2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Statements

Economic Development Week

Hon. P. Bell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Marge Goulet

B. Simpson

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Stone Soup Festival and local food security

J. Kwan

Child and Youth in Care Week

G. Hogg

100 th anniversary of Victoria Khalsa Diwan Sikh Temple

R. Fleming

Phenylketonuria

B. Bennett

Tourism industry

S. Chandra Herbert

Drinking water protection

J. Slater

Oral Questions

Government energy policy and electricity generation costs

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Vehicle safety inspections

H. Bains

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Status of moose population and game animal inventory

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Thomson

Genetically modified fruit trees and Okanagan tree fruit industry

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

Changes to adult education courses for high school graduates

M. Elmore

Hon. G. Abbott

Costs to B.C. of federal anti-crime legislation

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents

WorkSafe B.C., 2011 Annual Report and 2012-2014 Service Plan

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 47 — Committee of Supply to sit in three sections (continued)

H. Lali

B. Simpson

C. James

L. Krog

Hon. P. Bell

A. Dix

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

Motion 46 — Changes to legislative sitting hours

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

B. Simpson

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 45 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Bill 51 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012 (continued)

R. Chouhan

J. Brar

G. Gentner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

G. Gentner

Hon. M. de Jong

D. Black

M. Mungall

M. Farnworth

S. Hammell

K. Conroy

G. O'Mahony

C. Trevena

[ Page 11959 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEEK

Hon. P. Bell: I have three quick things on my agenda here. The first one is to rise and announce that this week has been proclaimed Economic Development Week here in British Columbia. We acknowledge that the strength of the provincial, municipal, regional and aboriginal economies is critical to supporting families in British Columbia. We're pleased that the government is committed to ensuring a strong, prosperous economy. Economic Development Week is a big week for all of us. It means that we can all find ways to support the social services that we're all looking for.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: The second step of three…. This one is definitely an applause one. We're joined in the gallery by a group of administrative professionals from the economic development division of the ministry — Aleesa Paulson, Leigh Anne McDonald, Nicole Dailly, Marilyn Rundell and Peggy Grant. I would ask that the members please make them all very welcome.

The third and final quick point I have is that I understand that it's the member for Vancouver–West End's birthday today. I understand it may be his second anniversary of his 29th birthday. For those that need math help, that would be 31. I think that's impressive, and I think we all long for those days of being 31. I would ask that all members please wish the member opposite a happy birthday.

C. James: I have another school group visiting the legislative precinct today. I'd like the House to welcome 21 grade 4 students from St. Patrick's School in Victoria. They're spending the day learning about the Legislative Assembly and how government works and observing the proceedings.

The students are accompanied by their teacher and principal, Mr. Patrick Card; their student teacher, Mr. Alec James; and six parent chaperones. But there's also one very special guest who's there with the class today, and that's the daughter of our able Deputy Clerk of the House. Megan Ryan-Lloyd is here. She is actually turning ten tomorrow, so I'd like the House to please wish her a very happy birthday and welcome the class to the Legislature.

D. Barnett: Today in the House I'd like to welcome Scott McFadyen from the Canadian Propane Association and Derek Belton from the B.C. propane committee. Welcome to the House.

K. Conroy: It also gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome a school group here, a group from Stanley Humphries high school. It's actually the high school I graduated from. This grade 11 French immersion class is here with their teacher, Fiona Martin, who was here last year as part of the teachers institute, and she was so impressed with the institute that she decided to bring her class here with her this year.

Also with the group is Duff Sutherland, who happens to be the husband of my constituency assistant, Edena Brown, and they are dad and mom to one of the students, Fraser Sutherland. I would be remiss, though, if I didn't introduce one of the other students, who happens to be my baby brother's daughter. My niece, Sawyer Thor-Larsen, is here with them also. Would the House please join me in welcoming all of the students here.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Today I had the opportunity and the privilege to host an event in the rotunda to recognize the great work of an organization called CAYA, which stands for communication assistance for youth and adults. CAYA provides equipment and services to British Columbians with communication disabilities. April Proudlove, who is a young woman here with cerebral palsy, demonstrated how her Vanguard communication device gives her a voice.

Joining us today in the gallery, we have Jeff Riley, who is the manager for CAYA; provincial speech language pathologists Lois Turner, Tessa Lowis and Jan Dunn; speech language pathology assistants Sarah Gauthier and Callie Coulson. We also have CAYA clients Ashleigh Dukoff with her attendant, Kim Bouchard, and Alex Schaum. I'd like the House to please make them all very welcome.

[1340]

D. Donaldson: I note that Derek Belton from the Canadian Propane Association is in the gallery. He met earlier with the official opposition Finance critic and myself, and it was a very informative session. Would the members please make him welcome.

B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce 12 people today, who are here with a non-profit organization called CanPKU. PKU is a rare metabolic disorder. It stands for phenylketonuria. I'll be giving a statement about it in a few minutes.

I'd like to introduce, with CanPKU, Amanda Cosburn, Rosie Pallone, Cole Watts and Hayden Young, first of all. They have this disorder, hon. Speaker. I'd also like to introduce John Adams, who is the president and CEO of

[ Page 11960 ]

the organization. Nicole Pallone is vice-president, and Brienna Young is a board member. Also with them today is — and I apologize if I don't get the names perfectly here — Gerre Barnett, Carmella Pallone, Cole Rickett, Barb Watts and Josh Wells.

Please help me make them welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome a number of visitors from the Corpus Christi Elementary School joining us today. There are 30 grade 5 students, ten adults, and they are accompanied by Mrs. Maureen Konstantinov. I ask everyone to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm pleased to welcome some very special guests to the Legislature this afternoon. A number of young people have joined us as we get ready to kick off B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week, which starts May 20. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today, and I am really looking forward to celebrating next week with them.

I would also like to welcome representatives from our key partner groups for Child and Youth in Care Week. They are Lorena Pilgrim and Lisa Mickleborough with the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks, Gary Mavis and Sade Scott of the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents, and Russell Pole of B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations. Joining us from the Adoptive Families Association of B.C. are Sophia Barton-Bucknor, Cathy Gilbert and Courtenay Crucil.

Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Tributes

MARGE GOULET

B. Simpson: On Wednesday, May 9, Marge Goulet passed away. Marge was a true Métis elder and knowledge-keeper. Born on September 4, 1945, she was raised in the traditional ways of her people, living off the land and speaking the Cree language fluently. Marge worked with children at risk in the Quesnel area and with the provincial Métis Association, and she was a tireless advocate for better health care and housing for Métis seniors.

Marge Goulet will be sorely missed by her husband and her three adult children, and by the Métis community in both Cariboo and in the province.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: For the last 18 years the B.C. environmental assessment office has had a very important task of ensuring that our natural resources are developed in a sustainable and responsible manner. Today we have in question period galleries some of the very, very important administrative assistant team from the BCEAO, including Eowyn McEwen, who is the correspondent clerk; Chrystal Fenton, the project assessment assistant; Jane Mayall, Leigh-Anne Gajowski, and Nataliya Matsko and Susan Hall, who are also project assessment assistants. From the associate deputy minister's office we have Karla Kennedy, who is the manager of executive operations and strategic initiatives.

I hope the House will join me in making them very welcome to the House today.

J. Kwan: Indeed, this is Economic Development Week, and we join with the minister in celebrating that. The NDP opposition had the great pleasure today of having lunch with representatives from the YVR — YVR president Larry Berg, along with Tony Gugliotta — right? Almost. He is the vice-president, of course, of the YVR. We know that YVR is an important component of economic development and in contributing to the B.C. economy.

I ask the House to please make these guests welcome as we celebrate Economic Development Week.

[1345]

J. Slater: It's my extreme pleasure to introduce in the gallery today Jim Mattison, who is a board member of B.C. Water and Waste Association. Jim was also a past assistant deputy minister with the Ministry of Environment. He was affectionately known in British Columbia as Mr. Water. Would the House make him very welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd like the House to make welcome two constituents from Kelowna-Mission, Barb Watts and her son Cole. They're here as part of the PKU Awareness Month that the member for Kootenay East referenced. I'd like the House to make them welcome — two constituents from Kelowna-Mission.

L. Reid: I'd ask all members to join with me in welcoming two remarkable women to the gallery. We have M.J. Carroll and her mom, Evelyn Carroll. Their dad was my first principal in Richmond at Woodward Elementary School when I came to be in, probably, my second year of teaching — a glorious educator, a glorious family. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, in my rush to do a number of introductions, I missed one. There are two birthdays being celebrated in the Legislature today. The 31-year-old member for Vancouver–West End, who is undoubtedly the youngest member of the House, is also joined by the Minister of Environment, who is today celebrating his 55th birthday — I think incredibly well preserved for 55. I would ask that the House please congratulate the Minister of Environment on making it through 55 glorious years.

[ Page 11961 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

STONE SOUP FESTIVAL

AND LOCAL FOOD SECURITY

J. Kwan: From a bustling network of farmers markets to local community garden plots, many individuals and organizations in my constituency are active participants in the movement to strengthen our local food system.

This past Saturday members of the community gathered along the Napier Greenway for the 17th annual Stone Soup Festival, an event that serves to celebrate and raise awareness of food security issues. The festival was hosted by the Britannia Community Centre and featured live music and children's activities; educational workshops; a market for local farmers, artists and food vendors; and of course, healthy servings of free soup.

The festival is more than just about food, however. It is about bringing people together to strengthen bonds in the community that will help us move forward toward a more equitable and environmentally sustainable food system that produces healthy food for everyone — something I know our critic, the member for Saanich South, has advocated for.

I would invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating the wonderful staff and volunteers for another successful year of the Stone Soup Festival.

CHILD AND YOUTH IN CARE WEEK

G. Hogg: "Notice. Listen. Respect. Stand with B.C. children and youth in care." A powerful slogan written by a group of remarkable young British Columbians working together to help create the nation's only week that celebrates children and youth in care. Last year B.C. became the only province in Canada to proclaim such a week, and now we get to celebrate the second annual awareness week honouring young people who are in the care of the province.

The week celebrates the individuality, the accomplishments and the talents of the children and youth in care. At noon today I met with one of those talents, a man who, like me, is an aficionado of rap, a man who, unlike me, is very talented. So a special shout-out to Chris Tait. Shout out!

The week encourages community members from all walks of life to stand in support of young people in care. There are approximately 8,200 children and youth in government care in B.C. They are our neighbours, our children's friends and classmates. Like all children and youth, they are unique individuals with their own dreams, experiences, talents and challenges.

We want young people in care across B.C. to know that we care about them and that we care about their futures and that no matter what success means to each of them, we are here to help them achieve it. B.C. Children and Youth in Care Week wouldn't be possible without the contributions of our key partners.

[1350]

I'd like to acknowledge and to thank them — the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks, the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents, the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations and the Adoptive Families Association of B.C. These organizations stand with and for children and youth in care every day.

I ask this House and the people throughout the province to stand with and for children and youth in care as part of this very special awareness week. B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week is May 20 to May 26.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

VICTORIA KHALSA DIWAN SIKH TEMPLE

R. Fleming: This weekend marks a very significant occasion in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake. The Khalsa Diwan Sikh Temple at 1210 Topaz Avenue is officially celebrating its 100th anniversary.

The original temple, or gurdwara, was established at its present site in May 1912, making it British Columbia's third Sikh temple. A handsome brick and wood structure, it was built for a contracted price of $7,500. Prior to its opening, Sikhs gathered for prayer and rented rooms or community homes.

One hundred years ago, Victoria's Sikh temple opened with a massive parade of 1,200 Sikhs throughout our city's downtown. In Chinatown supportive banners flew from buildings of the various Chinese societies. Newspaper accounts recall that at the head of the parade on horseback was Prof. Teja Singh, a Harvard graduate and the leader of the temple, who preached "the gospel of equality at the street corners to the rows and rows of spectators wedged together along the parade route."

Victoria's Sikh population arrived in the capital city in 1906. Records show that by 1910 there were 4,000 Sikhs living and working on Vancouver Island. The Daily Colonist describes these early immigrants as "strong, strapping men around 30 years of age, having been either soldiers or farmers, now working on B.C.'s railway projects, sawmills and industrial operations."

Then Canada passed a shameful law to stem more arrivals from the Punjab that stripped Sikh veterans of the British army of their legal right to immigrate to Canada. In 1914, B.C. experienced the pain of the Komagata Maru incident, where Canada's unjust maritime law was complied with, but the ship still ordered to return to India.

It was not until the 1920s that Canada finally allowed the wives and children of B.C.'s Sikh pioneers to join them. With families intact, Victoria's tight knit Sikh community flourished in the following decades.

Eventually, the temple outgrew its size constraints. In

[ Page 11962 ]

1969 the original temple building was demolished to make way for a new and larger temple, this time costing $200,000, on the same site. Atop its 41 steps is the most glorious vista in Victoria. I invite all members of the House to join with me in congratulating the Sikh community for 100 years in Victoria.

PHENYLKETONURIA

B. Bennett: Today I'm going to have the pleasure to meet with representatives for CanPKU, the group that I introduced earlier. It's a Canadian non-profit group dedicated to educating and advancing the causes of people diagnosed phenylketonuria, a rare metabolic disorder.

Essentially, people with PKU are missing an enzyme to break down protein in food, specifically one amino acid. This amino acid is called phenylalanine. It's often called PHE. Since this amino acid can't be processed completely, it builds up in the blood in excess amounts across the blood-brain barrier. When excess amounts build up, brain damage and other neurological problems result.

Anyone who has had a child in recent years is probably familiar with the PKU test. It's conducted in a hospital through a blood spot collection 24 to 48 hours following birth. A newborn baby's heel is pricked in order to collect the drops of blood for testing. If a condition is diagnosed, follow-up and treatment will begin immediately.

British Columbia in 1964 was one of the first jurisdictions to test newborns for PKU. Now, after B.C.'s leadership, each province and territory in Canada has their own government-run newborn screening program.

If untreated, children will develop serious, irreversible mental disabilities. Screening means that babies with PKU can be found early and treated with a special diet, which will prevent severe disability and allow them to lead a normal life. If babies are not screened but are found later to have PKU, it may be too late for the special diet to make a difference.

One baby in 12,000 in British Columbia is born with PKU. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the representatives here today on behalf of all of us here in the House for the education that they are providing us legislators on this rare but important-to-understand disease. I look forward to the discussions we'll have this afternoon on how those diagnosed are treated and their symptoms managed.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it is Tourism Week in Canada, National Tourism Week.

Interjections.

[1355]

S. Chandra Herbert: That's right, it should be a cause for celebration. Tourism Week and Economic Development Week — it's a good week to be in B.C.

Well, I'm calling on this House to recognize that we need to do better by our tourism businesses, by our tourism non-profits, by the tourism employees who bring us one of the top three economic impacts in our province. Indeed, one of the top employers in B.C. is tourism businesses.

It's easy for members to sometimes forget that, because the sector is so diverse. There are businesses ranging from the ecotourism to the agritourism to the cultural tourism to the ski tourism to the recreational tourism, and on and on you go. There are many, many different ways to see our province.

The industry is calling on us to recognize that competitively funded tourism marketing is vital. It's a competitive industry out there. Many people want what we have. Unless we pay attention to the marketing side, we could lose the market share that we have.

Indeed, it's been tough times in B.C. We're not quite at the levels we were at before the Olympics, and the industry wants us to pay attention to marketing even more. They want industry leadership for marketing. They want formula-funded for marketing so that they can make sure they can plan years ahead. That is something that certainly we on this side of the House and, I understand, that side of the House are interested in as well. We hope that that happens very, very quickly.

Whether you are in northern B.C., Kootenay Rockies, Thompson-Okanagan, Vancouver Island, Vancouver coast or Cariboo-Chilcotin coast, there is so much to do in our great province. We on this side of the House would urge all British Columbians to get out and see our great province in this upcoming long weekend, because when the money is spent here, it stays here. It grows jobs here. Tourism is helped out because of that.

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

J. Slater: This week is Drinking Water Week across the province, organized by the B.C. Water and Waste Association. It is an opportunity to celebrate our natural resources and take some time to think about what we can do to help protect and conserve those resources.

The demand for drinking water across the world is increasing, and it is crucial that we look at our own water habits. There are many simple things that we can do to reduce our water consumption — for example, install an inexpensive shower timer in the shower to help you monitor and reduce showering times. Ensure that your toilet is running properly, and fix any leaks or excess running water. Always properly dispose of medications and hazardous materials so that they don't contaminate our water supply. Water your lawn early in the morning to reduce evaporation.

You can find many more tips on drinkingwaterweek.org. While there, I suggest you sign up and take the B.C.

[ Page 11963 ]

Community Water Challenge. You will be doing your part to help protect our drinking water.

You can also get involved where you live. There are community drinking water events going on across the province, from the Okanagan WaterWise Challenge to the drinking water booth at the Coquitlam Farmers Market.

Here in B.C. we are lucky to have some of the safest and cleanest drinking water in the world. Ask Greenwood. Since the creation in 2002 of B.C.'s Action Plan for Safe Drinking Water we have seen a number of significant improvements: more certified operators — more than 1,300 newly certified since 2002; a new on-line course designed to help train small systems operators; improved notification and reporting of boil water notices; monitoring data and other information by health authorities and water suppliers; and strategies, tools and procedures that health authorities may use to find and regulate small water systems.

I am proud of those achievements, but there is always more to be done. It is up to all of us to ensure that we continue to do our part to protect B.C.'s drinking water.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ENERGY POLICY AND

ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS

J. Horgan: Yesterday we asked the Energy Minister a series of very serious questions about why it is that B.C. Hydro is being forced to spill water over publicly owned, publicly paid–for dams in the Peace country, while B.C. Hydro is then forced to buy expensive, independent power at four times the market rate.

The minister took us through a lovely walk down memory lane yesterday, as he had 24 hours to figure out just how much it's costing the taxpayers of British Columbia to let water flow over the turbines rather than generating electricity for B.C.

[1400]

Hon. R. Coleman: Speaking of memory lane, I'll just give a little memory lane to the member opposite. This is a quote from the member on CKNW on November 5, 2006. He's always going on about the premium you might have to pay for some renewable energy when you want to have balance and make sure you have enough energy for when times are tough, like maybe in drought years when you don't have excessive water between your dams. He says: "We should pay a premium for renewables so that we can rid ourselves of technologies like coal."

I get that the member wants it both….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member wants it both ways, but we have a high water year this year. The possibility of spill may take place this year because of that. Next year we could have a drought year, and we would not be spilling.

We have dams in B.C. where we haven't had the spill since 1994, depending on what the high water year was in British Columbia and how we maximize the use of our dams. We'll continue to do that.

This is a particularly high water year. We have looked at it, and we'll continue to monitor it for the benefit of our ratepayers.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Just for some context for the quote from six years ago. It was after the B.C. Liberals announced that they were going to build two coal-fired plants in British Columbia. The member for Peace River South will remember that very well.

Now, I appreciate….

Interjections.

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

Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that context is a problem for the members on the other side of the House. But let's just focus on what was said by a B.C. Hydro spokesperson yesterday: "The spill is necessary to manage an excess supply of energy in the B.C. Hydro system right now."

Let's burrow down on that, if we could, for a moment. Why do we have surplus power? Because we've signed long-term fixed contracts with high-priced independent power producers. Rather than generating electricity for pennies and providing low rates for British Columbians, B.C. Liberals — by policy and ideology — chose instead to spend four and five times the market rate.

Can the minister explain, rather than reviewing the matter, what steps he is taking to reduce costs for British Columbians by ensuring our hydro rates stay low?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing we are not going to do is try and build a power plant in Pakistan.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Am I to understand that the opposition opposes wind power? Am I to understand that the opposition opposes green power? Am I to understand that the opposition opposes bioenergy using wood waste

[ Page 11964 ]

from our forests to create electricity? Those are all alternate powers, hon. Member, and they all cost more than hydroelectric power.

I also think — mind you, I do have quotes to the contrary, but going both ways — they oppose Site C, because they keep going back and forth on that.

News flash for the member opposite: new power costs more than the power that was built in the 1960s. We have to invest in it. You didn't do it in the 1990s. We're doing it now to protect the future of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Keenleyside, Stave Falls, Seven Mile — all hydro developments that took place in the 1990s. Now, the reason you update infrastructure is when that infrastructure runs out of legs. Twenty years ago we didn't need to update infrastructure; now we do. The shoe is on the other foot.

[1405]

The challenge B.C. Hydro has now is that the government in power forced them to buy power that was not economic. The result today is a 36 percent rate increase over the next four years and projected increases of 18 percent over the next three years.

Now, I know the minister is going to stand up and say something about the time when the member for West Vancouver–Capilano was in short pants. But what we want to know is: what are you going to do today to keep rates low for British Columbians? What are you going to do?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes the member opposite can paint a picture that even makes me shiver just a little bit. I'm talking about the short pants.

Our reservoirs have begun to refill. In the last couple of weeks we've had a rapid snowmelt. That can happen. Anybody that's ever been around emergency preparedness in this province and water management for flood control, including in the United States, will know this. There's a critical period of time. Right now we're in it — the six to eight weeks that we're in.

It doesn't matter whether the snowpack is large or small, but particularly when it's large, if you have too fast a melt, it fills up everything. It fills up the system, and you will have a condition where, because of that…. In the past week particularly, we've had a rapid snowmelt which accelerates the spill planning simply because of the melt. We have to be there to do it.

The member's other question. I know the member opposite supported the union to try and get a 9.73 percent in hydro rates put in place for each of the next three years. They continue to do that. You're wrong. We don't need to do that. We can keep rates down. Because of the changes we've made at B.C. Hydro — the procurement processes we've done, the staff changes we've made — we're in a position to go a lot lower on rates, and we will continue to fight to do that.

VEHICLE SAFETY INSPECTIONS

H. Bains: Data from ICBC and the Ministry of Transportation shows that since 2003 we have lost one in four inspector positions in B.C. During the same time heavy commercial vehicle traffic has increased by 50 percent. As a result, in 2011, B.C. had the second-highest out-of-service rate in Canada.

To the Minister of Transportation: why is this government putting safety of our commercial transport truckers and the general public on our roads at risk by cutting inspectors positions?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Unfortunately, Member, you're wrong. The numbers for CVSE…. If you want to look at it in 2003, we had a total of 276 employees. Today, 2011, it's 272.

Actually, the men and women out there on our roads do an incredible job. Most of us are well aware of the work that they do. They keep our roads safe. They inspect the trucks out there to make sure that they meet the safety standards.

The inspections, it's interesting to note…. It's unfortunate. The information that was put out there…. I believe it was by the head of the union, in trying to attract additional members for the union to pay their dues. He was wrong as well. In 2004 there were 26,635 total inspections. Last year we did 30,453.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Maybe this will help the minister, because he's ignoring a lot of facts out there on this really serious file. Since 2003 the number of reported heavy commercial vehicle crashes has increased. Over 85 percent of the weigh stations in the province are either working on reduced hours or closed. What that means is more traffic, less inspections, more accidents.

Minister of Transportation, can you tell us this? Will you commit to ensure there are sufficient numbers of vehicle inspectors to ensure that the drivers on our roads are safe?

[1410]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Let me start with this. Safety is our highest priority in the Ministry of Transportation. We will always look after that.

I will, once again, take the opportunity to thank the men and women that work within the CVSE, both at our

[ Page 11965 ]

scales and on the mobile scales that we have out there within the permit centres as well.

I want to go back to what the member just said. In fact, Member, crashes involving commercial trucks are down 30 percent since 2003.

STATUS OF MOOSE POPULATION

AND GAME ANIMAL INVENTORY

D. Donaldson: Survey data show that moose populations across the province are plummeting. In some regions the numbers are down by 60 percent. The problem is that the Liberals have their head in the sand. There haven't been timely inventories completed on moose and other game animal populations under this Liberal government. That's what people on the ground…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Donaldson: …in the know, are saying.

The Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. say they've been raising these concerns for years. Can the minister responsible tell us why his government has been so negligent on this serious problem of declining moose populations in B.C.?

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the member opposite for the question. The numbers are of some concern, the recent inventory numbers. They're not considered a conservation risk or an immediate conservation concern. But again, the numbers point to the need to continue to engage with the stakeholders, with GOABC, with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, with First Nations in those communities to look at the numbers and to determine the cause of the declines in certain areas.

Those engagement processes are underway. In those areas where we need to take appropriate steps, we will do so in terms of whether we need to adjust limited-entry hunts or whether we need to take other steps in those areas. The inventory work will continue, and we'll continue to work with all the stakeholders in the region where the declines have been identified, to look to take the appropriate steps to address those declines.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Hon. Speaker, I see members on the other side laughing and smirking about this issue. It's no joke. Small businesses dependent on hunters are worried. Guide-outfitters are worried about their livelihood. First Nations are worried about losing a traditional food source. Their attitude shows total contempt for people in rural B.C.

Tl'etinqox-t'in Chief Joe Alphonse, whose traditional territories are greatly impacted by this issue, said this: "We are not sure what the problem is — whether it's a lack of scientific evidence needed by the provincial government employees or a lack of political will by the provincial Liberal government or a combination of both."

The government now, purportedly, has the scientific evidence. So is it just a lack of political will? Why are the Liberals leaving people who live on the land in rural areas to pay the price for this government's incompetence?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite is wrong. We're taking this issue very seriously. As I said, the numbers are of concern. We're consulting with all the stakeholder groups throughout all of those regions. In '11-12 we've invested additional money in inventory work — $2 million this year in inventory work, in '11-12. We've got additional resources committed for the inventory work for the upcoming year to determine the causes of this problem.

There are a variety of factors. We need to determine what those factors may be that have resulted in some of the declines in the numbers. We are fully engaged with the stakeholders, with wildlife experts, with the First Nations in this area in addressing those specific numbers, those areas of concerns. Where we identify the issues and the problems, we'll take the appropriate action in terms of adjusting the wildlife management, limited-entry hunts or other steps that may be need to be taken in those areas to address the declining numbers in some of those regions.

[1415]

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FRUIT TREES

AND OKANAGAN TREE FRUIT INDUSTRY

L. Popham: The B.C. tree fruit industry produces a healthy product that is world-famous for flavour and purity. Growers are concerned that this marketing advantage is about to be undermined and put at risk as the federal government is considering the introduction of a genetically modified apple tree into the Okanagan.

Joe Sardinha, a conventional apple grower, has this to say: "Until I am convinced there won't be a market backlash, I'm not willing to take that risk." Fred Steele, another conventional grower, says: "Our markets will disappear." The B.C. Fruit Growers Association just last year passed a resolution opposing the introduction of genetically modified fruit.

What has the Agriculture Minister done to raise the concerns of our world-class apple growers with the federal government?

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to extend my thank-you to the member for Boundary-Similkameen, a person who is well in tune with the apple industry, for raising this issue with me and asking my staff to look into it. Because

[ Page 11966 ]

of that I actually have some information for the member opposite.

We all realize that the CFIA is a federal entity, and perhaps this question would be best raised by maybe the Agriculture critic from the NDP at the federal level. I'm sure Thomas Mulcair is very pleased it's being asked here. But for that reason, because we want to know the answer, here are a couple of things you should know.

First of all, when the member for Boundary-Similkameen raised this issue, I said to my deputy minister: "We want to make sure the CFIA is aware." He has talked to the president of the CFIA, and the CFIA president is aware that we are questioning what's going on in this issue, even though it is a federal responsibility.

Furthermore, I also asked because I know there are concerns, raised by the member for Boundary-Similkameen, in the organic industry. I know the Agriculture critic actually is very concerned about the organic industry. Just today I asked my staff to make sure that the COABC, which represents the organic industry of British Columbia, is aware of this issue as well. I am very confident that the federal government is on top of it, but I'm also equally confident that my ministry is as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: It's all well and good that the Agriculture Minister is issuing a red alert to everyone in the industry. But we all know what's going on, and it's time that he caught up.

Organic apple producers are very concerned. That's true. Pete Simonsen, an organic apple grower in Naramata, says that introducing genetically modified apples into the Okanagan will "kill the organic industry because of cross-pollination." Mr. Simonsen is concerned because if seeds in his apples are found to contain genetically modified material, he will lose his certified organic status. Introducing genetically modified fruit would be disastrous for our organic fruit industry and damage the brand of B.C. fruit.

Will the Agriculture Minister and the B.C. Liberals stand with the opposition and the B.C. Fruit Growers Association and say no to genetically modified fruit in the Okanagan and British Columbia?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm going to just run through some of my notes, because it's important that we have clarity here. The product in question has been submitted for approval, but it is not approved, nor is it currently available to growers or consumers. As you all know, GMO crops are a federal jurisdiction. The application, which is very easily found, is at the www.inspection.gc.ca website.

Individuals, whether they are representing a group or just as an individual farmer like the organic farmer you mentioned, are invited by the federal government to make their comments known, to the members opposite. The company itself that is making the application is very transparent as well. CFIA will review the submission through their processes and rule on its merits. But it's not a provincial jurisdiction.

I also know that the CFIA has committed to consulting with the tree fruit industry as part of its review. But the reality is that to date, no applications for perennial crops….

Interjections.

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

Member for Fraser-Nicola, I expect an apology to the entire House for that.

[1420]

H. Lali: I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: No, not withdrawing.

H. Lali: I apologize.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: I was so excited about my answer that I actually didn't hear the member for Fraser-Nicola. At least, it'll give me something to do after the….

Interjections.

Hon. D. McRae: Okay. I'll get over it.

Anyway, I want to make sure, as well, that the members opposite are aware that to date no applications for perennial crops with genetically modified genes have been approved in Canada. It's expected this process will go through due process but will take some time to process.

Again, I want to take this time to thank the member for Boundary-Similkameen for raising this issue with me.

CHANGES TO ADULT EDUCATION COURSES

FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

M. Elmore: The original decision to offer adult basic education to all learners was based on a report called Campus 2020 written by Geoff Plant, a former Liberal Attorney General. Mr. Plant said: "The public interest in eliminating barriers to participation in post-secondary education requires that no tuition be charged to any adult learner seeking to upgrade their education by completing high school courses, whether or not they already have a Dogwood certificate."

My question is to the minister. Why are financial barriers for graduated students now part of B.C. Liberal

[ Page 11967 ]

policy?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I mentioned to the member yesterday, for those who have not yet graduated from high school — that is, they may be in grade 11 or 12, haven't completed high school — the courses remain free and are continuing as they always have. There have been changes, with respect to the folks who have graduated and are going back for upgrading, for some courses. Those core courses will remain available to the graduates.

It's important to note that we have seen, for some courses — not so much the core courses but many of the courses that have been added for graduates, the elective specialty courses…. There's been a great proliferation of them, and we have seen very low completion rates.

If someone, for example, wishes to take Brazilian ju-jitsu, I think that's a very fine thing, but I don't believe that the students of British Columbia should be bearing the cost of that. Similarly, to take hip hop, I think, is, again, a very fine and noble thing, as is Latin and ballroom dance. But I think it is preposterous to suggest that the education guarantee should be dollars devoted to those kinds of activities when they can go to early childhood education.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Chemistry 12, physics 11, accounting, biology, calculus, geology — these are the courses that previously were covered. It appears that the B.C. Liberals have now changed their tune from when they were covered in 2007.

My constituent Jennifer Chan recently came from China to Canada. While Jennifer has a bachelor degree, it's not recognized. She would like to enrol at Vancouver Community College but was told she needs to upgrade her computer skills. Now she cannot afford to pay for these needed computer courses.

Whether it is people born before the age of information taking computer science courses to expand their job opportunities or new immigrants like Jennifer looking to strengthen their computer skills for acceptance into post-secondary, free adult basic education is vital.

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, please, Member.

M. Elmore: Can the minister please explain why it is no longer important to help people upgrade their education so that they can enjoy rewarding careers?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, the member's question is based on a faulty premise. It's just not true what the member has said.

People — even if they have graduated from high school, even if they've graduated from university and want to take those courses, they can. The expectation will be, though, based on some very low completion rates for courses, that they may want to make a contribution up front to ensure there is a seriousness when they take on those courses.

[1425]

Again, just from the Janet Steffenhagen blog of yesterday on this matter, a comment from a teacher who expressed frustration with students who take courses over and over again to boost their marks. She suggests that "students pay for retakes of courses in order to eliminate the excessive funding which occurs when students take courses repeatedly — five times — because they do not take the opportunity to enjoy funded courses seriously."

That, I think, is part of the answer. The other part of the answer is that we have seen a proliferation of courses like…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …body toning, solidarity and justice, rock and roll history, which are not consistent with the education guarantee.

COSTS TO B.C. OF

FEDERAL ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

K. Corrigan: The Finance Minister said during estimates last week: "It's legitimate for the critic and, frankly, the public to question what impact Bill C-10 is going to have." He was referring, of course, to the federal omnibus crime bill. He also recognized that the issue is "how much additional cost will be driven onto cases that may find themselves in provincial facilities."

Given the Finance Minister's support for its legitimacy, we're going to once again ask a simple question that we have been asking for months. Has the Liberal Justice Minister been provided with any cost analysis of Bill C-10, and if so, will she tell British Columbians where it is and how much British Columbians are going to be on the hook for?

Hon. S. Bond: We have said consistently that we support the content of Bill C-10. We actually think that taking a strong stand against human trafficking is the right thing for the government to do. We also believe there should be tougher penalties for people who exploit children in British Columbia. Maybe for once the member opposite would like to stand up and give the opposition position on how they feel about people who exploit children.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Actually, the Finance Minister also

[ Page 11968 ]

recognized that "the members opposite share, as we do, the strong support for the provisions in the bill that are providing tougher penalties for Internet luring, child pornography, child sex offending, violent offences," etc. But it's about cost.

Over the past two months four freedom-of-information requests on the matter came back heavily censored, with no reference to a completed cost analysis. Last week a fifth freedom-of-information package on the same matter was released, this time to the Maple Ridge News . Like the previous packages, it shows a briefing document prepared by ministry staff from November 3, but this time there are visible headings that were blanked out in the previous packages which say clearly: "Predicted costs," "Costs" and "British Columbia costs."

Clearly, this Justice Minister doesn't want the public to know that an analysis has been done. Will she immediately release that November document uncensored and show British Columbians what she has been hiding and how much we're on the hook for?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's pretty rich that the member opposite would ask this government to talk about fully costed budgets that they're prepared to share with British Columbians, because we've sure been waiting a long time to hear from the members opposite how they are going to pay for everything they keep promising.

[1430]

We should be clear. What we've done is we have a plan in place, that actually consists of…

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm happy to tell you about it.

…the largest expansion of corrections facility infrastructure in the history of British Columbia. While we expect that there may be pressures, we also know that British Columbia is better positioned than any other jurisdiction to manage the capacity issues because we had a plan. We're adding new capacity, and we're going to see those cells brought into place over the next number of months and years.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

I'm going to remind members that this hasn't been our finest moment.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have the honour to present the report of WorkSafe B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is the WorkSafeBC 2011 Annual Report and 2012-2014 Service Plan .

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will continue debate on Motion 47, followed by debate on Motion 46 and then into second reading of the Income Tax Amendment Act, Bill 45. Should we follow that, we would finish second reading debate on Bill 51, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

In the other House, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, this afternoon we'll be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Members, hurry off to your other duties so that we can get going.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 47 — COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN THREE SECTIONS

(continued)

H. Lali: I continue from where I left off before lunch, on Motion 47, the motion to start a third House here in the Legislature. I had, prior to the break, talked about how the Liberal government had brought in the fixed calendar on the premise that it was going to bring order into the lives of MLAs, especially MLAs with personal commitments or….

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse the interruption.

Other members, I'm having difficulty hearing the member who has the floor.

[ Page 11969 ]

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Also, MLAs who have families obviously needed some order, in terms of the time that we spent here in the House, in order to be able to actually carry on those personal duties, which was a good thing.

This whole issue of legislation by exhaustion, as it used to be known, was going to be thrown out the window. We were going to have a fixed calendar where we were going to have orderly cooperation. That was the whole idea behind it.

When I look at what this government has done since that came into being in 2001…. In that first term of government, 2001-2005, there were full spring and fall sessions that took place. Of course, 2001 was the post-election session. Then in 2002 and 2003 there were full sessions that went on. In 2004 just a one-month session took place at that time.

[1435]

Since 2005, and we are now into our eighth year, this government — aside from 2005 and 2009 being election years so that there were no real spring sessions…. Sessions had to be brought in, in the fall in order to pass the throne speech and also the budget. But aside from that, in those seven years we've just had two full sessions — in 2007 and 2011. In 2010 there was no fall session. In 2006 and 2008 there was just one week in the fall session each time. That was it.

In other words, when the B.C. Liberal government were 77 to 2, they felt, "Oh my, we'll have to have a fall session" — break it up. No more legislation by exhaustion. We were going to have a fixed calendar. But when 33 MLAs were elected on the opposition side, they threw that all out the window. We had a full opposition, and they did not want to be taken to task. They only brought in the fall session when they really had to, because of the election in '05 and '09, and just one week in two of the years and none in one of the years.

Now, instead of working with our House Leader to say that we're going to debate and pass those bills that are absolutely necessary and carry over what's left over, as usually happens in fixed calendars, into the fall, they don't want to do that for the simple reason that they want to continue to do business in the way they've always done that, which is in the back rooms, which is to be able to do something in secret.

A good example of that is what, again, Vaughn Palmer in his

article in 2006 had said. He said at that time: "The Liberals were not proceeding with three of the four legislative measures on the NDP hit list. They'd put a hold on a proposed revamp of the Public Inquiry Act, which would have given the cabinet new powers to sit on the findings of public inquiries. The New Democrats had mocked it as the secret inquiry act."

Everybody in British Columbia knows what the Liberals are up to. They have shut down all sorts of accountability measures. They shut down all sorts of measures of democracy and openness that they promised when they were in opposition, but when they got into this House, like this Motion 47, they have actually shut it all down.

One of the reasons is they want to continue to do stuff in the back room — do it in secret. That's their way of doing stuff. They want to do it in secret, just like the B.C. Rail deal was all done in secret and the IPPs that they have and the changes to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act — all of that, out of the eyes of the public. All of those were done to keep the people's information secret from them.

There are almost, like, six dozen changes to that Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act to keep the people's information secret, away from their eyes — keep it in the back rooms, so they don't have any access to it. That's just the way that this Liberal government has always done things, whether it was Gordon Campbell who was the Premier or the present Premier, who was the Deputy Premier at the time. The more things change, the more they stay the same. That's what's happening with the B.C. Liberals.

I might wonder if there's another reason. Our House Leader had put forward a proposal to the Liberals when we got wind that they were trying to make some changes. Our Opposition House Leader had offered two proposals to ensure that there was sufficient time for debate. The first proposal was to actually extend the sitting by two weeks until the middle of June. This was immediately rejected by the Premier and the B.C. Libs.

The opposition also proposed a fall sitting of the House, which is what they promised, which is in accordance with their fixed calendar — or so-called fixed calendar, which they tend to fix to their own political needs. So the opposition also proposed a fall sitting of the House to allow for stakeholders and members to fully examine legislation over the summer months. Of course, that was summarily rejected as well.

[1440]

When you look at it in terms of consultation, very little is done. I mentioned B.C. Rail. When that was sold off, there was no consultation with the people. And they'd promised in election after election they were not going to privatize B.C. Rail.

There's the justice bill, Bill 44, on civil dispute resolution, and Bill 52, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), on electronic ticketing. Of course, regarding these, the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association has a response, and also a response from Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan, who was also critical of Bill 52's shifting of traffic disputes to an on-line process.

The CBABC says that issues "raised by the draft legislation are the reasons why the CBABC sought out the ability to consult and collaborate on civil justice system reform issues identified in the government's recent Green Paper. Instead of collaboration and consultation, the gov-

[ Page 11970 ]

ernment simply introduced the legislation." This is the way that they do things, the B.C. Liberals. They don't want to consult. They just do things and continue to do things in the dictatorial fashion that Gordon Campbell was used to doing.

Bill 48, the B.C. Emergency and Health Services Act. Now, the B.C. paramedics union was also not consulted on Bill 48, and this act directly impacts the men and women working for the B.C. Ambulance Service. Bill 39, the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, is another one where there was no consultation.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, also weighed in, sending a letter to the minister responsible, saying the small benefit from the bill does not outweigh the privacy invasion of requiring a medical test and that the bill should be withdrawn. This was actually the third of three letters regarding three separate bills. Denham felt she was compelled to send a letter criticizing the government legislation because she was not consulted ahead of time, and she would be the one responsible for the implementation.

There are other bills as well, and it just goes on. I've talked about how there was no consultation by the B.C. Liberals on B.C. Rail. Well, also with the HST, in the way that it was brought in, there was no consultation. They already knew they were going to do this, didn't tell the public during the '09 election. "Oh no. It's not on our radar," they said. But right after the election, it was brought in. There was no consultation with the people.

I've already talked about the civil dispute resolution act. Well, there's also the Environmental Assessment Act, which they changed. I think it was in 2002. There was no consultation out there with the public to say, "We're going to make these changes," and watered down the environmental assessment to the point that you can drive a Mack truck through there. The developers are having a field day. It's running roughshod over the interests of British Columbians.

The Forest Act is another one, and the reason we have the decimation of jobs in this province under the B.C. Liberals over the last 11 years is because of the changes that were made to the Forest Act with no consultation, which got rid of all of the props, all of the supports that actually protected industry, protected mills and pulp mills and protected jobs, protected workers' jobs there — and communities.

They got rid of the job protection commissioner. They got rid of the 90-day mill closure review process, and they got rid of the appurtenancy clause. All of that was done as a result of no consultation on the Forest Act, which allowed this massive consolidation, corporatization, privatization of our timber resource. And 40,000 permanent jobs have been lost as a result of 80 sawmills and pulp mills that were closed by the Liberals — no consultation.

The Mines Act. People don't have any say in their own private property or the leases that folks have — the ranchers on Crown land or even their own private property. It's like a confiscation of the people's rights. Again, those changes were made without any consultation with the people who it was going to affect — the property holders, the private property holders.

[1445]

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. When we were government, '91 to 2001, we brought in what was landmark legislation. Our Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act, also known as FOIPPA — when that was brought in it was seen as a flagship of freedom of information and also privacy protection across jurisdictions all across North America. Even at that time…. Previous to that, you couldn't get much access to information. There wasn't a law as there was. But our act was done after over a year's worth of consultation, almost two years, with people all across the province — the select standing committee of the Legislature at that time.

That's the kind of consultation that took place, and at that time…. Some of the members who sit on the government side are still there from that era 20 years back. They criticized us at that time, that it didn't go far enough to release information — the freedom of information to the people. That's what they said. You know what, hon. Speaker? Because they were going to make all those changes to carry out their massive agenda of privatization and corporatization of our resources.…

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I bring you back to the consideration of the motion.

H. Lali: Thank you.

So the consultation is what I'm talking about in terms of this motion — the lack of consultation of Motion 47.

At that time, those changes, when the Liberals came in…. Without consultation, they made six dozen changes to the Freedom of Information Act to make it even tighter — no consultation. This is the crux of it, this lack of consultation.

Another point is that if they would extend the session for two more weeks, as our House Leader had suggested, proposed to their House Leader, or if they didn't want to do that but pass the significant bills that they want to pass…. Let's debate and pass them. Life goes on. But the ones that are not significant or are not pertinent at this time but require a degree of consultation — we'd give it a few months and come back, according to the fixed calendar, in September, when we could have a full session instead of the rushed way in which we've still got 21 bills.

I think there were 17 bills in the last two weeks that they dumped on the Legislature. Then all of a sudden they're pulling out their hair and saying: "Oh my god, we don't have time." Many of these bills are coming in left, right and centre, and they're saying: "Well, the session is going to end at the end of this month. Well, I guess

[ Page 11971 ]

we better strike up another committee, Committee C.

Section C."

We have A and B, and now they're going to do an unprecedented, never been done in the history of this province — to open up another

section in order to debate bills, because they did not manage their time properly, and they dumped the whole bunch of bills at the last minute.

Interjection.

H. Lali: The minister says that somehow it's a waste of time, or we're wasting their time. I think that it's something to that effect. The fact of the matter is, and the hon. member knows…. He's been an MLA for 11 years, and he sat as a minister, I think, for, if not all of it, then most of that time. He knows quite well, because he was a member of that Liberal government that brought in the fixed calendar, that we have a couple months in the fall, according to the fixed calendar, when we can come back and do this. He knows better than the comment he just made.

Every fall they refuse to sit, or they sit a mere one week because all of a sudden they realize: "Oh well, I guess we've got to pass something here, so why don't we just call the House back for one week?" One week, just a short period of time. They pass what they want to pass, and then they're on their merry way. But they refuse.

After the summer is over, we've had our break, and they've had theirs. We're ready to do the people's work. We want to come back here and do the people's work. Every year the B.C. Liberals — especially that member, the Minister of Economic Development — oppose us and say no. Yet it's part of their fixed calendar. We know why it's a fixed calendar. They fix it to suit their own needs, their own political agenda, and not the agenda of the people of British Columbia. This is the way that things are done.

Now they find themselves going: "Oh my god, we don't have enough time." So instead of doing the right thing, which is to talk to our House Leader and strike a deal, as it was done in 2006, pass the important bills, and then say: "We'll extend the House by two weeks" or "We'll move some of those bills to the fall session…."

[1450]

No, they're striking up a third committee to dilute the number of members that are here to spread their interests. You can't pay attention to three houses at the same time, but you can with two, as the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said. You can have your television set on to monitor what is going on in this House, and you can watch the other one on the computer or laptop that you have in your office to see what is happening in Committee A, the little House. This is called the big House. You can do that.

You can't do that with three Houses, if you want to speak on an important bill or if you want to speak on an important estimate of the budget or if you want to speak on the second reading of another bill. You can monitor that, but it's difficult to be able to do that. It takes the rights of individual members away for them to be able to do that.

Instead of actually doing the right thing, they're trying to force — because they have a majority — this third House on us, which is unprecedented. A third committee room — unprecedented.

Also, the fact is that — you've got to wonder — there must be another reason why they want to do that. Well, for a number of sessions now, the government, because of their own fault and the mismanagement of the economy and the social programs that we have in this province, have been getting a rough ride in question period and also by the press gallery, who sit up there. They're waiting for the Liberals, the ministers, when they leave those doors or those doors, when they step outside.

When they step outside, there might be a media person waiting for them right out here, easily accessible, and actually ask them the tough questions, similar to how we do it right here on behalf of the people of B.C. They might ask the Minister of Finance, for instance, that kind of question, after question period. To go outside and talk to the media — they might do that. That does happen.

They don't want to face those tough questions. So what you've got is you've got a government that has done things by secrecy — government by secrecy. Now they're going a little further. It's government by hiding, not just secrecy. They've done that for 11 years, so it's no new order of business. Now they're going to go further, and they're going to go hide. They are afraid to face the media, and they're afraid to face the members of the opposition because they can't handle the tough questions.

You see people watching through the television. People read the Hansard . It's on the record. And they know, the Liberals know they're getting beat up all the time. Now all of the chickens are coming home to roost. Within the time that we've got, they're going to extend the hours another six hours. That's not a huge amount, but it's six more hours.

At the same time, they're putting in another House to be able to finish their business because they didn't manage better and because they've gone into hiding. This is a government that has gone into hiding. They do things by secrecy. There's no accountability with this government. Without consultation, they have changed all of these acts that I have talked about, and without consultation they're now going to start a third committee because they have mismanaged, and now they've gone into hiding.

As I mentioned, we've got all these last-minute bills that they've dumped on us — 17 in the last couple of weeks — knowing full well that this session was coming to an end. Then all of a sudden, they're looking at their watches and going: "Oh boy. I don't think we're going to have enough time. We've got to do all of this bidding on behalf of our friends out there who support us in the elec-

[ Page 11972 ]

tion," or whoever financed their campaigns, "and now it's time for the payback. Let's just get it out before it's too late." That's what it's all about.

So we'll have more to say on the other bill that we're debating, Bill 46. I want to thank the Speaker for giving me this opportunity to put my viewpoints on the record.

B. Simpson: I want to start off by thanking members on both sides who have recognized that independents are in sort of a different situation with respect to the two motions in front of us.

We're talking about a motion just now to add an additional section, and then there's a motion coming up to add additional time. It is a bit strange to stand and to offer some words in a debate to add more time to get more debate on the substantive materials in front of the House, so I'll try and keep my comments as brief as possible.

[1455]

Here's the issue. We have seven days left, counting today. Today is a half day, so I guess 6½ days, then. So 21 bills, including the PST bill that we just got yesterday. One more bill to come, and three estimates left to go. The real question is: how best do we do the people's work with that amount of work that's left for us?

There are two principles that I believe we should be guided by, Madam Speaker. The first is an old one. I think it was Bill Bennett who said it: "Not a dime without debate." I think the estimates just now seem to be going along, although I have to say, over the years I have struggled with the degree of detail we are now able to drill down to in estimates debate. I think that we're at a very, very high level these days.

We can't drill down, service plan formats change, the measurable outcomes change. It's very difficult to understand clearly what's going on year-over-year and whether or not the government is spending the taxpayers' money wisely. But in estimates debate, the last few spring sessions, we seem to have managed our way through that without a quarrel or a quibble. So not a dime without debate.

The second principle really should be no laws without clause by clause. That's really where we're at just now. Is it reasonable, given 6½ days, to be able to get through the legislation that's in front of us, including the provincial sales tax bill that was tabled yesterday and is 160 pages long?

In my time here I've seen lots of bills come before us that have been declared as housekeeping bills. When I spoke with some folks about the struggles we're having here around legislation, some people, including some of the media, said: "Well, a lot of it is just housekeeping."

The reality is that even in housekeeping bills, a miscellaneous statutes amendments act, like Bill 41, you have to be very, very careful because there are substantive changes that are made that without the clause-by-clause analysis, without asking questions of the minister, you don't get to see what the implications of that are.

In the case of Bill 41, of course, we've got the attempted reinstitution of the election gag law, as well as the contentious clauses around the resort municipalities.

But we've also seen in this House that when a bill comes into the House, it may not be complete in and of itself, and therefore, we get amendments on the order paper from government. We get amendments offered by opposition members, who have read the bill and gone to the minister, put forward amendments that become government amendments.

We've had a couple of classic examples of that. The member for Cowichan Valley substantively changed one bill in forestry that had an egregious oversight when it was introduced. When that oversight was revealed to him, the minister clearly understood that it was an oversight and fixed the bill. Kudos to both the opposition deputy critic and the minister on that.

In this session we've seen the same with the member for Saanich South and the animal protection act, where two amendments were put forward to try to make that bill better.

So there is real work to be done. But unfortunately, a lot of time on bills is spent in second reading — and I'll speak on that in a moment — where the real work is actually done in committee stage, where it's not as politicized and where there's a clear and evident desire to understand what we're doing to British Columbians in the form of legislation.

In response to the 6½ days left — 21 plus one more bill coming, including the PST; the three estimates; etc. — the Government House Leader has come forward with two motions. There was an attempt last week to make a unanimous motion on the part of the House so we could get at it last week, but that was rejected by the opposition.

The two motions are to add a third section. So the third section…. We would have this chamber debating a bill. We would have another committee room debating a bill, and we would have a committee room continuing with the estimates debate, as is our normal practice. Our normal practice is legislation in this chamber and a committee for estimates.

The Government House Leader indicated that a substantive change on the part of government was to avoid legislation by exhaustion by going to the fixed calendar. I guess that my response to that would be the government uses the fixed calendar as a guideline. Why can't we use it as a guideline now? It's not fixed as an end date. We should simply sit until we believe that a comprehensive debate in committee stage of each of the pieces of legislation in front of us has been completed.

[1500]

Now, the government is attempting to do this by committee and so on. I still think that we'll end up with some kind of closure or guillotine or something, because we're just simply not going to get through the legislation. Even

[ Page 11973 ]

with the motions in front of us, that won't happen.

That's unfortunate. I stood in this House and was the only member to vote against the Yale treaty, in part on the simple principle that we got four or five pages into a 400-page treaty — I think we actually got to 20, to be fair. The only public scrutiny done on that treaty was in this chamber. And yet, through closure, that treaty was passed. I think that that is a diminishment of our democratic process.

I think we're still going to end up, even with this so-called fix of extended hours or evening sittings and a third section…. The Government House Leader indicated that he believes that there are seasoned critics on the part of the opposition, and I would agree with that. I am struggling to understand the opposition's contention that we can't have an additional chamber.

I will be voting against the motion because I believe it's the eleventh hour in adding that additional chamber. But I do believe that we need to look at the possibilities of us, in a heavy legislative session — where the government knows that there's going to be a heavy legislative agenda — having an upfront discussion about making sure that legislation does get full scrutiny. That includes the possibility of a third chamber. I don't have a problem with that. I think it is an appropriate step to take by consensus, by collaboration, in agreement at the beginning of the session, but not at the eleventh hour.

As a response to the two motions, the Opposition House Leader offers that it's an abuse, that the government does abuse the fixed calendar when it suits its purposes and it's not democratic to go to a third section. Everybody has spoken to that. But there's also the question of the mismanagement of the legislative calendar. I have to say that I believe we have a time management issue on both sides of the House. Both political parties have to really think long and hard about the hyperpartisanship that has come to characterize not just this House but many legislative chambers.

What we do is we spend an inordinate amount of time on second reading of bills, which is the political stage, if you will. It's where both parties get to make ideological arguments, partisan arguments, browbeat each other. This side, the opposition side, throws the "decade of deceit" against the "dismal decade" from the government side. That, I believe, doesn't serve our democracy well.

It's not necessary. If we go back and look at how much time is spent in second reading of bills without really a substantive or a constructive contribution to the bill itself, a lot of talk about politics…. I think there's time that we could save and could have saved, even in this session. Notwithstanding that, it is inconceivable that even fixing that and moving to committee stage faster — having the critics speak and a couple of opposition members speak on substantive aspects of the bill that are important and moving to committee stage, the clause-by-clause stage….

This government introduced legislation very, very late in this session. That either shows gross mismanagement on the government's side, or a lack of clarity on what their agenda is. Hence, we have the grammatical errors and syntax errors and things in the bills that just don't make sense. That suggests that there may be errors and omissions in the bills as well.

So I do think that they deserve scrutiny. Instead of using these two motions to grab a little bit of extra time and still having a lot of partisanship infuse the debate through to the end of session and then government still having to use some sort of guillotine to stop debate and pass this legislation, including the provincial sales tax legislation, quite frankly, without a substantive clause-by-clause examination…. We still have the Family Day Act that has to have people speak to that and then go into its one page clause-by-clause.

[1505]

I think we need to end the partisanship. I think British Columbians want that of us. I'm convinced of that. I think it's why people don't show up at the polls. I think it's why people think that this place is an anachronism and has no value in it anymore, because that's what they see — just this constant partisanship.

If we were more constructive, more deliberate in between elections…. So every four years, we've got that 28-day window where we have to go at each other, and say count back 40 days before that…. But in between that if we actually worked together as much as we could to govern and constrained ourselves to constructive debate in this chamber, I think we could claw back some interest, and we could claw back some voters during the election window. It would serve British Columbians well and serve our democracy well.

I would hope that what we end up seeing…. The Government House Leader said that a third chamber is the next evolution for our democracy. I think the next evolution for our democracy is substantively changing the way we do politics but also substantively changing committees.

I think that we should stop with sessional committees that keep having to be struck over and over again and/or get a mandate or not. We should have permanent standing committees associated with the sitting of the Legislature. We should have committees structured in a way, as the Deputy Speaker and the MLA for Richmond East pointed out in an

article in the parliamentary journal, that allow us to ask questions of staff.

I think that in both estimates debate and in bill debate it is absolutely unnecessary for us to continue to have a question asked by an opposition member, then the government minister turn to his or her staff and get a briefing on the answer to the question and then turn back, and if they can't figure out what the answer is, give a political answer instead of a substantive one. That takes up a whole lot of time. In estimates debate and in bill debate, a lot of time is wasted in that transfer of knowledge

[ Page 11974 ]

from staff to the minister, the minister to the opposition critic, who then asks another question, and you repeat it all over again.

We need to look at a committee structure where we can actually get access to staff. We can get access to experts to help us to understand the legislation in front of us and to help us more clearly understand the bills. That is what many jurisdictions do. They have that relationship. It builds a stronger relationship between the government members and the opposition members with the bureaucracy and cuts out a lot of the politics associated with debate on legislation and with debate on estimates.

I would also suggest that Liberal backbenchers, the government backbenchers in the general case, should also be allowed to ask questions in bill debate and ask questions in estimates debate because they too are accountable to their people.

So committees need to change. The bills and estimates should be debated in a way that we can get access to the expertise that created it and stop the political filter.

I guess the final comment I would like to make is that if this place actually operated in a more consensual and collaborative fashion, then we would have House Leaders and Whips and leaders that would actually sit down at the beginning of a session and say: "Here's where we're going." They don't have to reveal all of the bits and pieces. They don't have to reveal the details of the various pieces of legislation, but: "In the spring we have a heavy legislative calendar, and we have the budget debates. Can we agree on a third chamber?"

The third chamber comes in at X time, and we're not in the eleventh hour debating a motion like this. We know that we're going to go to evening sittings, and if necessary, the fixed end date for that session will be struck, taken away, and we will extend the session to get the work done.

Quite frankly, everybody believes that this is the place…. We're supposed to be here to do work, and if there's work to be done, we should be doing it on as non-political and non-partisan a basis as possible into the substance of bills and estimates. We should do it until we believe that that substance has been fully canvassed in the best interests of British Columbians.

This is too late in the day. I do support — and I signal to government that I support — a third chamber. We can figure it out as independents. We can figure out how to manage our time and use our staffs to do that, but it has to be done a lot earlier than the eleventh hour. I do believe that we need democratic reform of this place so that we can get to substance more quickly.

[1510]

C. James: I rise to speak to Motion 47. As others have mentioned, this is a motion that looks at adding a third chamber, a third committee House, in the Legislature.

I think the public will be asking themselves, as they watch some of this discussion and debate, why we're faced with this motion. Why has this motion come forward?

The Liberals, in fact, brought in a fixed legislative calendar a number of years ago. What was the idea? I think it's also worth the public knowing what the idea was behind the fixed legislative calendar.

I have to say that it's not very often that I rise in this House and say that there are things I agree with that the government has done on the other side, but the fixed legislative calendar was something I agreed with. I think it made good sense. It made good sense for the members in this chamber. It made good sense for the public to know certainty. It made sense for staff. It was a good direction to come forward.

The direction and the idea at the time, when I listened to the debate, was to give time for debate, to give time for consultation, to give certainty to people about when things were going to be debated and when things were going to be discussed.

It also was meant to…. I'll get to this in a minute, because I think this is the important crux of the discussion we're having. It was also meant, if the legislative calendar was full in the spring, to give a chance for the government to table legislation and then a chance for it to come back again in the fall — to not have to rush through discussion, to not have to rush through debate — and also a chance for a second look at legislation — a chance, perhaps, for the public or those who are involved out there to have a look at the legislation, to make recommendations, to bring forward ideas. That's all a direction that I support.

But I think what we've seen with the introduction of this motion, with the introduction of Motion 47, is that the government has completely given up on any idea around a legislative calendar, any idea around a public consultation and has certainly given up any idea of giving the public a chance to have any kind of input.

You'll remember that the issue of the legislative calendar was all part of the open government agenda that came forward from the B.C. Liberals when they were first elected. You'll remember open cabinet meetings. That was something that went by the wayside quite quickly.

We also heard the government talk about open government and more opportunities for freedom of information, more opportunities for information to be out there. Well, I'll get to that as I go on talking about this motion and the concerns that people have raised around bills that have been introduced. That certainly has gone by the wayside now as well. I think what we're seeing today with this motion is that the fixed legislative calendar has also gone by the wayside.

I heard the Government House Leader, when he rose to speak to introducing this motion, say that this is simply the evolution of a fixed calendar. But there's no evolution here. This motion isn't an evolution. This motion is just a way to get around a fixed calendar and ram through debate and ram through discussion. That's all this is.

[ Page 11975 ]

It isn't an opportunity to be able to give more debate or to give more time. It's a hope of getting things through quickly, instead of taking the opportunity to bring things forward in the fall.

If you take a look at the reality of a fall session, since the election in 2005…. In 2006 we sat for one week in the fall. In 2007 we actually had a fall session, but that's unique if you look at the history. In 2008 we sat for one week; 2009, we had no fall session; 2010, again no fall session. In 2011 we had a fall session. We had a new Premier, and the fall session was the beginning of this session that we're now continuing on.

[1515]

But I think we've missed huge opportunities through that fixed legislative calendar — as I said, a rare event that government brought forward that I actually supported. I think the Government House Leader raising the issues of this being an evolution really shows how quickly anything to do with consultation, with openness, with transparency, with full debate, with public input has completely gone by the wayside.

I think the other important question that will be discussed out there is why the public should care. I think this is at the crux of this debate and the crux of this motion that's come forward. The Legislature is a place where the public and the media and the opposition get a chance to be able to hold the government to account. I don't take that lightly. I don't take that role and responsibility lightly.

I believe that I am accountable to the public as an MLA. I'm elected by the people in my community, and I am accountable to them. I'm here to serve them — not to be here on my own, not for my own purposes, but to serve the people in my community. I believe the public has a right to know where I stand on issues, how I feel about issues. They have a right to know that.

They also have a right to know that as an MLA, I have an opportunity to be able to scrutinize legislation that comes forward, to be able to do that on behalf of my constituents, but also to be able to do that on behalf of the people who will be impacted by that legislation.

I think the other expectation that the public has is that their members will speak — that they'll speak in this House, speak on record. The reason that we have Hansard , and our opportunity for that, is so the public can go back and take a look and see where their members stood. Then when they have an opportunity for the ultimate accountability when it comes to the election year, they have a chance to be able to weigh where members have stood, what people have said on bills, and I think that's critical. I think we cannot take that lightly.

Democracy isn't always easy. It isn't always clean and tidy. It doesn't always stick to a certain exact direction to go, but the alternative is worse. Democracy is important to uphold and protect, and I believe the opportunity to speak on legislation and give the chance for the public to have a say on legislation and those who are impacted by legislation is critical to not only good democracy but good government.

Let's take a look for a moment at the number of bills that still have to be debated that are either at second reading or at committee stage, because I think, again, that's the importance here. We have seven bills that are waiting for second reading. We have 14 that are waiting for committee stage. We have a bill that's still at first reading — seven days left in the legislative calendar. We have a bill that is 160 pages long with 255 sections. Now, that's going to take some time to debate.

The HST bill — that's going to take some time to debate, and there may be a number of people who wish to speak on that bill. That's going to be made more difficult by dividing off into three different places with MLAs when bills are being debated, when estimates are happening, when we know that people are required to be in places for bills that are coming up. They may not get a chance to be able to be in estimates and ask their question on behalf of their community.

I don't think that adding a little bit of time into the legislative session would have been an imposition on anybody in this Legislature. In fact, I think most of the public would say to themselves when they took a look at that

schedule — that we didn't sit in the fall of 2009, that we didn't sit in the fall of 2010 — that it wouldn't be so bad for the members of this Legislature to spend a bit more time in here to give a bit more opportunity for debate, to give a bit more opportunity to scrutinize the legislation.

We even had bills come forward that had typos and spelling mistakes in them, which again shows a rush, a rush around bringing forward legislation, not thoroughness in taking a look at the legislation.

[1520]

There is no need. I think the frustration that you're hearing on this motion is the frustration that there wasn't a need to rush. There are pieces of legislation that are here. There are bills that are on the docket right now that could be put over until the fall and that could benefit in fact from having a second look at the pieces of legislation.

I think that the other important point in all of this is that none of this builds faith in the public. It doesn't build faith in the political system. They feel that the government is rushing to get out of here, because the date is there and it's important to get out, instead of saying: "We brought in more legislation than we might have planned at the beginning of the session." Certainly, others have mentioned that the government could have planned better.

Putting that aside, if there were pieces of legislation that the government felt they needed to bring forward and they hadn't planned for, there is no reason that I can see that the government couldn't have said: "Let's bring those forward, and let's finish debating them in the fall." If they had done that, there would have been support on this side of the Legislature and, I believe, broad support

[ Page 11976 ]

by the public.

This motion that we're talking about today, that we have to take time on today wouldn't have been necessary. We could have actually gone through what a fixed legislative calendar was supposed to do. When the public sees this kind of motion coming forward, they feel that there's a reason that government wants to rush through that legislation, and it doesn't build trust in our political system. It doesn't give the public a chance to give feedback or have a say.

That's part of what I see right now in people losing faith in the political system. They feel they have no opportunity to be able to influence what happens. Building trust and faith in the political system should be the job of all of us as legislators. It shouldn't be the job of government. It shouldn't be the job of opposition. It should be the job of all of us. We all have a responsibility to build support for democracy, to build faith in the political system — not partisan politics but the political system itself. That's critical.

You certainly would have imagined, Madam Speaker, that the government would have learned from past legislative sessions, when they brought legislation forward and then had to come back and correct it, or they brought legislation forward that was controversial, that created difficulties and problems. The government seems to have forgotten, on the other side, the rationale for bringing forward the fixed legislative calendar that would have prevented us having to debate this motion.

In 2006 the then House Leader said, and this was in regard to bills that were being debated in the Legislature, "The government believes it would be beneficial to hear further from those with views on these bills," and the government decided not to proceed with the legislation. Well, that was 2006, and that was an agreement between the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader.

That's just the kind of discussion that we attempted to have with the government, and that's exactly the kind of direction that I believe the fixed legislative calendar was brought in for. It was to give an opportunity, to quote the former Government House Leader, to hear further from those with views on the bills, to give an opportunity — what a unique thing, to give an opportunity — for the public to be able to have input on something that might impact them. Wouldn't that be amazing if that was top of the list for a government?

I certainly believe that it would be better government than we have now if you actually gave an opportunity for people to give input on something that's going to impact them directly.

We didn't come forward to vote against this motion without coming forward and putting ideas on the table, trying to be proactive and productive.

[1525]

We recognized that there were a number of pieces of legislation that were being introduced. We recognized that the legislative calendar was getting shorter, that we were having less and less time to be able to debate some very weighty bills, some important bills — and I'll get to talking about the specifics of those bills that this motion is referring to.

We actually came forward to the Government House Leader and said: "Let's look at a couple of options." Certainly, our preferred option would have been to come back in the fall, to actually follow what the legislative calendar was put in place for, to be able to come back, have full debate, have a good discussion, give the opportunity for the public to have a say. That would have been the ideal.

But we recognize that there might be a few reasons why the government on the other side doesn't want to come back in the fall. We understand that, and so we actually put forward another idea. We suggested to the government that they could actually look at extending the session for a couple of weeks — again, not to manage our time as MLAs but to manage the time of the public, to give them an opportunity to be able to read the pieces of legislation that had been introduced and to provide their feedback to their elected members.

I come back again, Madam Speaker, to the reason we're here. We're here because we're elected to represent our communities and the people who elected us. They have a right to be able to give feedback on legislation and get that back to us as legislators. So this isn't simply about managing our time; this is about giving the public an opportunity.

If you took a look at the HST bill yesterday, and you think about the public taking a look at a bill and trying to manage something that is 160 pages long with 255 sections, that's going to take a little bit of time. We now have a total of seven days, soon to be six days, to be able to debate this.

I think it's important to recognize that solutions were brought forward, that we did provide an opportunity for the government to sit down with us, to move bills forward to the fall or extend the session for a couple weeks to give the public a chance to have a say. Sadly, that was ignored.

I mentioned other bills. Unfortunately, we've seen before what's happened with this government when they have brought in closure, when they have tried to pass bills without any kind of thorough debate.

We've seen pieces of legislation that have had to come back with amendments. We've seen bills that have had to come back two or three times to be fixed. We've seen pieces of legislation passed that have had negative impacts in our province. And we've seen pieces of legislation passed that, if they'd had the opportunity for the public to have a say, they might have actually had a better bill introduced, a better piece of legislation.

Again, I think it's important — just as I talked ear-

[ Page 11977 ]

lier about the fact that I see myself here representing the public, not representing myself — that the government should see those pieces of legislation as British Columbia's legislation, because they impact all of the people in our province. Yes, it's introduced as the Liberal government's legislation, but once those bills are passed and in law they impact everyone in our province.

I'm certain that there were bills that have been introduced, that if the government had gone out to talk to the public and asked for their input or tabled them in the Legislature in the spring and then moved them ahead to the fall, that would have been better pieces of legislation and wouldn't have necessitated the motion that we see today.

They wouldn't have required the motion that we see today, and wouldn't that have been an amazing change for our province? Wouldn't it be nice to have a little less confrontation, a little less uncertainty and more opportunities for the public to have a say?

I just want to take a moment, Madam Speaker, to speak to the specific bills that this motion refers to. This motion is referring to the pieces of legislation that are left to be debated. This motion speaks to a number of committees — a number of Houses, as they call them in the Legislature — where we will be debating the bills.

[1530]

There are some very specific concerns that have come forward on bills that we have left still to debate. The biggest concerns that have come forward are the concerns that have come from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I think it's important to put on record that there are four separate bills that the commissioner has expressed concern on. It is unprecedented to have four pieces of legislation come forward in one session, where four letters had to be written by the Information and Privacy Commissioner expressing concerns.

Those are bills, again, if this motion wasn't here, that the government could then take to the fall and fix the problems, in many cases, that had been identified by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. She says: "The balance in the statutes has long been established, and it should only be altered after thorough public consultation and discussion. In my view the government has not looked thoroughly enough at the existing law, nor have they communicated to the public why the existing balance isn't going to work."

That's a pretty strong statement. I would say that that's reason enough to not support this motion but to in fact take those pieces of legislation and move them to the fall to give an opportunity, just as the Information and Privacy Commissioner has said, to be able to communicate to the public about why these changes are being made. Then the public can make their mind up about whether they support them or not, just as we will, as legislators, make our decision about whether we support them or not.

But without that conversation, without that discussion — and this motion does not give us the opportunity to have that discussion — you end up with the kind of difficulty that the Information and Privacy Commissioner outlines so clearly here.

Now, let's take a look specifically at the bills. There are pieces that have been raised and specifics on bills…. Again, as I mentioned, the Privacy Commissioner's concerns are enough to be able to look at a fall session. But if not, let's look at some of the specifics on the bills.

We have a bill coming forward — Bill 44, for the public who is looking at it — that is related to civil dispute resolution. This is a bill that, again, has some very good intentions in it but also has some red flags that have been raised by various groups and organizations. If this motion hadn't come forward, we would be able to move that bill to the fall and give a chance for people to be able to have input.

I think the most important flag that's been raised on the discussion of this individual bill is the fact that government is in the middle of a consultation process on the entire justice system. Here we have one piece of the justice system coming forward for changes, in this bill, in the middle of a consultation process that says: "Let's look at everything in our justice system, and let's decide whether it's good or bad or we should change it."

Why wouldn't you get rid of this motion and take that piece of legislation and make it part of the public consultation process on the justice system? Wouldn't that make perfect sense? And we have an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity to do that by moving this forward, by getting rid of this motion and moving this forward to the fall.

A couple of groups have spoken out on exactly that. The Canadian Bar Association, which certainly expected to be consulted, has said that issues raised by the draft legislation "are the reasons why the Canadian Bar Association sought out the ability to consult and collaborate on civil justice system reform issues identified in the government's recent…paper. Instead of collaboration and consultation, the government simply introduced the legislation."

I mentioned the Information and Privacy Commissioner's concerns. Now we have the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch — their concerns. Again, another voice that speaks very clearly for following a fixed legislative calendar, moving these pieces of legislation to the fall and not supporting the motion that's here in the Legislature in front of us today.

They weren't the only voices that were raised. The trial lawyers also expressed their concern. They said the bill was introduced and drafted without consultation just three months, they pointed out again, after the review was announced. Surely, again, you should be including these parts of the bills as part of the consultation on the justice system.

[ Page 11978 ]

I think there's a Victoria lawyer that also spoke out, Michael Mulligan, who said: "The poorly thought-out concepts in this legislation…shouldn't be a surprise, given that it was introduced without meaningful consultation."

[1535]

I read these pieces around this specific piece of legislation because it points out to me how important it is for government to take another look at this motion that we have in front of us and take another look at the opportunity to strengthen its own legislation by giving the public and the people who know what's going on a chance to have a say.

I think, in fact, there are many pieces in civil dispute resolution that I support. I support looking at opportunities to move people out of the court system, to be able to find resolution. In fact, on this piece of legislation, the government did have some discussions with the strata association, and the strata association said they're in support of what's there.

Why wouldn't the government want to model that with most of its legislation? You won't get agreement on everything, but why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they want to take this motion and move it off and say to the public: "We're going to give you an opportunity to have a say on your legislation." Why wouldn't you want to consult?

I think the only thing the public could take a look at is that the government is afraid to learn something. If you talk to people who are impacted by the legislation, you might actually learn something. You might actually learn that there are pieces of your legislation that could be stronger. You might learn that there are pieces that should be changed. You might actually learn that there are people in the field who know more than you.

I think that's the big difficulty that I see in this motion coming forward — that the government seems to think that they know best and that it's not going to take the time to be able to consult people. It's not going to take the time to allow debate or discussion. Sadly, I would say that that is a trait we've seen with this government.

What other discussions might take place if we got rid of this motion and actually had some time? We could have a discussion on the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act. That's a bill where they're going to change the types of jobs that paramedics do with no discussion with the paramedics. The Animal Health Act is another area where the Privacy Commissioner has raised all kinds of concerns. If we didn't have this motion, we could actually look at a fall session, and we could look at extending the session.

I went to speak last week, on Friday, to a grade 4-5 class. I talked about the role of an MLA. I spent some time with these very insightful, amazing young people who gave me huge hope for the future to talk to them.

I talked about tabling legislation. I talked about that specifically as part of my discussion about what the job of an MLA is — tabling legislation, having a debate, going out and talking to people who know that area, bringing that discussion back into the Legislature and how important that was.

The children got it. They understood that. They understood that if you're going to bring a piece of legislation in that talks about changes to the justice system, you might talk to people who are in the justice system. If you're going to talk about making changes to something like the paramedics, you actually might want to talk to the paramedics.

I think it's very clear to me that the government isn't interested in hearing public voices. You would have thought they would have learned — the HST being, of course, the best or worst example of a government not listening and not learning from their mistakes — what happens when you don't consult, what happens when you don't give an opportunity to improve what's there. That's certainly what I see with this motion that has come forward now.

I would hope the government would still…. They still have an opportunity to withdraw this motion, to be able to add some time to the legislative calendar or to be able to move things forward to the fall.

Give the public a chance to be able to be heard. Give the MLAs a chance to represent the public, because that's what this is about. And perhaps give the opportunity for this government to learn a little something.

L. Krog: What is it the Bible says? "To everything there is a season."

I think it's important that I remind the House that I have said on various occasions in this chamber that Gordon Campbell, the person whose name cannot be mentioned here now…. He is referred to as the predecessor by the members opposite, or words to that effect. He introduced a very important reform, and I use the term "reform" very directly, because I think it is important to recognize the reform that existed.

[1540]

When I was first elected to this chamber in 1991 to '96, as the saying went, the government opened and the opposition closed. Indeed, the Government House Leader today was complaining — I think quite eloquently, for a little while anyway — about how this place used to operate — how it dragged through the summer, how he missed time with his family, how he missed summer events, how he missed being with his constituents.

I think it's important today, as I open my remarks on Motion 47, to pay my respects to Gordon Campbell for introducing that change, for going to a fixed legislative calendar. The Premier took the words from the Bible, I think, to heart and understood that to everything there was a season.

In the spring you passed a budget, and in the fall you dealt with legislation that was left over from the spring

[ Page 11979 ]

session because you accepted that it was a good thing in our political system for members to go back to their constituents, to go back to their families, to attend those summer barbecues and summer events and festivals, to acquaint themselves with issues of concern — sensible, logical.

Now, we are a society that is ruled by law. Our constitution. Unlike the Americans, who talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we talk about peace, order and good government. We operate under rules because they have a purpose. We operate under rules because it allows for the orderly conduct of civilization, if you will. It reduces conflict. It allows for things to be dealt with in a timely way. And whenever someone is trying to rush you, generally speaking, it's not a good thing.

Now, there may be the occasion where they believe it's in your best interest to hurry you along, get you to an event or make sure the present is bought for mother at Christmastime. There are times when it's important to push people along to make sure what happens, happens. But in the B.C. Legislature, when the government is trying to rush you along — and it doesn't matter what government is in power — generally speaking, it's not a good thing, not quite the right message.

My sense is that when you look at the list of legislation — and it's been repeated by other members, but I think it bears repeating again this afternoon — since February this year we have had 32 bills tabled, a total of 954 pages. More than half of them, 17, have been tabled since April 30. We've got a grand total of two bills in February; nine bills in March; four in April, prior to April 30; six, April 30 to May 3; ten bills from May 7 to May 10, in four short days; and a bill so far this week, the PST bill.

Now, again, in the spirit of confession and acknowledgment…. Notwithstanding that I wasn't raised a Catholic, I've always had great admiration for the concept of confession and absolution. In the spirit of that, there were probably occasions, even under NDP governments, where the legislative agenda tended to be tilted somewhat towards the end.

But it was the opposition's choice, in those circumstances, how long they wished to debate those bills. The price to be paid was the sacrifices that the Government House Leader talked about. It was family, an opportunity to go to see constituents, whatever the case may be. But it was the opposition's choice.

Who are the opposition? They are elected members of this assembly, required by their oath of office to uphold the law, to represent their constituents as loyal members of the opposition, to criticize the government, to keep the government on its toes, to ensure that Her Majesty's business is done appropriately.

So you're left with this nagging confession, as I say, about the fact that the government's legislative agenda sometimes does get tilted towards the end of session. Without wishing to be too critical of the government, the numbers I just read out about the amount of bills tells you….

[1545]

Particularly when you look at the number of pages of bills and the complexity of the legislation and the lack of consultation around the legislation, you're rather drawn to the conclusion that this government may be pushing the outer limits of tolerance when it comes to their legislative agenda.

What are they trying to do? They are trying to ensure that they can get their business, from their perspective, done by May 31. We have today, tomorrow and the day after — this week — and then we have four more sitting days. We have a total of seven sitting days to get through several hundred pages of complex legislation.

Two motions are before the House, one that we break into a third House, as if we were some magical daffodil bulbs in the springtime, dividing and dividing year after year until we fill the field with the glory of our beauty. I suppose if we carried this argument to the full extent, we'd just get every member to bring a bill into this place, talk to themselves for five or ten minutes and pass it. We could have 85 bills done in a day. Now, I'm being a bit cheeky when I say that, but that's sort of the logic that this leads to.

Notwithstanding what the member for Cariboo North said…. Frankly, I couldn't agree with him less when he said that independent members of this Legislature can be in three places at the same time or handle it through their staff or deal with it effectively. I have to respectfully disagree completely with his remarks. It is no less a challenge for members of this House, whether they sit on the government or opposition benches, to do their job effectively if this place is running in three chambers.

There are older, experienced hands in the political process in this province, including Rafe Mair, who always said that once you took estimates out of the House and put it in the second chamber, that was bad enough for democracy because it lowered the importance of what this place does in its essence, which is sanction the taxation of citizens to support the government. His view — perhaps a bit outdated now, given prevailing views and practice in this chamber — was that that was a bad thing.

We're now being asked to consider breaking into three sections, diluting what happens even more. Now, there was a time when it was a crime in this country to dilute whisky. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this chamber has any resemblance to whisky, but there's a point at which you dilute something to the extent that it really doesn't have much value anymore. That's my concern.

By breaking into three chambers, we dilute this place to the point where, perhaps, no one pays attention to what's going on in here. Perhaps it's unimportant. But surely, all of us who sought election to this place…. It was mentioned the other day by the Clerk in the assembly that only 883 British Columbians, including the member

[ Page 11980 ]

sitting beside me today now, have had the privilege of being able to speak and sit in this chamber.

What we do here is important. I've made that speech a dozen times. It is important what we do here. And when the government proposes that we step back and break this place into three little chambers, it's essentially saying: "What we do here isn't important."

I was very intrigued this morning to listen to the Government House Leader when he said, with some frustration: "We've lost two days. If the opposition had given leave, we could have been debating this motion last week. We've lost two days."

I thought: "Who lost two days?" Did the people of British Columbia lose two days? Did the opposition lose two days? By what miracle of math did the Government House Leader come to the conclusion that somehow two days had been lost in this process? It is the duty, it is the right, it is the obligation of the members of this assembly to speak when they believe it appropriate to do so.

Now, some will cynically say: "They only speak when the government Whip or the opposition Whip tells them to do it." There's an element of that, because we understand that this place has to operate on the basis of rules.

[1550]

The rules of this House say we have legislation in the main chamber — except for, usually, the Premier's estimates — and the other chamber is for estimates. Now we're proposing to break it up into three.

Why do we have the rules that there are only two? I suspect it's because a previous generation of legislators decided it was the right thing to do, that it made sense, that there was, as I said, a season.

When Premier Campbell was in office, he decided that rather than have legislation by exhaustion — in other words, to let the opposition talk themselves till they were exhausted, not the government…. When the opposition ran out of steam, the place shut and they went home. This place ceased to operate.

Now we are being told that we have to jam, in seven days, several hundred pages of legislation and numerous bills through this process, through this Legislature, through what is the crucible of democracy in this province because the government couldn't manage its agenda appropriately and there are no alternatives.

Many members have spoken about the alternatives — the offer of the Opposition House Leader to allow for two more weeks of sitting. A pretty reasonable proposal. It's not going to cut too much into the summertime of any of us or interfere too much with our constituency work — two more weeks, the 26th of the year. Put in terms…. What is it? Four percent? Not the end of the world.

But this place, in its wisdom, decided some time ago that the appropriate alternative for this, the logical alternative, is that we would come back in the fall. Now, I don't know if the other members have made plans for this fall. I doubt it. I never do. I know that October and November are set aside in my calendar for me to be here.

That's what I tell my constituents. That's what I tell my constituency executive. That's what I tell the reporters for the local papers and the radio station. That's what I tell anyone who cares to listen or pay attention. We're supposed to be back here in the fall.

Now, we know — others have spoken to it, and I'm not going to go through the statistics — we have come back here for very brief occasions under this Liberal government in the fall. We have rarely sat out what I will call a full or a fulsome session in the fall. I just haven't heard from the other side, notwithstanding the wisdom of the government — and I'm sure it's there — the wisdom or the explanation that says why we can't do that this year.

I appreciate that there were some on the loony fringe, so to speak, who think this is, 2012, the end of the world — according to the Mayan calendar. But I'm relatively satisfied, notwithstanding that the Liberals are in power, that we'll actually make it through to December 31 this year. It's okay. We can actually plan on being here in the fall. The world will not end in a cataclysm. So I don't see any particular reason — nor have I had an explanation, as I say, from the government — as to why we can't do that this year.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill mentioned a number of justice bills. Now, you can tell from the comments in the paper and the expression of frustration from organizations like the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association that they didn't get the kind of consultation that is appropriate around legislation.

In fairness, often government does that. Governments of either stripe, any stripe, consult with those impacted by the legislation, or the groups that represent business or industry, or labour unions, or professions, or average citizens, citizens with a particular interest. They consult with them.

[1555]

Every capable minister knows what the lists are of the organizations and groups that will be affected by their legislation. They have extraordinary public servants who advise them, who'll be able to say: "Yes, Minister, we consulted with all these groups, and this is their position."

Then the minister, then cabinet, then this assembly can make a decision as to whether or not the legislation proposed is good, is bad, is fair, is timely, is not timely, is too expensive, is an appropriate solution to a problem or — on occasion, one has to acknowledge — is a solution looking for a problem.

That didn't happen with a number of the bills before this House. When you've got distinguished counsel, members of the bar like Michael T. Mulligan, writing with respect to Bills 44 and 52: "While thrift and speed are plainly desirable attributes, the legislation as drafted is a poorly thought-out mess…."

Now, if this were a classroom and I got back a comment from my teacher that said it was a poorly thought-

[ Page 11981 ]

out mess, I think I might be rather hurt. I think I might take the suggestion from my teacher that I should pull up my socks, as they say — t