British Columbia Hansard — Monday, March 9, 2015 (40th Parliament, 4th Session) (20150309pm-Hansard-v21n5) (20150309pm Hansard v21n5)

20150309pm-Hansard-v21n5

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Monday, March 9, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 21, Number 5

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Monday, March 9, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 6505 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ................................................................................................................................ 6505 Bill 18 — Administrative Tribun als Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. S.

Anton Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 6506 Brian Smyth and contributions of fi refi ghters L. Th roness Equality for women M. Karagianis Women in trades M. Bernier Delta fi refi ghters V . Huntington International science fair award recipient Victoria Platzer and project on invasive plants P . Pimm Community response to apartment fi re in Coquitlam S.

Robinson Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6508 Auditor General for Local Government performance and work environment review J. Horgan Hon. C. Oakes S. Robinson C. James G. Heyman K. Conroy N. Simons M. Farnworth Seismic upgrades for schools R. Fleming Hon. P .

Fassbender Tabling Documents ................................................................................................................................................................. 6512 Correspondence regarding the seismic mitigation program for schools Orders of the Day Tabling Documents ................................................................................................................................................................. 6512

Summary of ministerial accountability for operating expenses for the fi scal year ending March 31, 2015, revised

schedule F , December 8, 2014 Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 6512 Bill 6 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. S. Anton L. Krog M. Farnworth B. Ralston A. Weaver Hon. S. Anton

Bill 14 — Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. T. Lake J. Darcy Hon. T. Stone B. Ralston L. Th roness N. Simons C. Trevena D. Donaldson S. Robinson S. Simpson G. Heyman M. Farnworth Hon. T. Lake Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 6545 Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (continued) H. Bains B. Routley Hon. S. Th omson D. Routley R. Austin K. Conroy V . Huntington G. Holman M. Karagianis C. James S.

Fraser C. Trevena D. Donaldson S. Chandra Herbert Estimates: Other Appropriations

MONDAY , MARCH 9, 2015 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members D. Horne: It’s with great pleasure today, this aft ernoon, that I introduce a group of Washington state legislative interns who are visiting from Olympia. Th ey are part of an annual internship exchange between Washington state and British Columbia. Th e exchange is an opportun- ity to share, learn, observe and compare our two systems of governments. We share a border and many natural re- sources and oft en work together to mutual goals.

Th is exchange is a valued part of our own B.C. legis- lative internship program. Our visiting U.S. interns rep- resent eight universities in Washington state and a wide variety of academic pursuits — from law to justice, man- agerial economics and political science. Th ey are accom- panied by two staff members: Paula Rehwaldt, the House civic education intern coordinator; and Emily McCartan, the Senate civic education intern coordinator. May the House make them truly welcome. S.

Robinson: Just like everybody else here in this House, when we put our names forward to run for offi ce, we’re not just running independently; we’re running with our fam- ilies. My husband is here joining us for the fi rst time since I’ve been elected. I’ d like the House to please give him a warm welcome and show our appreciation for all of our spouses who put up with so much from us. Hon. S. Cadieux: Visiting the Legislature today is the president of the Rotary Club of Surrey-Newton, Mr. Kultar Th iara, and his wife, Surjit.

Th ey are joined by friends Harjinder Dau and Loveleen Dau and their three children — Kavita, Isha and Anya. Visiting from the U.K. are also Mr. Shingara Dau and Ms. Jaswant Dau, parents of Harjinder. [1335] I’ d like to make them welcome and would ask the House to do so as well. C. James: I have two constituents who are visiting to- day. Sharon Klein, prior to her well-deserved retirement, was involved with the B.C. Paraplegic Association and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind as their coordin- ator of special events on Vancouver Island.

Sharon lives in Victoria, but even though she is retired, she’s actively involved in her volunteer work with the Living Edge society, which is an organization that delivers grass-roots food programs. Sharon is here with a very, very special guest. One of her ten grandchildren is here with her today. Vanessa Mai Hayes is six years old and is a grade 1 student at Oaklands Elementary. Th ey’re visiting a regular who sits in the gal- lery and watches all of us and who said he doesn’t want an introduction. I would ask the House to please make very welcome Sharon and Vanessa for their visit here today. Hon. A.

Wilkinson: I’ d ask the House to welcome the rep- resentatives of the executive of the BCIT Student Association — President Dylan Smith; VP , external, Tyra Bermudez; VP , student aff airs, Evan Findlay; and the chair of School of Business, Joseph Prophet. Please make them welcome. H. Bains: I’ d like to join with the Minister of Children and Family Development in welcoming Kultar Th iara, the owner of the Grand Taj banquet hall in the Surrey- Newton area, along with his family and his relatives from England.

On behalf of all of us, I just want to say thank you so much to Surrey-Newton Rotary, him being president. Th ey did a fundraiser on Saturday night in their hall for a school in the Philippines to help those children who were left without a school because of a typhoon at that time. I say thank you to you, Mr. Th iara, and thank you to the Surrey-Newton Rotary. I think they have raised more money than was needed — that is another issue — which is a good problem to have. So thank you very much. I say please help me make them really welcome here. Hon. T.

Lake: Th e Heart and Stroke Foundation has been a great partner with the province of British Columbia on programs like the automatic external defi brillator pro- gram, meeting with folks in the Legislature around stroke awareness. I’ d like the House to welcome today Adrienne Baker, their CEO, as well as Mark Collison, their director of advocacy. Would the House please make them welcome. K. Corrigan: I’ d like to join with the Minister of Advanced Education in welcoming the BCIT student as- sociation — Dylan, Tyra, Evan and Joseph.

Th ey do great work for the institution, and I hope the House again will make them very welcome. S. Robinson: I apologize for not properly introducing my husband. I was so excited he was here, I never said who he was. His name is Dan Robinson, and would the House make him really welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL 18 — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. 6505

British Columbia Debates6506 Monday, March 9, 2015 Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Anton: I am pleased to introduce the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Bill 18, Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. [1340] Statements (Standing Order 25B) BRIAN SMYTH AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF FIREFIGHTERS L. Th roness: Today, as we celebrate the contributions of fi refi ghters across the province, in my own riding we are mourning the passing of a fi refi ghter over the week- end: Brian Smyth.

Brian was a comparatively young man, just 57 years old, when he suff ered a heart attack on Friday while attending a house fi re near Cultus Lake, just minutes away from his own home in Lindell Beach. He had been a member of the Columbia Valley fi re de- partment for ten years, a hall that is particularly close- knit. His 20 fellow volunteers are taking the loss hard. Brian grew up in Chilliwack. He was an avid 4-H Club member, known as a kind and gentle person, always look- ing to encourage the needy ones in his community.

He is survived by his sister Sarah Wiens, whom I spoke with today, and his nephew Andrew Wiens. British Columbians fi nd all sorts of ways to care about each other. Some might work in health care or pastoral ministry. Others volunteer in any one of 27,000 societies in B.C. But it takes a special kind of person to care for their fellow citizens by undertaking the stresses and the hazards of fi re, collapsing structures and toxic chemicals on their behalf.

Brian took on these risks every day, along with thou- sands of volunteer and professional fi refi ghters across B.C. expressing their care for fellow British Columbians by jeopardizing their own safety to protect them. Today we welcome the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association to Victoria as they honour 15 fallen com- rades who have lost their lives in the line of duty in the past two years. Th e condolences of this House go out to the family and fellow volunteers of Brian Smyth and also of Kevin Hagerty and all others who have lost their lives in this courageous work.

We’re grateful for the risk our fi refi ghters undertake every day for us. We honour their sacrifi ce, and along with them today, we remember the fallen. EQUALITY FOR WOMEN M. Karagianis: “Make it happen. ” Th at was the theme for International Women’s Day held all over the world yesterday, and millions did make it happen. People came together to celebrate the achievements of women and raise awareness of the need for greater equality. It was a time to refl ect on ways that society can work towards more support for women and girls, opportunities for ad- vancement and equal pay for work of equal value.

Today we live in a world where the lives of women and girls are less and less restricted by their gender. However, many countries still face discrimination, economic struggle, health issues and gender-based violence, abuse, trauma and neglect. Here in British Columbia it’s time to acknowledge that we must do more to support women and encourage women in all ways possible. We need to make meaning- ful action to knock down the barriers and to keep women and girls safe. Gender-based violence and domestic violence remain as serious issues facing girls and women in our province.

Th ere is work to be done to improve our resources, our laws and our justice system. Th e government should move as quickly as possible to implement all of the rec- ommendations made by the Missing Women Inquiry in 2012. Th at would help in so many ways. It’s been a long journey across a century since the very fi rst International Women’s Day in 1911. In the struggle for genuine equality for women and girls, we have made great progress.

But women and girls will not truly be equal until they are all aff orded the same opportunities, are protected from discrimination and are safe in their communities and their homes. Th is is a goal towards which we must all continue to strive — to make it happen. WOMEN IN TRADES M. Bernier: Also, following up this weekend’s International Women’s Day gives me a perfect oppor- tunity to highlight again that we are at an exciting time for women here in our province in the trades.

Doors are opening across British Columbia for women who want to pursue careers as plumbers, electricians, sheet metal workers, carpenters or heavy-equipment operators, just to name a few. Personally, as a tradesperson, I used to see very few women take up a trade. In fact, there were actually none in my class when I went through the school. But now there are so many opportunities. Th e Industry Training Authority is working to ensure that programs like women-in-trades training can sup-

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 9, 2015 6507 port women taking a career in the trades. Since 2009 more than 2,500 women have been served through this program. My sister-in-law, for instance, started right out of high school in a trade and has had a successful and re- warding career as a welder. Times are changing. Th is last weekend I met with some instructors in my riding who told me that the present high school trades class only has one boy in it; the entire class is made up of girls who are getting ready for their apprenticeships.

Right now there are approximately 3,900 registered women apprentices in B.C., representing 10½ percent of apprentices. [1345] When I told some of my friends that I would be speak- ing on this, this last weekend…. One of them owns a car dealership, and he told me that the last three apprenti- ces he hired last year were all women. Th e stigma in the trades, and particularly for women in the trades, is long gone, and where it isn’t gone, it should be. Th e trades are practical, they can be creative, and most importantly, they are a well-paying and valuable occupation.

With all the expected job openings, I encourage women interested in the trades to consider pursuing a fulfi lling career. DELTA FIREFIGHTERS V . Huntington: We were blindfolded, weighed down with gear — wearing an oxygen tank, a hat I thought would break my neck and rubber boots that may as well have been waders — crawling on hands and knees, astride a fi rehose, trying to hold onto the boot in front. I was hoping life wouldn’t end right there. It was precisely the moment I decided better them than me — defi nitely better for the people of Delta.

Th e invitation to the fi refi ghters challenge at UBCM was an enormous lesson, and I shall forever remember how the teeny, tiny member for Coquitlam-Maillardville sailed through the course. She didn’t turn sideways and shimmy through 4-by-4s. Oh no, she just turned square on and backed through. She scrambled over obstacles tall- er than herself and held onto hoses that whipped the rest of us around. It was an outrageous display of athleticism. Today I’m talking about the best of the best, Delta’s fi refi ghters.

Th ey aren’t just the guys and gals who get us out of crushed cars and subdue fi res that devastate lives. Th ese are the guys who arrive on our doorstep when we call 911, who get there fi rst and who don’t leave until all is well. Th ese are the guys who show a tenderness belying the machismo, who treat our grannies with compassion and our sons with empathy, who will give a superb fare- well to a colleague who has left them. Th ey are also the men and women who spend hours giving to community.

Th e Delta Firefi ghters Charitable Society is one of Delta’s great charities, which over the last year alone has donated to B.C. Guide Dogs, stroke recovery, juvenile diabetes, cystic fi brosis, and on and on. Th ese are the fi refi ghters whose annual boot drive rais- es the most money in Canada. Th ese are the men who have won the world championship Firefi ghter Combat Challenge, the iron men of the fi refi ghting world. Th ey are at every event, every parade. Th ey bring their barbecue, their little burning house and their miniature iron-man course. Th ey are Delta’s fi refi ghters, and we are grateful.

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE FAIR AW ARD RECIPIENT VICTORIA PLATZER AND PROJECT ON INV ASIVE PLANTS P . Pimm: Invasive plants are the worst nightmare for our farming community. Unfortunately, I have to report, they’re alive and well in the Peace country. Th at is what Victoria Platzer found. Victoria Platzer, a grade 9 student from Bert Bowes junior secondary in Fort Saint John, re- cently won the B.C. agriculture in the classroom award. If that wasn’t good enough, she went on to win the gold medal in the environmental and sciences category at the world-renowned Taiwan International Science Fair.

Th e Taiwan International Science Fair selects students based on their science fair project work, their communication skills and their ambassadorial qualities. Her award-winning project, called “Hay Aliens, ” exam- ined how prevalent invasive plant species are in hay. Victoria sift ed through hay from 22 farms across the North Peace. From her sift ing, she got 5,568 potential seeds that she took pictures of and planted. Th e results of the experi- ment showed that 628 of her potential seeds were invasive plant species, which harm plants and animals.

It’s fantastic to see a student like Victoria sharing her knowledge, re- search and enthusiasm of science with the world. I’m extremely proud of how Victoria represented both B.C. and Canada on the international level. If I do say so myself, she did an amazing job, and we will see more from her in the future. Her great work is proof that we must continue our battle against invasive plants, better known as invasive weeds. COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO APARTMENT FIRE IN COQUITLAM S.

Robinson: On the aft ernoon of February 16 a fi re ripped through a condominium complex in Coquitlam, leaving many people displaced for what could be months. Our Coquitlam fi re service did an amazing job, as there was no loss of human life. In spite of their eff orts, many of the suites were completely and totally destroyed by the fi re, and about 100 people in Coquitlam now have no home, no furnishings, no belongings. Gone are their valuables and their prized possessions. Many in this com- plex do not have home insurance and have no resources from which to rebuild.

British Columbia Debates6508 Monday, March 9, 2015 While the city of Coquitlam did set up emergency ser- vices to help people get through those fi rst 72 hours im- mediately following the fi re, others in the community set about thinking about how to help their neighbours in the weeks and months ahead. Th is is a heartbreaking story, but it’s also a heartwarming story. [1350] I live in a wonderful community of amazing people with roll-up-your-sleeves leadership.

Within a day or two of that devastating fi re my community pulled together and recog- nized that these people who were left homeless would need our help and donations of gently used clothing and house- hold items, and fi nancial contributions started pouring in. A local church off ered to be the drop-off site for these donations, but it soon became apparent that a larger space would be needed to properly sort out the dona- tions. Th e following day such a space was identifi ed, and volunteers came out to transform the space into a ware- house of donated clothes, toiletries and household items.

Th e donations just kept pouring in. I want to acknowledge the great roll-up-your-sleeves leadership of two Coquitlam councillors, Chris Wilson and Dennis Marsden, who called on all of their contacts and relationships to set up a bank account, establish a website, communicate with the community and coordin- ate dozens and dozens of volunteers, who then sorted through donations and worked with fi re victims to de- termine how to best help.

Coquitlam is lucky to have a great fi re service and wonderful leaders like Dennis and Chris quietly working away in the background to mobilize the giving spirit of Coquitlam citizens so that they can care for their neigh- bours in a thoughtful and coordinated way. I’m so very proud of my community. Th eir generosity makes me proud. I’m so grateful to have witnessed the coming together of this caring community when people needed it most. Oral Questions AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND WORK ENVIRONMENT REVIEW J.

Horgan: Last week we asked the Minister of Community and Development why it was that the Auditor General for Local Government had done one audit for $5.2 million over a two-year period. Th e minister at that time said: “It is my understanding that the AGLG has developed a revised plan to complete all of the outstanding audits. We look forward to these audits being presented shortly. ” Now, this was, as you know, the Premier’s pet project. She was committed to making sure that other govern- ments were accountable, even though her government is not necessarily as accountable as we would want it to be.

We’ve had a week to refl ect. Th e minister has had a week to refl ect. Could she advise the House if she is still of the understanding that everything is fi ne. Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you very much for the question. It provides us the opportunity to talk about the work that the Auditor General for Local Government, as an agency, is doing. We’re committed to ensuring that local govern- ments have the tools that they need to deliver services at the best value to B.C. taxpayers. Th e Auditor General for Local Government is current- ly working on 18 plans.

In Sechelt the AGLG expects to publish a performance audit on local government capital procurement projects and asset management programs. In Delta the audit topic focuses on achieving value for money in operational procurement, for instance. Th ey also are completing their second round of audit reports in Rossland. I’m sure I can go on. I look forward to further questions so that I can go through the rest of the list. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. J.

Horgan: Well, I’m certain that the minister would like to go through the rest of her list, as has been prepared for her by her able staff .

But I’m curious, and those on this side of the House and, I would expect, municipal governments across British Columbia are concerned to learn that a leaked report entitled the Auditor General for Local Government Work Environment Review, undertaken by the director of stra- tegic human resources in her ministry — just January of this year, not that long ago — said the following: “Over the course of January 9 to January 30, 2015, a human resource representative maintained a presence” — this is like we’re in Cyprus — “in AGLG offi ce with the primary purpose of ensuring a respectful workplace for all employees. ” If the list is not enough, perhaps the minister could refer to the document prepared by her ministry that says there’s chaos and dysfunction at the AGLG and perhaps focus on accountability there, rather than an inventory of things that might happen in the future.

Hon. C. Oakes: It’s a good opportunity to remind the member opposite again that, as we know, for any audit- or to be eff ective, it needs to be independent from polit- icians. In this case, it is here as well. [1355] Government has no ability to direct the AGLG in re- porting and timelines. However, if I may, I would cau- tion the member opposite in this line of questioning. Th e Public Service Agency is the appropriate arm of govern- ment that deals with specifi c HR issues. Madame Speaker: Th e Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 9, 2015 6509 J. Horgan: If you need to call in peacekeepers and an agency of government, then you’ve got a problem on your hands. Th e report that was published in January of this year paints a pretty grim picture of activities at the AGLG. According to one quote from the report: “Feedback re- garding shift ing priorities and unclear direction was a com- mon struggle among staff .

Priorities lose focus or shift focus, causing time lags and delays in the work. ” It goes further: “Th e most common frustration was wasted time and work. ” If we’re looking for best practices, I would suggest to the minister that perhaps looking at the Auditor General for Local Government wouldn’t be the place to start. In fact, I would suggest that if we’re looking for accountabil- ity in government, $5.2 million put in a pile and lit on fi re is not an eff ective use of public dollars. I’ll put to the minister again.

Will she save the tax- payers some money and get somebody in there to fi x the mess that the Premier created before they spend any more money? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question. We iden- tifi ed that we are disappointed with the amount of audits that are being performed. Again, I will remind you that in order for any auditor to be eff ective, it needs to be an independent body from politicians. Th ere is a case here as well. But let me make it clear. It was our government that created the AGLG to enhance transparency and ac- countability for all local governments. S.

Robinson: Well, the minister just wants to point fi ngers at others, but let’s make no mistake. She is re- sponsible for this offi ce and the waste of $5.2 million of taxpayer money. It keeps getting worse. According to the review con- ducted by the minister’s staff , the AGLG is just really making it up as she goes along. To quote the report: “There was not a consistent and established process to de- termine the knowledge, skills, abilities, competence and ac- creditation required for various positions. As a result, there is inconsistency in the offi ce.

For example, it was unclear what positions required an accounting designation. It was diffi cult to ascertain if the right resources were in the right place. ” Two years and $5.2 million later, and the AGLG still doesn’t know what skill sets or professional qualifi cations her staff require. When the minister was asked about this last week, why didn’t she tell this House and the people of British Columbia that this AGLG offi ce was in com- plete and utter turmoil? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question. We’ve can- vassed this in previous years during estimates.

Again, I look forward to having that conversation with you. We talked about that this week. Again, any auditor, to be effective, needs to be in- dependent from politicians, as is the case here. On this side of the House we remain committed to this kind of transparency. I wonder where this interest is now in the Auditor General for Local Government, when the mem- bers opposite were so opposed to this very idea of bring- ing accountability into this House. Hon. Speaker, if you’ll allow me, I’ d like to continue on with the audits that are happening.

As you can see, the auditor general audit topics also include a number of key areas, such as police and procurement arrangements and asset management programs. Th ese are truly benefi cial to local governments, as they identify ways to deliver ef- fective, effi cient and economical services to taxpayers. Th e members opposite may oppose more accountabil- ity with taxpayers’ money, but on this side of the House we’ll continue to look at efficiencies for taxpayers of British Columbia. [1400] Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a sup- plemental. S.

Robinson: We are opposed to wasting $5.2 million of taxpayers’ money on one report. Th e report that we referred to earlier found that, in addition to signifi cant human resources problems, the AGLG has a problem managing contractors. Th e report found that “specifi c concerns were raised regarding the lack of oversight and direction provided to KPMG that resulted in poor quality of product to sup- port the audit work of the offi ce.

Th is caused frustration for the audit staff .” To the minister, what steps has she taken to ensure that the next time she cuts a $2.6 million cheque to the AGLG, it won’t be wasted on poor-quality product? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question. Again, the Auditor General for Local Government is functionally an independent offi ce with a high degree of autonomy. We continue to work with them and the audit council on the revised plan that they bring forward.

I remain committed with the idea that it is critically important that we have audit topics that look at police procurement, that look at performance audits, that iden- tify ways to support local governments with asset man- agement programs. We continue to support these type of initiatives that’ll help local governments create the effi ciencies that they’ve asked for. C. James: I’ d suggest to the minister that perhaps in- stead of looking at audit topics, it might be nice to look at audit reports. Th at’s what you paid for. Th at’s what we don’t have.

Th e work environment report found that staff frequent- ly complain about shift ing priorities and unclear direction. It found “ Almost all employees shared examples of prepar- ing work based on direction, only to fi nd out that direc- tion had shift ed and the work wasn’t needed. ”

British Columbia Debates6510 Monday, March 9, 2015 Aft er two years, $5.2 million and 17 missing audit re- ports, the AGLG still can’t decide what direction she’s go- ing and what work is needed. Th e minister calmly tells this House that everything is fi ne. How did the minister let this offi ce get so out of control? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question. We said we were disappointed. We have said that. We are continu- ing to work with an independent agency to look at a re- vised plan to complete the outstanding audits. It’s misleading to suggest that the offi ce has spent this money on only one audit.

In fact, all of the remaining audits are underway and are in a path of completion. Th e resources of the AGLG offi ce have been deployed to sup- port all 18 audits, not just one. Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supple- mental. C. James: I’ d say to the minister that taxpayers aren’t looking for disappointment. Th ey’re looking for action on their tax dollars to be spent well in all of this. Th e report shows that the AGLG was mismanaging contractors and wasting time and money. Th at report was written less than six weeks ago.

At the same time the Premier is demanding that school boards fi nd so-called low-hanging fruit to save money, she could care less if the AGLG is squandering more than $5 million. My question to the minister: what steps is she going to take — not tomorrow, not the next day but now — to stop the waste at the AGLG? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question. Again, the Auditor General for Local Government is functionally an independent offi ce with a high degree of autonomy. [1405] Government has no ability to direct the AGLG reporting regarding this.

We will continue to work with them and the audit council to support them through this process. G. Heyman: Perhaps looking out for taxpayers’ dol- lars is just another one of this government’s aspiration- al goals. In fairness, the staff are trying their best. Th e report found that they have a strong work ethic, heavy workloads and put in long hours. Not surprisingly, the report found that seven of the staff are unsatisfi ed with the organization and six are unsatisfi ed with their jobs. Th ere are only ten staff at the AGLG.

To the minister, with such a staggering level of discord, how can she claim all is well at the AGLG? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question. I’ve heard three times that I keep saying all is well. I’ve said we’re disappointed. We continue to work with the audit council to ensure that we are able to have a revised plan through the AGLG, and we’re committed to doing that. Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supple- mental. G. Heyman: It’s clearly going to be a challenge to meet that commitment.

Half of the staff couldn’t answer whether they would stay with the organization if they were off ered a similar job elsewhere. Two years aft er the Premier created the AGLG, and half the staff don’t care if they stay or if they go. Far from identifying best practi- ces for local governments, the AGLG hasn’t even adopted proper practices for its own offi ce. To the minister, will she implement the recommenda- tions of her own director of strategic human resources? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question.

Again, I’m disappointed that the offi ce has not delivered the perform- ance audits on original timeline, but we are working with the AGLG with a revised plan to complete the remaining outstanding audits. I would remind the member opposite that the Public Service Agency is the appropriate arm of government that deals with specifi c human resource issues. K. Conroy: The report is very clear about the real source of the problems at the AGLG.

Seven of the nine staff interviewed had a negative view of executive-level management, and seven staff did not believe that they were empowered to provide input and make decisions to do their job well. Th at means that only the AGLG herself and maybe two other staff ers think that she is doing a good job. To the minister, this review was conducted by staff in her ministry. What is she going to do to fi x the leader- ship void at the AGLG? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question. I’ve said that we’re disappointed and that we’re going to continue to work with the AGLG.

But a reminder that for any aud- itor to be eff ective, it needs to be independent from pol- iticians such as you and I in this House. Let me make it clear. It is our government that creat- ed the AGLG to enhance transparency and accountabil- ity on local governments, where you on that side of the House opposed it. K. Conroy: Let’s be clear. For an auditor to be success- ful, they need to complete some audits. Th e AGLG only has ten staff . Half of them don’t think that they work in a respectful environment. Only four of them have a posi- tive view of the AGLG’s vision, mission and goals.

If this wasn’t so tragic, it would actually be comical. [1410] Th e Premier promised that the AGLG would provide local government with recommendations about how to improve the eff ectiveness of operations. To the minister, does she think the AGLG could pass a value-for-money audit?

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 9, 2015 6511 Hon. C. Oakes: We’ve regularly seen members op- posite use the protection provided by this chamber to impugn the reputation of hard-working civil servants. I’m going to go through the list of audit topics that are coming out. Again, the AGLG expects to release the aud- its of Delta, Sechelt and the second part of Rossland. For example, in Delta the audit topic focuses on achieving value for money and operational procurement.

In Sechelt the AGLG expects to publish performance audits on lo- cal government’s capital procurement projects and asset management programs. As you can see, the AGLG topics include a number of key areas, such as policing, procurement arrange- ments and asset management programs. Th ese are truly benefi cial to local governments, as they identify ways to deliver eff ective, effi cient and economical services to taxpayers. N. Simons: Th e report makes fi ve recommendations for fi xing the mess.

Th ey include having the executive provide clear direction, having the executive eff ectively deploy resources and having the executive fi gure out the roles and responsibilities for staff — things that should have probably been done in the fi rst month, not two years and $5.2 million later. To the minister: why did it take two years for the AGLG to fi gure out that it needed a clear direction and well-deployed resources? Hon. C. Oakes: For I think the third time in the House, there is a list of audits that the Auditor General for Local Government and their staff are currently working on.

All of the remaining audits are underway and are on a path of completion. Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental. N. Simons: Th e minister didn’t thank me for my ques- tion. I’m a little upset. Perhaps this question will be more to her liking. As damning as the report is, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to the report, other reviews are being con- ducted simultaneously that will further inform next steps. We understand that the Public Service Agency has also conducted a review of the AGLG.

Last week this minister told the House that things were moving along at the AGLG when, in fact, it has been the subject of at least two government reviews in less than two months. Will the minister table any other report the government has conducted on the problems at the AGLG? Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite, thank you. Y ou read it really well. If it was up to me, you would be in the top fi ve. [Applause.] [1415] M. Farnworth: I can understand why members on the other side of the House want to clap and applaud and eat up the time on the clock, because these questions are quite painful.

Th e minister stood in this House today and tried to fob off the issues at the AGLG by saying that it’s function- ally independent. Answer aft er answer has shown that this government is functionally unable and functionally unaccountable to the people of British Columbia for the waste of $5.2 million.

If the minister were to go to her own website, it would say: “By reporting through the minister to government, the audit council ensures the offi ce’s accountability to British Columbians. ” Th e minister has stood in this House and has said that everything is well, that she’s disappointed, but British Columbians expect better than that. At the current rate of production of one audit in two years, we can expect the next audits that the minister has listed off to be com- pleted in 34 years — sometime just before 2050. Can the minister tell this House just when the mess in the AGLG will be fi nally cleaned up? Hon.

C. Oakes: Th ank you very much for the ques- tion. Again, we canvassed last weekend, and we can- vassed that the Auditor General for Local Government has developed a revised plan to complete all the out- standing audits. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental. M. Farnworth: Th e minister stands in the House and says last week a plan was being developed. Well, at the same time, a review was being done of the offi ce of the AGLG, which was done in January and which paints a picture of complete and utter chaos.

Before you can get any audits done, if you want to improve on the record of getting them completed in 34 years, you have to take care of the complaints and the chaos in the offi ce, which means getting the offi ce straightened out. Th e minister has failed to even remote- ly address that today in this House. Once again, can the minister tell the House when the offi ce for the AGLG is going to be cleaned up so that they can actually get on with the job which they were paid to do, which is to do these audits instead of wasting $5.2 million? Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you for the question.

In case we missed it a little bit earlier, we talked about, for in- stance, how the AGLG expects to release the audits of Delta, Sechelt and the second part of Rossland this spring. SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS R. Fleming: Just before the last election, on April 8, 2013, the Premier held a splashy campaign announce-

British Columbia Debates6512 Monday, March 9, 2015 ment about school seismic upgrading, saying: “ Absolutely nothing is more important to me than the safety of our kids. ” She spoke on that day about the loss of life in Christchurch, New Zealand. She talked about the near miss that we had off our own coast, in Haida Gwaii.

But now, today, 22 months later, aft er an election, her own Minister of Education is saying these upgrades will take ten extra years than what the Premier promised on the eve of the last election — an extra decade of de- lay, of risk to our kids, and another entire generation of students in unsafe buildings at risk of collapse when an earthquake hits. Th e Premier looked right into the cameras and directly promised parents that their children’s safety was her top priority. How can the Minister of Education utterly fail to do his part to keep her promise? [1420] Hon. P .

Fassbender: Well, I don’t think I’ll thank the member for his last comment at all. I will say this. Where the member opposite is dead wrong is the facts. Th is gov- ernment has committed or spent $2.2 billion for seismic upgrades. As a matter of fact, the member opposite who just posed the question joined me at a photo op and said to the press in his own riding how he applauded a seismic upgrade program in his own community because of how good it was. Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supple- mental. R. Fleming: I want to give the minister credit for one thing.

When he was a director at PavCo, he made get- ting a new roof for B.C. Place his number one priority. Th e question that parents have around British Columbia is: now that he’s the Minister of Education, why can’t he make their kids’ safety his number one priority? In a 2003 letter to the Vancouver Sun, the Premier said: “Th ese upgrades can’t happen overnight. ” She was right; 25 years to complete these projects is certainly not over- night. And for parents, kids, and teachers in high-risk schools, 2020 was long enough, and 2030 for students in my constituency is utterly ridiculous.

Another ten-year delay to even do these upgrades until completion is ten more years of unacceptable risk. Again, to the minister, how is he even able to contem- plate such an utter failure to kids and parents by failing to implement the Premier’s promise that she made to them? Hon. P . Fassbender: I will be tabling two letters from experts — not politicians but experts on seismic upgrade programs and why British Columbia leads the world in seismic upgrade programs. I appreciate the questions from the members opposite.

I would like to remind them that when they were in gov- ernment, the members opposite, some of whom are still here, cancelled a seismic upgrade program for a school in favour of seismically upgrading a liquor warehouse. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. P . Fassbender: I’ d like to table the two letters which I just referred to. Madame Speaker: Is leave granted? Leave granted. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, the Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the con- tinuing estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

In this chamber, second reading on Bill 6, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act. [1425] Tabling Documents Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, if I might, I should have done this a moment ago. I am, in accordance with

section 6 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, tabling a revised

schedule F for the fi scal year ended March 31, 2015. Th e revised

schedule F refl ects the changes to ministerial accountabilities re- sulting from the government reorg that took place on December 18, 2014. [D. Horne in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 6 — JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 6, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, now be read a second time. Bill 6 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act will strengthen protections for consumers who use debt settlement services.

Under the proposed changes, debt settlement companies will be prohibited from charging fees until both the debtor and creditor have approved a debt repayment agreement, as well as setting other re- quirements for these companies to follow. Th e proposed changes will also update the debt collection law to refl ect current practices. Minor amendments to the Coroners Act will ensure that it is clear that provisions in the act relating to a body

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 9, 2015 6513 also apply to parts of the body of a deceased person. Since location and context of a body is critical to determining cause and manner of death, they must be left in place for examination by a coroner. Amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act will provide for a more eff ective and effi cient judicial com- pensation commission process. Th e proposed changes would amalgamate the two existing commissions re- specting Provincial Court judges and judicial justices into a single commission that will make recommenda- tions for both groups of judicial offi cers.

Th e amendments would also update the criteria that the commission must consider when arriving at its rec- ommendations, create a new formula for sharing the costs of the judiciary’s participation in the commission process and permit judges to remain active members of their pension plan until their mandatory retirement age of 75. The purposes of the proposed amendments to the Jury Act are threefold. Th e proposed amendments pro- vide that the allowances sitting jurors are entitled to re- ceive are set out in regulation, similar to fee entitlements.

Secondly, the amendments will provide the Lieutenant- Governor with the ability to set conditions for the pay- ment of an allowance or fee. Lastly, these amendments will also provide that past panelists and jurors may not make claims for allowances not paid in the past. Although the Jury Act regulations were amended in 2003, removing the entitlement for reimbursement of certain expenses to panelists, a statutory entitlement to an allowance for necessary and reasonable expense for panelists continued to exist until it was repealed in 2012.

Finally, this bill includes minor amendments con- sequential to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 2013. Th e amendments are needed to ensure the policy of the Family Law Act is appropriately implemented and will clarify that family law arbitration awards are enforce- able under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. It will make the defi nition of “spouse” in the Power of Attorney Act consistent with all other B.C. legislation and update the Power of Attorney Act and the Representation Agreement Act to accurately refl ect when a relationship ends within the meaning of the Family Law Act. Mr.

Speaker, I now welcome comments from other members of the House. L. Krog: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about Bill 6. We can always look forward to at least one or two or three of these in any given session, little tidbits from various ministries, correcting little mistakes and dealing with little problems that have perked up from time to time. [1430] Let me say, in general, that the opposition — but more importantly, the people of British Columbia — have been waiting for the provisions of this bill that amend the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act for a very long time.

Th is is not some issue that just popped up earlier this year and came to public attention. Th is has been the subject of considerable public concern and, indeed, concern raised very frequently by Consumer Protection B.C. A long

article in the Vancouver Sun, March 9, 2013. It starts off with a lovely paragraph: “Not a week goes by that bankruptcy trustee Blair Mantin doesn’t see at least two people in his offi ce who have been burned by a debt settlement company. He has seen seniors, recent im- migrants and families all owing more money than they started off owing aft er working with settlement com- panies that say they can negotiate to reduce a borrower’s debt, for a fee. ” In 2011 Consumer Protection B.C. received eight calls, and in 2012 they received more than 210 calls all relat- ed to this issue. It is now 2015.

With great respect to the minister and the provincial Liberals, it isn’t that diffi cult to draft legislation that is designed not to protect their wealthy 2 percent friends, the folks in British Columbia who just got a fantastic tax break from this government, but to protect the most vulnerable amongst us…. Th e

article itself referred to them: seniors, recent im- migrants, families who have fallen on hard times, fam- ilies for whom the breakdown of a refrigerator or a minor automobile repair represents a crisis beyond the reach of many to solve or succeed in overcoming. Th is very legislation fi nally addresses what is a longstanding problem, where these companies have treated abomin- ably the most vulnerable amongst us by charging outra- geous fees and oft en not delivering any real service for what they’ve charged. I have a little list: Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.

What do all of those provinces have in common? Th ey all beat us to the punch. Th ey all beat us to the punch by enacting legislation to deal with this very problem. Interjection. L. Krog: Th e member opposite may fi nd it amusing, but when you’ve been taken and you have so precious lit- tle resources available to you…. When you’ve been taken by a debt settlement company, it’s not a laughing matter. I don’t want to go over the top, but there’s a bit of biblical precedent for the attitude of Jesus towards the moneylenders. Th ey were chased out of the temple. Th ere was a reason for that.

Predatory practices like this have been dealt with in six other major jurisdictions in this country, including the two largest provinces of Canada. Several others are looking at it, and fi nally, British Columbia, being the seventh, is going to act at last, aft er a long period of public criticism around this very issue. It’s not as if we believe that the government doesn’t have a number of minions whose daily job is to peruse

British Columbia Debates6514 Monday, March 9, 2015 every kind newscast in the province, read every news- paper, ensure every bit of TV news coverage isn’t gleaned for anything that might impact negatively on the govern- ment or, alternatively, give them information and evi- dence to attack the opposition on whatever issue they can possibly raise. Th is wasn’t some secret hidden away. Th is problem and its consequences for British Columbians have been known for a very long time. We know that Consumer Protection, as I said, had raised this issue before, very clearly, with the government.

Indeed, back in 2010 Manjit Bains, who was the vice-president of corporate relations at Consumer Protection B.C., said: “We have seen a spike of more than 2,000 percent in calls about debt settlement over the past two years. Th is has been clearly an emerging, hot issue over the past few years. ” [1435] What does that tell you when Consumer Protection B.C. is telling the government that this is an issue? Y ou have to ask: why didn’t the government act? Th ey knew there was a problem. Th ey knew it was capable of a solu- tion.

Th ey had examples of legislative remedies from other provinces that they could rely on and use and literally copy and paste in order to protect vulnerable British Columbians. Instead they chose, quite deliber- ately, to treat this the way they treat most problems that involve the poor and vulnerable in this province — as a low priority. We can jump quickly when it involves the friends of the B.C. Liberals. We can save the top 2 percent mil- lions and millions of dollars in income tax. Th at’s not a problem. We can put a roof — a lovely, expensive roof — on a stadium, but we can’t seismically upgrade schools.

We can make, for years, the vulnerable children of this province suff er by clawing back child-support payments that were their due, but when it comes to helping those in need, again the poor and the vulnerable are always the last. John Davison Rockefeller was once asked what he thought the greatest invention in the history of the world was. Y ou know what he said, that rapacious capitalist?

He said: “Interest. ” Th e abuse of people who fi nd themselves in tough circumstances, who have to borrow money, has been going on for a very long time, and governments that care and have compassion have acted, always, to ensure that people were protected. The problem we’re talking about solving has a Dickensian ring to it. Th is is the kind of thing that drove Dickens to write.

Th is is the kind of stuff that takes us back to the thinking of debtors prison, knowing that people who are at their absolute worst — who are already deep in debt, on the verge of bankruptcy, on the verge of losing everything they have — go to these debt settlement companies and then get one fi nal ripoff . Th ey pay money up front, they scrape and save, they stop paying their creditors to try and accumulate the moneys to pay the fees charged by these companies. If they can’t raise it, the fees and moneys are kept, they’re worse off , their creditors go unpaid, and they face bank- ruptcy.

Finally today, aft er all the public complaints, aft er all the concerns that have been raised, the British Columbia government has decided to act. Again, as I said, it tells you in graphic terms what the priorities of the B.C. Liberals are all about. It isn’t about helping people who are in need. It isn’t about protecting consumers.

It was about leaving open one of the fi nal frontiers of this horrible practice, one of the fi nal frontiers in this country, when the vast majority of Canadian citizens were protected, including even the people of Prince Edward Island — tiny Prince Edward Island — let alone the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Th ose Canadians, those consumers, the citizens of those provinces were protected. We left the last little gold rush, if you will, for these rapacious companies, here in British Columbia. So I am pleased to say thank you, with no small amount of sarcasm, to the government for fi nally bringing this in.

I would have loved to have heard in the explanation, when the Attorney General introduced this today, what the ex- cuse was. What was the reason? What possible complica- tion could there be in enacting legislation that is common in other provinces? Why did it take so long? Now, the other provisions of this act are all pretty stan- dard stuff . I don’t think we’re going to be beating that to death.

Th e changes to the Coroners Act, family main- tenance, judicial compensation, the Jury Act, the Power of Attorney Act, the representation act are all bringing into force things that have needed to be done for a long time period. [1440] I am particularly pleased to see us moving towards a very common defi nition of termination for a marriage or marriage-like relationship. Certainly, the whole con- cept of who constitutes a spouse is a problem that exists across all legislative jurisdictions, across various organ- izations, contracts, unions, etc.

To move towards some kind of common defi nition that implies across legislation for this purpose is, indeed, a very good move. At the end of the day, those provisions aside, those things for which the opposition will only have questions and — I would suggest, unless something dramatic oc- curs — no opposition, it never gets us past the main thrust of this bill. It’s a pretty thin bill at that, for a gov- ernment that chooses to govern so rarely. It’s a pretty thin bill, and it is, for many British Columbians, an awfully precious gift for those who’ve suff ered.

Imagine the immigrants who come to this country, struggling with English, who fall into diffi culties, who are the victims of already-existing predatory lenders, then fi nd themselves in the situation where they’re forced to try and negotiate to avoid bankruptcy and then are at-

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 9, 2015 6515 tacked and taken to the cleaners one more time. Finally, here in B.C. there’s going to be a little bit of relief. I would hope…. I’m always optimistic about the B.C. Liberals. I always want to believe that we’re going to see some blossoming of compassion over there, that maybe this might be the start of something positive in this ses- sion, that we’ll see a little more legislation that will ac- tually deal with the problems that aff ect the poorest and the most vulnerable amongst us.

I’m hopeful — nothing would please me more — but in the meantime, this government gets very poor marks for doing this so late when it has had every opportunity over several years to move to deal with this issue, to pro- tect British Columbia’s consumers, to protect the most vulnerable amongst us. I know that several members have a great deal more to say on this issue. I won ’t take more of my time than is appropriate.

I do hope the Attorney General appreci- ates that while this government has dithered, thousands and thousands of British Columbians have been victim- ized by a practice that could have been eliminated two or three years ago. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to take my place and speak to second reading of Bill 6, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, and to follow my colleague the MLA for Nanaimo. Hopefully, in my remarks I’m able to shed a little bit of light on one of his key questions that he had, which is: why has it taken so long for this piece of legis- lation to get here?

I’m actually quite looking forward to telling him exactly why it has taken so long to get here. Interjection. M. Farnworth: My colleague from Surrey-Whalley wonders if it was too complicated to draft . Actually, the answer to that would be no, because much of it will still be done in regulation. Th at part has not been done yet, hon. Member, so it’s not a question of it being too dif- fi cult to draft . And I know for a fact that we have some of the most capable legislative draft ers in any province in the country, so it’s not the ability of staff to draft the legislation. No, it is something else.

When you look at this bill, it is common sense. Th is bill is going to outlaw some of the most predatory consumer practices in existence. Th ere are rules around credit cards and issues around interest that is charged on credit cards and how that con- sumer debt is dealt with that way. Th ere are rules around how one declares bankruptcy, for example. Th ere are rules in terms of repayment with banks and insurance companies, and when and how they can cancel a policy and how long you have to pay. All those kinds of things have been in place for many, many years.

But not when it comes to debt settlement. [1445] Debt settlement is the last refuge of the predator, the last refuge of those who prey on people who, as my col- league from Nanaimo has said, have fallen upon hard times. Whether they be new to the country and don’t have profi ciency with the English language or whether they’re young and inexperienced or whether they’ve lost their job through hard times and have had to seek al- ternative fi nancial means to keep themselves afl oat and have found themselves facing debt problems or a debt crisis, these fi rms are there. Th ey market themselves really well.

Th ey say: “Got debt problems? Don’t worry. Contact us. We can solve it. We can fi x it. We can deal with your problems. ” L. Krog: Hallelujah. M. Farnworth: Hallelujah, as my friend from Nanaimo says. What they don’t mention is the fi ne print — the fi ne print that means you’re paying signifi cant sums of money, exorbitant sums of money up front to settle a debt which, at the end of the day, may not be renegotiated, may not result in the desired outcome, that may in many cases leave you worse off than you were before. Th e fact that this practice still continues in British Columbia is outrageous.

But the fact that it has taken so long — and is a mystery to my colleague from Nanaimo…. It shouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be at all. I’ll come again to why this bill…. I know my colleague is waiting with bated breath for me to say the reason why. It’s actually very straightforward. Th e importance of this bill is that fi nally we are going to be dealing with this issue. Finally, there will be rules in place that pro- hibit the charging of outrageous fees, that there must be a debt settlement plan in place that is agreed to by both the creditor and the debtor — and that’s important.

It’s important, too, because it will bring us in line with other provinces in this country. Six other provinces have already dealt with this issue. Ontario, Quebec, and — as my colleague from Nanaimo rightly pointed out — Prince Edward Island dealt with this issue ages ago. Except here in British Columbia. Y ou know, it’s funny, because this government is always talking about: “Oh, we’re the greatest. We want to be this, and we want to be that. We’re the best at this, and we’re the best at that. ” But you know what?

Somehow, it never really seems to apply to ordinary people — ordinary people who fi nd themselves in fi nancial trouble, ordin- ary people who fi nd themselves being taken advantage of by companies who see…. Th ey specialize in human misery. Th ey specialize in human frailty. Th ey specialize in the unfortunate cir- cumstances that happen to people who fall upon hard times because of lack of a job, who fall upon hard times because of, perhaps, poor fi nancial decisions. Whatever the reason is, they are vulnerable. Th ey are desperate to

British Columbia Debates6516 Monday, March 9, 2015 fi nd a solution, and the promise of being able to halve your debts, quarter your debts, pay 10 percent on what you owe is too enticing to turn down. Th ey’re told, “No, don’t keep making your payments to keep your good credit in check. No, don’t worry about that. Don’t declare bankruptcy, no” — even though we have some of the most up-to-date bankruptcy protection laws in the country. “No, no, don’t do that. No, you just take that money that you’re paying, and you give it to me.

Y ou give it to me at the ABC Debt Management Corp., and we’ll solve all of your problems. ” Y et time and time again there has been story after story in the major media, from Better Business Bureaus, in other provinces. We know that it’s wrong. We know there’s a problem. We know there are issues that need to be dealt with and should have been dealt with a long time ago, but they haven’t. Now I will come…. [1450] What I’m really looking forward to is getting further into this discussion when we get into committee stage on exactly how the government intends to implement these sections of this particular bill.

Th ey say that there will be further changes in the fall, and we know how this government has been when it comes to meeting timelines. I mean, we’ve seen it. For example, changes to the Police Act were supposed to have been done…. A review was supposed to be done by 2015, yet that’s still not complete.

So when we see that the government is saying, “Well, there will be more changes in the fall, ” I want to explore, at committee stage, to see exactly what the timelines are going to be, what regulatory changes are going to take place, what new regulations are going to be put in place, how they’re being developed, what kind of consultation was taking place. All of those things are important and need to be dealt with at committee stage. Right now we’re dealing with the second reading and the principle of the bill. We support the changes that are in this bill. It’s just that they’ve been a long time coming.

Th ey have been a very long time coming from a govern- ment that has now been in power since 2001. For a government that likes to say it puts families fi rst, you really do wonder. Why has it taken 14 years to get to this point?

Why has it taken 14 years to come to the realization that predatory lending practices or predatory user fees are a detriment to some of the most vulnerable in our society and, really, should be as much a priority for government as — if not more of a priority for gov- ernment, in fact, than — giving a $230 million tax break to the top 2 percent of income earners in the province of British Columbia? One would think, for a government that likes to say that it’s all about families, that something like that would be an obvious place to want to go. I see my colleagues’ heads nodding.

I know on this side of the House they understand that. But it wasn’t. Th at brings me to my point as to why this bill is here now. It will actually go back to something that my col- league for Surrey-Whalley, who asked about legislative draft ing, said. And I said: “No, it’s not. It’s not about the legislative draft ing. ” I think that it has more to do with work that goes on in the ministries — work that goes on in the ministries day aft er day, week aft er week, month aft er month, year aft er year. Within the ministries, they understand many of the problems that British Columbians have to face.

So they put legislation…. Th ey get ideas around legisla- tion. Legislation is, in fact, oft en draft ed, and it goes into “the hopper” of good public policy bills that government could choose to enact. I think that’s what we have here. We saw it in the throne speech: a complete lack of real vision, a complete lack of any signifi cant major agenda item that was going to be the dominant focus of a session. Instead, we’ve seen a government’s…. Interjection. M. Farnworth: Oh, oh, oh.

My colleague, the minister, is going: “Speak to the bill. ” Well, the minister knows that second reading debate is always wide-ranging, and I have been talking very exclu- sively about this particular bill. In fact, I’m talking about how the bill was developed and about the great work done within the ministry to draft this bill. Interjection. M. Farnworth: Ah, but you know what? Th at explains something, hon. member for Surrey-Whalley. Again, it just confi rms why it’s taken so long for this bill to get here. Like I said, it was the throne speech.

Th e throne speech was so devoid of content that it became clear that the gov- ernment had to go reach into the vaults of legislation and ideas that were within the ministry and say: “Y ou know what? We’ve got to have some sort of an agenda. So what bills do we have that are ready to go that we can table this session and make it appear that we’ve got an agenda that is going to accomplish something?” Th at’s how this got here, not through any real commit- ment by this government to doing something.

If it was, they’ d have done it a number of years ago, particularly given the fact that Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island…. Six other provinces have already adopt- ed this legislation. Th at’s why this bill is here. Now, having said that, like I said, we’re going to be sup- porting the bill. But we’ve got a number of questions on this particular section. I look forward…. Interjection. [1455]

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 9, 2015 6517 M. Farnworth: Th e minister says she can hardly wait. Well, that doesn’t surprise me, because she’s not the one who actually has to answer the questions. Interjection. M. Farnworth: No, that minister doesn’t avoid ques- tions. She always answers the questions. Th e same can- not be said for some other members in this House, as we saw today in question period. But I digress, and I know the Speaker wants me to come back to second reading on Bill 6, and I am doing that.

Th ose clauses that deal with debt-servicing agencies we will be discussing very, I think, closely. I’m looking forward to what the minister has to say. But there are some other important areas of this particular piece of legislation. One of them changes the Coroners Act. It clarifi es what a body is. And, you know, some people may think: “Why is that important? Why does need that need to happen?” Well, it is important, because that particular

section will clarify what a body is. What it will do is ensure that be- fore a body is removed by the RCMP — for example, be- fore skeletal remains are removed — in fact, the coroner is notifi ed. Also, if there are organ donation issues, again, the coroner will be notifi ed. Th at is important. It’s interesting for some of my colleagues that with this

section up here, the Attorney General doesn’t take the opportunity on this particular piece of legislation…. She somehow doesn’t seem to be that interested. I don’t know why. Perhaps…. Interjection. M. Farnworth: It was a rhetorical question, hon. Member. It was a rhetorical question that I wasn’t ex- pecting an answer. Th ere is an opportunity while this bill is up, perhaps, to deal with the issue on Haida Gwaii that we raised in the House during question period last week in terms of human remains, a serious and important issue.

Perhaps it’s one that the Attorney General might want to take into consideration and see if there’s an opportunity in this particular bill at committee stage to look at perhaps making an amendment around there. I’m not looking for a commitment today, but there may be an opportunity at committee stage to try and address that issue. If not, then we may have to look at other opportunities. Th e bottom line is this. Th ere are a lot of housekeeping amendments in this bill. Many of them are good.

Th ey are the kinds of pieces of legislation that come up, as I said, when government wants to appear to have a vision and agenda that says they’re committed to doing things in the public interest. Th at’ s what this bill is about, and that’ s why , as I’ve said, along with my colleague from Nanaimo, we will have more to say and more questions to ask at commit- tee stage. But in the meantime, we will be supporting the bill at second reading.

Really, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, the real issue is: why has it taken so long for this particular piece of legislation to come to the fl oor of this House in British Columbia? B. Ralston: It’s a pleasure to join in the debate. I want to follow the two members that have spoken, my col- leagues from Nanaimo and Port Coquitlam. I think the member for Port Coquitlam posed the question pretty accurately, and I found his answer to the question com- pelling. Why has the government delayed so long in introducing this piece of legislation?

It’s very clear, in a time and in an economy where real wages have fl atlined, if not declined — and there are some reports from Statistics Canada in the last ten years that the average median real wage in British Columbia has declined 6 percent — where consumer debt in British Columbia is among the highest, if not the highest, in Canada…. [1500] Y ou have a recent report from Benjamin Tal at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. He’s their econo- mist. He talked about the decline in job quality. Th ere’s a rise in part-time contract work — sometimes called, in some of the literature, the precarious employment.

People don’t have jobs in the conventional sense of a full-time job with benefi ts and a certain work schedule. Th ey’re called in. Th ere’s an increasing movement in the economy to that kind of employment. There are people, then, who are really working for wages but are classifi ed legally as self-employed. If they encounter illness, if the work source that they’re getting their fl ow of income from dries up, if there are problems in the family, if a married woman has to leave the house- hold because of domestic violence…. Th ese are people who run into fi nancial problems.

In that context, the diffi culty then arises of pressure on the budget. People generally tend to continue on by using the credit facilities that are available to them, typically maxing out their credit card. Th en the crunch comes, where the debt-collection agencies begin to circle and hover and look for payment. It’s at that point that some of these people, unfortu- nately for them…. Th ese companies, in what’s called debt settlement — and it’s certainly an oxymoron be- cause that’s not what they do — become attractive. Th ey advertise, and they entice and create business for them- selves.

Typically what they do is they take an upfront fee. Th e commentators, knowledgable people in the industry — I’ll quote from some of them in a moment — say that they’ll take an upfront fee of $3,000 to $5,000 and encour- age the debtor to stop paying and save money for the ul- timate debt settlement, which never comes.

British Columbia Debates6518 Monday, March 9, 2015 What happens is, not only do they pay the fee of $3,000 to $5,000; they don’t make any dent in the debt at all. Th ey’re worse off than when they started. This predatory, unconscionable business has been in existence and growing. It’s not that the government hasn’t been aware of it. Th e consumer protection agency Consumer Protection B.C. is an authority. Back in the halcyon days of 2001 to 2005 this agency was created to spin off those regulatory powers from government. Th ey passed this message on to the government.

Th ey’ve explained it publicly for literally four years. Manjit Bains, who’s the vice-president of corporate rela- tions at Consumer Protection B.C., said: “We have seen a spike of more than 2,000 percent in calls about debt settlement over the past two years. ” Again, to quote her: “Th is has been clearly an emerging hot issue over the past few years. ” She said that in March 2013. She’s referring back two years, so it’s been a hot issue, a deluge of complaints, for over four years now. Th ere’s support for that view in industry.

Bankruptcy trustee Blair Mantin, of Sands and Associates, says: “B.C. is really late to act on this. I see vulnerable people in debt paying these companies $3,000 to $5,000 and getting no help. Th ey end up in worse debt than when they started. ” He said that in 2014. Th is government clearly hasn’t paid attention to know- ledgable people. Th e very regulatory agency that’s the most knowledgable about this area of debt settlement has had its warnings ignored — and clearly demonstrated — for four years. Mr.

Blair Mantin goes on to say: “B.C. ’s lack of response is embarrassing. ” Th is is what he said in March 2013 — again, two years ago: “When you look at what other prov- inces have accomplished over the past 12 to 18 months to deal with this issue, B.C. stands out as a huge failure in protecting vulnerable consumers from being preyed upon. ” [1505] Th at’s two years ago. Manjit Bains was referring to an issue that’s been out there for at least two years in 2013. So this issue has been something that…. Th e knowledg- able people that the government should have listened to have been around for years.

I appreciate that they’re not in the top 2 percent. Th ey won’t be getting a tax break of $235 million. Government doesn’t particularly care about them. I would say they’ve been shamed into doing this, aft er four years, by public pressure. As the member for Port Coquitlam said, the legislative agenda has got so barren and so dry that they’ve hauled this one out of the vaults and put it forward simply to fi ll some time. I don’t sense a real commitment on the part of the government.

Inaction over four years suggests that they really don’t care about this issue, but they’ve been forced to, simply by a hole in the legislative agen- da. Certainly, I support this legislation, but one wonders, really, why it took so long. Secondly, the other aspect of the bill that I wish to comment on briefl y is the issue of judicial compensation. I am hoping…. I know that the relationship between the judiciary — that’s the Provincial Court judges — and the government has been acrimonious and, in fact, led to some litigation.

I believe one of the proposed commis- sions, its report tabled, was the subject of litigation in the B.C. Supreme Court. I believe they took an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which they lost. Nonetheless, that’s not the relevant part of it. I’m just hoping that these amendments will make that relation- ship more harmonious. Th ere appears to be an eff ort to consolidate the bodies that consider judicial compen- sation and bring that to a more satisfactory conclusion. Certainly, there are challenges.

Judges have been fairly vigorous in their pursuit of in- creased compensation in a time when others have not received that compensation. Judges view — perhaps, I think, very strongly — that their compensation should be independent of the ordinary process of consideration be- cause it impinges upon the independence of the judiciary. Th at’s a view that, in the review that was taken in the court, the higher court did not agree with. Nonetheless, I’m hoping that that will be more harmonious. Finally, on the issue of changes to the Jury Act.

As a lawyer over the years and in a previous life, I did conduct jury trials. One of the striking things about the jury pro- cess and jury selection is how many people come forward and say they would like to participate in the process and be a juror but can’t aff ord to take time away from their business, their employment. Th ey’re the only employee. Th ey’re self-employed. Th ey’re not able to participate be- cause of the concern that that will pose for their income. Now, some of that may be special pleading. Some of that may be simply a way of expressing a lack of willingness to participate.

Of course, jury duty is an important aspect of citizen- ship and really brings an important element of common sense and the view of ordinary citizens into the judi- cial process, which has been regarded as invaluable over many centuries in the British common-law system. It’s important that people be encouraged to participate in the jury process. Th ese amendments give the government, by regula- tion, the power to set compensation for jurors. Certainly, no one is asking that the compensation be excessive or inordinate or inappropriate.

But the daily fees have not really kept up with, at least, even the pace of infl ation. [1510] Some refl ection of that in the future, I think, would be appreciated, particularly by those who come before either a civil jury or a criminal jury and by the system as a whole. I think it will strengthen the administration of justice generally. So I support those proposed amend- ments as well. Th ose are the comments I have on this bill.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 9, 2015 6519 A. Weaver: I rise to congratulate the government on introducing at least the aspect of this bill that concerned me. Th at’s with respect to the debt settlement. As the minister will recognize, I contacted her about this earlier this year. As we know, debt settlement companies typically off er to negotiate, on behalf of a consumer, lump sum settle- ments with creditors for amounts signifi cantly less than the consumer’s outstanding debt.

Consumers are oft en required to pay excessive, largely non-refundable fees up front and are encouraged to stop paying their debts and instead save up for a lump sum settlement. Th is dif- fers from traditional debt-pooling services, which set up reduced-interest repayment plans and assist consumers with eventually paying off their full debts. Many people are unable to save enough for the lump sum settlement amount and subsequently drop out of the program, losing any money they have already paid to the debt settlement company.

Th ere’s no guarantee a creditor will accept the lump sum settlement, although this risk is oft en not communicated to consumers. Th is can negatively aff ect credit scores and further accumulate debt as late fees, missed payments and penalties build up.

Th e proposed changes, developed with the advice from a debt collection industry advisory group and in consul- tation with Consumer Protection B.C., would help pre- vent the negative practices and also modernize outdated provisions to ensure B.C. ’s debt collection laws both re- fl ect the present day collection and credit industry and align with other Canadian jurisdictions.

On January 5 of this year, aft er a rather large number of e-mails I received from people in the greater Victoria dis- trict, I contacted the minister and pointed out that in July of 2012 CTV News reported that the Minister of Justice at the time said: “In order to better protect consumers and families living in poverty, the B.C. government will pro- vide legislative changes to regulate businesses that provide debt consolidation services and regulate advance fees paid. ” As I pointed out in the letter, since that time there had been little information from government about when we could expect to see such legislation.

I pointed out in that letter on January 5 that debt management companies prey upon some of the most vulnerable British Columbians. Rather than providing a solution to an individual’s debt issue, these companies seek to profi t off the situation. A number of provinces, as I pointed out and as was mentioned by other members here — including Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, which I hadn’t realized until a member brought it up recently — have passed similar legislation to end these predative practices within their jurisdictions.

At the time, I pointed out that I believed it was past time for British Columbia to pass our own regulations in this regard. I asked the minister if she could reply to me with an update as to where we were heading in this direction.

I was delighted to receive a letter from the minis- ter on February 12, which I communicated back to my constituents and others, pointing out that debt collec- tion in British Columbia is regulated under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, that the legisla- tion was designed to protect consumers by prohibiting deceptive practices and requiring debt industry profes- sionals to be licensed. At that time, the minister pointed out: “Th e emergence of new types of debt repayment professionals has resulted in a need to ensure that they are also bound by the act’s rules.

Although I” — being the minister — “am unable to provide specifi c details regarding the development or timing of legislation at this time, I can assure you” — that is, me — “that government is committed to enhancing consumer protections against deceptive practices. To this end, ministry staff continue to work through the policy issues that are necessary to regulate debt settlement industries. ” [1515] It is with great pleasure that I stand to see that, in fact, this has entered into Bill 6, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act.

I look forward to exploring some of the details further as we get into committee stage, in par- ticular — I have some questions, obviously, and I’m sure other members will, too — with respect to 127(3), which talks about a debt repayment: “ A debt repayment…must not charge fees or disbursements in excess of the pre- scribed amount. ” We’ll be questioning, obviously, what that prescribed amount may or may not be and what the minister has in mind in terms of subsequent regulations. I’m also pleased to see that the bill actually does in- clude this entirely new category called the debt repay- ment agent.

It’s very reassuring to see regulations and guidelines put in place as to what a debt repayment agent may or may not do. With that, I’m very pleased to stand in support of Bill 6 — at least the two components that I’ve spent some time working on: the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act subcomponent as well as Collection Agents and Debt Repayment Agents. With that, hon. Speaker, I’ll thank you and look for- ward to committee stage of this bill. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call on the minister to close debate. Hon. S. Anton: I just have two quick comments.

I re- ject the comments regarding motivation made by the member for Surrey-Whalley — regarding the motiva- tion for the debt settlement legislation. Clearly, these changes are needed to stop predatory practices and pro- tect consumers and their families. Th at’s what govern- ment is doing. With that, I move second reading of Bill 6. Motion approved. Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 6 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting aft er today.

British Columbia Debates6520 Monday, March 9, 2015 Bill 6, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading of Bill 14, the Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015. BILL 14 — TOBACCO CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Hon. T. Lake: I am very pleased today to move second reading of the Tobacco Control Amendment Act.

In my mandate letter, the Premier asked me to “Work with the federal government to regulate the sale of e-cigarettes and fl avoured tobacco to minors in British Columbia” and, in the absence of federal action, to look at legislative options. We have worked closely with the federal govern- ment, and we are pleased to see that the federal minister, Minister Ambrose, is taking action. Th ey’re committed to strengthening their legislation around fl avoured to- bacco and have announced plans to ban youth-oriented fl avours in a much broader range of tobacco products.

Th e candy and fruit range of fl avour products available are very enticing to youth, as you can imagine, and are oft en targeted at youth by companies and by sellers of- fering them in small sizes. British Columbia believes that the federal government should regulate the content of tobacco products, as they have done with fi re-safe cigarettes and with their fi rst range of fl avoured tobacco restrictions. We feel this is the most effi cient way of doing this, as products are made not just in one province; they’re made for a national market.

To regulate the content of a product is much more easily accomplished at the federal level. Certainly, enforcement and knowledge would be much greater if it is done on a national level, rather than a provincial level. So we believe that the federal action on fl avoured to- bacco will meet the standards set in the Premier’s man- date letter and that their changes will help reduce the appeal of harmful tobacco use to young people. But we also need to ensure that we are able to regulate e- cigarettes within the scope of provincial jurisdiction.

Accordingly, these amendments ensure that we are able to regulate the sale, use and promotion of e-cigarettes in a manner similar to which tobacco products are currently regulated in British Columbia. Th at will help us achieve our goal of promoting the health of British Columbians. It will also give greater tools to health authorities to protect the health of their patients, their clients and visitors by reducing exposure to tobacco and vapour products on their grounds.

It will permit us to set regulations to keep e-cigarettes out of sight and out of the hands of young people, and it will allow us to keep public spaces free from vapour. Anywhere that currently restricts tobacco use would also restrict e-cigarette use. [1520] Why do we need this legislation? Well, we are commit- ted to protecting those under 19 from the potential risks of e-cigarettes. As you know, we have worked hard at re- ducing smoking throughout the province and protecting all British Columbians from the danger of secondhand smoke, but now we’re faced with a new product.

It may be years before we know the health impacts of e-ciga- rettes, and until we get more information, we must take the precautionary principle. When you deliver a substan ce across the lungs, it is tantamount to injecting it into the bloodstream, unlike a product that’s taken orally with multiple barriers be- fore it’s absorbed into the bloodstream and has its eff ect around the body. When you inhale a product, it crosses into the bloodstream very quickly and bypasses vital or- gans, like the liver, that can protect the body from the products in the substance that is being inhaled.

We know these products are out there. We don’t know what they contain and how harmful they may be. And while adults can make a decision whether or not to par- take, we think young people should be protected. Th ese products are attractive to minors. Th ey’re avail- able almost everywhere, including convenience stores and on line, and they come in a vast array of fl avours from bubble gum to fruit, so clearly marketed at young people. Th at’s very concerning, obviously, because we don’t want young people using e-cigarettes and potential- ly being exposed to chemicals or becoming dependent on nicotine.

Some of these vapour products contain nicotine, which, in itself, can be toxic. Th ese e-cigarettes can have a wide range of diff erent chemicals in them, ranging from, as I mentioned, nicotine which can be harmful by itself, to products like propylene glycol, the eff ects of which are uncertain when they cross into the bloodstream. Legislation like this protects vulnerable youth and lets us restrict their access to the sale, promotion of or expos- ure to e-cigarettes. British Columbia will be among the fi rst jurisdictions in Canada to pass legislation specifi c to e-cigarettes and vapour products.

If we look at how things work at the moment, currently the Tobacco Control Act bans tobacco use of all kinds, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, on school sites, at workplaces and within a three-metre buff er zone of doorways, open windows and air intakes. Th e existing legislation eff ect- ively regulates tobacco products but has no authority to regulate the sale, use or promotion of vapour products. In practice, at the moment, vapour products are a wide- open market. If they do not contain tobacco, they are outside the federal and provincial restrictions on the sale and pro- motion of tobacco.

Th e only legislation which regulates them currently is the federal Food and Drugs Act, which says that if they do contain nicotine or if they do promote themselves as a health product — for instance, a smoking cessation product — then they have to be approved for

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 9, 2015 6521 sale by Health Canada. Th is is what happens with cur- rent nicotine replacement therapies. Health Canada has approved those nicotine replace- ment therapies for sale as a cessation product. We know exactly what chemicals are in those nicotine replace- ment therapies and how they will impact the human body. But no vapour products containing nicotine and making a health claim have been, in fact, submitted to Health Canada for approval, so none are approved for sale in Canada.

We do not know exactly what chemicals are in these va- pour products, as I mentioned, and how they may impact the human body. But as we have seen, the products are available just about everywhere — corner stores, on the Internet, in many diff erent public spaces. Th is is poten- tially dangerous as there are no manufacturing standards for vapour products, and people can buy nicotine liquid and make their own.

Th ere are also no product standards, so toddlers and children can easily open the attractive, brightly coloured containers and accidently ingest the li- quid within, risking nicotine or other chemical poisoning. Th ese amendments expand the scope of the Tobacco Control Act. Accordingly, the statute is being renamed the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act. Th e act sets out a framework to regulate the sale, promotion and use of tobacco and vapour products in B.C.

Th e amend- ments will require retailers to ensure vapour products — including e-cigarettes, e-substances, cartridges and fi lters — are only sold to adults aged 19 and older. [1525] Th e amendments also create authorities to regulate use, display and advertising of vapour products along the lines of the authorities available today for regulating tobacco products. Because we don’t know what chem- icals the vapour products contain or what happens when many people use them at once in an indoor space — like a work or public space — we are restricting their use in those sites as well.

Aft er all, people who do not use e- cigarettes should not have to be exposed to vapour in public or workspaces. Th e legislation sets out authorities for the prohibition of the sale of e-cigarettes to those under 19 and regu- lates the promotion and display of e-cigarettes. An ex- ception will be made for prescribed medical devices so that nicotine replacement therapies that are approved by Health Canada and nebulizers that are approved will not be aff ected.

Finally, the amendments add a ban on using tobacco and e-cigarettes on health authority property other than in specifi ed areas, if health authorities wish to designate them on their site. We know that health authorities are leaders in protecting the health of their citizens by re- ducing tobacco use. Th is legislation will help them limit its use as much as possible on their property. In closing, I want to emphasize that these amendments serve to reinforce our commitment to protecting young people in British Columbia from the potential risks of e-cigarettes.

Th is legislation will help us move forward with these goals. I look forward to hearing other mem- bers’ comments on the second reading of this important legislation. J. Darcy: I’m pleased to stand and speak on the Tobacco Control Amendment Act as the designated speaker for the offi cial opposition. Let me begin by saying that this is certainly an initiative that we support. It is critically important that we regulate e-cigarettes and that our tobacco control legislation includes e-ciga- rettes.

Certainly, it’s an important step forward when we look at the number of British Columbians who still smoke and, in particular, the number of young people who begin smoking every year — about 30,000. For many of them, e-cigarettes are a gateway drug. I certainly agree with the minister that we don’t know what’s in many of these products, but we need to take the precautionary principle. We need to especially protect our children and young adults.

Th ere are certainly some products that some people will say are very valuable in terms of harm reduction — to help to get people to quit smoking — but we also know that there could be high levels of nicotine as well as other substances in e-cigarettes. Th erefore, it is absolutely crit- ically important that we regulate them. Substances that are in e-cigarettes clearly is a subject that needs further study and needs to be studied very carefully. Th e jury is still out on certain aspects of it, but this law, as the minister has said, doesn’t ban them. It regulates them, which is something that we fully support.

Essentially, this bill now means that the same con- ditions that apply to tobacco will apply to e-cigarettes when it comes to where you can use these products, how you can sell these products, how you can advertise them and so on. Th at’s very, very important, as any survey in this prov- ince, in this country and across the continent shows that young people are using e-cigarettes in increasing num- bers. Certainly, everywhere we go we see that more adults are also using e-cigarettes. Th ere are serious concerns, as others have said, about whether these will, in fact, be a gateway drug to further smoking.

Th is legislation now makes British Columbia the third Canadian province, after joining Ontario and Nova Scotia, in regulating e-cigarette use. Th e Cancer Society of British Columbia has pointed out that 20 percent of 15- to 19-year-olds in Canada have tried e-cigarettes, which opens the door to them using and potentially becoming addicted to tobacco products. Th e Cancer Society has certainly expressed, over some long period of time, the importance of regulating them, the marketing of them, the use of them and ensuring, especially, that they stay out of the hands of young people. [1530]

British Columbia Debates6522 Monday, March 9, 2015 In addition to all of the other reasons, the fact that these products are also oft en fl avoured with a wide var- iety of fl avours that are more appealing to young people makes them, in fact, even more dangerous. Th ey entice youth to try e-cigarettes, again paving the way for them to become a gateway for other tobacco products. Some specifi c questions that I will also be pursuing when we get to the committee stage on this….

I’ve dis- cussed this issue with tobacco enforcement offi cers, for instance, who work for our health authorities, and they are certainly concerned about the funding in order to be able to properly enforce these regulations already. A program for tobacco enforcement in the past was funded 50 percent by the federal government, 50 percent provincially through the health authorities. Th at fund- ing from the federal government, it’s my understanding, has ceased a couple of years ago, and that means that the responsibility falls exclusively on the province — that is, on the health authorities.

Th e tobacco enforcement offi - cers I’ve spoke with say that they’re already stretched very, very thin, so there’s the issue of…. It’s excellent that we’ll have stronger regulations in this regard, but we certainly need the resources in order to enforce them. I’ve also had concerns raised with me, again by tobac- co enforcement offi cers and others, about some potential loopholes in the bill, which I’ll also be exploring with the minister at the committee stage. Some of the issues re- lated to displaying and promotion. Th e language in the bill refers to tobacco retailers.

Potentially, this perpetu- ates an existing loophole in the legislation because it re- fers specifi cally to retailers who can’t advertise, but there are other potential avenues. For instance, could you have a sandwich board on the street that, eff ectively, advertises something that is sold on the premises of a store that sells these products near- by? Could it be advertised in the shop next door? Th is may be speculative, but it’s certainly an issue that has been raised with me by people whose profession, whose occupation is to enforce these regulations. I

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150309pm-Hansard-v21n5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150309pm Hansard v21n5
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b3848bbb90ad32dcdbe7677fed7df7ab86676c17

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).