2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 66)

Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Richmond anniversary

G. Halsey-Brandt

Maillardville history

R. Stewart

Crystal methamphetamine

R. Hawes

Oral Questions

Internet gaming

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Coleman

J. MacPhail

Telemarketing fraud

K. Johnston

Hon. I. Chong

Privatization of automobile insurance

J. Bray

Hon. R. Coleman

Flu vaccine supply

R. Hawes

Hon. C. Hansen

Role of Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services

J. MacPhail

Hon. B. Locke

Kootenay Livestock Association proposal

B. Bennett

Hon. J. van Dongen

Tabling Documents

Medical Services Commission, financial statements, 2003-04

Second Reading of Bills

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 73)

Hon. J. Murray

J. MacPhail

K. Whittred

J. Bray

Hon. J. Murray

Charitable Purposes Preservation Act (Bill 63)

Hon. G. Collins

K. Stewart

Land Title and Survey Authority Act (Bill 68)

Hon. G. Collins

J. Bray

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 75)

Hon. G. Collins

R. Hawes

G. Halsey-Brandt

Trespass Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 72)

Hon. G. Collins

Safe Streets Act (Bill 71)

Hon. G. Collins

J. Kwan

P. Nettleton

D. Jarvis

G. Halsey-Brandt

J. MacPhail

K. Johnston

R. Hawes

G. Trumper

V. Roddick

J. Bray

L. Mayencourt

Hon. G. Collins

[ Page 11511 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2004

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. It is indeed a

pleasure to welcome back the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations,

the member for Kelowna-Mission. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today, first of

all, is — with all great deference to my colleagues here — the best legislative

assistant in the precinct, Marnie Llewellyn-Thomas. Marnie is joined today by

her aunt and uncle, Wayne and Minna Aitken, from Victoria, and also her

great-uncle Glen Aitken, who made a special journey all the way from Ontario.

They're here to see what she does for a living and how she stays out of trouble.

I ask the House to make all of them feel very welcome.

B. Suffredine: In the gallery today I have two friends that

hail from Calgary presently. Gerald Rotering and his friend Shirley Reynolds

both currently hail out of Calgary, but Gerald is a long-time friend and

acquaintance from Nelson. He's actually the former mayor of Nelson, presiding

over fairly difficult times in the eighties and the time when the movie

Roxanne was shot in Nelson. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's a great day today. I want to

introduce to the House someone who is actually not here but is at home with her

mother watching TV, Carley Jasper Sweet. The daughter of my former MA was born

August 5 and weighed six pounds and 15 ounces. I wanted to introduce her in the

House. Because I have four children of my own and still no grandchildren, I've

claimed this one as my first grandchild, so I'm pretty proud of this little

bundle of joy. I understand from what she says that Carley is excited to be

living in the best place in the world, British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hawkins: First of all, I want to say what a

pleasure it is to be back here today after a very long time. I do want to thank

all the members in the House for your support and your love and the hope that

you kept out for me. Guess what. I'm back. It feels good to be here.

I also want to thank all the staff in the buildings.

What a great welcome back — to have a blood donor clinic running

here today. I do want to recognize the B.C.–Yukon division of Canadian Blood

Services, with their director, Patty Thorne, and all the volunteers that are

here to set up the clinic and all of you who are generously donating. You are

helping to save lives, so thank you very much.

Please help me welcome Canadian Blood Services to our building

today.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that I speak for my colleague the member

for Vancouver-Hastings in welcoming back the Minister of State for

Intergovernmental Relations. We're delighted to see her in good health. I saw

her, actually, up in Kelowna during the UBCM, and she was just radiant with her

natural sense of happiness and, I think, her own personality in every way. We're

delighted to see her back in the House.

Just for the members' information, my colleague the member for

Vancouver-Hastings is actually downstairs having, I hope, some juice and cookies

so that she can be along momentarily, having given blood. I said I would give

blood after QP, just in case, because we want to make sure that there's

opposition in the House. Welcome back.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and

read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 66, Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act, 2004, which adds new tools to enhance British Columbians'

efforts to reduce the needless injury caused by drinking and driving.

Alcohol-related traffic accidents claim more lives annually than

homicides, fires and drownings combined. In 2003, 100 people died and 3,300

people were injured as a result of drinking and driving. A drinking driver was

involved in more than one in four fatal crashes and one in ten injury-producing

accidents. As well, there are unacceptable costs on the impact of families and

friends and loved ones in this province. The economic cost of impaired driving

in these crashes is estimated at over $850 million a year.

After consulting extensively over the last couple of years with

police, Crown, traffic organizations and community groups, we have developed a

balanced and comprehensive plan to counter drinking and driving. Until now,

British Columbia has been the only province without rehabilitation programs for

drinking drivers. This bill lays the foundations for these programs. They will

include ignition interlock for repeat offenders and mandatory treatment for

impaired drivers.

Every year 40,000 B.C. drivers get 24-hour driving suspensions.

This bill imposes the toughest measures by allowing police to immediately

impound their vehicle for 24 hours, increasing the ability to suspend drivers'

licences of repeat offenders with 24-hour suspensions and ensuring that they do

not drink and drive — driving home the point that drinking and driving is a

serious offence.

Driving prohibitions and suspensions are two of the best weapons

against drinking and driving. This

[ Page 11512 ]

bill improves our ability to enforce these measures by doubling the vehicle

impoundment periods for suspended and prohibited drivers for up to 60 days on a

first offence and 90 days for subsequent offences. The bill also increases the

minimum fines for suspended or prohibited driving from $300 to $500.

We are putting additional teeth into liquor infractions, making

people pay their liquor fines before they can renew their driver's licence.

Finally, we're making certain that drivers with bail conditions banning them

from driving can get their driver's licence removed by the superintendent by

putting into law this ability as it didn't exist before.

Drinking and driving is a serious offence, and these measures,

which I will be speaking to in the next few days, send a strong message that

drinking and driving will not be tolerated in British Columbia.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) RICHMOND ANNIVERSARY

G. Halsey-Brandt: This year the city of Richmond is

celebrating its 125th anniversary of incorporation as a municipality with

festivities planned throughout 2004 that will celebrate the community's rich

past, present and future. Richmond was incorporated as a township on November

10, 1879, and became a city on December 3, 1990.

This September 16, hundreds of seniors gathered to celebrate the

125th anniversary in the City Hall Plaza. They enjoyed lunch and entertainment,

including a performance by Dal Richards and his orchestra. Later that evening a

huge birthday bash for the public was held and was attended by all three

Richmond MLAs.

There was much more to celebrate in Richmond this year. The

Paralympic Games ended in Athens on September 28, and I'm proud to announce that

longtime Richmond paralympian Walter Wu won two gold medals and one silver medal

in aquatic events. Continuing on the Olympic theme, all our residents were

elated when we learned that the Vancouver organizing committee for the 2010

games named Richmond as a host for the speed skating oval for the 2010 games.

The oval includes a legacy of permanent ice rinks and a field house facility for

summer sports. The site will include a large public plaza with pedestrian

riverfront walkways.

[1415]

Recently two international teams have submitted final-offer

proposals to build and operate the RAV rapid transit line between Vancouver,

Richmond and the airport. We look forward to a final award next month.

The past 125 years has seen Richmond grow from a farming and

fishing community into a vibrant city of over 170,000 people, the fourth-largest

city in British Columbia. Building on a strong multicultural pioneer base,

Richmond is now a commercial powerhouse. The mood of our residents after 125

years since incorporation is positive, optimistic and confident of their future.

Richmond is the best place to live, work and play in a province which, as you

all know, is the best place on earth to live.

MAILLARDVILLE HISTORY

R. Stewart: This year we celebrate the ninety-fifth

anniversary of Maillardville. Maillardville isn't the oldest francophone

community in B.C. Significant francophone populations were present in Vancouver,

Victoria, Kelowna and many other B.C. communities decades before 1909. That was

the year that the first of two trainloads of Quebec millworkers and their

families arrived at Fraser Mills station to start their new lives.

Of course, it wasn't called Maillardville then. It was called

Fraser Mills, after the local mill that was in its day the largest mill in the

British Commonwealth. The owners of Fraser Mills had crossed the country to find

some skilled and experienced workers, and they found them in Quebec. These

families were true pioneers, and they created a vibrant French Canadian

community on the west coast, a community named after the first Catholic priest,

le curé Maillard. These are the 46 names that founded Maillardville 95 years

ago: Auger, Beaulieu, Bédard, Boileau, Boucher, Bouthot, Cadieux, Charland,

Chevalier, Couture, Croteau, Dechenes, Desormeaux, Dicaire, Duplin, Emmond,

Fournier, Gagne, Gauthier, Girand, Gravel, Joncas, Lafleur, LaFrance, Lajeunesse,

Lamoureux, Laverdure, LeBlanc, Leblond, Laurier, Madore, Marcellin, Noël,

Ouellette, Paquette, Pare, Parent, Payer, Robinson, Rochon, Seguin, Tellier,

Trepanier, Trottier and Valliere.

The names of these families are recorded in stone in our Heritage

Square and as street names around our community. Of course, in the 95 years

since those two trains, thousands of other francophone families have established

their future in Maillardville. My mother's family moved from St. Boniface,

Manitoba, while others came from Acadia, Alberta and Quebec as well as from

France and other francophone countries around the world.

Just as B.C. prepares to host the world in the 2010 Olympics in

both official languages of the Olympic Games, Maillardville will be celebrating

its centennial. I know that the community in which I was born is looking forward

to that celebration as well.

CRYSTAL METHAMPHETAMINE

R. Hawes: Crystal methamphetamine is a highly addictive

concoction of deadly poisons that include acetone, Drano and red phosphorous. It

often leaves its users with permanent brain damage and an inability to function.

It has killed kids.

[ Page 11513 ]

While the overall usage of crystal meth is reported to have peaked

in much of the province, sadly, this is not true in parts of the Fraser Valley.

Crystal meth use is on a rapid increase, especially among our youth, and lives

and futures are being destroyed. The police report there is not a car theft,

break-in or shoplifting problem in the Fraser Valley; rather, it's a drug

addiction problem, and it's responsible for over 80 percent of property crimes.

Most of this they attribute to crystal meth.

Maple Ridge and Mission, though, are doing something about it.

Recently crystal meth forums were held in each community, and the results were

amazing. In a highly emotional and powerful meeting in both communities we

learned of the staggering magnitude of the problem. There was a recognition that

no level of government can solve the problem alone, but rather, a community

approach is needed. Local task forces were formed to look at treatment options,

educational opportunities and enforcement. Membership includes all levels of

government, the health authority and many volunteer agencies but mostly moms and

pops who are concerned about the future of our youth.

I have discussed this with the Minister of State for Mental Health

and Addiction Services, and she's committed to doing something about it as well.

Detox and residential treatment beds for youth are high on her list, and she has

pledged to work with the communities as they develop plans to fight this menace.

[1420]

I want to congratulate and thank Meadowridge Rotary and its

president, Mary Robson, and her husband, Gord, in Maple Ridge, as well as the

Mission Rotary Clubs and the Fraser House drug and alcohol centre in Mission and

its president, Steve Sharp, for their leadership in helping unite our

communities to protect our kids. This is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

INTERNET GAMING

J. Kwan: Let me quote from the New Era document: "A

B.C. Liberal government will stop the expansion of gambling that has increased

gambling addiction and put strains on families." Will the new Minister for

Addiction Services stand up for families and oppose her government's expansion

of gambling on the Internet?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, the B.C. Lottery

Corporation — which now has the responsibility of the conduct and management of

gaming in British Columbia, arm's length from any political influence — has gone

on line with PlayNow as of last week, which is the ability for clients that are

maybe going into a convenience store or elsewhere to be able to purchase on-line

lottery products that already exist today. That was already done in the Maritime

provinces last August. Now we're doing it in British Columbia to be able to

better serve our customers.

The one thing I should make very clear is that this site does not

allow people from outside the province to buy tickets on line. It only allows

people that are age-restricted. It has a very significant control on the amount

of dollars that can be spent. In addition to that, it is not on-line gaming from

the standpoint of being casino gaming, which is a problem internationally that

we, as all countries, are unable to deal with because they're offshore servers

in places like the Caribbean and what have you. This is only about existing

products that the B.C. Lottery Corporation offers today.

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

supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The Liberals promised to stop the expansion of

gambling. It is amazing, though, that the Minister for Addiction Services has

nothing to say about the expansion of gaming when her own government promised to

stop gaming expansion to protect families from addiction.

According to a report from the Ontario Problem Gambling Research

Centre, on-line gaming has the unique potential to increase the social costs of

gambling because it combines the acknowledged double threat of high-speed and

convenient access with technology that appeals to youth. Does the Minister for

Addiction Services agree with these findings? What is she doing to stop the

expansion of gaming onto the Internet?

Hon. R. Coleman: The report the member is referring to is

speaking about on-line casinos on the Internet.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: The report the member is referring to

speaks about on-line gaming on the Internet — that is, on-line casinos — which

is not what this is. This deals only with the sale of lottery tickets on the

Internet. One of the biggest concerns that all jurisdictions around the world

have is on-line casino gambling, which we are unable, from this jurisdiction, to

have the ability to control.

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

further question.

J. Kwan: Let me quote the Liberals when they were in

opposition. The member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale cited a report that said

that the children of pathological gamblers do worse in schools than their peers.

They attempt suicide twice as often. She also cited a report that said the

spouse of a pathological gambler is three times more likely to attempt suicide.

Again, to the Minister for Addictions Services: does she accept

what her own colleagues said, what she said just a few years ago — that expanded

gambling is dan-

[ Page 11514 ]

gerous and will lead to more broken families, addiction and suicide in some

cases? Or is she calling her colleagues hypocrites?

Hon. R. Coleman: The conduct and management of gaming is a

responsibility of the province under the Criminal Code. We're doing it in a

responsible manner by positioning our products in areas where we can identify

and have controls to protect the public. There are other forms of gambling out

there that we have no control over, that, frankly, are out there and that we

would be glad to see leave the Internet and what have you, but we as a

corporation and as a government will continue to be responsible to the people of

British Columbia in the aspects of gaming.

[1425]

J. MacPhail: Clearly, that Solicitor General is either

misleading about what the site is about, or he hasn't been there. It's

interactive Internet gambling. That's what that website is. According to a

Statistics Canada report last year, 18 percent of problem gamblers reported that

they had contemplated suicide — six times the proportion of non-problem

gamblers.

Let me quote the Solicitor General. Here's what he said about

on-line gaming just a few months ago. "There are governments in other countries

that are mainly in places like the Caribbean, where there are on-line casinos,

which are a problem for people that have an addiction or gaming problem." Now he

tries to distinguish…. I bet you he's going to say: "Oh, but this isn't a

casino." Mr. Speaker, this is interactive gaming.

Now, to the Minister for Addiction Services: does she agree with

the Solicitor General that on-line gaming is a serious problem for people with a

gaming addiction? What is she going to do to stop it?

Hon. R. Coleman: I did say that about on-line gaming in

reference to casinos that are located in places like the Caribbean where people

actually go on the Internet and play. They play slot machines like video games.

That is a huge problem internationally and around the world with regards to

Internet gaming. If the member would take the time to note that this…

Interjections.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: …is a website that can serve only B.C.

residents. It is protected. It is only for people that are of age. In addition

to that, there are stringent guidelines on how much a person can spend in order

to make it safe for the public. It is part of the B.C. Lottery Corporation doing

the business that they should be doing in a responsible way on behalf of the

people of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: The website is self-declaratory about age

limits. The person, himself or herself, declares whether he or she is of age.

Wow, that's a real control.

Let me read from the same quote from the Solicitor General: "I

think we as a country, and most countries, have never, ever come up with how we

could actually regulate the Internet…. That's an aspect of gaming we have no

control over. That's a side of gaming that the governments are not involved in,

and I don't think they ever would be." That's the Solicitor General.

Well, today they're Internet gaming promoters encouraging addicts.

That's what this government is doing today. Will the Minister for Addiction

Services do her job and stand up for families and demand that the government

halt the expansion of Internet gaming, which, even the Solicitor General

admitted just a few months ago, government had no real control over and causes

big addiction problems?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that, again, those

comments were made with regards to on-line casinos, internationally in British

Columbia.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R. Coleman: When I made those comments…. The member

says that it is self-declaratory. On the website we have controls in place to

cross-reference databases so that we're in a position to be able to confirm the

person's age. In addition to that, frankly, the Lottery Corporation has tested

this, worked with other jurisdictions in Canada to be able to do it in a manner

that protects the public, protects the age side and protects the ability so that

people don't use it extensively.

TELEMARKETING FRAUD

K. Johnston: My question is to the Minister of State for

Women's and Seniors' Services. It is an unfortunate fact that every year

hundreds of British Columbians are victimized by telemarketing scams, fraud and

high-pressure fundraising tactics. Seniors are particularly vulnerable to such

scams and abuse and often lose substantial amounts of money in such scams. To

the minister: what is the government doing to protect seniors from this form of

elder abuse that includes scamming, defrauding and the forcing of unwanted

contracts?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member raising this. Just

on the weekend I was at a conference dealing with elder abuse, of which one of

the topics was financial abuse. It is indeed unfortunate that seniors are often

the target of fraudulent telemarketing operations. The thought that some people

might take advantage of our seniors, stealing away their life savings and their

security is unacceptable.

[1430]

It is through the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

that our government, in fact, is continuing to collaborate with local and

international law enforcement officials to combat the problem.

[ Page 11515 ]

Our government is taking a lead role in this area through a

project called Project Emptor. This project is allowing our province to work

with other Canadian provinces and the United States to develop effective means

of tracking and cracking down on repeat offenders. Project Emptor is a wonderful

project, and I'm proud that our government is involved in this.

PRIVATIZATION OF

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

J. Bray: My question is to the Solicitor General. Recent

changes at ICBC prompted the sky-is-falling NDP to suggest that this is a clear

signal that government is leaning towards privatization of basic auto insurance,

otherwise known as first-dollar auto insurance. Predictably, my office received

a lot of calls and e-mails from constituents concerned over this issue and

wanting to know what government's position is. My question to the Solicitor

General is: does this government intend to privatize basic auto insurance?

Hon. R. Coleman: I appreciate the member's question. No, we

have no intention whatsoever of privatizing basic insurance in British Columbia.

As the member knows, optional insurance has always had competition, and that

will continue to exist. I'm pleased with the operation of ICBC and its board of

directors and the fact that they've done a great job on behalf of all British

Columbians.

FLU VACCINE SUPPLY

R. Hawes: We've all seen images in the last few days of

Americans panicking in the United States, trying to get flu shots. Now they're

coming to clinics in British Columbia in big numbers to get their flu shots. It

is reported that President Bush is negotiating with the Canadian government to

get flu-shot vaccine from Canada.

My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Can you tell my

constituents and all British Columbians that our supply of flu vaccine is not

going to be compromised and that we will have an adequate supply for all British

Columbians who need flu shots?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think this news coverage over the last

few days underscores the very good work that's been done by public health

officers across Canada to make sure that Canada does have stable and secure

supplies of flu vaccines. In British Columbia we have contracted for 900,000

doses to provide for individuals in British Columbia who are eligible for

publicly funded flu shots.

That includes everyone over the age of 65. It includes those with

chronic illnesses, such as asthma or other chronic conditions. Also, for the

first time, the public health officers are encouraging children between the ages

of six months and 23 months to have a flu shot, and also those who come in

contact with these individuals. All of our health care workers, our first

responders and families who have individuals with chronic illnesses are

eligible, as well as parents of children under the age of two years. They are

all eligible for free flu shots in British Columbia.

On the weekend I talked to our public health officer, Dr. Perry

Kendall. I also talked to the new national public health officer, Dr. David

Butler-Jones. They both assured me that we do have security of supply for

Canadians, and we will make sure that those 900,000 doses are used for British

Columbians to make sure that their needs are met.

ROLE OF MINISTER OF STATE

FOR MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTION SERVICES

J. MacPhail: To the Minister of State for Mental Health and

Addiction Services: what addictions is she responsible for, and what amount of

time does she spend on gambling addiction?

Hon. B. Locke: The role of the Minister of State for Mental

Health and Addiction Services is to deal with those addictions that are

substance abuse and others. As you know, addictions around gambling are under

the Ministry of Solicitor General.

KOOTENAY LIVESTOCK

ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL

B. Bennett: I have a question I'd like to ask on behalf of

some constituents in my riding who are ranchers.

Interjection.

[1435]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

B. Bennett: I have a question I would like to ask on behalf

of some of my constituents from the East Kootenay who are ranchers. It's to the

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

These constituents are members of the Kootenay Livestock

Association in the East Kootenay, who would like to build a small abattoir in

order to help them deal with some of the complications coming from the BSE

problem that's facing all Canadian ranchers. They've asked me to ask the

minister if there is anything he or the government can do to help projects like

this.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, I'm familiar with the

proposal by the Kootenay Livestock Association. Our ministry will work with

those producers to assist them in any way we can in terms of advocacy and

getting approvals.

The federal-provincial announcement on September 10 does have a

loan loss reserve provision that may assist in financing. It also has an

allocation of dollars to enhance the capacity of the Canadian Food Inspection

Agency to do both approvals and inspections. We are

[ Page 11516 ]

running workshops throughout British Columbia in the next two months to

assist any of these proposals and any of these proponents.

I have been clear with the industry that under a

no-subsidy-to-business policy, we would not finance plants and we would not

build or operate plants, but we will assist bona fide proposals in any way we

can. More processing capacity is very important to the resolution of the BSE

issue in terms of a made-in-Canada solution.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise to table the Medical Services

Commission financial statements for 2003-04.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 73.

Second Reading of Bills

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. J. Murray: I move that Bill 73 be read a second time

now.

Bill 73 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act in response to concerns raised about the USA Patriot Act. These

amendments ensure that the personal information of British Columbians receives

the highest protection of any personal information in Canada. B.C. is showing

strong leadership by being the first province to introduce tough new legislative

measures that make sure personal information protection is not compromised by

laws enacted in other jurisdictions.

[1440]

Bill 73 strengthens British Columbians' privacy rights and

protects their personal information from unauthorized access by foreign

jurisdictions in a number of ways. First, the bill requires public bodies and

service providers to store personal information only in Canada and access it

only from Canada. This requirement strengthens privacy protection by limiting

the storage in and access from countries with inadequate privacy laws and laws

containing extraterritorial demand provisions, such as the USA Patriot Act.

Second, the bill limits the purposes for which a public body or

service provider may disclose personal information outside of Canada. Key

changes include new restrictions on disclosing personal information for

consistent purposes and disclosing personal information to public body

employees, which includes contractors, for the performance of their duties.

Disclosure of personal information for these purposes may now only occur within

Canada.

Third, the bill extends provisions regarding the collection, use,

storage and disclosure of personal information, which currently apply only to

public bodies, and extends them to public body employees, public body service

providers and employees or associates of service providers. This will ensure

that personal information is equally protected, whether held by a public body or

by a service provider.

Fourth, to reduce the likelihood of personal information being

disclosed for an unauthorized purpose, the bill adds an obligation for public

bodies, service providers and the employees of both to report any foreign demand

for disclosure of personal information that is not authorized by the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Fifth, to encourage employees to report unauthorized disclosures,

the bill adds whistle-blower protection for employees who may report foreign

demand for disclosure of personal information or who report, try to prevent or

refuse to do something they believe to be a contravention of the act. The

whistle-blower protections prevent an employer from dismissing, suspending,

harassing or otherwise disadvantaging an employee for taking the above actions.

Sixth, the bill adds offence penalties for contravening the notice

requirements, the whistle-blower provisions or the restrictions placed on

storing, accessing or disclosing personal information outside of Canada. The

offence penalties apply to employees of public bodies, service providers and the

employees or associates of service providers that fall within B.C.'s

jurisdiction. These fines for committing an offence are up to $500,000 for a

corporation; up to $25,000 for a partnership or an individual who is a service

provider; and up to $2,000 for an individual who is not a service provider, such

as an employee.

This bill also extends the new privacy protection notice

provisions and whistle-blower provisions to officers of the Legislature, such as

the auditor general, the conflict-of-interest commissioner, the police complaint

commissioner, the information and privacy commissioner, the chief electoral

officer and the ombudsman. The records maintained by most officers of the

Legislature do contain highly sensitive personal information, so applying the

proposed amendments to these officers will ensure that this information is

protected from unauthorized access.

Other provisions of the bill extend the commissioner's powers to

investigate privacy complaints and issue orders against service providers and

their employees and associates. The bill also contains a number of consequential

amendments to other legislation. These amendments were necessary, for the most

part, because the other legislation references sections of the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act that are being repealed or amended by

this bill. The consequential amendments will ensure that the original intent of

the references in other legislation such as the Assessment Act and the Criminal

Records Review Act is maintained.

In one case — the Child, Family and Community Service Act — more

substantial amendments were nec-

[ Page 11517 ]

essary in order to bring its privacy protection provisions in line with the

new provisions being added to the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act. These consequential amendments will ensure that personal

information handled by service providers for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development is safeguarded to the same degree as personal information that is

handled by service providers for other public bodies.

Finally, the bill contains important transitional provisions for

existing contracts and research agreements. Contracts and research arrangements

entered into by the government or a ministry on or before October 12, 2004, are

not subject to the new privacy protection provisions proposed by this bill. The

new privacy protection provisions will also not apply to a contract or research

agreement that the government or a ministry became legally obligated to enter

into on or before October 12, 2004, as a result of a completed, binding

competitive process.

[1445]

With respect to other bodies such as Crown corporations,

municipalities and hospitals, the new privacy protection provisions will not

apply to contracts and research agreements they enter into or become obliged to

enter into before the date this bill receives royal assent.

The transitional provisions apply only until the end of the

current term of the contract and only where a public body cannot reasonably

bring their pre-existing contracts and agreements into compliance with the new

provisions. The transitional provisions recognize that contracts and agreements

already exist, which cannot reasonably meet the new privacy protection

provisions proposed by this bill. Wherever possible a public body must make all

reasonable efforts to bring the contract or arrangement into compliance, but

until that is possible, the new provisions will not take effect. It is also

important to note that the transitional provisions do not apply to the new

whistle-blower protections. Whistle-blower protection will take effect for all

employees and service provider employees upon royal assent.

The amendments proposed by this bill are groundbreaking. We are

the first jurisdiction in Canada to propose legislative changes to address

privacy issues arising out of the USA Patriot Act. These tough new privacy

measures will support government's alternative service delivery initiatives by

ensuring strong protection for personal information that is handled by service

providers and will position B.C. as a leader in this area.

B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is

already regarded as the strongest privacy legislation in Canada. These

amendments will make it ever stronger. I have no doubt that the proactive

measures proposed by this bill to protect the personal information of British

Columbians will act as a model for legislation in other provinces and other

jurisdictions throughout the world. B.C. has a deserved reputation for its

ability to develop succinct, clear, usable and leading-edge privacy legislation.

This bill is no exception.

J. MacPhail: When the issue of the security of the personal

financial and medical information of British Columbians was first raised in this

House and in the media, this government dismissed the concerns being expressed.

Virtually every single cabinet minister said: "There's nothing to worry about."

In this House, in response to my questions and the lobs from government

backbenchers, the Minister of Health said: "Don't worry." He continued that

theme for weeks, if not months. But when experts in privacy law and also the

office of the privacy commissioner echoed those concerns, the government finally

decided to act.

It is ironic, at best, that the Minister of Management Services

claims to be the first on this matter. Well, they're first to contract out

personal information services of a citizen of Canada, and now they're playing

catch-up. They create the problem first, and then they offer a solution first,

without the benefit of expertise, and they want a pat on the back.

This government asked the independent privacy commissioner to do

an investigation into the application of the Patriot Act and the security of

personal information of British Columbians that the government was going to

outsource to private companies. Let's be clear. This Liberal government created

the problem. They're outsourcing personal information that used to be within the

confines of the government. They've now outsourced that personal information to

companies that are directly obligated to the Patriot Act in the United States.

All of a sudden the government was concerned. "Maybe our personal

information is at risk." But instead of waiting for the response from the

information and privacy commissioner, the government told the commissioner in

July how it was going to fix this problem. What they told the privacy

commissioner in July is exactly what we have before us today.

[1450]

Just as the Attorney General mustered all the legal help available

to him to justify this bill and the government's intent — unrelenting intent —

to contract out our personal information, so did those who voiced concern

initially come up with legal opinions. Those legal opinions differ. One side,

the government side, says: "Don't worry. John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney

General, will make sure they don't spy into our personal files." The other side

says: "Yes, worry, because John Ashcroft is bound by a different set of laws and

a different political reality than is our Attorney General."

Even our Attorney General will admit that there is an increased

risk to the security of our personal information. Oh, he says it's small. But

it's there nonetheless. What the government will not say, either through the

Minister of Management Services or the Attorney General, is just what the real

dollar cost is of this "small" increase in risk that the private and personal

information of British Columbians will be shared with the FBI and the U.S.

intelligence services.

[ Page 11518 ]

The government is bringing in legislation without the benefit of

the opinion of the information and privacy commissioner. He's going to be

tabling his report at the end of this month. Yet this government couldn't wait.

They're bringing in legislation without demonstrating any cost-benefit analysis

to support the contention that the money to be saved by contracting out, by

outsourcing our private information to a foreign company, is of greater value

than the surrendering of enhanced security of our personal information.

The real question that this bill does not answer is: why contract

out the personal information of citizens at all? Why do this at all? Risk

management is about taking the necessary precautions to ensure that the least

harm is done. Risk management is not about eroding basic civil and

constitutionally enshrined rights. Yes, every citizen surrenders a measurement

of our personal privacy to the government in order to provide for and access

public services that are shared equally by us all. We do not do it so that the

government can save money or enhance the profit of private company shareholders.

The government would like us all to think that this bill is all

about the mechanics of good public policy. They want to be patted on the back.

They claim — as they do in so many things, in a very misleading way — that

they're number one. Well, they're number one barrelling down a road without the

benefit of expertise, and they're barrelling down a road as number one where

others fear to tread. They are wrong about this bill just being the mechanics of

privacy rights. Just like it has expanded gambling everywhere else in this

province — doubled it — it is now playing with our fundamental rights as

citizens, and that is wrong.

The remedy here is not more law. The remedy is to respect the law

that we have, to respect our constitutional rights and to keep personal

information private and in the control and custody of the government. It should

never be anyone, least of all a government, putting that at risk.

K. Whittred: It's my pleasure today to rise and speak in

favour of this bill, which puts in place legislation to in fact protect our

privacy and to ensure that it is always protected.

[1455]

One of the great pleasures I had when I was in opposition was that

I served on the privacy committee. We had the honour to travel all over the

province, and in fact, I had the opportunity to travel to other provinces and

attend a great many conferences and workshops dealing with this particular

topic. Out of that experience I learned to have a great respect for those who do

try to build policy around this topic. I also learned that it is something that

no one has a value on more than any other person. I think that protecting our

privacy, protecting our personal information, is one of those things that really

transcend politics, and each of us in government brings in the policy that is

going to try to achieve that end.

The opposition would have us believe that somehow you can build a

firewall around yourself so that nothing will ever have the opportunity to

perhaps escape that firewall. While that may be what we try to do, the job of

government is to develop a public policy that allows us to protect our values

while at the same time being able to go forward with good policy in other areas

and try to find efficiencies where we can.

I am very proud that we are the first jurisdiction in Canada to

actually come forward with legislation around this privacy protection. We have

introduced today new and very tough legislation, which is a comprehensive

package that will in fact serve to protect the information that each of us feels

is very valuable. This is a made-in-B.C. solution.

Following September 11, we know that things changed. One of the

outcomes of that was that the United States passed what is called the Patriot

Act. It is still largely theoretical in many respects for us to speculate on

exactly what that act presents. I know the Attorney General's ministry, other

ministries across Canada and the privacy commissioners right across the country

have all been looking at this and endeavouring to come up with good public

policy that will be transformed into legislation that will in fact mitigate and

minimize the very small theoretical possibility that our privacy would in any

way be compromised.

B.C. has always been a leader in this respect, and I'm very

pleased that we continue to be a leader by stepping forward at this time — a

leader amongst all the provinces in Canada in terms of introducing legislation.

I'm quite sure that our other provinces will follow. I'm also quite sure, from

my experience, that they are looking at our legislation very closely.

I am very satisfied that this bill extends privacy to the

collection, use, storage and disclosure of personal information. Currently, the

legislation around those items only applies to public bodies. I think one of the

key things about this legislation is that this same provision now is extended to

those employees or other companies or associates that will be recipients of any

kind of personal information.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

To translate that into practical terms, it means that if a portion

of government that used to provide a service now asks another agency to provide

that service, that agency is subject to the same provisions around disclosure of

information that public bodies are. There is no difference. In addition to that,

it obliges all of those to report on any demand. So if there's anybody that

actually demands personal information, they are required to report that

information.

[1500]

This bill limits the purposes for which a public body or service

provider may disclose personal information out of Canada, so there are

limitations that are imposed. It means that we have looked very carefully

[ Page 11519 ]

at what is involved and we have, as any good public policy should, put

restrictions on it.

It goes further than that, because this bill requires that public

bodies and service providers store personal information only in Canada and

access it only from Canada. This, in fact, strengthens our privacy protection by

limiting where material may be stored, where it may be accessed from. Countries

with inadequate privacy laws and laws containing extraterritorial demand

provisions would simply not get the information in the first place. Those are

all ways in which this actually strengthens our ability to protect our privacy

and personal information.

Finally, this bill adds very, very harsh penalties in terms of

those that contravene the notice requirements. There are whistle-blowing

provisions on restrictions placed on storing or disclosing personal information

outside of Canada. The penalties apply to employees of public bodies; service

providers, as I've just suggested; and employees or associates of service

providers that fall within B.C.'s jurisdiction. The fines for committing such an

offence are up to $500,000 for a corporation and $25,000 for a partnership or an

individual.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the amendments

proposed by this bill are complex. The topic is complex. I think that the people

that have dealt with this have done a very good job of addressing all the

possibilities that can arise, and therefore, the bill itself and the amendments

to the bill are groundbreaking. We're the first jurisdiction in Canada to

propose these legislative changes, which probably were brought about by and

address the concerns of those that were concerned about the American Patriot

Act.

I wanted to speak to this bill particularly today because this had

been an issue that, for whatever reason, a number of my constituents seemed to

have a concern about. I'm very pleased after the introduction of this bill

today. I feel very confident that I can go back to them and say: "Look, here is

the bill. This will assure you that your fears were unfounded."

These tough new privacy measures will support government's

alternative service delivery initiatives by ensuring strong protection for

personal information that is handled by service providers and will position us

as a leader in the area. Our current act — and I learned this, again, in

opposition, by my attendance at these conferences and so on — is already

regarded as one of the strongest pieces of legislation anywhere in the western

world, not only in Canada. It is highly regarded throughout Europe and other

areas.

I conclude by saying that undoubtedly not only will this

legislation protect the personal information of British Columbians, but I think

it will act as a model for other provinces and other jurisdictions throughout

the world, for B.C. truly has gained a reputation in that area.

J. Bray: I, too, rise very much in support of Bill 73, the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2004. This has

been an issue with respect to privacy that's been ongoing, I think, as we've

entered into the digital age and the electronic age, really, for the better part

of ten, 15 years.

[1505]

As my colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale has pointed out,

British Columbia has been a leader in information protection as well as access

to information, really, on a national scale. We have continued to be out in

front of the issue as new trends, new research, new technology comes on board.

British Columbia continues to be out front. It is the leader by which other

jurisdictions come to study our legislation, our administrative policy.

Certainly, I've had many meetings with the Minister of Management

Services around privacy issues, and I am continually impressed not only with her

grasp of the complexity of the issue but with the fact that we've got a really

great group of professional civil servants who eat, drink and sleep this stuff

and have really become leaders in North America with respect to both freedom of

information and protection of personal privacy.

It's important to note, as we debate this bill, that we look at

another piece of legislation that was passed by this government, which was the

protection of information privacy act, the private sector legislation that,

again, British Columbia was a leader on. In fact, our cohorts to the east in

Alberta basically studied our legislation and mimicked it, because it was

basically so good you couldn't improve upon it. So I have extreme confidence in

our civil service in the Ministry of Management Services, as well as our

legislative counsel, that they have drafted amendments that are among the

strongest you're going to see anywhere on this planet.

You know, it's funny listening to debate. The Leader of the

Opposition in the House spoke for a few minutes and asked what I thought was a

bit of an odd question. She said: "Why even do this?" Well, the answer is

simple. We're doing this because it's the right thing to do. We're doing this

because it is responding to what British Columbians have been asking of us.

That's why we're doing it. That's why we're in this chamber. I'm surprised that

after ten-plus years the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know why we do things

in this place. We do things for the betterment of our communities, for the

strengthening of our families, and Bill 73 is yet one more piece in that. She

said: "Well, why do it now? Why not wait?" Well, because this is where the House

is sitting. People have asked government to respond to their concerns around the

Patriot Act.

But, you know, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, if

she would care to…. I know she seems to be going and buying her lottery tickets

on line and spending her time doing that. But she should go to another website

around the issue of the Patriot Act. She should actually take a few minutes and

read one of the best submissions by a government agency I think I've ever seen,

which was to the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner

on the Patriot Act by the Ministry of Management Services on behalf of

government. It was an excellent submission that laid

[ Page 11520 ]

out the total sum of the issues related to the Patriot Act, the realities of

the framework with which we live now and government's proactive, leading

response to those concerns. In fact, this is, in many ways, cutting edge

legislation, and I have supreme confidence that it is going to do the job.

We're not even waiting for the freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy commissioner to act, because British Columbians want us to

act now. This legislation is in direct response to the people. It's unfortunate

that when we talk about personal protection of privacy, the NDP want to play

politics with that. We're actually doing good public policy, good legislation on

behalf of our communities, and I am very confident in this.

My colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale did an excellent job of

laying out many of the very strong provisions in this bill, all of which I

support. But there is one piece that I want to speak to for a minute, and it is

the protection for whistle-blowers. Whistle-blower is a bit of a loaded term. In

fact, we actually are legislating protection for those Canadian employees, be

they with government or with a contracted agency, who are contacted by a foreign

agency for access to information — that they have protection in law by advising

their employer, by advising government of that request for access. To me that's

a really important concept of ensuring that we don't just protect the data, the

electrons and the magnetic files and all that stuff, but we actually protect the

people, the professionals who manage our data.

[1510]

I am very, very pleased that this particular amendment is there,

because I know that Canadian companies want to ensure that their employees are

safe. I know that we want to ensure members of the public service feel safe.

This kind of legislative protection is critical, not just for the actual

protection, but it actually signals our respect for those employees and their

desire to do the best job for British Columbians and for Canadians.

I know that at some point in the future we're going to have a

report from the freedom-of-information commissioner. I know that this minister,

the Minister of Management Services, and this government will study that report.

And I know that if there are any additional tools that can be added, we will act

on those. I do not believe, as the NDP believes, that we should wait on this

issue.

I'd love to hear what Carole James has to say, but I actually

haven't heard her say one word about this. In my riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill

I talk to my constituents all the time, and we're responding to those concerns.

I am going to be very pleased to be able to take this bill back to my

constituents and show them concrete, good public policy that will protect their

information now and for generations to come. I would certainly hope to hear

Carole James in the media, if she ever pops up, also supporting this bill and

supporting the increasing protection of British Columbians' information and

their data. I hope I hear that. I know I didn't hear it from the leader of the

opposition, but I hope she'll show some real leadership and actually break away

from the member for Vancouver-Hastings and support this bill publicly. It's the

right thing to do, it's good public policy, it's what British Columbians have

asked for, and it's what we're delivering.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate on Bill 73,

the Minister of Management Services.

Hon. J. Murray: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues.

Last February a concern was raised regarding relatively new legislation from the

United States, the USA Patriot Act, and our government acted. Whether it was the

Ministry of Health Services, Minister Colin Hansen, or myself or the Attorney

General, we said that the protection of individual privacy is very important to

British Columbians, that our job is to ensure that that protection is as strong

as it can possibly be and that we will review this issue immediately.

We did not dismiss this issue. In fact, the Ministry of Attorney

General and my ministry together initiated a review within days of these

concerns being raised. We committed a substantial amount of funds to seeking the

appropriate legal opinions, both on the United States side of the border and the

Canadian side of the border. We did a comprehensive review. The concerns of

British Columbians were never dismissed.

Out of that review we came to some conclusions, and we concluded

that there is reason to act on this issue. We concluded that the USA Patriot Act

could allow U.S. enforcement agencies to reach around existing agreements and

request or demand the sharing of British Columbians' personal information. That

was not acceptable to me; that was not acceptable to our government. We decided

to take action, and we have been building very strong contractual protections

into any contracts we are discussing and negotiating with service providers.

We identified the risk, though, as being small, because we believe

that the existing mechanisms are the ones that the law enforcement agencies from

the United States have been using and will continue to use. However, because

that risk is there, we decided to act, and I am very proud of our response, how

quickly we are responding and how strong our response is.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings asked the question: why do this

at all? She asked the question: why have the private sector provide services to

government? Under the previous administration during the decade of the nineties,

there were many, many contracts negotiated with private sector service providers

that have links to the United States. The member for Vancouver-Hastings is well

aware that there are private sector organizations that have specific expertise

that can help government in our responsibility to our taxpayers.

[1515]

We have a responsibility to improve service, to improve the timing

of our responses. We have a responsibility to decrease the cost to the taxpayer

of the processes we oversee. The private sector, with their specialized

[ Page 11521 ]

systems and their specialized technologies, can assist government in serving

the taxpayers in a responsible way. The previous administration did know that

and signed contracts that included sensitive personal information. These

contracts were put in place under the previous administration. This is nothing

new. The cost savings and service increases are important.

What is new is the USA Patriot Act. There is no silver bullet in

an electronic information age, but we are taking leadership here. We are taking

strong action to make sure that our laws provide strong protection,

notwithstanding laws in other countries.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings also raised the question: why

not wait? And why do anything at all? Presumably, that member doesn't believe

there's a reason to take action to strengthen our laws to protect the privacy of

personal information. Presumably, she believes that the status quo is all right.

Well, I don't believe that. In fact, my view was that we need to take action at

the earliest possible opportunity, and that is why we're taking action at this

sitting of the House.

We would have loved to incorporate the privacy commissioner's

review. However, that review, which was intended to be completed in August and

then in September, is still not complete. From my perspective, the earlier we

act, the better. This is not a static issue. We live in an electronic age, and

we will continue to monitor external forces so that we continue to provide

strong protection for people's personal information. I am welcoming the review

and the conclusions of the freedom-of-information commissioner. We will analyze

those, and if appropriate, we will incorporate those into the law of the land

here in British Columbia in due course.

From my perspective, we have taken a very complex issue and

practised good government, competent government on this issue. We listened to

concerns that were raised. We took those concerns seriously, and we stated right

from the very beginning that this is an important issue that we are going to

review.

We reviewed the issue, and we reached conclusions. We were public

with those conclusions and our submission to the freedom-of-information

commissioner's review, and we have taken action on this in a very short time as

these kinds of complex governmental issues normally see. This is another example

of the leadership that British Columbia shows in Confederation. This is another

example of how we lead Canada and the other provinces in a number of ways, and

this is leadership of which all British Columbians can justifiably be proud.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that Bill 73 be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 73, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

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

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 63.

CHARITABLE PURPOSES

PRESERVATION ACT

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

The Charitable Purposes Preservation Act is designed to ensure

that money or other property that is given by a charitable donor to a charitable

organization for a specific charitable purpose will be preserved exclusively for

that charitable purpose. The act will ensure that the donation will be protected

from being used to satisfy the debts, liabilities or other legal obligations of

the charitable organization other than those incurred in the performance of that

purpose.

The need for legislation in this area arises from a recent case

that highlighted and increased the legal uncertainty about when charitable

donations that are given in trust are or ought to be preserved from being used

to satisfy the debts and other liabilities of the charitable organization. The

purpose of this act is to allow a charitable donor and a charitable organization

to know when and how a charitable donation is to be preserved exclusively for

the charitable purpose specified by the donor.

The act is also intended to establish a fair balance between the

interests of donors and charitable organizations on one hand, who want to ensure

that the gifts are used for the purposes for which they were given, and the

interests of creditors and tort claimants of the organization on the other hand,

whose interest is in having other property held by the organization available to

compensate them for the debts or the damages owed by the charitable

organization.

[1520]

The act strikes this balance by providing a set of rules which set

out the particular circumstances under which donors and charitable organizations

may be assured that specific-purpose charitable gifts will be immunized against

seizure or attachment to satisfy unrelated debts or liabilities of the

charitable organization in question.

If the requirements set out in the act are followed, the donors

and charities may be assured that the property will be preserved to be used

exclusively for the specific purposes intended and specified by the donor,

except to the extent of debts or liabilities incurred in advancing the specific

purpose. On the other hand, the other property of the charitable organization

may be available to satisfy the legitimate legal claims of creditors and other

claimants against it, subject to the laws of trust if or to the extent that it

applies.

I move second reading.

K. Stewart: I just want to very briefly speak to this bill

before us, simply because of the fact that it gives confidence to people who

have given fairly large dona-

[ Page 11522 ]

tions for the benefit of their community and the future of their community.

And the thought that those estate items that were given to a charity for a

specific purpose may be taken away from that community and used for some purpose

other than it was intended for…. I rise to support it for that purpose. It

should give those wishing to leave legacies in their community the confidence

that that legacy will remain in their community for the purpose for which it is

intended.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 63, Charitable Purposes Preservation Act, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 68 be now read a second

time.

LAND TITLE AND SURVEY AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. G. Collins: It's my pleasure to speak to the

principles contained in the bill, which proposes a new act designed to establish

the land title and survey authority. This authority will be set up as an

independent, not-for-profit corporation responsible for operating the province's

land title and survey systems and facilitating the execution of Crown grants.

This act is consistent with the government's new-era commitments of operating

more efficiently, supporting the economy and bringing certainty to land use

issues.

As I'm sure everyone is aware, detailed, accurate and timely land

title information is particularly important to a successful economy, as it's the

basis upon which private and Crown land is sold and developed. The establishment

of the authority will support and improve timeliness of land title information

and consequently enhance service to private land owners and investors.

Once established, the authority will assume all of the functions

of the ministry's land title branch, including the operation of the land title

offices. The authority will also assume responsibility for the majority of

activities now carried out by the surveyor general. This includes defining and

confirming surveys to support the Crown grant process and the disposal of Crown

land. It also involves managing some Crown land survey information and providing

efficient client services.

The business unit responsible for issuance of Crown grants, which

facilitates the disposition of Crown land, will also transfer to the authority.

Government will retain day-to-day functioning of the Crown land registry,

including the recording of Crown tenures, and will continue its efforts to

establish an integrated land and resource registry.

The creation of the authority through the proposed act will

achieve and maintain a number of objectives. The land title and survey authority

will preserve the longstanding B.C. Torrens land title system and will provide

an enhanced level of land title service by keeping title and survey information

linked.

The new governance structure will also engage expertise not

currently available in government while maintaining a high-quality Crown land

survey structure. The government will continue to receive land title and survey

fee revenues, minus a nominal service fee to be retained by the authority, under

a contractual arrangement to be set out in an operating agreement.

A strong governance, accountability and operational framework,

established through the legislation and operating agreement, is designed to

ensure protection of the public interest. Key components of the framework

include a board appointment process that is based on stakeholder nominations, is

independent of government control and is designed to retain qualified people as

board members; provisions requiring directors to act in the best interests of

the authority and be subject to conflict-of-interest requirements; a stakeholder

advisory committee; performance expectations set by the government; and specific

requirements related to financial accountability and transparency.

[1525]

A new assurance fund will also be established, similar to the fund

which currently exists for government. The fund will cover claims for actions

against the authority occurring after the authority is established.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill, and I move

second reading.

J. Bray: I am very pleased to stand up and speak in favour

of Bill 68, the Land Title and Survey Authority Act. This has been an issue in

Victoria that I know we've been working on with the Minister of Sustainable

Resource Management for some time.

What makes me particularly pleased about this bill is that there

was concern expressed by those in the real estate sector, those involved with

first nations in treaty and historical documentation, archivists, around the

proposed changes to the land titles system, so government went out and met with

various stakeholders in the community. We came up with not only a solution but

actually an enhancement to the service provided to all of those groups.

That really is good news. It means that we're actually moving

forward on the services that we provide British Columbians through the land

titles system. I know I've spoken to several real estate agents and lawyers in

my community in Victoria who are actually very excited about this, and they see

real potential with respect to this move. I know that, along with the member for

Victoria-Hillside, the member for Saanich South and the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, we had several meetings with the Minister of Sustainable

Resource Management over this issue, and his willingness to look at all options

and his willingness to engage the community has led us to Bill 68.

I know that my constituents who contacted me to talk about this

issue were very concerned about it, but

[ Page 11523 ]

then, they're going to be very pleased by this bill. They're actually going

to see enhanced service, which is particularly important as the economy here in

British Columbia is surging ahead — and nowhere more so than here in Victoria.

In fact, because we are doing so many real estate transactions, we're building

so many new developments and we're registering so many new additional titles,

Bill 68 actually will see improvements in service to all those developers and

purchasers who are moving to British Columbia and to Vancouver Island because of

our strong economy.

I think it's worthy of note that I did have some communications,

as well, with members of the University of Victoria and archivists who were

concerned that by moving to an authority-based model, there would be a loss of

protection over records, because of course, the Vancouver land titles office has

been in existence for about 137½ years and so, clearly, has a lot of

documentation that goes back literally to Confederation and before.

I think that as we debate this bill, it's important for the

benefit of those concerned about records retention that there is a

section 135

added that says, in sub (2) — and this is a very clear statement: "The Land

Title and Survey Authority must not destroy or dispose of the records except in

accordance with this Act or

section 3 of the Land Title and Survey Authority

Act." There is a very specific provision there that guarantees the continued

safety and security of all documentation currently in the possession of the land

titles office and that will ensure that it continues to do so.

The protection goes further in sub (3): "The records are not

subject to (

a) any process of attachment, execution or seizure, or (

b) a trust

in favour of a person who claims to have sustained a loss." We have really made

sure that the whole issue around records management and retention is secure, but

we've also made sure that documentation is not subject to other actions in the

courts.

I am very pleased that the ministry, in putting together this

authority, has given specific legislative protection to those documents. I know

that the real estate community in Victoria is very pleased and very appreciative

of the work the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management has done and that my

constituents are going to be very pleased with this resolution and will see

improved service. I am very pleased to support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 68.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be placed on the orders of

the day for consideration by a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 68, Land Title and Survey Authority Act, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

[1530]

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 75.

TRANSPORTATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

A vibrant, strong transportation system is vital to economic

growth. New jobs and investment depend on a sound transportation network

offering safety and reliability for travellers and businesses. Transportation is

vital to local and regional economies. At this time traffic congestion costs the

lower mainland economy of British Columbia more than $1.5 billion each year in

lost economic opportunities.

The legislative changes proposed in the Transportation Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004, will contribute to the revitalization of B.C.'s economy

through a more efficient, cost-effective and competitive transportation system.

As we implement our ambitious transportation improvement plan, the Greater

Vancouver Transportation Authority is either partnering with us or undertaking

new initiatives — namely, the Fraser River crossing, also called the Golden Ears

bridge; the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line; as well as the line

in the northeast sector.

The amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

Act are necessary to provide the GVTA with the clear authority and power to

carry out the Fraser River crossing and RAV projects. This bill will make

several technical, regulatory and administrative changes. It will provide the

GVTA with the clarity it needs to acquire and expropriate land for the use and

benefit of a subsidiary in relation to specific projects — namely, the Fraser

River crossing, RAV or the Coquitlam line in the northeast sector. As part of

the RAV project only, the bill also provides the GVTA with clear legislative

authority to expropriate needed land and transfer an interest in the land to the

Vancouver International Airport Authority, YVR, for the purpose of the

Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line.

The bill allows the GVTA to set parameters for the user fees on

the Fraser River crossing, including fees for different classes of users,

time-of-day and user fee exemptions. An organization may be authorized to charge

and collect fees on behalf of the GVTA or a GVTA subsidiary, but the fees must

fall within the designated user fee parameters.

Another amendment contained within this bill provides the ability

to set property tax exemptions, to be introduced by regulation for the Fraser

River crossing project. This amendment provides consistency in the taxation

treatment of public transportation infrastructure projects. The amendments are

also being made to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to allow the

GVTA to enter into agreements with municipalities on the RAV and the Fraser

River crossing projects.

With respect to the Fraser River crossing, the amendments are

needed to provide clear authority to

[ Page 11524 ]

the municipalities entering into these agreements. With respect to the RAV

project the agreements will set out the processes the municipalities will use as

the project moves forward. These amendments will provide a greater level of

certainty for all parties involved who are entering into those municipal

agreements.

The amendments for the parking site roll will exempt some

properties and authorizes the GVTA to exempt others by bylaw. Specific

exemptions are provided for class 1, residential property; class 9, farm

property; class 7, managed forest land property; and the exemptions provided

elsewhere by statute that exempt schools, hospitals and public institutions from

property taxation. It also authorizes the assessment commissioner to enter into

an agreement with the GVTA with respect to preparing a parking site roll and

provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the regulation-making authority

that will provide the GVTA with the powers and duties of the assessment

commissioner for purposes of preparing the parking site roll.

The bill also includes amendments to the Transportation Investment

Act. These amendments will allow for performance payments as a means of

compensating partners or those who operate highway infrastructure. Performance

payments will therefore provide incentives to ensure that the project meets

travellers' needs for safe and efficient travel. The act initially stated that

the partners would receive compensation only from roadway users. Because the

province's tolling policy does not provide for tolling when there is no

reasonable free alternate route, as is the case for the Sea to Sky Highway as

well as the Okanagan Lake Bridge, this amendment allows for performance payments

to originate from alternative sources. Performance payments can be paid by the

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority or directly by the B.C. government.

Finally, two minor amendments are required to the Transportation

Act. These clarify the activities on provincial public highways and concession

highways for which authorization is required. The amendments are effectively

technical drafting changes.

Mr. Speaker, amendments to this bill are required to allow us to

keep our commitment to improve roads and highways, making them safer and more

efficient.

I move second reading of the bill.

[1535]

R. Hawes: It's a pleasure actually to stand and support

this bill.

I'm standing to speak to the

section that applies to my riding,

Maple Ridge–Mission. My colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows would feel the

same way, in that this enables the second crossing of the Fraser River at Pitt

Meadows to finally go ahead. It has a huge, huge impact on the commuters in our

communities that sit in the endless line at the Albion ferry every day. It has

been waited for, for so long. It's great to see it go ahead. This is the last

piece that was needed, and both my colleague and I have worked very hard with

the Minister of Transportation to bring this about. I'd like to thank him for

listening and for hearing our communities and the GVTA and allowing this to go

forward on an expeditious basis. Very soon, I think, our communities are going

to benefit from that new crossing so desperately needed.

G. Halsey-Brandt: It is a pleasure to rise in support of

the Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. As the Finance minister was

reading the second reading introductions, I know a lot of it sounded pretty dry

and kind of basic. Really, these are the components that not only help us as a

government but the people who live in the lower mainland and the people who

visit us from around the province to move ahead on several major transportation

improvements in the lower mainland.

I think it's a great day for British Columbia. This legislation is

really critical in allowing us to move forward. My colleagues, particularly the

one who spoke just before me from Maple Ridge–Mission, would remember the

Livable Region Strategic Plan in the GVRD. Certainly, there was one in the

Fraser Valley as well. A good part of that talked about a concentrated growth

option of where the population was going to be concentrated in greater Vancouver

— in Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and parts of Surrey. It was also going

to link together the rest of the region where a lot of employment centres are,

whether they be in Maple Ridge, Mission, Langley, Surrey, Richmond or other

parts of our great region. To make that whole system work — to make it really

livable so that all of us can be proud to live in the lower mainland and keep it

as beautiful a place as it is — we had to have a transportation system that

allowed people, obviously, to live and work close by and also, if they didn't

work close to where they lived, to be able to get around our region.

Most of the transit and transportation improvements in the last

number of years have all been focused on Vancouver and the suburbs. Finally,

we're starting to build a mechanism that ties some of the suburban

municipalities together so that people can surely get around our region for

employment and for education purposes.

I think this legislation introduces some exciting new concepts.

The first one is public-private partnerships — which we're looking at in terms

of the new Fraser River crossing and, certainly, of the RAV line between

Vancouver, Richmond and the airport — which allow the private sector to come to

the table with their expertise to design, build, operate and partially finance

the system we've got. We can get the expertise of the private sector that do

these in other parts of the world to come together to provide the latest in

technology and service for us in British Columbia.

Certainly, the parts of the legislation on expropriation are

necessary not just for the GVTA but for their subsidiaries, TransLink and RAVCO

and the other bridge project, because if you're going to build something of

these lengths and sizes in our region, you have

[ Page 11525 ]

to have the power to expropriate just in case there are some unwilling

property owners.

The second thing it talks about is tolls, particularly referring

to the Fraser River crossing. It's a really exciting way we can finance our way

forward to transportation improvements. I know that our government talked about

not borrowing any more to build transportation improvements, of not burdening

our children with debt. We were going to be a pay-as-you-go province, and

certainly, tolls are one way to finance a very important infrastructure

improvement. Of course, tied to that is the change to the ICBC legislation. If

people are not paying their tolls, it allows ICBC to not give or renew a vehicle

licence.

[1540]

The third part that the legislation deals with is the parking

space tax for almost all non-residential parking spots in the greater Vancouver

area. This legislation, on behalf of TransLink, was first introduced around 1995

or 1996 by the previous government. It was going to be a tax on all commercial

parking lots in greater Vancouver — in other words, parking lots that charge

money at the present time to be able to park there. But there are lots of

commercial property parking lots in greater Vancouver that do not charge for

parking. I think at that time I happened to be serving on the board of B.C.

Transit, and we were just inundated with faxes and phone calls from commercial

and industrial property owners in greater Vancouver over the unfairness of that

tax proposal back in the mid-1990s, because if you charged for parking, you had

to pay the tax. If you didn't charge for parking on your commercial property,

you didn't have to pay it.

This change is a new and different way of collecting it, looking

at the assessment roll, where they can look at commercial and industrial

properties. The assessment authority can then draw up those properties, whether

they charge for parking or not, and they can charge a levy against those

properties to help pay for transportation, transit and bridges, etc., in greater

Vancouver.

The fourth part of it deals with some enabling legislation,

really, to expedite and to help construct the RAV line and even the C line out

to Coquitlam, particularly as it relates to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid

transit project. As you know, the existing legislation that municipalities have,

the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, sets out very clear regulations

in terms of zoning and building permits. It's quite a process to go through.

It's really not designed to handle things like rapid transit projects or

bridges, which are unique, one-off rail line experiences. What this amendment

enables the communities and GVTA to do is to set up an agreement on a process by

which they wish to address zoning and building permit approvals that are outside

the main strictures of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. Again,

they've been processed through both Vancouver and Richmond. I am pleased to say

that my community agrees with this amendment and is looking forward to the final

award for RAVCO and getting on with the construction.

I wanted to conclude by saying, too, that the legislation does

address the C line. I was very pleased last Friday. There was a TransLink board

meeting. They approved, I think it was, around $800 million for a project from

the Lougheed Highway and North Road out to Coquitlam Centre — sort of the last

piece of the puzzle that we know of right now in terms of rapid transit

throughout the region. I know there was a lot of concern in the northeast

corridor when the project to Richmond and the airport was approved. They really

wanted something to Coquitlam as soon as possible and are very, very pleased

that that was approved by the board last Friday and that it will be going ahead

at approximately the same time. I think that's fantastic.

In conclusion I want to say that although this legislation seems

to be made up of a lot of small pieces, when you pull them together, I think

it's a summation that allows transportation in the lower mainland, particularly

in the GVRD, to really move ahead in a lot of new ways — with new technology; as

I mentioned, the public-private partnerships; the C line to Coquitlam; a new

bridge across the Fraser River; rapid transit to Richmond, the airport and

Vancouver.

It's exciting and innovative legislation, and I am very, very

proud to support it in the Legislature this afternoon and to see these projects

go forward.

Motion approved.

Bill 75, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Bill 72.

TRESPASS AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The Trespass Amendment Act, 2004, amends the Trespass Act, a

decades-old statute which regulates presence on enclosed land, land defined as

being surrounded by a lawful fence, a natural boundary, posted signs or a

combination of those. As a result, the current Trespass Act is more suited to

rural or bare land than it is to urban premises. This bill makes a number of

changes to the Trespass Act so that it will apply just as readily to urban

settings as it currently applies to rural settings. I'd like to briefly describe

those changes.

[1545]

First, the bill adds

definitions for "premises" and "occupier" to

clarify where the act applies and who may make use of it. The act will apply to

buildings and land, including enclosed land; to ships; to trains; to railway

cars; to automobiles and trucks, except while in operation; to any portable

structure used as a residence or to house a business; and to places like

marinas. Mall tenants, renters or owners with responsibility or a right to

control premises are all classes of persons who may

[ Page 11526 ]

use the act to regulate presence or activity on those premises.

Second, in addition to the current offence of entering or

remaining on enclosed land, new offences of entering or remaining on premises

after being given notice not to and engaging in a prohibited activity are added.

This gives statutory authority to the posting of no smoking– or no

skateboarding–type signs and allows occupiers to instruct unwanted persons to

leave the premises. A separate provision clarifies that notice may be given

orally or in writing and when posted by use of a sign, it must be clearly

visible and legible.

When reading this offence provision, which will be

section 4 of

the amended Trespass Act, it's also important to note that a new provision,

which will be

section 4.1, includes defences to a charge respecting one of those

offences. That is, the new

section 4.1 will make it a defence to a trespass-type

charge that the alleged offender had consent of the occupier or an authorized

person; had other lawful authority — for example, was lawfully conducting a land

survey or reading an electrical meter — or was acting with colour of right.

Colour of right means that the person thought they had lawful

authority to be on the premises or engage in a prohibited activity on the

premises, but they were mistaken. This can happen, for example, where a person

is mistaken about the exact boundary between his or her own property and the

property of a neighbour. Colour of right is a defence in trespass legislation

across Canada and is included in the private member's Trespass to Property Act.

Another change is that a current provision in the act which

requires a person to give his or her correct name and address when an occupier

has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is on premises in such a way as

to constitute an offence is made applicable to the new offences in the act as

well.

Finally, the amendments move provisions specific to the practice

of land surveying to the legislation that deals with land surveyors, the Land

Surveyors Act.

I look forward to further discussions of the bill at committee

stage debate. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 72, Trespass Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 71.

SAFE STREETS ACT

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

The Safe Streets Act is a relatively short act designed to deal

directly with the most distressing and threatening of behaviours on our streets

in a way not already addressed by provincial legislation. It's about providing

another tool to police to deal with problems on our streets.

To walk through the bill, the first provision defines "solicit"

quite broadly as any in-person communication for the purpose of receiving money

or another thing of value, whether or not something of value is offered or

provided in return. This would capture attempts to sell things or to busk as

well as the more traditional panhandling. While this term as defined sounds like

it would outlaw a lot of activity generally considered to be legitimate, it must

be read in context of the sections in which it is used. In the

section on

soliciting in an aggressive manner and the

section on soliciting a person who is

a captive audience — for example, waiting for a bus at a bus stop or using a

bank machine — the bill does not make it an offence to solicit, but it does make

it an offence to do so aggressively or with respect to a captive audience. I

think that's an important distinction.

The first of the substantive sections of the bill is

section 2,

which make it is an offence to solicit a person in such a manner as would cause

a reasonable person to be concerned for their safety or security — the

aggressive solicitation provision. Examples of the kind of solicitation that

might cause a reasonable person to be so concerned — solicitation where the path

of the person solicited is obstructed, abusive language is used or a person is

physically approached by a group of two or more persons, among others — are

listed, along with the requirement that the listed type of solicitation actually

be done in such a manner as to cause a reasonable person to be concerned for

their safety or their security. This amounts to a two-part test, such that

innocent activity on the part of a person soliciting is very unlikely to be

captured as an offence.

[1550]

The

section also makes it an offence to threaten the person

solicited with physical harm by word, gesture or other means. The private

member's Safe Streets Act made aggressive solicitation an offence but did not

provide examples of the type of activity that would constitute an offence. The

example list should make this

section easier to understand.

The second substantive provision is

section 3. This

section makes

it an offence to solicit a person when that person is at one of a number of

listed places — places like an automated teller machine, a pay phone, or a bus

or other transit stop. The person soliciting commits an offence if they solicit

a person at one of these places from a distance of five metres or closer to a

place. This proximity requirement is added to the bill to ensure that a

necessary component of this offence is the captive nature of the solicitation.

Proximity was not an explicit requirement of the private member's bill. The

provision also deals with the problem of people coming onto the roadway offering

services such as window cleaning by making it an offence to be on a roadway

[ Page 11527 ]

and soliciting a person in a stopped, standing or parked vehicle.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Finally, the last substantive provision of this bill is an

amendment to a provision of the Motor Vehicle Act — again, dealing with

pedestrians on the roadway, the domain of the squeegee kid — clarifying that it

is an offence to breach the

section by being on a roadway or by soliciting,

except where a ride is being solicited in an emergency situation.

With the addition of a provision stating that the act comes into

force by regulation, this is the whole of this short bill. We did not include a

provision on disposing of dangerous items as the private member's bill did,

because

section 12 of the Waste Management Act already makes it an offence to

litter.

As I said in first reading, the problems that this bill is trying

to address are complex; so must be the responses. The bill is a part of the

solution and will offer more tools to police, but it's not the definitive answer

to the problems on our streets. I look forward to hearing the comments of other

members and to debating the bill at committee stage.

I move second reading.

J. Kwan: I rise in debate on second reading of Bill 71. I

represent a community at which this bill is targeted — a vibrant, multicultural,

diverse and dynamic urban centre; a community with a long history of social

activism; a community with incredible street life and artistic energy; a

community that has shown and proven itself to care about each other. The

community that I represent is also a poor community, one of the poorest in the

country — a community where homelessness, drug addiction, crime, AIDS and, yes,

panhandling and squeegee kids are a daily part of life — but a community,

nonetheless, in which citizens are making every effort to improve their lives.

Many work at hard jobs to support families on minimum wages. Many are single

moms struggling to provide for their kids. Many are new immigrants living

paycheque to paycheque. We have a large urban aboriginal community in this

riding as well.

One publicity-hungry Liberal MLA called my community the worst

neighbourhood in Canada. My community may be poor. It may wrestle with issues

that most British Columbians never have to confront, but insulting these people

as the media-chasing MLA did is symbolic of the utter lack of understanding and

compassion coming from this government.

[1555]

I have watched with dismay over the last three and a half years as

life in my community has been harmed by a steady and unrelenting increase in

human desperation. Every day through my office doors are people brought to the

edge, suffering in ways that all of us here can only imagine — confused, hungry,

many very ill and overwhelmed by the condition of their lives, looking for

support and finding little comfort from this government. These people know

crime. They deal with this violence every day. The poor, after all, are crime's

most common victims. For them, insecurity and fear on our streets are a daily

reality. They experience it every day. Sitting on a street corner asking for

change may be, some say, a lifestyle of choice for some, but I say that it's

simply trying to stay alive for many.

For a media-hungry MLA it may be cool to pretend that you know

what poverty is by playing tourist in the downtown east side, by coming down for

one week and saying: "I really know what being homeless and poor is like." Let

there be no confusion: it is much, much, much more than that. As a recent

community person said to me: "Don't talk to me about how you know about poverty

until you've had two years of accumulated grit underneath your nails and you no

longer care what you smell like."

Poverty and despair have always been with us, but this government

has made it worse — much worse. In doing so they have contributed to the growing

sense of insecurity and fear that this bill pretends to address.

Also, let me make it plain. Society cannot tolerate aggressive and

abusive behaviour on the streets. There are reasonable explanations for this

behaviour rooted in an analysis of poverty and deteriorating social conditions,

but that does not provide a moral excuse. Every citizen has the right to walk

our streets safe from fear. It is why we have laws that say you cannot accost

another citizen. You cannot intimidate them, and if you do, there are

consequences. Street safety cannot be compromised.

As a way of measuring the well-being of our communities, the

vitality of street life and safety we feel in our communities is fundamental.

Without safety and security and without freedom from fear there is no

opportunity to fully express our rights as citizens, to participate completely

with others in daily life. As the great urban planner Jane Jacobs said: "The

point of communities is a multiplicity of choice." When choices to go to the

store, to take a stroll, to sit at the sidewalk café are restricted by fear,

then community life slowly grinds to a halt.

This experience has been replicated again and again in communities

large and small throughout our country. The vibrancy of urban life gives way to

the misery of urban desolation: locked cars become the only means of

transportation; TV and radio the only view to the outside world; people holed up

inside their walls as individuals, barred by fear from participating in life

outside those walls as citizens. I make this point because citizenship and

community solidarity are at the core of a progressive, humane and democratic

future, and as a progressive politician, someone who believes that the rights of

citizenship and opportunity should be shared by the many and not the few. Any

infringement on community life is also an infringement on the possibility of a

progressive future for our province, and crime and the fear of crime are an

attack on that future.

This brings me to this legislation we have focused before us. Can

it reasonably be described as an appropriate and measured response to improve

street safety

[ Page 11528 ]

and to fight crime? My answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, it cannot. What we have

before us is not a piece of legislation grounded in the reality of my community

and the challenges it faces. The only reality it seeks to address is the reality

that this government is in political trouble and is looking once again for a

quick fix, an easy headline and a good wedge issue to divide British Columbians.

It is, to put it bluntly, a cynical attempt to create a scapegoat for deep

social problems that this government has done nothing to remedy and, in fact,

has made much worse.

[1600]

How can British Columbians take seriously a bill intended to

improve street safety when it comes from a government that cut funding to victim

assistance, that took over three years to deliver on a simple promise to return

traffic fine revenues to communities for policing and public safety, that has

contributed to homelessness and despair by gutting social assistance and by

transferring millions of dollars earmarked for social housing to build cheap

assisted-living beds for seniors, to cover off another election promise — a

broken election promise?

No one can take this bill seriously, because it is clear that the

government isn't really serious about street safety or about crime. If they were

serious, they wouldn't have cut funding to community policing. They wouldn't

have closed courthouses across the province. They would not have cut funding to

Crown prosecutors. They wouldn't have ended the zero-tolerance policy for

domestic abuse. They would have held the summit on organized crime that they

offered up as a quick fix over a year ago to deal with another bad headline.

If this government was serious about fighting crime, they would

have kept their promise to communities for more crime-fighting resources as fast

as they kept their promise to high-income earners for a larger tax cut. If this

government was serious about fighting crime, they would have taken action on

gang violence instead of waiting until this serious issue became a potential

media embarrassment for them, which is just what this Solicitor General did last

week when he got wind that the Indo-Canadian community leaders were about to go

public with frustration at his government's inaction on gang violence and

hurriedly sent out a news release claiming that he was reviving a task force

into Indo-Canadian gang violence.

No, they wouldn't be dealing with serious issues of crime by

sending out news releases. They wouldn't be running around acting tough. They

would have actually gotten tough. They would have actually worked on the issue

around crime — but just as importantly, on the causes of crime. Tough on crime

for the sake of it, tough on crime to score political points, tough on crime to

scapegoat and avoid social problems, many of their own making — that does

nothing to protect our communities or to advance our sense of security. It does

nothing to further a constructive dialogue about how to cope with growing

homelessness and desperation.

It is cynical; it is manipulative; it chooses the cheap, quick,

political answer; and it is ultimately destructive. It diverts the government's

attention, it diverts its resources, and it corrupts the debate about how to

improve safety. More than ever we need that debate; we need that dialogue. Why?

Because today in B.C. crime is on the rise, up 12 percent over 2001. Organized

crime in B.C. today is, according to the RCMP, akin to a cancer growing on the

social fabric of our communities. More women are being added to the missing

women's list, whole communities are being overthrown by grow-ops, and today in

B.C. more people are living on our streets than ever before.

This government doesn't have a clue how to address these issues

other than to waste our time on a piece of legislation so ill-considered and

rushed that there are not even penalties attached to aggressive behaviour —

behaviour that is already against the law. In fact, this legislation is about

more than the issue of street safety; it is symbolic of this Premier's style of

government that has hurt communities and created a more polarized and more

divided province. It speaks to this Premier's failure of ideas and lack of

vision about how to lead a government and to meet the complex social and

economic challenges of our time.

[1605]

This legislation is about a government that read the polls and is

seeking a quick headline to cover off an issue in the campaign. The same MLA who

is eager to get media headlines, who likes to do media stunts by being a tourist

in the downtown east side for one week, just now, when I started my debate,

heckled me and said: "Well, 50 percent of the poll supports this piece of

legislation."

It just goes to show you: this legislation is about a government

that read the polls and is seeking a quick headline to cover off an issue in the

campaign. It is about a government that took the axe to the programs and

community supports that keep communities together and is more concerned with the

political fallout than the social consequences.

In keeping with the government's entire approach, it throws up a

quick and easy distraction to stoke division, fear and resentment, hoping that

British Columbians can't see it for what it is — a manipulative but not very

clever election ploy. It is typical behaviour of a right-wing government eager

to cloak itself in populist clothing to turn the debate away from its own

record. Typical of a government that cut funding for education and youth

programs but brought in the Parental Responsibility Act, under which, as far as

we know, no one has ever been charged. Typical of a government that cut health

care, drove up wait-lists by 26 percent and then tried to point the finger at

laundry workers, hospital cleaners, food servers — the lowest paid in the health

care system — as the culprit. Typical of a government so mean-spirited that it

painted B.C.'s disabled welfare citizens as welfare cheats, spent $5 million to

root them out and found there were only 46 people who didn't qualify, and never

even apologized; a government that tried to take seniors' bus passes away,

[ Page 11529 ]

that tried to cut audio books for the blind; a government that eliminated all

funding for women's centres, organizations that help women in crisis. And

typical of a government that has embraced an ideology as old as it is tried and

that puts a premium on conflict and confrontation for its own sake.

An agenda that can help produce short-term gains for the bottom

line but doesn't do anything to create a fairer, more prosperous society. An

agenda that balances the provincial budget after racking up the biggest deficit

— deficits, I should say, in plural — in B.C. history. That's all through deep

cuts to the two ministries — Children and Family Development and Human Resources

— that serve the most vulnerable people in our province. An agenda that can

create the illusion of growth but doesn't do anything for those left out or left

behind. An agenda that can make for a good wedge issue in a campaign but doesn't

do anything to improve community life, to make our streets safer or to foster

citizenship.

I know that some have accused us, the opposition, of falling into

a neatly devised political trap laid by the government. After all, what

politician wants to be on the wrong side of safe streets? This is a bigger

issue. There is a bigger issue at stake than making the right move in a

short-term political chess game. If the choice is between good policy that will

make people's lives better and strengthen our communities or good politics, then

I choose the former.

Unlike the government, I have faith on this complex issue. British

Columbians know there are no quick fixes and no easy answers — certainly none

provided by this bill. I know because I have seen first-hand in my own community

that there is enormous goodwill on the part of British Columbians to do the good

work and the hard work of dealing with enormous, difficult social problems

imaginatively and constructively, with goodwill and with the understanding that

athough every now and then a government will come along and try to profit

politically off deep social ills, addressing these issues takes a different kind

of leadership. This government and this Premier have proven once again, with

this badly written, deeply flawed and wrong-headed piece of legislation, that

that kind of leadership is missing from this government.

[1610]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for listening. I hope the people who will

listen to this debate and who will read this legislation will understand and see

it for what it is. All that it is, is a cynical political ploy for the

government to try and score points to divert attention from their own record and

from what they are doing. It does not actually provide solutions to the problems

of safer streets, of needing to create safer streets in our communities.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to

this bill in second reading with respect to safe streets. I should say from the

outset that I have an open mind with respect to this legislation. There are,

however, a number of questions I would like to raise. I understand this is

second reading and not committee, but I think it's fair to put a number of

questions forward, to bring those questions forward, with respect to this

legislation in terms of my representation of my constituents.

The Attorney General has said that the Safe Streets Act is not

about stopping people asking for spare change. In fact, he is on record as

having said, as the Attorney General, that it is about preserving the rights of

citizens and visitors to go about their daily business without being

aggressively panhandled. On the surface, these words "preserving the rights of

citizens" sound nobly motivated. My question to the Attorney General would be:

are not the needy, even though sometimes reduced to begging, also citizens with

rights? What safeguards and protections does the Attorney General include in

this legislation for those who have fallen between the cracks to ensure that

their rights are not trampled?

I do seek some clarification on the proposed Safe Streets Act. A

further question to the Attorney General with respect to this act: does the

Attorney General know whether the existing trespass, public nuisance and

vagrancy laws have been and are being enforced? If not, how does the Attorney

General intend to make this new legislation to amend these laws effective and

enforceable?

I know something of the Attorney General, having spent five years

in opposition with him and then about a year and a half, I guess, in government.

My experience with respect to the Attorney General is that he is a careful,

cautious, reasoned man. I'm somewhat surprised, in fact, that he has agreed to

press ahead with the safe streets legislation before he has dealt with the

question of enforcement. That seems entirely inconsistent with the man I have

come to know.

In any event, an example I would put forward with respect to this

concern would be: how would the police correctly identify offenders who are

transient or vagrant? The Attorney General's reply when this question was raised

by the media…. He indicated that it was merely a technical matter to be dealt

with later. Certainly, to me this sounds like a rush to implement a law without

concern, whether it achieves the expressed intention or not. It is a concern

that's been raised here and elsewhere. Is it, as the critics have suggested,

merely pre-election window-dressing without the accompanying enforcement

legislation or regulations, or is it something else? How would the Attorney

General respond to this concern regarding legislating yet another toothless and

unenforceable law?

[1615]

Those are some of the questions and concerns that I have on behalf

of my constituents with respect to this legislation. I do have an open mind, and

I will listen with a great deal of interest to the debate. I look forward to the

comments from the government members with respect to this legislation and why it

is that we in this House should support this legislation. I am concerned about

the practical implications for the community that I represent, of course,

whether it is the busi-

[ Page 11530 ]

ness people in the downtown core of Prince George or those who find

themselves in the unfortunate position of having to beg to make ends meet.

Again I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to raise a

few questions with respect to this legislation. I look forward to the debate

over the next few hours and days.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak on Bill 71. I have to say that

I'm not against panhandling, etc., per se. Unfortunately, it is one of those

pseudo-professions that has always been with mankind, if you look back through

history.

My support of this legislation is ostensibly with the concern

about belligerent and aggressive panhandling. I understand and realize that this

legislation is certainly not going to be the panacea to control panhandling in

our cities and towns or even to have it removed from our streets in its

entirety. It will give municipalities some measure to try and control a very,

very complex problem.

I would not want it in place just for the reasons of being

mean-spirited or for the manipulation of certain segments of our society who

find begging in any form distasteful, especially to themselves, or just to

punish those who for some reason find themselves unable to work or for that

matter to find work. I believe our society has a responsibility to look after

indigents or those lacking the ability to look after themselves. I believe these

services are somewhat available through government services today that do such

things. Maybe they're not as perfect as some would wish, but there are the

services available to solve some of those problems.

There are those on the streets who will always be non-conformists,

and of course there are those who are also mentally ill or addicted, and those

that you can never just please or satisfy as they will always want to and will

continue to do their own thing. This sometimes leads to aggressiveness, and that

is not acceptable to the average person who feels harassed at times or feels

safe to a varying degree.

The crux of the situation is that people want to feel safe on the

streets. Their feeling of safety on the streets has been deteriorating somewhat,

and I feel that government has an obligation to attend to that matter. I

appreciate that some may see this as very draconian. The facts are that people

walking down the streets — whether they be residents or tourists — should not

feel unsafe, intimidated or even uncomfortable while walking around our streets.

Again, there may be reason for panhandling and begging, but there is no excuse

for bad behaviour, no matter what degree it is at.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak

to Bill 71. I will support it accordingly.

G. Halsey-Brandt: I wish to say a few words this afternoon

on Bill 71, the Safe Streets Act. I would remind members that the legislation

particularly addresses and calls up aggressive panhandling and talks about

verbal and physical abuse, really, to a captive audience — whether they be at

such things as pay phones, automated banking machines, public toilets or transit

stops and the like. It also prohibits squeegee people from solicitation of a

person in a vehicle while it is stopped at a traffic light or stop sign. It is

not directed and does not make reference to people who are quietly panhandling

on the sidewalk, but it really goes to those who are over the top.

[1620]

There was mention earlier this afternoon about the urban fabric

and our community life, and I think this is really what this legislation is all

about. Often the streets are taken over, in instances, by some people who will

not recognize the rights of others. I think that's what this legislation

addresses. We all have rights, and they have to be recognized by each other.

We've worked hard in my constituency, in the city that I

represent, to build a pedestrian-friendly environment in the downtown area of

Richmond and to have some street life with coffee shops and malls, etc. We have

certainly had the experience in recent years of very aggressive panhandling and

of squatting in our community as well — perhaps not as significant as Victoria,

Kelowna or Vancouver, but it's certainly there.

When the legislation was first discussed in the spring, I took the

opportunity to advertise and call a public meeting in my community. I invited

the member for Vancouver-Burrard to come and talk to us. I wanted to get the

feeling of my constituency and how they felt about the problem and this

initiative. In attendance we had several civic politicians. We had

representatives of the police and of private security services. We had business

people. We had mall managers. We had people who ran coffee shops. More

particularly, and what I was particularly interested in, we had representatives

of social service agencies in my community as well.

We had a really good discussion. The feeling was that the social

safety net is in fact in place in our community, but there were those who were

not obeying what I guess you'd say are normal decorum and rules and who got into

aggressive behaviour that was really upsetting not just those in authority but

also those from social service agencies. We do appreciate those on low income,

those who are homeless and those suffering from mental illness, but we do have

programs in place to assist those people if at all possible.

Again from that discussion in our community, there was a very

strong comfort level with this legislation. It was approved by our city council.

It is supported by my constituency. As one of the members said previously, it's

really all about safety on the streets for everyone — whether they're residents,

whether they're tourists or whether they're other panhandlers that feel

threatened by this inappropriate behaviour. Therefore, I look forward to

supporting this legislation this afternoon.

J. MacPhail: As my colleague has made very clear, this

so-called safe streets legislation, Bill 71, is really just another cynical

attempt by the government to dis-

[ Page 11531 ]

tract from its record. Instead of offering positive solutions…. I have no

idea what the member who just spoke meant when he said we've got solutions in

place for people who are poor. They don't have any positive solutions. They're

not offering any positive solutions for the real difficulties in our

communities. This legislation instead seeks to find a scapegoat for those

problems. That is exactly what this legislation is.

The problem that this government has contributed to so

dramatically by its very policies is poor people on the streets. Yes, in a

manner that has become sadly familiar to British Columbians, this British

Columbia Liberal government finds the cheapest, most ideological and

mean-spirited way to address a serious issue. It is not an exaggeration to say

that one of the hallmarks of this B.C. Liberal government has been just how

mean-spirited it has shown itself to be. Even some supporters have been shocked

at the manner in which this government has seemed to go out of its way to target

this province's most vulnerable citizens and how in several cases this

government not only has carried out mean-spirited policies but has actually

seemed to take pleasure in doing so — some members of this chamber.

Whether it is blaming the lowest-paid workers in our health system

for their own failed health policy, first breaking the workers