that exists around the notions of civilian-based investigative bodies. I should like to provide to members this measure of assurance. I, for one, view legislation and statutes very much as living, breathing instruments that are in need of constant revisiting to take account of changed circumstances societally and the things that we learn through the course of proceedings and events that sometimes occur in society and around us.

Whilst I am not in a position to suggest that members should wait with bated breath for next week's subsequent round of amendments, I can say that these are issues that are engaging the attention of government. I am grateful to have learned this afternoon of the measure of support that exists for these provisions as they relate to

part 9 of the act and updating and overhauling the powers and procedures available to the Police Complaint Commissioner. I know that we will investigate and discuss in more detail the specific provisions of a fairly lengthy piece of legislation.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

[ Page 1468 ]

Bill 7, Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I will call Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009, and seek a brief recess while the Solicitor General reintroduces himself to these proceedings.

Deputy Speaker: This House will recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. K. Heed: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are important to improve the safety of British Columbians since they relate to the safety of all people who use the roads in our province.

It should be first remembered and underscored that road crashes are the number one cause of accidental death in British Columbia. Road crashes, on the average, kill 424 people each year in our province and injure thousands who require overnight hospitalization. In addition, thousands more experience other levels of injury, including chronic pain, disruption in life and injuries that change the way that they are able to function forever.

[1525]

Driver distraction is a major risk factor on our roads and is associated with at least 25 percent of these crashes. The use of electronic devices while driving is the number one cause of driver distraction and represents a problem that is growing every day, every month and every year.

It is estimated that driver distraction alone is associated with 117 deaths and 1,400 serious injuries each year in British Columbia. The impact of human trauma can be reduced through the right set of changes and measures in British Columbia.

The research on the use of hand-held electronic devices is conclusive. Talking on a hand-held cell phone carries a crash risk four times higher than non-distracted drivers. Drivers fail to process approximately 50 percent of the visual information in their driving environment when they are using electronic communication devices, and e-mailing or texting on hand-held electronic devices carries a crash risk 24 times higher than non-distracted driving.

Talking to passengers in the vehicle does not cause the same level of distraction. For example, the passenger is aware of the driving situation. The passenger can serve as an additional lookout for hazards on the road. The passenger can adjust speech tone and conversation to the driving environment.

Cell phone conversations suppress brain activity necessary for attention required for driving. There is evidence from peer-reviewed and replicated research to support these findings.

But there is more to it than academic research. Sadly, we have seen in our province firsthand what the results are. We have real-life stories, and more stories as we go on, of what can happen when drivers use an electronic device when driving. It has led to deaths and injuries.

Over the summer of 2009 British Columbians were consulted on the issue and were provided with a research report completed by the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles. The results were clear. Approximately 87 percent of the respondents support passing a new law to regulate the use of electronic devices while driving.

These amendments will define an electronic device as a hand-held cellular phone or other device with a telephone function as a hand-held device capable of sending or receiving e-mail. The amendments also provide regulation-making powers to define other classes of devices that may be dangerous to use while driving and require some type of limits or restrictions to be placed on them.

These changes will prohibit drivers from operating these electronic devices, talking on hand-held cellular phones and from sending e-mails or text messages while driving. The amendments will include exemptions for emergency personnel, that being police, fire and ambulance; a person calling 911 in an emergency; and a driver safely parked and off the roadway, not interfering with traffic.

With the exception of drivers in the graduated licensing program who are learning to drive — they're the ones that have the "L" or "N" — and where separate and related regulatory changes are planned, all other drivers will be allowed to use cellular phones in a full hands-free manner, as long as it is equipped and configured for that purpose.

Extending a hands-free prohibition to new drivers is important because learning to drive takes 100 percent of a new driver's attention and focus. In addition to that, new drivers are a high-risk age group with a road fatality rate approximately double that of any other driver. A combination of inexperience, a tendency toward greater risk-taking and a significantly higher-than-average use of electronic devices makes this group of drivers particularly vulnerable.

Regulation-making powers included in these amendments will ensure that other electronic devices that represent a danger on the road can be regulated.

[ Page 1469 ]

There remain a number of other electronic devices where their use may be allowed only by certain classes of drivers or only under certain conditions or with certain restrictions. Examples of these types of devices are hand-held music players, that being MP3 players; certain video screens, including GPS navigation screens; two-way radios used by commercial drivers; and mobile data terminals.

[1530]

Separate regulatory changes under the Motor Vehicle Act and the Offence Act will be made to create penalties for drivers who violate these new prohibitions. The proposed penalties will consist of a $167 fine for any violation by any driver related to an electronic device. In addition to the fine, three penalty points on the driver's licence of any driver who violates one of these restrictions and who is in the graduated licensing program.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

In addition to the fine, three penalty points on the driver's licence of any driver who sends or receives an e-mail or who engages in text messaging while driving.

These amendments also provide necessary regulation-making powers in order to further specify and regulate, over time, the use of new technologies while driving.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate on Bill 15, which deals with cell phone bans while driving, amongst other things. I think it's a very important piece of legislation. We're going to be supporting this particular bill.

It follows, I think…. We have raised this issue in the past. We think that the issue is a very serious public policy issue that needs to be addressed.

I want to touch on some of the minister's comments because I think there are some really important things here that have been raised. One is the issue around young drivers in particular. The other is the issue around distractions, because there are critics who don't think there should be any regulation, that existing rules are appropriate.

Frankly, I know that the government disagrees with that by introducing this legislation, and so do we. There are some very important points I want to make as to why that is the case.

Secondly, I think it's also important to make some comments around the issues of cell phone versus hands-free because, again, there are people who say that you should go the whole way and ban all of them. There are others who said that you don't. But I think this legislation does strike a good middle ground, and it's one that I think is also worth commenting on.

I also want to talk about the other important aspect of the bill, which is around technology. I think in many ways, even more than the cell phone issues in this bill, that is something that needs to be addressed because for many people, that is a real generational issue.

The issue around technology…. The growth of technology in the last decade has been phenomenal. I mean, when I first got elected to this House in 1991, nobody had a cell phone, or very few people had cell phones. If they did, they were big, bulky things that you had to strap on. They weren't practical.

I remember being in cabinet, and ministers were just then starting to get cell phones. Most people still did not use them, and that was ten years ago. Today you cannot function without them. They are literally glued to people's ears, and that is especially true of people under 30. Kids and teenagers now….

When you think back to when we were kids, most of us in this chamber, the idea when you were nine or ten of even using the family telephone was not something that was done. I mean, your parents regulated the use of the telephone very tightly. Now today you have nine- and ten-year-olds asking for a cell phone, and it's considered part of their daily…. Like it's a necessity.

So it is extremely important that we recognize this and recognize that if this is the way of the future — which it is; it's reality — then we need to ensure that when it comes to activities such as driving vehicles that require attention, concentration and paying attention to the road and those around you and the rules of the road, it is imperative that we teach kids that importance and that we instil in them early that, yes, cell phones, for example, and technology is a tool, and it's useful, but it's not to be done while you're driving on the road and you're supposed to be paying attention.

[1535]

I was in a car not too long ago with a young person, and they were driving. The next thing I know, they've got their BlackBerry, and they're trying to text while they're driving, and I am: "What the…do you think you're doing?"

I think all of you could complete that sentence very easily, and it would be very easy if it was one of your own kids doing it — right?

It's like: "What are you doing?" "Well, it's okay, I'm using…." "No — put that down right now. You are to be driving." If you want to use your BlackBerry, if you want to use your cell phone, pull over to the side of the road.

That's why I think those provisions in this bill are crucial, because it's BlackBerrys…. Not just for getting information like many of us use it and we check our e-mails, but kids today text with it constantly. It's like a phone, and they're constantly in communication with each other, talking to each other back and forth.

It's not just talking, but it's other things, such as sexting.

Some Hon. Members: What?

[ Page 1470 ]

M. Farnworth: Exactly. Exactly. There's a whole generational change on these issues. Sexting, for those who don't know…. I will leave it to the imagination. But just imagine involving….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Yes, but those are the types of uses that technology is used for and used for when driving. So we think of it just as e-mails, but it's a much broader range. That's on your BlackBerry. Your BlackBerry now has applications for videos. You can download and watch a video, a movie, on your BlackBerry. You can watch a YouTube video while you're driving. People do that. Kids do that today.

So it is important that we instil not just…. And that's where I think one of the steps that not just government but we as legislators need to remember — that we're introducing a law with specific focus on young people and not allowing them to use cell phones or hands-free while driving.

But we need to follow that up with an education program at early ages in the school. We need to ensure that we follow up this piece of legislation with programs that instil in kids at an early age that at some day, they're going to be driving. They're going to be 16, and they need to understand the proper use of technology. In many ways, it is an apt comparison to make the point that if you are not paying attention when you are driving, you are, in essence, using a loaded gun. We would not allow anybody without training, without a licence, without regulation, to be in that position.

So we have to make sure that we take that approach with our kids and young people, because I think that is crucial if we are to make this legislation work the way that I think we all want it to work. We want it to become force of habit in kids that when they drive that they know they don't use those devices. One of the things that I'm concerned about is that it's almost too late because once those habits are formed, they are very hard to break.

I also want to see the enforcement part on this particular bill stressed as well — that we do take it seriously. I think that we need to make sure that we have the education component to go along with this, that we have some resources at a very early age with kids — recognizing their introduction to technology comes at a far earlier age than technology did when we were younger.

For the adult population that's already driving and using cell phones, for too many people, the attitude is: "Hey, I'm fine." You know? I mean, how many of us have listened to talk radio and a person phones up, and this issue comes up: "Hey, it's great" — whatever the issue is — "Yeah, I'm on my cell phone. I'm doing the Coquihalla, and I'm doing 120K, and it's just fine, and I don't see why we need a ban."

[1540]

Well, they always say that until they're the ones in the accident. The statistics are clear. The statistics are clear on that point. Using a cell phone while driving dramatically increases the rate of accidents.

All of us have seen it, and probably most of us are guilty of having used a cell phone while driving. But I think every one of us can look around and can visualize the vehicle driving around the corner, yapping on the cell phone and not paying attention. Or the telltale sign of someone thinking they're paying attention while on the cell phone, which is sort of the braking, the speeding, the braking, the speeding. They think they're driving slowly, and they suddenly realize that people…. So they speed up, and then they slow down. That kind of behaviour happens all the time.

People BBMing, as they call it — BlackBerry messaging — and next thing you know, they're screeching to a stop before a stoplight. They suddenly see it's red. Meanwhile, they could have the vehicles right behind them piling up.

I mean, these things happen. People can say that they're the good driver. Everybody else is a bad driver, except themselves. Well, guess what. The stats are pretty clear. Hand-held cell phones increase the risk of accidents. And you know what? We need to stop that, and we need to move, I think, to a safer way of doing things.

Which brings me to the issue of hands-free. A lot of people say that hands-free is just as dangerous, but a lot of people don't. I think this represents…. I actually think that it is less likely to be in an accident, that it is safer. In many ways for many people, it is like talking. They are focused on the road.

I do think that one of the things that should take place — the minister has ICBC under his responsibility — is that ICBC does monitor, over the next number of years, the impact of the legislation so that we're able to see in British Columbia how this legislation impacts on the rate of accidents. Is there a change? Is there a difference between those drivers who are involved with hands-free versus hand-held cell phones?

I think that we need to be monitoring that so that if we need to make changes in the future, we're able to do that. But I think right now the key things that we want to do are to instil a culture of respect for the vehicle and install a culture of intelligent use around technology with young kids, prior to them getting a driver's licence.

The idea that people can somehow think that they can text and drive, at an age when you think you're invincible, is just insanity. It's nuts. I mean, I look back and think…. People say that it can't be done. Well, I believe it can be done because I look back to when I was 18, 19 in the late '70s….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: That was a long time ago. I think a lot of us….

[ Page 1471 ]

Hon. P. Bell: Did you have hair then?

M. Farnworth: As a matter of fact, I did have hair back then.

Hon. P. Bell: See, I didn't.

M. Farnworth: Oh, you didn't? You didn't? Okay. No, I did. I had hair back then.

Hon. P. Bell: How much?

M. Farnworth: Lots, actually.

My point is that back in the late '70s when I first started driving and my friends and I started going out, it was not uncommon — in fact, it was very common — for people to drink and drive. That happened on a regular basis. It happened on a regular basis. People drank and drove.

As we all know, the results of that are horrific and unbelievable tragedies. What came out of those years were organizations such as MADD, for example, and others like that and the drinking-and-driving awareness campaigns and the roadblocks. It was a combination of enforcement, of consequences and of resources into drinking-and-driving programs that changed attitudes.

[1545]

We've made significant process. We still have, on the issue of drinking and driving, a lot to do. There are still people who do that. But if you look back to 30 years ago…. I look back to 30 years ago when it was commonplace. Most people did not…. You know, it was get into the car — they've been out for a night in the bar and the pub — and then drive somewhere else. It was far too common.

Today what I notice what is the norm is that you've got a designated driver. You have in bars and pubs, for example, that if a designated driver is drinking pop or soda, they can drink that all night, and they don't have to pay for it. When a group of friends goes out, there's someone who's going to make sure they drive them home. That's the norm; that's accepted.

The idea of drinking and driving is frowned upon. It's like smoking. It was the norm in the '60s. It's not anymore. That is why I think that the real focus on this bill is not that we are banning cell phone use amongst the adult population and leaving that hands-free option open, but that we are saying no to the young driver — no to cell phones, no to hands-free. We are sending a message that the use of technology while driving is not acceptable.

I want to stress once more before I take my seat that this will only work if we attach resources to programs that instil — and we make it unacceptable to kids to use technology while driving — that a vehicle needs to be driven safely. It needs to be driven with your full attention and not through distractions.

That's a huge difference between what people sometimes say, which is: "You don't need that because we've got laws, and people put their makeup on. Have a law about that. People put their lipstick on. Have a law about that. People put their brush on. Have a law about that."

That's a red herring. That's not the issue. Most people do those things before they get into a vehicle. There's a small minority that don't. They're idiots. The real issue is that we have a cultural change around technology the likes of which we have never seen, and we need to recognize that.

This piece of legislation, I think, is key. As I said, if it's resourced with the proper programs, then we can make an important cultural change and instil in kids coming up an understanding of the responsibilities of driving. If we don't do that, if we let it get away from us, then we will see skyrocketing accidents on the road. Not only is that a human tragedy; it's an economic tragedy. That's why I think that all of us need to support this particular piece of legislation, because it is far more important than many people realize.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nanaimo-Parksville.

R. Cantelon: I'm certainly pleased, and I'm sure members on this side of the House are very pleased, to hear that both sides of the House will be supporting this legislation 100 percent. I think it's very important. As the member for Port Coquitlam had mentioned, this really is a cultural shift that we're requesting of the population. It hasn't been so long ago that everyone began to use cell phones, and then they started to use them in cars, and so on and so forth.

I'm a little perplexed by one issue that's new to me, and I have a 14-year-old daughter and a 17-year-old son. It's this sexting phenomenon, which he alluded to. I would like further information about that. Perhaps we can discuss it in the corridors following.

Interjections.

R. Cantelon: Yes, I'm afraid I may not want to hear everything, but it's true. It's ubiquitous now. Every family has not one cell phone; they have several cell phones. As many people as there are in the house, they all have a cell phone, and it has become very common.

I think it's something we all instinctively know, intuitively know, and the public is telling us overwhelmingly that they know this is an unsafe practice that must be abolished and changed. It will, I think, to speed this change and make it acceptable, require the weight of the endorsement of both sides of the House, which I now hear it's going to receive.

[1550]

I think everyone has encountered one of those "oh my dear" moments, those "whoops" moments, where they

[ Page 1472 ]

encounter someone making a wrong turn with a cell phone on the ear. I can think of many moments where I see someone going around an intersection and, all of a sudden, with a moment of terror, looking around, realizing where they are and what they're doing — with a cell phone on their ear.

I think most distressing is — well, they're all distressing, but particularly — when you see an adult with children in the back seat. I think to myself: "What is this person thinking, risking the lives of their children, driving with a cell phone plugged to their ear?"

It's compulsory because it's become culturally acceptable. It's become the norm to use a cell phone, for example, in business as well.

I think the member opposite's comments regarding children are perfectly valid. We need to give particular emphasis, as this bill does, to new drivers to not allow even hands-free during the first periods of their driving career to get used to not using it at all, and perhaps that will become the norm.

But what also has become the norm are people who are busy in the office and leave the office or the workplace or the construction site, and they've got a few phone calls to make. Instead of staying where they are and making those few phone calls or driving to their home and making those phone calls, the norm now is that they make the phone calls from what's typically a large 4-by-4 vehicle.

It's not uncommon, as I drive back home through the Malahat, that you see these cars in and out of the traffic lanes making those extra phone calls. I don't question the importance of these phone calls. They're business calls that they're making, and they need to communicate with somebody. But we're saying to them now: "Park the truck, park the car, or wait till you get home to make those calls."

We are going to make a cultural shift. I think it's important that we do this, and it's important that both sides of the House do it. It's something we all know. Both sides of the House intuitively know it's the right idea. Our public has told us it's the right idea, and I'm certainly happy to endorse the member for Port Coquitlam's comments as well as this side of the House in supporting this bill unanimously.

Deputy Speaker: I have to apologize. You are the member for Parksville-Qualicum now, not Nanaimo-Parksville.

R. Fleming: I am pleased to rise and add some comments to Bill 15 at this stage of debate. I think it is good legislation. It is legislation that is long overdue, and it is legislation that on a previous occasion…. This morning when the opposition House Leader was speaking, he suggested that he can count on one hand the number of times where the government and the opposition have collaborated on legislation like this that we have before us today. He then listed a few more examples than five.

I think this is legislation that is long overdue. It's legislation that already exists in a number of other provinces, a number of states to the south of us.

I think it's particularly gratifying, sitting on this side of the House, to see government picking up on an idea that was introduced in the last parliament by the opposition. At that time, when the opposition proposed it — and it was our Attorney General critic at the time, the member for Nanaimo — even then, B.C. still would have been following the lead of a couple of other provinces.

Since then, passage of this kind of legislation in other provinces has occurred as well. Newfoundland and Labrador is one that comes to mind — Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec. But nevertheless, it is gratifying when government takes an idea from the opposition.

I have had this experience myself with regards to payday lending. In the last parliament this side of the House talked for a couple of years about the fact that we had a massive area of financial services that was completely unregulated that many vulnerable British Columbians had no choice but to access as part of their daily lives.

[1555]

That was certainly an issue of major public significance which the government and the Solicitor General of the day rejected taking action on, felt that the unregulated payday-lending industry was just fine.

But I think, with a record of jurisprudence and class action suits and Supreme Court decisions that payday lenders were illegally gouging hard-working British Columbians across B.C., government eventually came to its senses and introduced a framework, a skeleton of some regulatory oversight by the province and some requirements for background checks, for example, and penalties and measures and sanctions that could be taken by government when payday lenders were out of control and ripping off British Columbians.

That was a good example. It came late, but it was a good example where the government picked up on an opposition idea and turned it into legislation and law. That's exactly what we're talking about here this afternoon. We do not require, I don't think, for passage of this bill in this session, any more examples of the dangers and risks that drivers who operate hand-held cell phones while driving pose to the public.

Anybody who is involved as a first responder on accident scenes in British Columbia, any family member of somebody who has been killed or severely injured in an accident where a contributing cause was the use of a cell phone while somebody operated the vehicle, or a pedestrian who was hit by a driver using a cell phone can attest to the loss of life and limb that occurs in British Columbia from this practice.

I heard the member for Nanaimo-Parksville say this not in exactly these words, but he basically said that this

[ Page 1473 ]

is where legislation has not kept up with the pace of technology. That may be true. I mean, cell phones have been in popular use for maybe a decade and a half. They used to be quite large, the early models. But this observation and records of accidents kept by law enforcement, by our courts and by hospitals and emergency staff tell the full story.

There are so many tragic individual cases that I can think of in the region that I represent where people have had their lives permanently altered by deadly or severe accidents where the use of a cell phone was a contributing cause. It has taken this government some time to come around on this, but I think they can at least know with confidence that they have all of the scientific evidence, all of the studies and research, the weight of that, behind them in introducing this bill.

There are a number of studies that have been done. There was one, which I think was probably most convincing because of the scope of the study, done in Ontario that showed that a driver is four times likelier to have an accident while operating a cell phone. I mean, that is pretty convincing evidence that came out of the University of Toronto, which has not been contested.

I think it's significant, too, that if one looks at the support that this bill has outside of the House today…. We have to look at organizations that represent motorists that are also calling for this.

The Canadian Automobile Association, which advocates for road conditions and the road infrastructure investments and provides its members all kinds of benefits that basically encourage the use of the car for travelling and mobility, are an advocacy organization for drivers and generally favour, I think it's fair to say, in most instances, less regulation in terms of layering on new rules of the road. They have come around as one of the major supporters and sponsors of this type of legislation in other provinces.

[1600]

My colleague from Port Coquitlam mentioned Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I mean, this is an issue that is not particular to the deadly activity of people who drive while under the influence of alcohol, but they recognize, without diminishing the very tough laws that we have developed over time in that area, that this is something that is very much related to supporting life safety on our roads.

They recognize that driving with distractions like cell phones is just as deadly. Those organizations and others have been urging governments like this one for a number of years to take action. So we're pleased on this side of the House that government has gotten around to it, that in the main this bill conforms with legislation that already exists and is being enforced in other parts of Canada quite successfully.

I think that it's a recognition, really, I suppose, that although it is common sense that you shouldn't drive while distracted with a cell phone in your hand, life-saving legislation like this is also the acknowledgment that sometimes it's the role of government to legislate common sense, because not everybody follows that. Not everybody thinks that it applies to them.

A lot of people think that they have extraordinary powers of concentration, different from Joe or Jane Public, that maybe allow them to operate a vehicle somewhat more safely with a cell phone in their hand than another person. Well, those are the kinds of rationales that people use in their daily lives to buck against common sense. But this is a law that will be the same for everybody.

I think this is a law that has incorporated commonsense principles that are popularly received and has also been reasonably thoughtful in anticipating where exceptions might be made. There's no quarrelling, of course, with people who do use a hand-held cell phone for 911 calls in emergency situations. Nobody will be penalized or fined for doing so. People who do the right thing and pull over on the road and park and operate a cell phone, similarly, will be allowed to do so — and encouraged to, really, by this law.

We've looked at the bill. There will be some debate, I suppose, at committee stage on how some of the clauses were arrived at and what legal advice was used to determine the wording in the legislation, but for the most part, I think this bill has captured almost all of the situations where there are acceptable uses and has made a very clear distinction where there will be a prohibition on using cell phones while driving.

I think that when it comes to the exemption around hands-free devices, this may have an economic benefit that we haven't anticipated or quantified. I expect a lot of people will be purchasing that kind of equipment where they don't have them in their cars now, because they will want to use voice-activated devices that are hands-free and make calls.

That's fine, but I think the legislation gets it right where it says young drivers who are in the various stages of the graduated licensing program will not be permitted to do so. I think that's a smart and valid recognition that these are people that have not accumulated significant experience on the road and should be graduated into that provision of the law later, when they complete their licensing requirements. That's common sense.

[1605]

Not every province, of course, has a graduated licensing system, so this is somewhat unique to B.C.

There is some controversy and some research that suggests that even the hands-free Bluetooth and other voice-activated programs still distract drivers to a significant degree, and some contest that they are, in fact, no safer than removing a hand from the wheel, leaving one to steer the vehicle. However, I think there's a mix of opinions.

I do note, too, that most organizations and researchers that would favour legislation that was more comprehensive in this regard still acknowledge that what we are

[ Page 1474 ]

debating here today and what already exists in a number of other provinces is really the critically important step to take to improve road safety and to stop carnage on the road.

I think that may be a debate we will have at a later time. I think there will be more research into that contention over the coming months and years, but it certainly strengthens the argument for those who do have that position — who favour a total ban of communicating with cell phones, period, full stop. It probably puts them in a stronger position to make that argument when you already have a legal recognition that there is danger posed by operating the device in this manner, which is going to be proscribed now, and one that is similar. So they'll take some comfort in that.

I look at some of the anticipation and support for this legislation that has been recently gathered in B.C. I think it's worth mentioning that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police is giving this legislation two thumbs up. They have long advocated for it. They see it as a pretty critically important enforcement tool to create safer roads and to reduce, frankly, using police resources to attend to deadly accident scenes and use them for better purposes in the realm of public safety. I think that is an important voice to acknowledge which has entered the debate.

I think it's interesting, too, that our largest telecommunications provider in the province and in western Canada, Telus, is supporting the legislation. They made some comments on the radio yesterday, I believe. Even though this is an organization that has an economic interest, I suppose, in racking up as many used minutes and costs-per-text to send their customers, they recognize that this puts into legislation what, as corporate social responsibility policy, already exists for them as a company. They're supporting legislated solutions to the dangers posed by operating cell phones while driving.

There are some questions around how the fines were arrived at. I know that justices of the court have input over that and can revise those. B.C. did choose to sort of be in the middle of the pack in terms of where fines are at. It's important, I guess, to get it right on — what fine levels are — because that is the deterrent. A number of years ago speeding tickets on municipal roads and highways across British Columbia were raised significantly. I can't remember whether it was doubled or tripled. That did slow people down.

What is important, though, is that there be a presence on the roads. First of all, there will be a huge word-of-mouth factor when this legislation comes into existence and when the first tickets are handed out for people who continue to drive and operate a cell phone. That will travel far and wide. I suppose some people will try and contest those. It will be interesting to see trial lawyers conduct defences and test the courts on enforcement.

The point is that just as it is for drinking and driving…. The deterrent to drinking and driving is the risk of being caught. That means that there are road checks and those kinds of things.

[1610]

A number of years ago the funding arrangement where ICBC used to fund CounterAttack programs was changed by this government, and the presence on the road declined. Now, I think municipal police forces and others have been able to build that back up to some degree, but most police forces will tell you that they would like more capacity, that they would like levels to come back to where they once were. They would like to have access to ICBC as a major partner in funding that. I think that is good public policy.

The same principle stands for this bill when it becomes law. Enforcement is critical. The risk of being caught is critical. I thought it would be quite funny if drivers were reporting on each other, and police would follow up on it. I suppose the hands-free drivers using the new gear could phone in the people still using the hand-held devices and help police in that regard to enforce this. I'm sure that will happen.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Or by snail mail.

The other exemptions that are obviously commonsense that are part of legislation — that I think we would all call long-overdue common sense — are around occupations where a call like this…. Those working in various professions can continue to do that. Those would be peace officers, paramedics driving an ambulance, fire service personnel. I think those are the occupations that are specifically exempted to be able to use that technology.

I think, in looking forward to comments from other members, we probably all have…. As constituency-based MLAs, as community members, as people with extended families and networks of friends, we can all think of examples where there have been unnecessary and tragic consequences of the proliferation of the use of cell phones while driving.

I think legislators can feel good about voting for this bill. When people come into our offices and ask why nothing has been done…. In finally achieving the legislation, it doesn't matter, really, that it's a year and a half after the previous parliament could have considered it. But it is being achieved, and British Columbia is joining the growing and now majority of provinces that have this bill, that have legislation like this.

So we can say that we have taken action on what the public has demanded for some time, and that's important in terms of people's confidence that ideas, even when their time has come, can be put into law, can be enforced properly and can be done because it's the right thing to do. For too long there have been too many lives lost by

[ Page 1475 ]

failing to have this legislation and by failing to create a better culture of safety on our roads, tolerating situations that have grown intolerable.

I hope, too, that there may be — and this will be for MLAs in the Metro Vancouver area — an added side benefit to this legislation coming into being. I can't speak to this as a greater Victoria member where congestion is very low and where transportation planning is very successful.

But in Metro Vancouver, where people tend to make very long commutes in very congested areas, and where the phenomenon of road rage has been documented as almost a disorder that people fall into — that exorcising of stress — people think that trying to do things in their daily lives like making calls and conducting business in the way they've been doing on the road relieves some of that stress and anxiety and the time pressures they have in their daily lives.

[1615]

I think, as an added side benefit, drivers in Metro Vancouver — and everywhere in British Columbia, for that matter — will actually learn to enjoy the road, feel better about arriving safer, be less distracted, less harried, less stressed out, quite frankly. Maybe that will reduce some of the manifestations of road rage that get pretty bizarre that have been documented out there. Let's hope that's an unintended but related benefit to this law.

I do look forward to asking a couple of questions about how B.C. did arrive, as I mentioned earlier, at the fine

schedule that is being proposed here. I did note that the province of Ontario passed a version of this law earlier this year. It will take effect next week.

They have a

schedule of fines that starts at $500. Now, $500 will really cause people to stand up and take notice or put their phone down and sit in their car properly and drive safely. We have a fine

schedule of $167 proposed. So that's almost three times lower than the starting rate for fines in Ontario.

I would look forward to the Solicitor General commenting on what advice he received and sought at arriving at that number. Most provinces have implemented or are implementing fines that are more significant than what's proposed here in B.C. I haven't heard in the public record or anywhere else from the Solicitor General or any member on the government side who had a hand in writing this legislation why they chose that particular number.

Coming back to the main elements of the bill, I think what the opposition appreciates is that government, first of all, has finally introduced this legislation. I think nobody appreciates that more than the member for Nanaimo who, as the Attorney General critic, first proposed it.

I think that the government has got it right on all of the major elements of this bill in terms of introducing it, in terms of crafting exemptions that make sense around emergency personnel — exemptions that the courts could have had to interpret in a bizarre way; exemptions that allow people to do the right thing in terms of pulling over and using a cell phone safely and also using it in any situation where an emergency call must be made. Those are well-crafted parts of the bill.

The other one that I mentioned earlier, I think, is around the graduated licensing system. I realize that government would have had to make a choice in coming down on one side or the other. I think, by putting a restriction on the hands-free device exemption for drivers who are learning how to operate a vehicle safely, they came down on the right side of that.

Those elements of the bill are critical. They're ones that I support and this side of the House supports.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the time this afternoon to rise and take

part in this debate.

R. Howard: It's a pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of this bill. I would like to first, I think, thank the Solicitor General for bringing this forward in a timely fashion.

You know, the member for Port Coquitlam took us on a bit of a trip down memory lane, and it got me to thinking how much things have changed. Growing up, at my house, we had a party line. We had to wait for our neighbours to get off the phone so we could place a phone call. Richmond had all of two exchanges at the time. I still recall Browning 7 and Crestwood 8 were the only two exchanges