2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 13, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Peter Culley

A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Statements

Campbell River Storm hockey team

C. Trevena

Hockeyville

G. Holman

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Message of appreciation and Healthy Heart program

J. Yap

Cancer awareness and Daffodil Month

J. Darcy

Cancer awareness and Canadian Cancer Society

L. Throness

Autism awareness

S. Fraser

Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms

E. Foster

Stadium at Victoria High School

C. James

Oral Questions

Oil spill response

J. Horgan

Hon. M. Polak

S. Chandra Herbert

Oil spill response and emergency management B.C.

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. Polak

St. Paul’s Hospital redevelopment and emergency services in West End

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Status of Mount Saint Joseph Hospital

J. Kwan

Hon. T. Lake

S. Simpson

Child death case and access to information

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Integrated Case Management System , March 2015

Petitions

N. Simons

D. Routley

S. Hamilton

C. Trevena

D. Bing

J. Darcy

A. Weaver

Tabling Documents

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2014

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2013-2014

British Columbia Justice and Public Safety Council, strategic plan for the justice and public safety sector, April 2015-March 2018, annual update, March 2015

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015 (continued)

Hon. S. Anton

M. Farnworth

N. Simons

L. Krog

B. Ralston

V. Huntington

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Anton

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 (continued)

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

V. Huntington

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

Hon. P. Fassbender

R. Fleming

[ Page 7085 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it is my pleasure to welcome a visiting Table Officer. Assisting the House at the table as a sessional Law Clerk for the remainder of the spring sitting is Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC. Lori served as the Chief Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick from 1993 to 2011, having been appointed Clerk Assistant in 1985.

Lori holds degrees in nursing and law and is a member of the Law Society of New Brunswick and the Canadian Bar Association. Please join me in welcoming Lori to British Columbia and the B.C. Table.

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining us in the members’ gallery this afternoon is the ambassador of Qatar, His Excellency Fahad Mohamed Yousuf Kafoud. His Excellency met with me as well as other members of this House today to discuss increasing bilateral trade, investment opportunities for the Qatari companies, wider participation for B.C. companies in large infrastructure projects in Qatar and how to encourage more interaction with Qatari institutes in the field of education, health and innovation.

We’re very pleased that the ambassador has chosen to visit us in B.C. at this time. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. Farnworth: From this side of the House, we would like to extend a very warm welcome to the member for Richmond-Steveston.

It’s great to see you here back here in the House and in good health. From this side of the House, congratulations and welcome back.

[1335]

R. Sultan: Let me add to that how great it is to see my old pal John Yap sitting in front of me. Thank you, John.

But I really stood to, in addition, acknowledge, as members on both sides of the House have already had the opportunity to meet, representatives of ACEC-BC. ACEC-BC, for the uninitiated, stands for the Association of Consulting Engineers of British Columbia.

Four members, in particular, are in the galleries today, beginning with Catherine Fritter, the chair, with the consulting firm of Moffatt and Nichol, which is a multidisciplinary team of marine engineers who will build your dock facilities for you anywhere you wish. Also, Ken Wiecke of Amec Foster Wheeler. Amec Foster Wheeler is one of only six consulting engineering companies in the world capable of designing and overseeing the construction of an LNG facility.

In addition, we have Cameron Gatey of Urban Systems Ltd. When the traffic plugs up at Marine Drive and Taylor Way, as it does quite frequently, you call on Urban Systems up in Kelowna, and hopefully, they’ll straighten it out with some fancy new system.

Finally, Keith Sashaw, is the president and CEO of ACEC-B.C., which represents 82 engineering firms, 10,000 employees, 3,500 professional engineers and annual billings of $3.8 billion — 30 percent offshore.

Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Corrigan: I have a few introductions to make today. First of all, I would like to also welcome the members of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of British Columbia. As the proud daughter of a father who was a consulting engineer, when I spent my summers going and looking at copper dams and turbines as my summer holidays, I’ve grown a great appreciation for the men and women who do the work of building this province. I appreciate that we were hosted today for a lunch and got a chance to talk to the many members.

I’m particularly pleased that one of those members was past president of the association, my longtime friend Doug Hinton. Doug has been a close friend of me and my husband, Derek Corrigan, for almost — need I say it? — 40 years.

If we could make both of those groups welcome. Then I have one more introduction as well.

Finally, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome in the House today one of my constituency assistants, Cate Jones, who is not only a fabulous constituency assistant; she’s got a great sense of humour, and she’s a very good friend. Would you please make her welcome as well.

L. Throness: We all know what great work the Canadian Cancer Society does, through its network of volunteers, raising money for research and awareness and support. Some members of the society are here today. I’d like to introduce Brian LeFurgey, who is regional director for Vancouver Island; Lyz Gilgunn, who’s a health promotion coordinator; and Jenny Byford, who is also a health promotion coordinator. Would the House make them very welcome.

L. Krog: This constituent has been coming so often, I think she might as well just run for office, actually. I’d like the House to welcome Avery Valerio here again — this bright student from Nanaimo, who’s going to sit in this place some day, I’m sure.

J. Thornthwaite: In the legislative buildings today are some professors from New Brunswick, Dr. Bill Morrison and Dr. Patricia Peterson, who came to present the inte-

[ Page 7086 ]

grated service delivery model from New Brunswick for child and youth with mental health issues. They came to present to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth this morning, and they’re seeing other MLAs and ministers this afternoon. I just wanted the House to make sure that they have a warm welcome.

Thank you very much for travelling all the way from New Brunswick.

C. James: In the gallery today I have two guests from my constituency, two very important people in my life. The first guest really blazed the way as a long-serving nurse practitioner in our province, and made the way for many others to follow. She has since retired, much to the disappointment of my family and others who used her as our primary caregiver.

[1340]

She has not slowed down in her retirement — no surprise to anyone who knows her. She’s involved in the Victoria High School Alumni Association as a volunteer archivist, and she is also my amazing stepmom, Annie Boldt.

With Annie is one of the most important people in my life, my role model, one of the most generous, kind, caring people I know, my dad Lorne DeGirolomo.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Hamilton: Visiting us in the Legislature today are a number of students, some 60 of them, from Burnsview Secondary School in my riding — the grade 11 social studies class and their teachers. Among them were seven specifically who I’d like to name, who attended my office last week to discuss issues of mutual concern — seven very bright, inspiring and articulate young people. First of all, Jeffrey Qi, Ruth-Ann Chau, Olivia Huang, Nicholas Kidd, Thea Copeman-Haynes, Ayesha Rehan and Hannah Smith.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

S. Simpson: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake earlier introduced her constituency assistant. I’m sure that she’s very good at that job, but she’s also very good at the job of being a partner. So let me introduce my wife, Cate Jones.

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome nine constituents from the lovely island of Gabriola. These folks are here to see a petition presented that they’ve collected, opposing any consideration of a bridge connecting Gabriola Island to Vancouver Island, Nanaimo.

They are Heather Nicholas. She’s the Gabriola trustee of the Islands Trust, which has as official policy a position against bridges connecting to the mainland or Vancouver Island. We have Howard Houle, the director of area B of the regional district of Nanaimo, which are also signatories with Gabriolans on an official community plan opposing bridges.

Sheila Malcolmson, the federal NDP candidate for Nanaimo-Ladysmith and the former, longtime Islands Trust rep and chair of the Islands Trust. Chris Bowers, the irrepressible former editor of the paper on Gabriola. Jacinthe Eastick, who can be found active in any worthy purpose or issue on Gabriola. There’s Veronica Hardman. And Steve O’Neil and Leaf Kotasek, who were instrumental in organizing the petition drive, as well as Penny Sidor.

Can the House help me make welcome these folks, who have made “Salish Sea” bumper stickers for their cause on Gabriola Island.

Tributes

PETER CULLEY

A. Dix: I rise today to note the passing of Peter Culley, one of British Columbia and Canada’s most remarkable poets, writers and visual artists. Peter passed away in Nanaimo — or more particularly, as he would say, in the former coal-mining town at South Wellington — last Friday at the age of 57.

Peter Culley’s work evoked the lives of working people and communities, both full of heart and social and political context. He was an innovator in form and unafraid to challenge conventional norms or be underappreciated in his time. He was always generous in his support of other writers in the community.

His Hammertown trilogy breathes life into a city resembling Nanaimo and a province resembling B.C. The best way to mark his passing is to pick up these three books — Hammertown , The Age of Briggs and Stratton and Parkway — and be challenged and inspired.

I know that members of the House will join me in sending our thoughts and best wishes to Daphne, Peter’s children and grandchildren.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today is one of my constituency assistants, Jarrett Hagglund. Jarrett loves to come and observe question period. Jarrett keeps the office running, and I’m often stopped by constituents who want to make a point of telling me just what a great job he did in helping them. If I’m ever in the office in a bad mood, Jarrett’s other talents as a stand-up comedian help to lift my spirits.

Joining Jarrett in the gallery, with us today, is his partner, Zach Sapers. I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Zach because he’s volunteered on a number of occasions with some of the community forums that we’ve put on through my constituency office. Zach also puts many people to shame in the area of public service. He’s been active politically as a New Democrat since the age of 14.

[1345]

I’d also like to note that Jarrett and Zach will be get-

[ Page 7087 ]

ting married on June 20. It’s going to be a great celebration. Some people are invited, but everybody apparently is invited to the after-party at Heritage Hall sometime around 9 p.m. onwards.

Will the House please join me in making Zach and Jarrett very, very welcome and wishing them a very happy life together.

Statements

CAMPBELL RIVER STORM HOCKEY TEAM

C. Trevena: While many eyes in B.C. are going to be on the Stanley Cup playoffs that are starting this week, Campbell River hockey fans are looking to Alberta because the Campbell River Storm, Vancouver Island Junior Hockey League champions, hope to be the first Island team to win the Keystone Cup.

Their record is great, including a four-game sweep against the Victoria Cougars, followed by an undefeated run at the Cyclone Taylor Cup provincial championship in Mission. They’ve got five games in three days coming up at the end of the week. Campbell River, the Island and, I hope, all of B.C. will support the Campbell River Storm. Go, Storm, go!

HOCKEYVILLE

G. Holman: There’s only one town in all of Canada that can declare themselves as Hockeyville, Canada, and this year it’s the Saanich Peninsula Panorama Recreation Centre. Just quickly, I want to thank very much Jason Fletcher, who put in the original nomination — by the way, there were 1,000 communities who applied for Hockeyville in Canada — Wayne Ruffle, the chair of the Panorama Rec Centre; and the staff and countless volunteers who worked on the campaign.

The hockey game between the Canucks and the San Jose Sharks is September 15. If you’re nice, possibly we can get tickets for some of the colleagues here in the House.

I do want to thank all the colleagues in the House for putting the word out, for voting and, particularly, the member for Peace River South, who was so gracious in supporting the Panorama Rec Centre for this great honour. Congratulations to the community, to the volunteers, and thanks to all of my colleagues here.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

AND HEALTHY HEART PROGRAM

J. Yap: It’s great to be back. I want to thank you and all members of this House for the get-well wishes, kind thoughts, messages, fruit baskets and other tokens which no doubt had a role in my recovery.

What also helped was the Healthy Heart program at Richmond Hospital, where I learned about healthy eating, reducing risk factors and the importance of exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle. Healthy Heart is an evidence-informed program based on the Canadian guidelines for cardiac rehabilitation and cardiovascular prevention. It’s offered at various locations around the province.

Patients are referred by their physician and receive an individual cardiac assessment and monitoring throughout the program. Participants are adults at risk of developing heart disease or who have experienced a cardiac event such as heart attack, bypass surgery, angiogram, angioplasty or other cardiac conditions. The classes cover topics such as healthy nutrition, cholesterol, medication, managing stress, emotional wellness and meditation, which I found quite interesting.

For me, learning from the other participants was invaluable, with all of us bringing different perspectives, life experiences and knowledge, yet sharing the common bond of being cardiac patients. I’d like to thank the interdisciplinary program team of the Joan Prescesky, RN, the coordinator; Karen Tyldesley, registered dietitian; Rishma Dhalla, occupational therapist; Emily Chou, physiotherapist; Fiona Odum, tireless volunteer; and Dr. Andrew Jakubowski, cardiologist, and the program’s medical director.

I recommend that all members learn about the Healthy Heart program for themselves, for their families, to share with friends and constituents. It’s an avenue to a heart-healthy life, something I personally appreciate more so today than I ever did when I was last present in this House.

[1350]

CANCER AWARENESS AND DAFFODIL MONTH

J. Darcy: At this time of year we see daffodils blooming everywhere around us. They tell us that springtime has arrived. They’re a symbol of rebirth and hope. That’s why April is Daffodil Month, a time to support people living with cancer, a time to commit to preventing and finding cures for cancer.

We have all had family members or loved ones speak the words: “I have cancer.” In some cases we have heard the dreaded words, “You have cancer,” ourselves. They are words that no one ever wants to hear, but 24,000 British Columbians will hear those words this year, and 9,900 of them will die from cancer.

When families are facing cancer, they need the best cancer treatment available. But they also need somewhere to turn for help to cope with the disease, and that’s what Daffodil Month is all about. It’s about supporting the excellent work of the Canadian Cancer Society so that it can support individuals and families dealing with cancer. Whether it’s talking to a trained cancer information specialist or connecting with someone who’s had

[ Page 7088 ]

a similar experience or for kids with cancer attending Camp Good Times, where they get to just be normal kids, Daffodil Month is about supporting these and countless other services provided by the Canadian Cancer Society.

It’s also about funding world-class research in order to find cures for cancer, and very importantly, Daffodil Month is about contributing to research and programs to prevent cancer. Whether it’s about reducing smoking, access to healthy and nutritious food, reducing exposure to workplace toxic substances or toxic substances in the environment or tackling the social determinants of health, cancer prevention is a major focus of the Canadian Cancer Society and Daffodil Month.

When you see Canadian Cancer Society volunteers when you’re out and about in your community this month, stop and talk to them, donate, buy some daffodils and wear your bright yellow daffodil wherever you go.

CANCER AWARENESS AND

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY

L. Throness: I’d like to echo my colleague’s comments about the Canadian Cancer Society by talking about them for a moment. All British Columbians are touched in some way by the reality of cancer. Both of my own parents died of this disease, and many of us in this place have similar stories.

But there are strong allies in the fight against cancer too. Canada’s largest national health charity, the Canadian Cancer Society, is one of them. The Canadian Cancer Society is the largest charitable funder of cancer research in Canada, investing more than $1 billion in research in its 77-year history, $45 million poured into research just last year. This kind of investment has led to breakthroughs revolutionizing the way cancer is diagnosed, treated and prevented.

The society also empowers Canadians by providing free information and support services to people facing cancer and their families. For example, since 1996 their cancer information service has helped more than one million Canadians with their cancer-related questions — 85,000 in 2014 alone.

I met recently with Ann Marie Walsh of the Canadian Cancer Society to discuss ways to prevent cancer, such as our ban on e-cigarettes for children and restricting smoking on health institution property. I’m proud that our government can be part of the solution.

We’d like to thank the society and its hundreds of volunteers throughout our province, often motivated by their own personal experiences, who come alongside in practical ways to bring empathy, hope and healing to people suffering with cancer.

In recognition of the work of the society, the government has proclaimed April as Daffodil Month. This is not only a fundraising campaign. The daffodil is a bright symbol of joy and optimism, letting people know that they are not alone in their struggle and affirming our conviction that cancer can be beaten.

AUTISM AWARENESS

S. Fraser: World Autism Awareness Day was April 2. I will quote from the proclamation entitled Creating a Secure Future for Those With Autism :

“Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, is a lifelong neurological disability that significantly affects communication, social skills and behaviour that compromises quality of life for individuals with autism spectrum and their families.

“This month 80 children will be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in British Columbia. That’s one in every 68 newborns. There is no known cause or cure for autism, but effective, science-based treatment known as applied behaviour analysis, or ABA, can significantly improve the outcomes for individuals living with autism.

[1355]

“ABA can be used to teach and support individuals with autism at home, at school and in the community. The Autism Support Network society serving British Columbia is a leading autism support organization committed to providing resources to families of those with ASD, including information, education and improved access to quality, scientifically proven autism treatment.

“As a community, we benefit when our citizens with autism succeed. We have an obligation to ensure that our health care, education and community support services work for them. For example, we want to support our first responders and law enforcement personnel in further understanding the wide variety of behaviours that individuals with ASD can exhibit in emergency situations.

“For World Autism Awareness Day, we offer them our support, respect and commitment to improving access to all aspects of our community. We encourage all of our citizens to learn more about autism and what they can do to create a secure future, for individuals on this spectrum and their families, where everyone has a chance to reach their full potential.”

Wise words for all of us.

OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

E. Foster: April marks the 600th anniversary of the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms. I’m sure that our Sergeant has times, especially at the end of the season, when he probably feels that old.

This is a very historic parliamentary office steeped in the traditions of parliament itself. In 1279 the office consisted of men whose duty it was to protect the king and, at his instructions, to make arrests and hold those arrested for trial. The Sergeant-at-Arms’ signature weapon of the period was what we now refer to as the mace. As parliament evolved, the mace became known as the authority of the Crown, which we observe today as the sergeant, carrying the mace, leads the Speaker’s procession into the chamber at the beginning of each sitting.

Six hundred years ago, in 1415, King Henry V appointed one of his sergeants, Nicholas Maudit, to serve as the first Sergeant-at-Arms for the House of Commons at Westminster. Where originally the Sergeant-at-Arms protected the sovereign, the position emerged into one that was charged with safeguarding the institution of par-

[ Page 7089 ]

liament and those elected by the people to fulfil their roles.

Today in British Columbia the Sergeant-at-Arms, as an officer of the House, has expanded duties. The position is responsible for various ceremonial activities associated with the Legislature, caring for this beautiful building and for providing the security necessary to ensure that all occupants of the Legislature can perform their functions safely. It is an increasingly complex but vital role that sergeants throughout the Commonwealth perform today.

I would like to take this time to thank all sergeants in the Commonwealth, especially our Sergeant-at-Arms, Gary Lenz, for the outstanding work they do, sometimes in the face of extreme danger, as we observed late last year at the Canadian House of Commons. I ask all members to congratulate the office and its occupants on this historic occasion.

STADIUM AT VICTORIA HIGH SCHOOL

C. James: There is a new stadium coming to Victoria High School, and our community is very excited about it. The school’s alumni association and its partners have been doing an amazing job of fundraising for the anticipated $5.5 million cost. Bays United Football Club, which supports soccer for life here in Victoria, has raised $100,000. Victoria city council has committed $250,000 to the project, which has the support of the Greater Victoria school board.

The stadium dates from 1950 and is known as Memorial Stadium in honour of Vic High students that served in World War II. It has been a place of team work and recreation for 65 years, and now it is really in need of an upgrade. The demand is certainly there. A good stadium at Vic High will mean better access to field sports. Research shows that with better access comes greater participation, which will help improve health and build team and individual skills.

The alumni association has planned this project in phases. The first phase will add an artificial field that can be used year-round and will install field lights for evening games. Next will be a separate field house, and it will be built for use by all of the community. Then the association plans to install a metric track and replace the stadium seats.

It’s wonderful to see so much local enthusiasm for this project. Fernwood Coffee Company is donating $1 from every pound of coffee sold in the months of April and May. Many individual donors have already come forward, including amazing support from Lois Wallace and her daughters Marilyn and Wendy. Lois’s late husband, Lawrie Wallace, has contributed much to Victoria High School and to our community.

[1400]

The Vic High Alumni Association welcomes support from individuals, from businesses and from community organizations. You can find them on line at vichigh.com.

Thanks to all those who are working hard to make this project a reality. It’s going to make a big difference in Victoria and a better experience for our students and our entire community.

Oral Questions

OIL SPILL RESPONSE

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Why should British Columbians have any confidence in our ability to assess and address a significant oil spill on the coast of Vancouver Island, on the central coast or on the north coast, when we can’t even get our act together in the heart of Vancouver? Why should we have any confidence, why should British Columbians have any confidence, in British Columbia’s ability to respond appropriately in a real, real disaster?

Hon. M. Polak: The members opposite will receive no argument from me, no argument from this side of the House, that we need in British Columbia to have world-leading spill response, and we don’t yet have it. The fact of the matter is that we have made it clear — the Premier, myself, others — that the initial response to this incident was absolutely unacceptable.

We certainly look forward to the post-incident review — which, by the way, will be made public — when we can better assess all the gaps that exist and turn our attention to the plans that we will need to put in place with the federal government to ensure that something like this never happens again.

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

J. Horgan: One of the most obvious gaps here is in credibility for the government and the spokespeople for the government of British Columbia.

What British Columbians were exposed to, at a critical time last week, was an absence of leadership from the provincial government. There was finger-pointing from the province back to the feds, from the feds back to the province, and the city of Vancouver — who were right there on the ground — were not advised for almost 14 hours. That is beyond unacceptable.

I appreciate that the minister is as genuine in her concern as I am in my questioning. But the challenge we have

[ Page 7090 ]

as legislators — the challenge we have at a time when there are prospects of a massive increase in oil tanker traffic up and down my constituency and right along the coast — is that government has given away the tools to protect British Columbians. Rather than being responsible for the Trans Mountain Pipeline proposal, we have abdicated that responsibility and given it back to the federal government.

When the Kits Coast Guard base was shut down three years ago, this side of the House offered to join with the government in tandem, in unison, in a non-partisan way, to say to the federal government: “This is absolutely unacceptable. To save pennies, you’re putting our coast and everything that that involves at risk.” The government did a YouTube video — and not another thing since then.

[1405]

With respect to the work of British Columbia, I’m glad to hear that members are finally on board with British Columbia’s five conditions. At the beginning there was nothing but mocking coming from the other side. Instead, today we have Alberta on side with our five conditions. We finally have the federal government recognizing that they are essential to any kind of expansion of heavy oil in British Columbia.

If nothing else, this incident can serve as a proof point to the fact that we do not have that world-leading spill response yet.

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

J. Horgan: In July of 2013 this minister stood in budget estimates and said: “During a marine spill, our ministry would be doing a number of things.” They’d be making sure that “there is equipment, expertise and trained personnel available” and advising the public of their concerns.

Now, I would expect that the public would include the city of Vancouver. I would expect that rather than saying: “We have five conditions that we use during an election campaign to avoid an issue….” That would be all well and good three years ago, but it’s 2015 now.

When the federal government closed the Vancouver Environment Canada station of environmental emergencies, what did the government say? When the federal government closed the marine mammal contaminants program at DFO, what did the minister say?

Lastly, will the minister give the assurances that the public needs that we’re not going to just rest on rhetoric now? Instead of going to back to Ottawa and asking for more temporary foreign worker permits, let’s go back to Ottawa and say: “Defend our coast as you defend the east coast.” British Columbians deserve our fair share. It’s not just about rhetoric. It should be about some reality.

Hon. M. Polak: The opposition leader is, as usual, a little late to the party, if he hasn’t been paying attention.

There is no reason on earth that we should be taking a back seat to folks who seem to have only come to the notion of the five conditions very recently.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the Liberals may think that the federal government agrees with the so-called five conditions. Clearly, it was not a world-class spill response. I don’t understand how they could even fathom that this is a world-class spill response, and the federal government even agrees with them.

She says they agree with them. She says it’s not spill response. It is spill response. There have been so many reports this government has put out, you can practically sop up the spill with just the paperwork and the words from that side.

My point is this government has said action is needed. We’ve said action is needed, but the government hasn’t done one thing aside from talk. My constituents have beaches that they can no longer use because of this spill.

When will there be action? When will this government actually do more than just talk and wag their finger?

[ Page 7091 ]

this case, we have been quite clear in saying that the absence of their leadership in the beginning phases of the response was absolutely unacceptable.

[1410]

As a result of our repeated requests for an improvement in that situation, I can tell the members that the Coast Guard certainly stepped up their involvement, took back over the leadership of incident command as of Friday morning, and as of today, the actions are continuing in a well-coordinated manner. But the response to this spill was unacceptable. It was not world-class. I’m not sure what the member has not understood about that.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: We agree that it was not world-class. We agree that it was a failure. My question to the minister is: why has she abdicated her responsibility to stand up for British Columbia in regards to Kinder Morgan?

The government has written off…. They’ve given the federal government the right to make a decision about the oil tanker pipeline, with tanker traffic going through the harbour. They have refused to take back our power so we can have our own environmental assessment within B.C. to make our own decisions.

She’s given away the power to a government who thinks that the pipeline project, who thinks that the spill response, has been a-okay. She’s given those folks, Stephen Harper, that power to make a decision about oil tankers. Why won’t she stand up for B.C. and have our own environmental assessment for Kinder Morgan?

Hon. M. Polak: I hope what the member is indicating is that their new-found concern for attention to marine spills off our coast is somehow only related to whether or not there will be new oil pipelines travelling through British Columbia.

The fact of the matter is we need world-class spill response not just for oil tankers but for freight ships, even without the prospect of increased shipments of oil tankers up and down our coast. This ship was a grain ship. There are 38,200 direct jobs that operate as a result of the shipments through our port of Metro Vancouver.

There are already needs for us to be able to respond as displayed by what happened with this grain ship. This isn’t just about new oil pipelines. This is about our coast right now.

OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT B.C.

K. Corrigan: One of the ideas floated at the Premier’s press conference last Friday was for emergency management B.C. to take the lead in responding to oil spills. This is the B.C. agency that over a year ago the Auditor General said is woefully unprepared for major emergencies like a catastrophic earthquake. Even the government’s own Renteria report said: “sufficient resources and priority have not been devoted to this effort.”

After ignoring report after report, after ignoring warning after warning that emergency management B.C. doesn’t have the resources it needs to manage its current mandate, does the Minister of Justice seriously think that this agency is in any position whatsoever to take over responsibility for oil spills?

Hon. M. Polak: Once again, the opposition displays a fundamental lack of knowledge as to how these types of incidents are responded to.

They operate under a unified command structure under the leadership of the Canadian Coast Guard. To that are added a deputy provincial incident commander, an environmental unit leader, five Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Techniques team members, one waste management specialist, one oiled wildlife specialist, five emergency management B.C. staff providing liaison and other incident command post functions, four conservation officers, and the list goes on.

This is truly an interagency effort. I’m sure the members are well familiar with the very professional way in which those types of units operate, in particular at a provincial level, when we experience forest fires.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: That was the idea not of the official opposition but of the Premier of the province. She said that perhaps emergency management B.C…

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: So perhaps a briefing of the Premier is in order.

[1415]

Again, the Renteria report says that when it comes to preparing for catastrophic earthquakes, what B.C. needs is “clear vision, sufficient resources and strong political will.” Instead of that, we have a Justice Minister who emphasized “individual responsibility” in response to Mr. Renteria’s recommendations for government action.

Hon. M. Polak: One only has to look at the tremendously effective response that we are consistently able to deliver through EMBC in the result of fire season in

[ Page 7092 ]

British Columbia to know that they are an extremely professional organization.

In this instance, I can tell you that they formed an integral part of the incident command post. Certainly, in the absence of the leadership from the Canadian Coast Guard that we needed at the beginning, EMBC, as well as representatives from other provincial agencies, were quite well able to step up and take the actions they needed to take, even outside of the protocols that required the Canadian Coast Guard.

Our emergency management B.C. team is one that performs at a very, very high level. All British Columbians can have confidence in them.

ST. PAUL’S HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT

AND EMERGENCY SERVICES IN WEST END

J. Darcy: We on this side of the House have been calling for investments in downtown Vancouver hospitals for a decade. Three years ago the Premier of British Columbia promised $500 million for the revitalized St. Paul’s Hospital. If the Premier had followed through on her pre-election promise, we might have had these upgrades already in place at St. Paul’s Hospital.

But there is no indication in today’s announcement that any emergency services will remain in the downtown and the West End, which include the most densely populated blocks in the province and some of the worst traffic-congested areas.

Will the minister tell the people who live and work in the downtown and West End that they will have life-saving emergency services where they need them and when they need them?

Hon. T. Lake: I think the member opposite may be excused for her lack of understanding of the timeline to build a hospital. The members of her party did not build a hospital in British Columbia in the 1990s, so I understand that.

St. Paul’s Hospital has served the people of British Columbia tremendously well. For over 150 years parts of that hospital have been serving patients in B.C. I, like many members in this House, have had family members who have had their lives prolonged, the quality of life increased, by the services of St. Paul’s, which serves all of British Columbia.

It is a testament to the men and women who work at St. Paul’s that they have been able to deliver that high standard of care in a facility that simply is not up to the state of the art that we expect here in B.C. We are going to rebuild St. Paul’s Hospital for the needs of today but, more importantly, for the needs of tomorrow. That includes making sure that all of the residents of downtown have the medical services that they need.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: I don’t think that the people of the downtown and the West End are going to be reassured, because the minister did not answer the question about whether there are going to be emergency services in the downtown and the West End for people when they need them, where they need them.

The Premier of this province promised that there would be a rebuild of St. Paul’s Hospital. She broke that promise.

[1420]

How can the people of the downtown and the West End trust that there will, in fact, be emergency services in the downtown and West End for the people who need them, where they need them and when they need them? That’s the question. Can the minister give an answer? How can we trust the government to keep that promise?

Hon. T. Lake: The reality is that when you look at the ambulance pickups and drop-offs at St. Paul’s, the West End and downtown Vancouver do have a good number of ambulance pickups — 17 percent and 20 percent respectively. In fact, 52 percent of the pickups that go to St. Paul’s Hospital via B.C. Ambulance are from the Downtown Eastside. This location makes sense for the residents of all of Vancouver, for the residents of British Columbia.

We will ensure through a year-long consultation process that the residents of the west end of Vancouver have the health care needs that they require and that their needs are being met today and into the future.

STATUS OF

MOUNT SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL

J. Kwan: Over the last ten years we have seen tremendous growth in the emergency department at Mount Saint Joseph Hospital. In 2005 Mount Saint Joseph saw 12,729 patients. This year they will be exceeding 28,000 patients. The hospital has been trying to cope by putting two to three patients in a room that was designed for one, resulting in overcrowding and unsafe conditions, yet the Ministry of Health recently turned down a proposal for a rebuilt facility presented by Providence Health and Vancouver Coastal. The community is left wondering why.

To the Health Minister: did the ministry turn down this proposal to rebuild the ER at Mount Saint Joseph because it is looking at closing Mount Saint Joseph?

Hon. T. Lake: This may be a first in British Columbia political history that a member whose constituency just found out they are getting a $1 billion hospital facility is complaining about the plan. I find that incredible. I think the people that the member who asked the question will be asking to support her in an upcoming shareholders meeting will want to know how she feels about a state-of-the-art hospital and campus of care in her riding.

Interjections.

[ Page 7093 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: I’d like to invite the member to let us know what she thinks about this state-of-the-art facility. The reality is this opportunity is an opportunity to increase health care for all of Vancouver Coastal Health, including Mount St. Joe’s, with integration, with coordination and continued investment in what is an excellent facility at Mount Saint Joseph Hospital.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

J. Kwan: I’d like to invite the Minister of Health to tour Mount Saint Joseph Hospital, and he will see the overcrowded situation that exists there in the ER. In fact, that hospital has the highest growth in emergency services in the entire region. When asked about the future of Mount Saint Joseph, while the minister didn’t answer the question and says he didn’t want to speculate, he told the media in the scrum that he will know more about what services are where and that there may be some realignment of services. That’s what the Minister of Health said.

I can tell the minister that Mount Saint Joseph is the first….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Please continue.

J. Kwan: I can tell the minister that Mount Saint Joseph is the first hospital to serve the Asian community and is respected for its multicultural focus and community programs. In 1992 Mount Saint Joseph created the positions of director of multicultural services and coordinator of interpreter services and has become a leading voice in the development of public education sessions for ethnic communities. And 97 percent of the long-term care facility at Mount Saint Joseph serves the Chinese-Canadian community.

Can the Minister of Health confirm that Mount Saint Joseph will not be closed as a result of the announcement of the rebuilding of St. Paul’s? If not, what are the plans for Mount Saint Joseph, and when will the public have that information?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: The member for New Westminster can be excused for not knowing about the terrible record of investment of 1990s of the NDP, but the member opposite who just asked the question was there when not one hospital was built. In fact, one was closed — Shaughnessy Hospital. To be lectured on investments in health care by that member opposite is preposterous on a day when we invest $1.2 billion in her riding.

Interjections.

S. Simpson: I’ll wait till the Finance Minister has his moment.

We’ll try again to see if we can get the minister to answer the question. Mount Saint Joseph is a critical health care facility, particularly for the Chinese-Canadian community. It has focused on services that have been so well received by that community, and it meets a special and unique need.

The question for the minister is this. Will Mount Saint Joseph be closed as part of the redevelopment of St. Paul’s, or will the minister assure that community that in fact Mount Saint Joseph will continue and be upgraded itself?

Hon. T. Lake: Mount St. Joe’s is an invaluable health care asset, and we understand the historic role that it has played in the health care of people in that part of Vancouver.

Let me just tell you about recent investments that the ministry has made in capital and programs at Mount St. Joe’s, including $600,000 for repiping, $750,000 for elevator upgrades, $1.25 million for a rapid-access breast clinic, $1.75 million for a new intensive care unit, $4.9 million for consolidating St. Vincent’s Hospital to Mount St. Joe’s.

We understand there are challenges around the emergency department of Mount St. Joe’s. Providence Health Care and the ministry will be working hard to support Mount St. Joe’s and ensure that it continues to provide the amazing service that it does to the people of Vancouver.

CHILD DEATH CASE AND

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

D. Donaldson: Isabella Wiens was 21 months old when she died in foster care. It’s an horrific situation. The coroner’s report was inconclusive. It listed broken bones and multiple bruises. Two years later her mother, Sara-Jane Wiens, still does not have the answers from the ministry regarding the circumstances leading to her daughter’s death in care.

The ministry’s director of children protection conducted a review. The full report was not shared with the mother after two years. Why not?

Hon. S. Cadieux: First, let me say that the death of a child is a tragedy. Whether it happens when a child is in ministry care or whether it happens in a regular family environment, it is a tragedy, and a family will have to try and cope with that. I can’t even imagine the pain that that causes a family nor the difficulty in rebuilding a life from that. My heart goes out to the family in this case.

As the member will well know, as we have canvassed numerous times in this House, privacy laws in British

[ Page 7094 ]

Columbia and the CFCSA prevent me from speaking about specifics of any case in this House. The member knows there are avenues outside this House for him to, as the critic, request information specific to cases, and I suggest that he do that.

[1430]

Madame Speaker: Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: The job of the minister is to divulge to the public, draw back curtains, be transparent and take accountability. For two years this case was not before the courts. During that time a review of Isabella’s death was conducted. We don’t know who conducted the review, what the terms of reference were, what recommendations were made following this review, and neither does Isabella’s mother. That’s wrong.

Will this minister do the right thing and make the review public to get some answers for the mother and do the short life of Isabella justice?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I’ve stated before and will clarify again for the member opposite, because he seems to have difficulty understanding this, when a child dies in foster care a number of processes are triggered.

The police will conduct an investigation and determine whether or not there is need to either investigate further or press charges. The coroner’s office will investigate and determine cause of death and may order an inquest. Within the ministry the provincial director of child welfare will assess the information related to the case and determine whether or not there are policy or practice issues that require a formal review.

The independent Representative for Children and Youth, independent of the ministry, is informed of the circumstances immediately and is advised as to the decisions of the director whether or not to undertake a formal review, at which point the independent representative can determine whether or not she would like to do a review.

Unlike other provinces, we regularly report the critical injuries and deaths of children in the ministry’s care on our website, as a matter of transparency, as was set out after the Hughes report.

I think the member should take the opportunities and avenues available to him outside of this House to access information because, as I have stated before and will state again, I cannot and will not discuss cases in this House.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, Integrated Case Management System .

Petitions

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to present to the House a petition from 180 high school students from Powell River who are concerned about plans to expand the export of U.S. thermal coal through British Columbia. I seek to table this petition.

D. Routley: I seek to present a petition. This is half of a petition. My colleague will present the other half. This is 1,116 names. It protests any consideration of a fixed link between Gabriola Island and Vancouver Island or the Mainland, relying on the Islands Trust policy that says: “no island in the Trust area should be connected to Vancouver Island, the Mainland or another island by a bridge or tunnel, notwithstanding the existing bridge between North and South Pender Islands.” This fragile and vulnerable environment is meant to be protected for all of B.C., all of Canada and all of the world by the Islands Trust.”

S. Hamilton: I rise to table a petition by students of Burnsview Secondary School in my riding, assembled by many of the seven members that I specifically named earlier, regarding the expansion of exports of thermal coal through British Columbia.

C. Trevena: Along with my colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan, I’d like to table the other half of the petition. There are 1,153 names, bringing it to a total of 2,269 people from Gabriola Island who are concerned that $200,000 of public money was spent on a feasibility study for a bridge that nobody wants on the island. They are also concerned that this feasibility study will not be released until the summer, although it is already complete.

With that, I’d like to table this petition.

[1435]

D. Bing: I’d like to present two petitions from my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. The first is a petition with 1,600 names on it protesting a proposed rock quarry on Sheridan Hill in Pitt Meadows. The community feels that this rock quarry is in an inappropriate location. It is next to a city park, close to residences and is bad for the environment, plus the First Nations have not been consulted.

I also wish to present a petition signed by 300 secondary students from my riding. These students are also protesting expansion of thermal coal exports through British Columbia.

J. Darcy: I’d like to present a petition on behalf of 244 students of the New Westminster Secondary School, gathered by the environment club of the high school, also protesting the proposal to increase exports of American thermal coal through Fraser Surrey Docks and raising concerns about the environmental and health impacts of such a project.

[ Page 7095 ]

A. Weaver: I, too, have a petition from the same group of students — 25 students from Oak Bay High School, part of a large group across the province who visited MLAs last week, as organized with the Defend Our Future group. This group also is seeking to “request that the hon. House oppose expanding exports of thermal coal through British Columbia.”

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the 2014 annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

I beg leave to present the 2013-2014 annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board.

As stipulated under the Justice Reform and Transparency Act, the province’s Justice and Public Safety Council is required to issue, by March 31, an annual three-year strategic plan for the justice and public safety sector. As minister I received the council’s second strategic plan at the end of March, which I’m tabling today in the House. The plan is the result of extensive work done by the council over the past year, including consultation at two justice summits held in 2014. I thank them for their continued efforts in setting a path for collaboration and innovation across the justice sector.

The plan sets out priorities and measures for the justice and public safety sector. The priorities are not binding on any of the participants in the sector. Rather, the strength of the plan is, and will be, the degree to which, over time, participants find the council’s plan to provide a useful overall roadmap for how we improve our justice and public safety system.

I encourage the members of the House to take the time to review this plan. We all know the importance of transformation in the justice and public safety sector, and I welcome public discussion around the progress made by the council and the sector thus far.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Education — and, in this chamber, second reading on Bill 15.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 15 now be read a second time.

M. Farnworth: We’re still on second reading debate, and we’ve been waiting for…. There is an order, and I know you have the order there.

I’m sorry the minister was in a little bit of a hurry to move debate along. But I know that there are….

[1440]

B. Ralston: She’s in the passing lane.

M. Farnworth: Unfortunately, no. She’s not in the passing lane on this particular piece of legislation. The signal was the wrong signal.

We are still on second reading debate, and we have a few more speakers, I know, on this particular piece of legislation, which is an important piece of legislation on highway safety in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Anton: The main focus of this bill is to enhance and safeguard the life-saving benefits of several road safety programs, including the immediate roadside prohibition program, the vehicle impoundment program and remedial programs.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair has been advised that second reading has been indeed moved and that debate was adjourned by the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, I appreciate the order. We’re further along than thought, so I do believe that this piece is already on the record.

M. Farnworth: Yes, the Minister of Transportation had not been blocking the traffic lanes on the debate on this bill. And I intend to pick up the pace of debate on this particular bill so we can speed it along to committee stage, observing, of course, all the required signs for the passage of legislation and making sure that we don’t speed through them too quickly.

Anyway, this particular piece of legislation deals with a number of issues. One of the most important ones — and one I know that the Minister of Transportation was keen to address during second reading debate — was the issue of left-hand-lane hogs, as this bill is known for amongst the general public.

Some might say: why is that important? Well, all of us know that road safety is something that, as legislators, we’re concerned about and the public is concerned about — wanting to make sure that not only do people observe the speed limits and the highway code of the province of British Columbia but that people also drive proactively, that people are aware of what they’re supposed to be doing when they’re driving.

[ Page 7096 ]

What this bill is going to do is a bit of a challenge, and there will be some questions at committee stage on legislation. This bill is going to attempt something called — well, in essence — legislating common sense. That’s no mean feat to legislate common sense. I know that all of us, as MLAs, get constituents into our office who have issues that they want to raise, and quite often, traffic is one of those issues, whether it is congestion or whether it is speed limits or whether it is, in fact, how people drive on the road.

I can tell you, it is one thing in city streets that are pretty straightforward. It is quite different once you get out onto the major arterial roadways within the Lower Mainland and, certainly, outside the Lower Mainland, in many parts of British Columbia. Then the question of people’s driving habits comes first and foremost.

When you go down to the States and you cross over the 49th parallel, one of the interesting things that you really notice is a difference in approach to driving between here in British Columbia and south of the border.

[1445]

When you go south of the border, you see people stick in the right-hand lane. They are driving. They use the left-hand lane to pass. That’s really the only time that they use it, and there’s an orderly flow of traffic. In fact, the police in the United States enforce that left-hand lane for passing. They enforce it on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, far too often, particularly when you talk to American traffic authorities and to the police in the United States, they will tell you that far and away the largest group of people that they ticket for not obeying the rules of the road in the States, which are to stay in the right-hand lane and use the left lane for passing, are Canadians — and, in particular, British Columbians. For some reason, there is a reluctance of many drivers to follow that rule down in the States. They get the consequences of that, which is a very expensive ticket, even more so now that it’s paid in U.S. dollars.

The challenge that we have here is the same thing. Too many people think that the left lane is their own personal lane to drive in the same way that you would drive in the right-hand lane. You talk to people, media talk to people, and they quite often will go: “Oh, but I’m doing the speed limit. The speed limit says 100 kilometres. I’m doing that. It’s people behind me backed up who should be observing the speed limit. I’m not breaking the law, and they are, so I’m going to stay in the left-hand lane. I’m going to do the speed limit, and I don’t care if I’m blocking traffic.”

Well, while technically correct that they are observing the speed limit, the reality is that they are creating dangerous and hazardous traffic conditions, the kind of traffic conditions that cause accidents — and in many cases very serious accidents. It’s not up to the individual to decide: “I’m going to regulate traffic.” We’ve all seen them. I don’t want to get into stereotypes about the kind of car or the kind of hat that may be worn. But they’re there, and they’re not moving.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: He could tell you. Actually, if you ask your Finance Minister, he could tell you too.

The bottom line is this. There are people who seem to think that the left-hand lane is something that you drive in the same way that you would the right-hand lane. They will drive whatever way. You see them. They’re not moving. It doesn’t matter if they’re backing up traffic. It doesn’t matter if they’re causing problems on the road. It’s just not safe.

What this legislation is going to do is attempt to deal with that problem and to make people aware and to bring it home that — you know what? — there are rules of the road and a highway code that people need to follow. It’s not just some harmless thing of saying: “Oh, I’m going to drive in the left-hand lane the way that I feel like it, even if I am doing the speed limit.” Common sense says you drive in the right-hand lane, and you use the left-hand lane for passing.

The legislation recognizes that there are circumstances — for example, when you’re getting into the left lane to access a left turn lane. Perfectly normal. Speed limits on how and when this will apply are laid out. The bottom line is that it’s an important change.

The only question that I have…. I hope the minister is able to answer it. It’s one that no doubt will be answered during the committee stage on this particular piece of legislation. Are there going to be awareness campaigns around the legislation? Are there going to be awareness campaigns so that the people understand that government is serious about this particular piece of legislation, that it’s not a piece of legislation to just sort of say, “Oh, we’ve introduced a law,” and then it’s not enforced or not taken seriously?

That is going to be crucial to the success of this legislation. That’s going to be crucial to the success of what the government is trying to accomplish. We are supportive on this side of the House of the legislation, but we want to make sure that there’ll be the necessary support to make sure that it does work. Those questions will be addressed in committee stage.

As I said, my remarks are brief. I don’t want to be accused of hogging the left lane on the debate of the bill, so with that, I’m more than happy to take my seat and hear what other members have to say on the bill.

[1450]

N. Simons: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act and the various provisions within it that may or may not be of interest to British Columbians.

I think it’s quite interesting that there are, obviously, some things in this bill that raise some issues. Unlike my colleague, I am pulling into the left lane here to bypass all of you, hopefully, to take an exit soon.

[ Page 7097 ]

I believe this is going to be complicated. Yesterday I drove down from Comox along the Island Highway. I know that we’re not going to do an analysis of the effectiveness of any potential regulations around this. But I have to say, we’re on a 120-kilometre-an-hour highway, and there are people going 115 and other folks passing them. Some people are passing them at 118, and people behind them, lined up five or six, are going 120. So the left-lane hog could be going under the speed limit, going faster than the car on the right, but there might also be a lineup of cars on the right.

This was the end of a weekend, Sunday afternoon, and clearly, there are a lot of cars on the road, as my colleagues who live up Island know. It’s a good highway. I might say it was a highway built in the ’90s. It was built in order to encourage the economic development of the area and make sure that people had good transportation routes for goods and services.

Sometimes it’s frustrating when there are people who don’t know how to drive properly. Fundamentally, what interests me is why wouldn’t the government start with an education program to ensure that schools that are teaching people to drive know the rules of the road and know that it’s not appropriate to hang out in the left lane when there are cars going past you in the right. It’s not appropriate to stay in the left lane, in any case, unless you’re passing someone. Of course, there are many places in our constituencies, in my riding coming off the ferry…. I don’t suppose anybody would argue with two cars going off the ferry at once, if that’s how you’re so ordered.

My concern about this kind of rule is the ability to enforce it, the ability to enforce it in a way that doesn’t bring the administration of our traffic laws into disrepute. I think we’ve had a number of these rules that the government wants to bring in. I’m not sure if they’re distractions or if it’s just low-hanging fruit in the transportation regulation industry — you know, the no smoking when there’s someone under 16 in the car, the various rules around other aspects that don’t come to me right now.

I believe that this left-hand lane hog is one that everyone will agree with, but I don’t necessarily agree that this is the most efficient or effective way of getting rid of the left-lane hogs — unless there’s some high profile fine imposed on the driver in the left lane. Things that concern me more on our highways are people talking on the phone, people texting on the phone. We’ve seen no increase in the enforcement in our rural areas around those issues. I think maybe sometimes the focus needs to be on aspects of driving that are of more immediate concern to most people.

Yes, left-lane hogs are bad for driving. They cause accidents, just like speeders. I think the minister is lucky. The speed increases that he allowed for the Island Highway to 120 kilometres an hour — wet or dry, throughout the winter…. He’s lucky that we had a pretty dry season.

I think that the minister should probably have a look at rules like that, which could potentially increase the number of injuries and fatalities, which I know that the ministry is concerned about because of their constant emphasis on how their stricter laws around drinking and driving have reduced the number of fatalities. So using that kind of concern for the public, that ethical stance about protecting people’s lives, flies in the face of the government’s unilateral attempt to satisfy the fast drivers by increasing driving speeds.

I don’t have a problem with 120 on the Island Highway. I do when you’re hydroplaning. I do when it’s pouring rain and when it’s snow. People are supposed to drive according to the conditions of the road, but there are no signs on the highway saying: “Drive in accordance with the road conditions.” Is there a law? Yes, there is. Is it effective? No.

I think the minister should be thinking about the curriculum for driving schools. I think the minister should think about how drivers learn to drive on British Columbia roads and have the enforcement. We already have laws against left-lane hogs. Let’s face it. This is just sort of clarifying it, making it easier. You’re not allowed to…. You can be pulled over for it.

[1455]

I’m not sure how the police are going to wait by the side of the road, watching cars go by, because, as in the example I just used earlier, how do you know if the six cars behind the guy in the left lane are there because they’ve been waiting to pass him, or if they’re all going the same speed and they’re all going to go back into the right lane after?

I saw it yesterday. I drive a 120-kilometre highway to get here. I don’t make citizen’s arrests for people, but I do give dirty looks out my driver’s side, I have to say. Now, I’m not sure I can teach everybody how to drive properly. I learned to drive in Montreal, so everyone has a lot to learn.

I do think that the importance of education and public information…. Maybe the government’s going to wait until a couple of months before the next election before they start talking about all the great things that they’re doing in highways, but I hope I’m just being cynical. Okay. I got an assurance from a minister’s facial expression that, in fact, they won’t do that.

But why not take a proactive step and do some public information spots on television or on the radio about the importance of obeying the rules of the road? I think that might…. The reliance on a fine and the reliance on making it into a stand-alone

section of the act — I don’t know if that’s necessarily the most effective thing to do.

If the government is actually interested in being effective, I think that they could approach this issue not just with legislation but with public announcements, with reinforcement of proper etiquette on our roads as well as in our driving school educational system. I’m not sure why we don’t have driver’s ed in all of our high schools any-

[ Page 7098 ]

way. I think that, obviously, when people are young they learn habits that are taught early, and they can stay with those habits if they’re the appropriate ones.

What we have, as my colleague from Port Coquitlam was referring to, is the stereotype of the left-lane hogs, but of course, really, I’m going to be one of those stereotypes, apparently, in my later years. That’s just one aspect of this piece of legislation before the House today. Others are of various approach.

The AirCare program, for example, will be cancelled. It was a successful program. It did a lot to raise awareness of the importance of protecting our environment. I think it got a lot of cars off the road or fixed. I think I was a victim of it at one point, and my car was a beneficiary of it. I think that maybe its time has come with the new cars and obviously far less-polluting vehicles.

I have no problem with allowing another aspect of this act to pass, which is allowing municipalities to decide where motorcycles can park. Who knew they couldn’t? You know, this is one of those things where you’re reading second reading of legislation and you go: “I didn’t know that was a problem.”

I’d like this ministry to focus on things that are issues that are actually of key concern to British Columbians. There are other ways of promoting safety. Why not consider legislation that would make it illegal to get into a car with someone who’s been drinking? What about protecting young people, giving them some ability to stand up to peer pressure, to make it illegal for them to drive with their friends if they know their friends aren’t able to drive?

Why not give kids an ability to say: “It’s illegal for me to get in the car with you”? Give them some reassurance. We all know what peer pressure can do for young people. I think I’ll follow this up with the minister at some point. I promise that at any meeting on issues around highway safety, I will not bring up the ferries issue. That’ll be my assurance to him.

There are rules that could be made around scooters and scooters on our road. Maybe those rules are already there, but maybe a piece of legislation will heighten awareness. Sometimes they’re a danger to us as drivers, and sometimes they’re a danger to themselves and folks who are driving scooters along our roads, possibly in the wrong direction or in the wrong place. Those are some of the things that I think this government could be focused on.

There’s another aspect of transportation safety that I think maybe the minister needs to consider as our population ages, and that is making sure that cars have visual displays on the dash that are large enough for people with vision issues.

[1500]

Many jurisdictions are contemplating improving the ability for seniors to drive with larger mirrors, larger displays, larger buttons and handles on their car, because we are going to have to face that as a society at some point. We need to make sure that people who drive are driving safely, and obviously, that’s the focus of this legislation.

I think there are other ways to promote safety on our roads. My hope is that we’ll get some public information campaign going along with the left-hand-lane hogs that will have clarification as to what happens when there are three lanes, what happens when there’s a left-turn exit, what happens when…. What about a red light in the middle of the Island Highway? You’ll have cars lined up, maybe 25 in both lanes. I worry that it’s going to be problematic for law enforcement to enforce.

I don’t anticipate that there’s going to be a huge change in the number of violations issued, similar to the “pull over if there’s an emergency vehicle stopped.” I don’t think that we’ve seen much change in enforcement, unless through a sting, which I’ve witnessed on Highway 1 going out of Vancouver. I don’t think that’s appropriate, by the way.

I think we need to make sure that our rules on the highway are designed to make everybody safe — education and ensuring that drivers, when they get their licence, are aware of the basic rules of the road. I think that might be more effective. My hope is that the government will, along with this sort of low-hanging-fruit bill, also consider public education, so that people will be able to avoid the penalty associated with driving in that left-hand lane. With that, I think I’ve covered most of the comments that I was hoping to.

L. Krog: I’m delighted to rise and say a few words about the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act today. Of course, it has been announced publicly and emphasized over and over again by the government that it’s to attack left-lane hogs. I suppose, as a member of the left, I’m surprised we don’t have a right-lane-hog bill before the House. Maybe it’s because everybody wants to get over to the left, I suppose, because we’re making progress.

My little cheeky remarks apart, the fact is that this is, relatively speaking, a fairly thin piece of legislation. One would be tempted, if it wasn’t such a hurtful topic to bring up, to say the government had run out of gas. Of course, we know that we don’t talk about liquefied natural gas in the chamber anymore, because that seems to be off the government’s agenda as well, and the last thing we’d want to do is remind them that we don’t see the plants bursting out of the geography of northern British Columbia nor investment pouring into the province to fulfil the Premier’s promise of a debt-free B.C.

That aside, there is another admission in what will be, I believe, the third formal attempt now by the government to actually make its immediate roadside prohibition program “legal”, to use the vernacular of the streets. How many times does one have to take a run at it before one realizes that perhaps there are some fundamental problems, notwithstanding the great desire to keep people who are impaired off our roads or, indeed, people who

[ Page 7099 ]

have been drinking any amount of alcohol at all off our roads and promoting public safety?

I think it’s rather surprising and somewhat disappointing that the Attorney General herself has commented, with respect to the possibility of constitutional challenges, and she says: “Yes, it may well be challenged. But we have great confidence in the program and in the good that the program does for safety on British Columbia highways.”

Obviously, there’s not a person in this chamber who would argue against anything that promotes public safety on the highways of British Columbia. However, as I said this morning in remarks to the motion made by the member for Vernon-Monashee, the government is expected, in a democratic society even more so, to meet a certain standard, not to use its power and authority in an abusive way, and to ensure that the laws that are passed by the Legislature or parliament, or municipal bylaws for that matter, all meet the Charter test, all pass the constitutional test and that regardless of how important the end is, the means have to be in accordance with the law.

[1505]

This time we see a minor variation that will give the superintendent the authority and, indeed, require him to do things now that he formerly was basically doing in practice.

Now, many lawyers who act in the area of impaired driving and prohibition cases have made it fairly clear that although it has not been mandatory…. I quote Mr. Doroshenko, who’s a prominent lawyer dealing with this area. He said: “It has not been mandatory…but they’ve applied it as if it was mandatory. This is the government trying to find a way to justify doing this.” And essentially that’s what we’re doing.

The opposition pointed out the problems with this legislation twice before, warned them that there would be challenges, warned them of the potential of court cases. As much as one can’t dispute the results, arguably, in terms of public safety, assuming that we can point directly to the reduction in deaths and accidents related to alcohol consumption on our roads…. Notwithstanding all of that, surely the government has a duty to be able to say, with somewhat more confidence than that expressed by the Attorney General, that this legislation will in fact pass constitutional muster.

Otherwise, it’s very hard to argue about why people don’t vote and why people apparently, according to polling and other surveys and studies, hold politicians in such disrepute when politicians themselves are literally running something up the flagpole in this place, using their majority to pass it and then, when it’s struck down by the courts or even when it’s anticipated to be struck down by the courts, just sort of stepping back and saying: “Oh well, you know, it’s a good end. We don’t really care about the means.”

Surely the government has to conduct itself to a higher standard. Surely the government has a duty to act with care when preparing legislation. This is one of those examples. It is like the civil forfeiture legislation. Everybody loves the concept that people who may not be actually convicted of a criminal offence but have secured assets — profits, moneys, whatever the case may be — from criminal activity should be deprived of those. No, it’s hard to argue with that proposition.

But at the same time, if it’s not accomplished by a process that is regarded as fair, not abusive and in the public interest, then arguably, frankly, the government, in the eyes of many folks, looks no better than the people who are doing the very wrong acts that we’re trying to prohibit or stop. The same disrespect that we give to those who practise criminal behaviour in our society sometimes gets associated with governments that behave in ways that are seen as dictatorial, arrogant and arbitrary — and done in such a way that brings the whole legal system into disrepute.

I think we have to remind ourselves that we have a particular duty in this chamber — particularly the government, which has access to such significant resources — to ensure that we do things that are in accordance with society’s best interests but that are in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and that we do not let ourselves rush headlong into some solution simply because we see the end as justifying it.

It’s rather like the terrorism legislation at the federal level. There’s some quote or remark being bandied about. I can’t remember who said it. It’s a fairly famous quotation. I can only paraphrase it — something to the effect that those who don’t cherish their freedom or aren’t prepared to defend it or who are willing to sacrifice it for expediency essentially don’t deserve to have it.

Again, I have significant concerns, notwithstanding the desire to ensure safety on our roads, that this legislation is going to be struck down again. At a certain point surely the government has to look in the mirror — the political mirror, so to speak — and admit that it really doesn’t know what it’s doing and/or perhaps this is not the best course to achieve the end. Those are big questions, but they are questions that I think are somewhat fundamental to the legislative process.

[1510]

With respect to other aspects of the bill — and I don’t want to talk just about the immediate roadside prohibition changes, which are appropriate — we’re seeing the cancellation of the AirCare program.

We’re seeing the famous keep-to-the-right legislation. Now, I have to tell the House that in the last 9½ or nearly ten years since I came back to this place, I honestly can’t think of a public demonstration or a delegation or even a single constituent coming into my office and pounding on my desk and screaming for further legislation for left-lane road hogs.

Now, they may provide a certain level of frustration for members of the public, but I would suggest that when we

[ Page 7100 ]

see this as being part of a major government and public announcement….

Hon. J. Rustad: We know you like the left wing.

L. Krog: My friend the minister says we know that we like the left wing, and indeed we do. The minister’s quite right. We much prefer the left to the right. Maybe that’s because we want to speed down the path of progress as opposed to being stuck in the right lane, dribbling along, resisting every possible improvement in our prospects and any possible improvement in society.

That aside for a moment, you really have to ask yourself: is this all we’ve got to debate in this chamber? It’s pretty slim pickings. Whether it’s a left wing or a right wing, there’s not much to chew on — to follow on what the minister has suggested.

Candidly, I can’t imagine why so much fanfare has been given to something that is so sort of basic and obvious. If it’s such a significant problem, then I suggest that the government try some other method that might be much more effective.

Candidly, given this government’s general parsimony when it comes to all kinds of programs that actually have a really significant and direct impact on people’s lives in terms of improvement, such as increasing social assistance rates or providing appropriate care for children, are we going to suddenly find significant amounts of money to provide for further enforcement to ensure that the terror and the scourge of the left-lane road hogs are eliminated from the roads of British Columbia?

Are we going to be in a position to safely get out in our automobiles on the highways and the byways of British Columbia, knowing we’ll be safe from the right-wing road hogs who insist on getting into the left lane and dragging things down to a slower speed?

I’m just not sure that we really require such a wonderful display of the work of the government’s propaganda bureau to try and move this up the public agenda. I suppose, in fairness, it’s easier to talk about this than it is to talk about liquid natural gas or, perhaps, the successful work of the municipal auditor general. That’s another wonderful bit of progress — $5.2 million of the government’s money apparently burned up in successfully completing one minor audit. But again, so be it.

Now, winter tires. Again, it allows the government to define those tires with mountain snowflake symbols or the mud and snow symbol by regulation. The Automotive Industries Association of Canada has said pretty bluntly that they want true winter tires to be mandatory, except in extreme winter conditions. That seems to me a more sensible approach to public safety than many of the others that have been taken. Getting people to actually use winter tires in extreme winter conditions seems to me to be a good thing.

Again, I’m not sure the government is listening or who they’re really listening to. They are happy to talk about things that aren’t really a problem, and they have a solution in search of their problem, I suspect, with the left-lane road hogs.

We’ve also made a marvelous shift in finally solving the significant problem that I’m sure, again, every member has received delegation after delegation in their offices to raise, which is the incredible issue of allowing municipalities to regulate motorcycle parking. I faint at the very thought that this piece of legislation will pass, and we’ll solve the significant motorcycle-parking problem that exists all across British Columbia. I have no doubt that the Nanaimo city council, as soon as this legislation is passed, will be sending a congratulatory letter to the minister for the time and devotion he has given to this significant social problem.

[1515]

I’m always delighted to know that the government has the best interests of the motorcyclists of British Columbia at heart and that that parking issue is going to be solved. I suppose it might reflect the fact that many British Columbians can’t possibly afford to actually drive an automobile anymore, so they’re all reduced to driving motorcycles under the prosperity brought about by the B.C. Liberals. But that’s a question for another day.

I’m going to vote to support this legislation. And I say, with some sense of Schadenfreude — I think that’s the word the Germans use when you take some pleasure in the misfortunes of others — that when there’s another constitutional challenge and we see the roadside prohibition legislation perhaps struck down again, this government will actually pay attention to the rights of British Columbians and people to have some sort of process that they not only support because the end result and public policy are good but because they feel they’re being dealt with fairly.

They are subject to a process, the result of which they may not like, obviously, in terms of being prohibited from driving, but they at least know it’s fair and just, saves lives, saves property damage and saves ICBC claims and insurance rates all and the same. But if it’s not fair and it doesn’t have public support, it doesn’t engender the kind of respect for what we do in this chamber, which is so important.

On that note, I’m happy to step aside and let the member for Surrey-Whalley wax eloquent on the wonderful provisions of this bill and what an improvement it’s going to make to all British Columbians’ lives.

B. Ralston: I wish to address this bill briefly. I want to differ with my colleague from Nanaimo briefly, though, on motorcycle parking. I do recall — this is, perhaps, one of the legacies of Blair Lekstrom — when the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists used to come here and come here pretty well annually, one of the highest things on their list of things to get done was to have more effective recognition of motorcycle parking.

[ Page 7101 ]

Granted, the legislative agenda is relatively wide open. I remember, in years gone by, important bills, such as revisions to the Insurance Act, took almost seven years to get through this place between drafts, consultations, revisions, introductions and debate. Then the regulatory process, the process of drafting regulations, took, I think, at least seven years, if not longer, for that to come to conclusion.

Given that this is a relatively wide-open space in the legislative lineup here, it would seem that some of these issues that are significant to some groups but have not been given any attention in recent years are now able to occupy the open spaces of legislative time that’s available before the chamber.

The issue of left-lane road hogs is something that I think is, perhaps, a clever populist stroke on the part of the minister. It’s one of those things that people like to talk about. Although many younger people don’t learn to drive these days because they’re focused on public transit or other methods of getting around, most people drive, and most people have an opinion on this issue.

I’m not sure that the legislation was so defective that it required legislative intervention to correct that. Given that in my riding, certainly — and in Surrey generally — we’re traversed by freeways, this is an issue that does arise. It’s hard to disagree with it. I share with the member for Nanaimo the sense that, perhaps, in the list of priorities of the ills that face us and the remedies that face us in society, this is not necessarily the highest on the list, but I don’t oppose it for that reason.

[1520]

The final area that an amendment is being sought is to deal with the roadside prohibition regime, the immediate roadside prohibition. That’s a regime which most people support, in theory, until it happens to them. They regard it as harsh and draconian and, perhaps, lacking in legal protection from their point of view.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that as a legislative solution, it has had an immediate impact upon driving and criminology, although I hesitate to offer any criminological insight given that there are two criminologists as MLAs in this chamber.

Generally, one of the principles of effective deterrence is an immediate connection between the offence and a punishment, although in this case it’s not legally referred to as a punishment because it’s an administrative measure. But the deprivation of one’s driver’s licence really does bring home to people in a very sharp and immediate way that they might want to reconsider their driving habits or their consumption of alcohol and a propensity to drive. So that immediate connection is important.

What these provisions seem to do is to take what has been formerly the area of discretion of the superintendent of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Act to require certain drivers to take certain courses or certain mandatory forms of instruction to improve their driving…. If they do not take that in accordance with those directions, their licence will be further suspended or they will not be able to reclaim the privilege to drive.

This appears to really codify in law the practice of the superintendent. To that extent, I don’t think it’s a big, dramatic change either. And I think it further clarifies that if a person does not complete a program, then by law the person will not have the opportunity to regain their licence.

The issue about the requirement of the superintendent to revoke a driving prohibition if a sworn or solemnly affirmed report is not forwarded by a certain time, I think, is a provision to clarify. There was, at least as I recall and as I understand, a mixed practice by some adjudicators, who deemed that if a report from a police officer that’s submitted to the process was not sworn, nonetheless, the prohibition could still be affirmed.

This makes it very clear, by enshrining it in legislation, that if that’s not done within a certain period of time, then the prohibition must be revoked — although probably, given the way in which the legislation will be structured, or the regulations supporting it, the police officer will get a reminder that the report has not been sworn and, therefore, has to be submitted again, sworn properly. I think this will really become almost moot, because that’s what will take place within a certain period of time.

This is not a grand idea or earthshaking, momentous legislation. This is fairly routine. I think that’s what was promised in this session, and certainly, this bill delivers that in spades. With those comments, I’ll take my place.

V. Huntington: I just want to briefly comment on the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, Bill 15. When I look at it in the context of a number of other bills that the government has been passing, I agree with the member for Nanaimo that there is a fundamental shift here in the way government is allowing access to justice and in taking people’s fundamental rights to justice away from the citizens of British Columbia.

They are sort of hidden within administrative regulations that are done in respect of what the government has seen as the public good, but in effect, they are also fundamentally hindering and changing what the public understand as their rights to the courts and access to justice. I’ll come back to those comments in a little bit.

[1525]

I do compliment the minister for trying to deal with the left lane issue. I think everybody in the province is looking forward to seeing that issue become much more readily understood and followed once the education programs are underway.

I just wish that the minister had also considered the issue of right lanes and trucks being required to proceed in the right lanes. In a municipality like my own or through areas of the Lower Mainland where so many of the trucks are moving containers in and out of the port, you’ll find that there is no discipline in this province with regard to trucks travelling in the right lane.

[ Page 7102 ]

All you have to do is go across the border. Almost anywhere in the United States there is extraordinary discipline among the truck drivers. They always use the righthand lanes. They only use the left for passing, and you can be absolutely certain that that’s the case. It creates a much more robust sense of confidence when on the road as a citizen or in a non-commercial vehicle.

I do wish this act did look at the very sad levels of enforcement. I’m not aware, actually, whether trucks are required to travel in the righthand lanes in this province, but if they are, then the levels of enforcement are very poor. I would like to have seen that issue dealt with in this bill as well.

I also would like to join my many middle-aged friends, on their hogs, who are going to be extremely delighted with the new parking regulations for their motorcycles. I’m not sure this was one of the biggest things that we needed to tackle right now, but there will be those out there who will be very happy.

Meanwhile, speaking to the immediate roadside prohibitions, my comments, as I mentioned a bit earlier, just tend to centre around the removal, from my perspective, of what we understand commonly as access to justice and the courts. That is being removed entirely from the system, and I know that there’s a lot of discomfort out there about this, primarily because people see this as yet another attempt to slip-slide around the constitutional protections that we feel we have a right to enjoy.

Certainly the bill, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, and roadside prohibition have helped out there — I don’t think any of us will say that they haven’t — and that in general the problems with drunken driving are much better served as a result of many of the provisions of this bill. But the question is whether the costs to civil liberty, when coupled with this act and others…. Does the public truly understand that their access to justice is slowly being altered by this government?

I do not think that there has been a sufficient public discussion on this issue. People are stunned when they realize they have no access to the courts on some of these issues and do not understand that that was part and parcel of what’s been happening in the province.

There is a continued push by this piece of legislation to restrict and impede the review process. It is removing all discretion from the superintendent. It’s creating and instituting mandatory and very costly remediation penalties.

I just want to caution the government that I’m having difficulty supporting this act. When I supported the first Motor Vehicle Amendment Act that regarded roadside prohibition, I realized, much to my concern, what it actually meant on the ground.

I am very concerned that this is a continued push in all of the recent legislation, whether it’s administrative tribunals or whether it’s civil forfeiture. Numerous pieces of legislation over the last while have changed this fundamental understanding of access to the courts and to justice in this province.

[1530]

I just wanted to get on the record that I am concerned. The lack of discretion, the lack of access to the courts and, in particular, changing the onus of the burden of proof — which is specific to this particular act — is enormously concerning to me. The public do not understand these things are before us, and I wish there had been a much larger and broader public discussion about the way in which this province is moving.

A. Weaver: I, too, echo the sentiments as expressed by the member for Delta South, particularly with respect to the burden of proof, which in several places in this legislation is being moved. “The burden of proof in a review of a driving prohibition” is now on the individual. This is not really consistent with what most British Columbians believe and want to happen in our province — that is, innocent until proven guilty. The implication here, of course, is guilty until proven innocent, and I wonder to what extent that actually would be held up under a legal challenge.

In fact, our Justice Minister admits that the government’s contentious drunk-driving penalties may again be challenged as unconstitutional. In the Vancouver Sun she was quoted as saying, “Yes, it may very well be challenged, but we have great confidence in the program and in the good that the program does for safety on British Columbia’s highways.”

I would hope that during third reading we’ll be able to explore this and determine whether or not the Minister of Justice, via the Minister of Transportation, would be able to clarify some of the rationale behind their government getting legal opinion that would support this as actually standing up in courts.

Like the member for Nanaimo, I, too, had many, many groups of people not come to my office concerned about motorcycle parking six metres from the intersections. I gather that this is an issue in some jurisdictions. In Victoria, Oak Bay–Gordon Head, left-lane driving certainly is an issue, as every one of the members here will know, coming in from either the ferries or the airport. I think left-lane driving started in Victoria and, in fact, despite this legislation, will never change here in the capital regional district.

There are rules in place already that can deal with left-lane drivers if they’re holding up traffic. I’m not sure that this emphasis on fines and fees is either enforceable or, in fact, will ever be enforceable. Our police system’s services are taxed at the best of times, and pulling over people driving in the left lane is probably not number one on their priorities.

I recognize this populist approach to introducing policy that people will hang their hats on and be all very pleased with. I know everybody at one time has been frustrated — as I was just yesterday, coming back from the airport

[ Page 7103 ]

— when two people are driving side by side on the highway at 70 kilometres an hour when the speed limit is 90.

Does that mean we should be ticketing them? Does that mean we should be just maybe perhaps pulling them over and talking with them? There is legislation that would presently allow police to deal with such people if they do, in fact, believe that they are causing a hazard on the road.

One of the things that I was hoping to see in this legislation, which I recognize is minor tinkering with the Motor Vehicle Act, is some discussion about how repeat texters, repeat hand-held device users, are also dealt with. There’s a lot in here implied about drunk-driving legislation, but it really is not much different from repeat offenders of texting. There are those people out there who have been caught many times.

There are means and ways to actually have your phone linked into interlock programs, much like exist for drunk driving. I was wondering. I will explore further at third reading whether the government has actually explored this as perhaps also including interlock repeat texting offender programs. I do applaud the government in actually introducing text to ensure that the person requiring the ignition interlock program does, in fact, pay for it.

[1535]

In terms of the AirCare program, you might expect someone from the B.C. Green Party to stand up here and criticize government for removing an AirCare program, but the reality of it is that cars have changed in the last decade. Most cars today on the streets have air quality emission standards that are far beyond anything that existed ten years ago. As pointed out in discussions on this legislation, there still is an ability to require people to fix their tailpipe if they are deemed to be driving a car that is creating unsightly or unhealthy air quality emissions.

With that, I do look forward to third reading. I do have some concerns with the left-lane legislation, despite the fact that I agree that it is something that people may consider. I will be likely amending that these be struck from the bill, as I believe they are awfully punitive and are unenforceable, and in fact, legislation already exists on the books to allow police to deal with this.

I believe that these left-lane-hog rules are nothing more than populist politics catering to a demographic that is perhaps not likely to consider voting in the future. This is rather cynical of me, but really, we’ve got some critical issues in this province to deal with. Motorcycle parking six metres from an intersection, left-lane driving….

I recognize that the member for Nanaimo likes the left and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation likes to drive in the right. You’re not addressing my problem here. My problem is that I like to drive right in the middle in between both lanes, and this legislation ignores people like me.

L. Krog: You know what happens to chickens in the middle of the road.

A. Weaver: The member for Nanaimo has asked me if I know what happens with chickens in the middle of the road. I think it’s important for me to address that. They don’t last very long, but legislation could be brought in place to ensure that they do.

Deputy Speaker: Certainly, the member digresses.

A. Weaver: I’m sorry, hon. Speaker. It was truly, though, a defining moment of my time here in the Legislature when the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation came over and sat beside my colleague here, the member for Nanaimo, and discussed left- versus right-lane driving just a matter of moments ago.

With that, I thank you for your time, and I look forward to third reading.

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

Hon. S. Anton: I do appreciate the members’ comments on this important piece of legislation. I look forward to canvassing the issues during the committee stage. Although for the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I’m not sure that we’re going to be able to deal with the middle-lane piece. But I’m confident that the other pieces of the legislation will be dealt with in an appropriate manner when the time comes.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015, 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. T. Stone: I now call continued committee debate on Bill 18, intituled Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

[1540]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 3:42 p.m.

[ Page 7104 ]

section 21 (continued) .

Hon. S. Anton: Just to introduce the people with me here today. I have David Merner and Julie Williams from the Ministry of Justice, Cheryl May from the residential tenancy branch. Gavin Last from the Ministry of Agriculture and Michael Tanner from the Ministry of Labour are here. If needed, there may be others as well, but that’s who we have here at the moment.

When we left off the other day, we had the question about the number of Ontario tribunal clusters. The number is three: the Environment and Land Tribunals; Social Justice Tribunals; and Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals.

L. Krog: Thank you to the minister and her staff for securing the answer.

With respect to

section 21 — it’s the definition

section — that was being amended to strike out “part of costs” and substitute “all or part of the actual costs.” The minister said that consequentially speaking, it’s of no consequence because they could order up to almost all of the costs — “99.999 percent” to be precise, reading back her words from Hansard .

I guess the real question is — and I’m sure the staff can assist the minister in this — in practice is this an issue that required some solution or resolution through legislation? In other words, were tribunals in the position that they were, in fact, ordering substantially less costs or more? Or was it 99.999 percent, as the minister, I think with her great sense of humour, suggested might be a possibility?

I’m curious to know: is this addressing an issue that’s actually been raised with the ministry with respect to costs and the awarding of costs?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a drafting issue. It was not identified as a problem, but because the act was open, so to speak…. It is a drafting anomaly. It’s actually a mistake that it was drafted that way. This is a correction, while the act is open — to take the opportunity to fix it.

[1545]

L. Krog: With respect to the use of the term “actual costs,” can the minister advise, given the proposed change to the legislation, is it anticipated that actual costs will somehow be assessed in a new standard or in a different way than has been the practice?

If the minister can perhaps, for the benefit of those listening, outline what is the practice in terms of actual cost. Does it mean if I hire the most expensive law firm in Vancouver and I’m successful, I get the senior partners’ hourly rates, so to speak? Or if I hire some fresh-faced, first-year call, do I in fact get the fresh-faced, first-year call student lawyer’s rate?

In other words, how are these costs actually determined?

Hon. S. Anton: This is simply a correction again of the drafting. It’s no anticipated change in practice of the tribunal as a result of this change, because it’s not an actual change in the legislation. It’s simply a correction in the drafting.

The staff who are with me are actually not aware of an application of this particular

section in practice. This

section may very well have been utilized, but we don’t have actual examples of it here.

In each case that this

section was invoked, it would, of course, be up to the tribunal to determine what the actual costs were.

L. Krog: The minister has indirectly pointed out what I see as part of the problem with this bill that I’ve raised in previous questions, when we were here Thursday before the Easter week. That is, that so much of what is anticipated to be the practice and the implementation with respect to this legislation is indeed something that’s coming down the road. We haven’t given it either form or life or legs or anything else.

I suppose the concern, obviously, is that we’re being asked — and I don’t want to beat the cliché “a blank cheque” to death — to give a blank cheque. In practice, I think the public and those who are interested in this area of the law, those interested in the debate, need to have some idea of what the government is contemplating because, again, there is significant regulatory power that comes into play with respect to how this is implemented.

[1550]

Are we anticipating, then, that these tribunals will set a whole variety of levels of costs? Will there be a maximum and a minimum tariff? For instance, with respect to the rules of court, it’s not that it’s particularly simple, but there’s what we used to refer to as the tariff of costs that people can rely on. People can advise their clients, the people they represent, what might be the results if, in fact, they lose or if they win — some range, some concept.

I’m just wondering: does the minister have, in contemplation, what this is going to look like in practice? In other words, do we have any guidelines? Do we have any potential comments that the minister could make about potential practice that might be set out in regulation? I’m curious to understand what the future is going to look like, so that the people listening to the debate…. I suspect that this bill will pass. What’s the law in British Columbia going to look like once this is passed, with respect to the issue of the awarding of what is now all or part of the actual costs in these kinds of proceedings?

Hon. S. Anton: If the question was “what is the impact of the tribunals?” the answer is none, because the change, as I said, is simply a correction of a drafting oversight. It’s not a change in practice or direction to any of the tribunals.

[ Page 7105 ]

L. Krog: I suppose one of the questions is around certainty, then. Is it anticipated, notwithstanding this legislation, which is potentially going to allow for clustering…? Are we anticipating setting some kind of standard practice, or how are costs awarded in the varying tribunals that might be involved — or proceedings?

I guess I’m looking for some comment from the minister around the issue of some sort of consistency. If we are going to cluster, one would presume that there might be clustering to ensure that the same practice applies across the board. Or is this kind of a…? I forget the numbers — unfortunately, I don’t have them in front of me — of bodies involved. I mean, are they going to be setting some individual practices as they’ve done historically, or is the move towards some kind of comprehensive level, when it comes to the issue of costs?

[1555]

Hon. S. Anton: It is the case that costs are always considered on a case-by-case basis. The issue of clustering relating to this section, the power to award costs — we haven’t linked those two. This

section has been there independently of clustering and remains there independently of clustering.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response that costs are awarded on the basis of each individual case, as it is in the court system. Nevertheless, certain things come into practice. Practitioners in this area can generally advise clients or the people they represent that it’s not a hard-and-fast rule. “However, this is likely to happen, and this is likely to be the result if you are successful or not successful, as the case may be.”

If this is as loose as the Attorney General suggests — in other words, it’s not going to change the practice as a result of clustering — it obviously leads to this question. Given the move towards clustering, was there not some thought given — and if not, why not? — to the concept that we would enter into some more comprehensive and legible, accessible program relating to costs?

That’s so that people can advise their clients, if they are legal representatives or advocates, or alternatively, if they’re individuals taking a matter before an administrative tribunal, so that they’re in a position to assess for themselves what the potential risks are and what the benefits might be if they are successful or the downside if they’re not.

Hon. S. Anton: As I’ve said before today, the clustering is to look more at back-office operations. The individual mandates of the individual tribunals will remain with those tribunals and their legislation behind them. Again, as I said a few moments ago, this is simply a drafting clarification.

L. Krog: I’m just wondering. Given the proliferation of administrative tribunals and administrative law generally in the last few decades, would it not be good public policy to try and ensure some uniformity in terms of practice? Would that not make it easier for people to seek justice and obtain justice from administrative tribunals if, in fact, there was some sort of commonality of practice, awarding of costs, instead of making it, if you will, such a highly almost individualistic process whereby the costs that you might be awarded in one tribunal are not going to bear any great relation, necessarily, to the cost that could be awarded as a result of the decision of a different tribunal?

[1600]

In other words, is there not some public value in trying to ensure that there’s a certain level of practice — in other words, that there is some certainty and common knowledge of how these processes work so that they are, quite candidly, not just friendly to those who choose to practise in the area, as lawyers or advocates, but are friendly to the general public?

I mean: is there a public benefit here? I hope…. I’m trying to get across to the minister what I’m driving at here in terms of all our actual costs and what the philosophy was, given that this is an amendment act for a bill that has been around for a long time now. It hasn’t been fully implemented, and we are giving it a second kick at the cat to try and make it workable.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Was there some thought given to trying to make this whole process more publicly friendly, as opposed to what it appears to me to be, which is allowing for some administrative efficiencies and perhaps some financial savings only but not necessarily making a more publicly friendly and accessible process?

Hon. S. Anton: One of the things that it’s important not to do is tie the hands of tribunals. Our tribunals have quite different mandates and operate in many different areas of the law. It may be that in some clustered tribunals the executive chairs would like to direct that some of these issues, such as costs, be treated in a similar manner, but it may be that it’s not necessary or not even appropriate to do that.

I think it would be wrong at this point to say one way or the other whether costs were going to be changed as a result of this. Each tribunal remains independent in its mandate and will continue to be so. As I have said several times, the change in this

section is simply a drafting change. It’s not a practice change.

[ Page 7106 ]

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

L. Krog:

Section 22 includes a number of new provisions: 47.1 and 47.2 The first deals with the section. It says: “The tribunal may require an applicant or intervener to deposit with it an amount of money it considers sufficient to cover all or part of either or both of the following: (

a) the anticipated costs of the other parties or interveners; (

b) the anticipated actual costs and expenses of the tribunal in connection with the application.”

[1605]

In sub (2) it goes on to say: “An order under

section 47 [power to award costs] may include directions respecting the disposition of money deposited under subsection (1).”

One of the concerns that has been raised, of course, is…. In terms of the depositing of an amount of money to cover all costs, is the minister not concerned that the risk is indeed that you will deter people from seeking access to justice in an administrative tribunal?

In other words, when you’re having to come up with what could be a significant amount of money…. We don’t know that, and questions will follow on that issue. Surely there is a prospect that we’ll be, in fact, denying justice to people who are scared away, if you will, by the prospect that the risks associated with those — an adverse cost award — are just too significant.

[1610]

Hon. S. Anton: We have included this in the Administrative Tribunals Act so that it is a

section which can become available to tribunals should that be appropriate.

The only act that incorporates a security for costs at the moment now is the Environmental Management Act. There is a consequential amendment to that act, which will amend it so that it refers to this new

section rather than including it in its own enabling statute.

The only other statute which this

section is proposed to apply to at the moment will be the oil and gas tribunal act, which will also be amended to apply these sections. Just recall that these sections will not apply to any tribunal unless their enabling statutes specifically authorize it.

V. Huntington: Just on 47.1(1)(

a) especially, this seems to give the perception that a tribunal can prejudge the outcome of the hearing if they are looking at the potential for anticipated costs that they might charge against other parties and the interveners.

Does the minister feel that this does give that perception, that the tribunal can prejudge? Why is this specifically here and not just the opportunity to charge costs at the end of a hearing if it was so desired?

Hon. S. Anton: We are only aware of one time where this provision has actually been used by the environmental appeal tribunal. That was where an appellant had repeatedly failed to show up. The tribunal didn’t want to reschedule without knowing that the next hearing would actually proceed, and the tribunal required costs to be paid in advance of the hearing. As I said, this is the only time we know that that provision has been used.

In terms of whether or not a tribunal would prejudge, I would like to point out that these are expert tribunals. They are led by people who take their work extremely seriously and their position extremely seriously. They are peopled by tribunal members who take their work extremely seriously. They make fair decisions. It’s their goal to make fair and independent decisions. It is not their goal to be unfair to applicants or persons in front of them.

[1615]

By the way, Chair, I think I said “appellant,” but the correct term would have been “applicant” in that case.

V. Huntington: But the fact is that we’re looking at a piece of legislation that gives that perception. I’ve been a member of an appeal tribunal. I know people work with the best interests of their job at hand. The fact is, though, that this legislation says that they may and gives the perception of prejudging.

If it is because it is an attempt to avoid vexatious applications, then why doesn’t the legislation state that? Why does it leave it wide open in this instance? And that is not meant to be any insult to any member of any tribunal in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question is: why would we not limit in legislation the times that this can be used? I do think it’s preferable to leave it open because it would be impossible to delineate all the possible circumstances.

Again, I should reiterate that it is not a provision that’s been used very often. The Environmental Appeal Board has had it since 1997, and they’ve only used it once. The member, as a former member, I believe, of that tribunal, will know how seriously tribunal members, when they’re hearing such issues, take their task and how concerned they are with fairness for the persons appearing in front of them.

L. Krog: I just wonder, then: can the minister confirm that there are only two administrative tribunals, then, in the province that even have authority under existing legislation to require a deposit of security for costs?

[1620]

Hon. S. Anton: Just a reminder to the member opposite that courts, of course, have this authority. There may be other bodies in government which have this authority, but I would not have any kind of comprehensive list.

In terms of tribunals, the ones who have this kind of authority

[ Page 7107 ]

or are proposed to have this kind of authority are these. The Environmental Appeal Board has this authority now. Through this legislation, if it is to be passed, the Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal will also be given the authority under the Administrative Tribunals Act amendments. The surface rights board has its own legislation, and it, too, has this ability. Those are the tribunals who are proposed to have this authority.

L. Krog: Not being a brilliant expert on oil and gas and surface rights, I’m going to assume that these tribunals — the minister will correct me if I’m wrong — would, generally speaking, potentially involve parties who felt aggrieved and were raising environmental concerns, presumably, particularly those in the environmental community. In other words, it might be the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, for instance, or perhaps the Sierra Club or organizations of that type that would be involved in these kinds of appeals — perhaps a local protective association that has an interest in conserving land.

Do these tribunals that the minister has mentioned and which either have the right or will have…? Is that what those tribunals deal with?

[1625]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was who might appeal in front of the Environmental Appeal Board. Given that the Environmental Appeal Board deals with appeals from decisions of statutory decision-makers — including those around water licences, contaminated site remediation, pesticide use, hunting licences and various other kinds of decisions which are made — I think that we can only imagine the different variety of groups of people or individuals who may appear in front of the Environmental Appeal Board.

L. Krog: I thought that m