2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 26, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Jack Poole

Hon. M. de Jong

C. James

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Teacher-librarians and promotion of reading

R. Cantelon

Drop Everything and Read Day

D. Thorne

Enbridge northern gateway project

J. Rustad

Arts and culture in Mount Pleasant area

J. Kwan

Zajac Ranch

M. Dalton

Gitxsan summit

D. Donaldson

Oral Questions

Impact of harmonized sales tax on tourism industry

C. James

Hon. K. Krueger

S. Herbert

B. Ralston

Government action on open-net fish farming

L. Popham

Hon. S. Thomson

R. Fleming

B. Simpson

Highway maintenance in Columbia Valley

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Bond

H. Bains

Mi'kmaq children's choir performance at Olympic Games

K. Corrigan

Hon. G. Abbott

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009

M. Farnworth

Hon. K. Heed

L. Krog

N. Macdonald

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Body Armour Control Act

M. Farnworth

Hon. K. Heed

B. Ralston

Reporting of Bills

Bill 16 — Body Armour Control Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Body Armour Control Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Social Development

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Simpson

[ Page 1529 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

jack poole

Hon. M. de Jong: By now, most of us will have learned of the passing of a great British Columbian and a great Canadian that, sadly, occurred a few days ago. Few people have given back as much to their community as Jack Poole has over the course of his life. As an entrepreneur, he built houses that families turned into homes. As a philanthropist, he donated millions of dollars to causes like health care research.

As the chair of the 2010 bid committee and the 2010 Olympic organizing committee, he dedicated eight years of his life to bringing our province a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The sad irony, of course, is that in a few months, when the flame is lit, Jack Poole won't be there to see that dream become a reality. Yet he ignited a flame in all of us that will go on burning through the generations. There's no question that the many philanthropic activities that Jack Poole sponsored will continue to benefit British Columbians.

[1335]

I know that all members of the House are thinking of those contributions, thankful for Jack, for his family sharing him with us, and will want you, Mr. Speaker, to convey our thoughts, condolences and prayers to Darlene Poole and the entire family.

C. James: I just want to add the opposition's words to the Government House Leader's, as well, to offer our condolences and our thoughts. British Columbia really has lost a true British Columbian. Although Jack Poole was not from this province originally, I don't think anyone would have seen him as anything but a British Columbian, with the incredible contribution he made to our province, with the legacy that he has left.

Most importantly, I just want to close with remembering Jack Poole, the person. For all of the huge accomplishments — and I think the House Leader has identified them very well, incredible accomplishments for one individual — he was always humble about his accomplishments. He was always humble about his beginnings, about his roots in life. I remember him proudly showing me his Métis heritage card and being so pleased about the National Aboriginal Achievement Award that he won and, again, sharing that with his community and with all of his family.

So I just want, on behalf of the opposition, to add our words, our thoughts and prayers to his family and to his friends as well.

Introductions by Members

R. Cantelon: Today is Drop Everything and Read a book day, and I'll speak about that briefly later, but joining us in the gallery are several teacher-librarians who are here to celebrate that day with us: Heather Daly, Karen Lindsay, Moira Ekdahl, Val Hamilton, Gwen Ingham, Michele Farquharson, Cheriee Weichel and Pat Parungao.

L. Popham: I would like to welcome my mom, Lorna McKintuck, and my mother-in-law, Joan Popham, to the House today. This is their first time. They enjoyed a wonderful lunch downstairs. I'd also like to make a note that they're very loyal viewers of the legislative channel. So I apologize to Hansard. They're down two today.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that today I introduce my father, Neil Horne, who is joining us in the gallery. I would like the members to make him welcome.

V. Huntington: I was very pleased today to have been made aware that attending in the public gallery are Dr. Jane Sterk, leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, and Mr. Julius Bloomfield, a businessman and realtor from Naramata, whose announcement…. He has just been appointed deputy leader of the Green Party of British Columbia. I hope everybody makes them welcome.

R. Lee: In the gallery today I have a constituent, Pat Parungao, visiting. Pat is a school librarian and a member of the B.C. Teacher-Librarian Association. She's in Victoria celebrating National School Library Day. Would the House please make her welcome.

D. Thorne: I would like to add a welcome to the teacher-librarians that are in the audience, particularly Heather Daly, who is the district library manager in my school district of Coquitlam, district 43. I'd also like to honour Karen Lindsay, who last week was chosen B.C. Teacher-Librarian of the Year.

Hon. I. Black: In the House today we have a number of guests from the B.C. Technology Industry Association who have come to Victoria to help promote awareness and understanding of the technology sector throughout British Columbia.

There is a good list of them. I'll rattle them off as quickly as I can. We've got Penny Wilson, Paul Gorton, Paul Lindahl, John Madigan, Rob Eisses, Pascal Spothelfer, Cindy Pearson and Karam Bayrakal here joining us in

[ Page 1530 ]

the House today. I'd ask all members to make these really important British Columbians feel most welcome.

[1340]

C. Trevena: I would like to introduce, on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, the hon. David Hawker, the former Speaker of the Australian Parliament. He is accompanied by his wife, Penny, and his son, James. They're studying our parliamentary system, and what better way than watching our question period. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TEACHER-LIBRARIANS AND

PROMOTION OF READING

R. Cantelon: Yes, today is Drop Everything and Read a book day, and that's good advice to everybody in this House and everybody in our communities. We have today with us some teacher-librarians who are facilitators in helping students find the magic of books and learn from it. They will develop, among other things, critical thinking — something that we could all use more of, and I'm sure you're very well aware of that concern here in the House.

Yes, the Internet is fine, but teacher-librarians today are facilitators in helping to answer the questions, encourage the questions and encourage students to seek the answers in books. The Internet is very well and fine, but to give a whole context to critical, proper thought is to pick up a book and read it. A lot of that is happening. It's very, very helpful to the students. It's very important, personally, in my family. My son is married to a teacher-librarian and carrying what will be, I hope in January, a grandchild into our family. So I'm informed very directly and personally about the importance of teacher-librarians.

There are new forms of it, new forms that we're taking, reading to the students in the schools. The WOW Bus, Words on Wheels, is working. It will be in Pouce Coupe, in Dawson Creek, and it's a very prominent feature in my own riding as well.

Early learning is extremely important. So we have a simple message today: drop everything and read. Take a book home with you. Read. It will make you think. It will make you a better person. We think this is a message we would like to take to children, parents, government, communities. So let's celebrate and support our valuable teacher-librarians and all the work in getting that message out today.

DROP EVERYTHING AND READ DAY

D. Thorne: As my colleague just told us, October 26 is National School Library Day and the third anniversary of the B.C. Drop Everything and Read Challenge. The Drop Everything Challenge has grown by leaps and bounds since 2007. It's a simple yet powerful idea that promotes the importance of literacy in our society.

I was lucky today to be able to participate in the challenge. I read aloud to about 100 students at James Bay Community School under the supervision of teacher-librarian Stephen Marta. It was a great experience. It brought back many memories to me of reading aloud to my own children when they were young, definitely one of my favourite memories.

All over B.C. today, parents, politicians and local celebrities converged on their local schools to point out the pleasures of reading and the importance of school libraries. For many years studies have proven that next to socioeconomic factors, the single greatest influence on student achievement is a healthy school library program.

Student achievement is up to 20 percent higher in schools where the library has a robust collection of resources which have been selected by a fully trained teacher-librarian who has adequate staffing time to teach both students and teachers. Public education aims to provide a level playing field for children, and the school library program is at the very heart of that equity. Sporty or clumsy, brainy or arty, introverted or out there, there is a place for every student, teacher or administrator in the library.

So let's all take up this challenge from our school librarians: when we get back to our offices today, every single one of us, drop everything and read. Let's do it now.

ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT

J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, what would you say if I told you about a venture that will create 200 long-term jobs in northern B.C. — a venture that will also create 4,000 construction jobs and many more indirect jobs? This welcome news is, of course, the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

This massive infrastructure project will have significant benefits for all of northern B.C., but especially for my riding of Nechako Lakes. For the northwest coast, we will see enormous safety improvements. New systems will be put in place to make all sea travel safer, and many other improvements will benefit everyone, including new guidance systems that will safeguard the coastal environment like never before.

[1345]

Along the project route, roads will be improved and power lines upgraded. Every kilowatt of power used will be replaced by investing in new, renewable energy. Sites used for the pipeline will see matching investments made on a hectare-for-hectare basis. Every tree that is removed will be replaced with a new tree.

Enbridge is also committed to utilizing local employment wherever possible. For companies like Tahtsa Timber,

[ Page 1531 ]

Gulbranson Logging, the KDL Group and many others, this means jobs for forestry workers, first nations, youth and many others.

Over the long term Enbridge is working on a benefits package that will likely include a community trust, significant skills training, an environmental package, marine operations and response and the potential for first nations to participate in equity and sole-sourcing employment opportunities — not to mention the millions that will be paid in local taxes to help communities fund such needed projects.

There are few projects that will have such a positive impact for northern B.C. The Enbridge Northern Gateway is one such project that will provide a short-term boost and long-term benefits for everyone.

ARTS AND CULTURE IN

MOUNT PLEASANT AREA

J. Kwan: Mount Pleasant has the highest percentage of people working in the arts and cultural sector in Canada. There are more than 250 artist studios and 38 exhibition centres including artist-run centres and commercial galleries. There are many artists who are engaging in innovative ideas who struggle to make rent, to access studio space and have performance venues. Artist-run centres and live theatre not only provide original works but are crucial to holding public discussions and artist talks and to publishing emerging ideas which contribute to the public sphere of B.C.

The Pacific Association of Artist-Run Centres represents arts facilities that exhibit contemporary art, which parallels the larger public institutions and private commercial galleries, offering an alternative to artists in determining how to represent their work.

Many of these organizations are based in my constituency — The Western Front, Artspeak, Access, the Or Gallery, the Gallery Gachet, VIVO and many others. These spaces are vital to the cultural fabric of B.C. Internationally renowned artists such as Stanley Douglas, Jeff Wall and Ken Lum have a long history in the Downtown Eastside, where they have studios, have shown their work or used the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood as part of their artwork.

I'm sad to report that Mount Pleasant is losing a place and space that has for 35 years made a distinct and important contribution to the artist-run-centre community in Vancouver. The Helen Pitt Gallery suffered a fatal blow to its operations recently and, as a result, earlier this month laid off its director and will close its doors at the end of this week.

Arts and culture nourishes the heart and soul of the social and spiritual fabric of communities and is a significant contributor to both local and provincial economies. Every dollar invested is a return of $1.36 to the province. It's a smart investment. I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing the arts and cultural community and thanking the Helen Pitt for their 35 years of contribution.

ZAJAC RANCH

M. Dalton: Just north of Mission along the banks of Stave Lake, there's a wonderful facility for needy children called the Zajac Ranch. On different weeks there are unique camps for children with spina bifida, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy and eating disorders. There's a cleft palate and craniofacial camp, a kidney and organ transplant camp, as well as other camps for children with chronic illnesses and disabilities.

Over 30 years ago, Mel and Wendy Zajac formed a non-profit foundation in honour of their two children, Mel Jr. and Marty, who died in separate sporting accidents. The Zajac Ranch provides an extraordinary opportunity for children with needs by offering innovative and unique programs in a caring and supportive environment. Swimming, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, horseback riding are among the many physical activities offered to campers between the ages of seven and 17 years. Other activities include drama, music, arts and crafts, which enable children to express their creative side.

Zajac Ranch also has a close relationship with nurses and doctors throughout the province, including many of whom work in B.C. Children's Hospital, ensuring that they meet with the medical requirements for our campers. The on-site medical centre provides 24-hour care to the campers.

[1350]

A week ago, along with the Deputy Premier and the members from Mission-Abbotsford and for Richmond East, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a state-of-the-art swimming pool. It was made possible through private donations and a $330,000 contribution by the provincial government.

It is because of the enormous efforts of Mel and Wendy Zajac as well as the private donors that so many children afflicted with chronic illnesses and disabilities are able to enjoy the life that they deserve to have and still receive necessary medical attention.

GITXSAN SUMMIT

D. Donaldson: For three days last week Gitxsan hereditary chiefs, the [Gitxsanimax spoken], and members of their house groups, [Gitxsanimax spoken], met in the village of Gitsegukla for the Gitxsan summit to review the year's progress and discuss the future. There are good reasons to celebrate.

The Gitxsan matrilineal hereditary system is strong. It is based on a deep connection between members of the house group and the [Gitxsanimax spoken], or traditional territory. Each [Gitxsanimax spoken] has a distinct land base in the 30,000 square kilometres of

[ Page 1532 ]

traditional land, and it is why the Gitxsan reject the precondition of the land selection model at the treaty table.

Under that approach, some [Gitxsanimax spoken] will be left out. That is why Gitxsan are negotiating on how federal and provincial jurisdictions will coexist with the Gitxsan [Gitxsanimax spoken] or laws on the entire [Gitxsanimax spoken.]

Against this positive backdrop, it's important to realize how significant it is that the hereditary system is still so strong and that these summits take place at all. The onslaught of the dominant culture that this Legislature represents has been devastating to the Gitxsan and other first nations in Stikine.

A quick snapshot of some of the results of that onslaught since I was elected in May, just in my community alone. In June a 21-month-old Gitxsan child is murdered; a relative is charged. He is a minor and deemed not fit for trial. In July a young Gitxsan man takes his life by jumping off the Hagwilget Bridge after a torturous four-hour negotiation. Then last month Rodney Jackson, a loving father of seven, was shot dead in the woods by an RCMP emergency response team.

That is the reality we face on a daily basis. It is not the reality that existed before contact. It is a reality constructed by successive federal and provincial government policies and laws.

We need to reflect on and take strength from the examples set by the Gitxsan — the ability to collaborate at the summit for the betterment of all in the face of those horrific realities. It is up to us in this House to show that we too can collaborate, to be inclusive and to accept a diversity of world views and enact policies and legislation reflective of that attitude.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON TOURISM INDUSTRY

C. James: Earlier this month when we asked the B.C. Liberals what analysis had been done on the impact of the HST on the tourism industry, the Minister of Finance dismissed any concerns. Now a new report has come out by the Council of Tourism Associations, which says B.C. could lose 15,000 tourism jobs because of the HST.

To the Minister of Tourism: 15,000 jobs could be lost because of the HST. Why are you and your government knowingly taking a hammer to this important industry?

Hon. K. Krueger: We have received the Council of Tourism Associations' report. We're analyzing it. We've been working with them. They asked for a meeting immediately after the HST was announced. I met with them the following week — the Minister of Finance and I did.

The fact is that the thing that drives the tourism industry, the hospitality industry, is customers — customers with money in their pockets. There isn't anything we could possibly do that is better for our economy and job creation than the implementation of the HST.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I find it incredible to hear those words from the minister. Wouldn't the government think it might be a good idea to meet with the industry before you looked at bringing in a tax that's going to kill 15,000 jobs?

Let's take a look at the B.C. Liberal record on tourism. The government got rid of Tourism B.C. before the 2010 games. Months before we're hosting the Olympics, Tourism B.C. is gone.

[1355]

After the Olympics they're going to be hitting the industry with a tax that could remove 15,000 jobs in this industry because of a tax brought in without consultation, without any analysis, when the industry is struggling to stay afloat.

Again, my question is to the minister. Why is he imposing this job-killing tax on a sector that creates the highest number of jobs in this province? Why is he hurting tourism when it's such an important part of our economy in British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, 129 OECD countries have a value-added tax. The value-added tax is 20 percent across Europe. Independent economists worldwide agree that a harmonization of sales taxes is an economic driver.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: We would have been at a serious disadvantage to compete in other provinces, such as Ontario, if we hadn't proceeded. The HST is going to deliver $880 million in benefits to the construction industry. The construction employees….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Krueger: There will be thousands of British Columbians in industries that pay family-supporting wages to their employees who will have jobs because of the HST and will be spending that money in the hospitality industry.

Interjections.

[ Page 1533 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: This minister and this government refused to tell the tourism industry before the election that they were bringing in the HST. In fact, they said just the opposite — that they weren't going to bring in the tax. Now they refuse to consult the industry. In fact, they refuse to even acknowledge that it's a problem.

Here is the cost of the B.C. Liberal HST betrayal on tourism alone: 15,000 tourism jobs at risk, revenues could plunge by half a billion dollars, higher prices for businesses and for consumers. An entire industry will pay the price for this government's mistake.

My question is to the minister. Does he think tourism experts are making it up? Does he think they aren't telling the truth in the information that they brought forward? My question again to the minister: why does he believe bringing in the HST is going to be a good thing for an industry that has said it's going to kill jobs in our province?

Hon. K. Krueger: It's an amazing thing to be hectored by the NDP on taxation. We're the government that cut people's personal income taxes to now the lowest in Canada for the first $118,000 in income. But those people…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: …spend the money that is left in their own pockets and bank accounts in the hospitality industry. We're the government that eliminated corporate capital tax, which the NDP….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Krueger: We're the government that has cut taxes over a hundred times and made the economy of British Columbia come back from worst-performing in the country to best-performing in the country — under our watch.

Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition and her caucus don't listen to the mining industry, the forest industry, the construction industry.

S. Herbert: When the Minister of Tourism, who has now suddenly found his voice on this issue after we've asked over 16 questions on it…. When we ask him about the impact on tourism, the minister refuses yet again to provide a straight answer. When he finally agrees to comment, he dismisses the industry's concerns.

This is what he said in August. He said, "The HST is going to be good for all concerned, but there will be exceptions," refusing to say who those exceptions are. Well, the exceptions are the over 15,000 jobs killed by the HST, the over $500 million in revenue lost, small businesses eliminated and consumers stretched even more. And he's saying the HST is good for all? When will he stop his rhetoric, and when will he end this tax?

[1400]

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd like to tell the member opposite that industry, and particularly small business, has not forgotten the NDP's commitment that they would add 25 percent in payroll costs just as a result of being elected, spending other people's money yet again. We listened to all of the industries.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: I met today with the technology industry. I asked them: "How is the HST going to affect you?" They said, "We love the HST," and their employees will be spending money in the tourism industry and in the hospitality industry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Herbert: I'd like to remind the minister that he's the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, which I guess under the B.C. Liberals are all taking the axe these days. Maybe that's why he doesn't want to talk about the issue. Meanwhile people lose their jobs. Meanwhile businesses go under.

That's shameful. According to the tourism industry, the B.C. Liberals HST betrayal could mean over 15,000 jobs lost, Minister. That's today. Not in the '90s, not in the '80s — today. And up to $545 million in revenue lost each and every year.

To the minister: why does he continue to sit idly by and talk about other things when it's the tourism industry that's taking the axe under this government?

Hon. K. Krueger: Of course, we're on the threshold of hosting the biggest event in the world next year. At least a quarter of a million visitors….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

[ Page 1534 ]

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: At least a quarter-million visitors will be coming to British Columbia to be part of the Olympics. Some 15,000 foreign journalists will be covering British Columbia, not just during the Olympics but before and after. We're working hand in glove with the Tourism B.C. people within the ministry to market British Columbia through this fantastic opportunity.

B. Ralston: The chair of the council of tourism industry said in response to this report when it was released: "I hope they understand the impact this will have on our industry." When the HST was introduced in August, the council said: "This will have a devastating impact on our industry." That was in August. They've now prepared a careful, rational analysis of the impact of the HST on their industry.

Over a half a billion dollars in tourist, visitor dollars — revenue — will decline, based on this report. Up to 5,000 direct jobs and 10,000 indirect jobs lost in this industry.

What is the minister telling tourism operators in Kamloops about the HST? Is he being honest with them? Is his message to tourism operators in Kamloops: "Suck it up. It's good for you"?

Mr. Speaker: Just wait a second.

Just be careful of your choice of words, Member.

Hon. K. Krueger: Actually in Kamloops.... Flights into Kamloops are up 33 percent overall. The manager of the Kamloops Airport says it's mainly attributable to golfers. People are spending money in British Columbia, much to the disappointment of the members opposite, I'm sure.

And 72 percent of the tourists in the market in British Columbia this season have been British Columbians. They got money in their pockets because of the fiscal plans of this government, which include the HST.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

OPEN-NET FISH FARMING

L. Popham: This weekend Marine Harvest Canada admitted to another mass escape of 40,000 farmed Atlantic salmon in the Broughton Archipelago — another escape, another significant threat to our wild salmon.

This again demonstrates the urgent need to transition all open-net farms to closed-containment technology. B.C. could be a world leader in closed containment, or we can continue to watch our wild salmon stocks collapse.

Will the Minister of Agriculture commit today that the province will take the lead on moving the aquaculture industry to closed-containment technology?

Hon. S. Thomson: The incident that the member opposite refers to was reported to us immediately as per our regulation, which is required. It is the most comprehensive regulation in the world, in terms of our environmental regulation, that we have for the aquaculture industry. It's under investigation, led by the Ministry of Agriculture, by the Ministry of Environment, by DFO. We continue to take this incident very seriously, and we're going to continue to investigate fully.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Closed containment would have prevented this escape of farmed salmon, but this government continues to refuse to show any leadership on aquaculture. There are seven pending applications for new fish farms and multiple applications for expansion before the Minister of Agriculture. Given the Liberal government's abysmal record on this issue, will the minister finally take action to preserve our wild salmon by committing today that there will be no expansion of open-net fish farms in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Thomson: The ministry's and the government's approach to closed containment is consistent with the recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Forum, one of the most comprehensive reviews done.

As you know, we're in a process of transition of jurisdiction of finfish aquaculture to the federal government. Those reports are going to continue to inform our direction with the federal government.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Agriculture has said that his government has a transition strategy to closed containment. For eight years this government has done nothing but reject those solutions to make aquaculture more sustainable in British Columbia and to protect our wild salmon stocks. That's their record on fisheries management for eight years.

You know, we've got the Chinese government in British Columbia concluding R-and-D agreements with B.C. companies for China — not British Columbia — to develop this technology, and there's not any interest by this jurisdiction to do the same. We could be leaders. We could be building green jobs if we did that.

In just over 90 days B.C. is going to transfer jurisdiction for fisheries management to the feds, to DFO. Now, sport fishermen, commercial fishers and marine biologists are all afraid that this minister, who has seven applications on his desk, is going to approve them…

Interjections.

[ Page 1535 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: …and rush them through before the deadline. So I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture today: will he assure this House that he will not do that — that he will not rush through new applications for open-net fish farms before the transfer to the federal government in 90 days?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm sure the members opposite have read carefully the Hinkson decision. What the Hinkson decision said was that the provincial government was to continue to manage its responsibilities for the aquaculture industry until that transfer is complete in February.

We're continuing to work to that objective in terms of providing certainty for both the industry and the environment in our negotiations with the federal government. But as you know, the courts said that we continue to manage our responsibilities under the industry during this time period.

[1410]

B. Simpson: I would take the Minister of Agriculture's response as a yes. It's feeding the rumours and the fears out there that this government is going to expand open-net fish farming before they transfer it to DFO.

Now this minister knows that first nations leaders…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …are very concerned about both expansion of open-net fish farming and the transfer of responsibility to DFO. They have expressed this concern to this minister and this government. They don't want platitudes. They don't want to be put off. They want an answer from the government.

In estimates debate the minister said that it is now a DFO responsibility to consult, making a complete mockery of the new relationship.

The First Nations Fisheries Council meets this week. I ask the Minister of Agriculture: will he agree to go there on Friday and explain directly face to face with the first nations leaders why this government is abdicating their responsibility to DFO — an agency that the first nations do not trust — and why this government won't take the lead to make sure first nations are fully and completely consulted with before expanding open-net fish farming and transferring responsibility to DFO?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I just indicated to the members opposite, the court decision said that we continue to have the responsibility to manage the industry during this time period. As you know, that involves extensive consultation — environmental assessment, extensive consultation with first nations in consideration with any licence applications, any amendments to licences. We are continuing to do that. We are continuing to consult. I have met with groups during this process, and we will continue to do that.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

IN COLUMBIA VALLEY

N. Macdonald: On October 14 three major traffic accidents occurred in the Columbia Valley the morning after a snowfall. In the most serious accident a gentleman was struck by an out-of-control vehicle when he stopped to put on chains. It is clear from the police reports that those accidents occurred because of a failure to properly maintain the roads.

Winter is just beginning. The system for road maintenance in this province is again breaking down. Why isn't the minister meeting her responsibility to provide safe roads for British Columbians?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again the member opposite stands in the Legislature today and fearmongers about the way that roads are taken care of in British Columbia. That is an embarrassment and irresponsible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: The men and women who work across British Columbia work very hard every single day to ensure that the number one priority they have in this province is safety of the travelling public. In fact, our contractors work very hard to ensure that. I can assure you that today they are working to meet those standards in every corner of the province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The most serious accident has been investigated by the RCMP, and they've been clear that the fault doesn't lie with the drivers that are on the road. The fault lies with the condition of the road. Adequate maintenance was not done by the contractor, Mainroad group. As a result, the road was not driveable.

We all knew that the weather was going to turn, that there was going to be a snowstorm, but the highway maintenance operator chose to put only one vehicle on the road — one vehicle for all of the Columbia Valley. The result was predictable, and it was tragic — three accidents, one person seriously hurt.

The question for the minister: does the minister believe that on October 14 in the Columbia Valley, Mainroad met its contractual obligations to keep our roads safe?

[ Page 1536 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Anytime there is an accident in British Columbia…. Certainly, our utmost concern is safety in the province of British Columbia. In fact, our maintenance contractors work rigorously to very high standards to ensure that our highways are safe and appropriate for travel.

I can assure you that those contractors are audited. There is vigorous maintenance to make sure they are meeting the standards that are expected of them. But we live in a province that has extremely difficult geography. Weather is unpredictable, and I can assure you our maintenance contractors do an exceptional job in this province.

[1415]

H. Bains: For the information of this minister, highway snow removal contract

section 3.1 states: "The contractor must…when snowfall is forecast, proactively…notify and deploy resources in advance which are sufficient to respond to the anticipated snow." That didn't happen in this situation, because this minister felt there was no need to enforce its own rules. That's what happened out there.

My question to the minister is this. Will she stand up and tell this House what steps she has taken to ensure that these road maintenance rules are enforced today?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite is the critic for Transportation, one would assume that he would have done his homework. In British Columbia there are actually rigorous contracts in place that audit the work done by maintenance contractors. I can assure you that as weather is unpredictable, maintenance contractors are prepared. They get ready to do the work that's necessary. I can assure you that in every single circumstance, there will be monitoring and evaluation to ensure that those contractors have done exactly what's expected of them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: This minister's promises and statements are so hollow. It does nothing to give comfort to the motorists in British Columbia. The contractor in this particular situation, Mainroad, East Kootenay contractor, has been cited for 28 safety violations, and they still went on to collect $178,000 in performance bonuses. So much for the enforcement by this minister.

Will the minister promise to do a thorough investigation of this accident and send a clear message to all contractors in this province that tells them that the time to ignore these safety rules is over and the people on our roads are safe?

Hon. S. Bond: I live in the northern part of British Columbia, and I can assure you that I have confidence that maintenance contractors across this province meet the standards that are expected of them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the member opposite should well know that we have over 120 people in the Ministry of Transportation that actually monitor the standards, monitor the contracts to make sure that those contractual obligations are being met. That will continue. We will continue to ensure that the travelling public is safe in British Columbia.

MI'KMAQ CHILDREN'S CHOIR

PERFORMANCE AT OLYMPIC GAMES

K. Corrigan: In 2007 the Se't A'newey performance choir from Newfoundland took the B.C. Premier at his word when they accepted his invitation to perform at the Vancouver Winter Olympics. The Premier invited the choir in the presence of Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who followed up with a note of congratulations to the singers in which he said: "See you at the Olympics."

Ever since, these young performers from the Mi'kmaq First Nation have been practising for hours every week for their moment to represent and make Canada proud on the world stage. Now it appears that the Premier made an Olympic-sized false promise to the singers. Instead of offering to find a solution so that these talented young singers can take

part in the games, the Premier has been backtracking on his invitation.

To the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations: when is the Premier going to stop claiming that the choir heard him wrong and instead make sure that these young Mi'kmaq singers perform in the Winter Olympics?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

Hon. G. Abbott: I haven't even started to talk yet. It brings back some great memories, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier was much impressed by the choir, and the Premier is much concerned that any misunderstanding that occurred can be remedied.

I am pleased to advise the member that today, at a discussion with Tewanee Joseph of the four host first nations, who are welcoming the world to the 2010 Olympics…. We believe there will be at least three opportunities around February 26 for the choir to perform in high-profile venues and events, including the Aboriginal Business Showcase and including the Aboriginal Showcase at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre.

Those are very exciting events, and I look forward to discussing the issue further this afternoon.

[ Page 1537 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Chief Misel Joe wrote to the Premier a few days ago and said:

"As aboriginal people, our lives are governed by the following guiding principles: truth, respect, honour, wisdom, humility, bravery and love. Our young people have been raised with these guiding principles as part of their daily lives. It teaches them who they are. When you extended this invitation to them, your words were taken as your honour.

"This is why we are expressing the devastation that our children now feel and the lesson they have learned that your words mean nothing."

We have now a consolation prize, but I don't think it's enough to address the devastation that these children feel.

My question for the minister today: is this government going to apologize to the people of Newfoundland and to the first nations people who have been devastated in this way?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I said in my earlier answer, the Premier was much impressed by the choir. But the member, I think, surely knows that the Premier doesn't arrange the entertainment at the opening of the Olympics.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member well knows that.

We are looking forward to extending at least two opportunities and quite possibly three high-profile opportunities for the aboriginal choir to perform around February 26 at the Olympics. We look forward to discussing those opportunities further with the Chief and with the choir master of the Mi'kmaq choir.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development. In this chamber, committee stage of Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009.

[1425]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

section 1.

M. Farnworth: If the minister could just explain the intent of

section 1 and how it's to function.

Hon. K. Heed: Madam Chair, we wanted to have the regulation-making power specific for the graduated licence program, in that we needed to clarify some of the restrictions with the different classes of drivers here in British Columbia.

In specific, we wanted to ensure that we were dealing with the hands-free component of the graduated licensing program and the additional penalty points that are applied to individuals in the graduated licensing program. These are specific to this piece of legislation versus having it in the general GLP regulations.

M. Farnworth: Is there any grandfathering taking place then, as a result of this section? If so, what does it comprise of?

[1430]

Hon. K. Heed: There is no grandfathering. It will apply to all individuals in the graduated licensing program.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Farnworth: Under

section 3, this will add "3.1 — Use of Electronic Devices While Driving" to the Motor Vehicle Act. Under the

definitions, the definition includes the definition of electronic device as: "(

a) a hand-held cellular telephone or another hand-held electronic device that includes a telephone function, (

b) a hand-held electronic device that is capable of transmitting or receiving electronic mail or other text-based messages, or (

c) a prescribed class or type of electronic device."

The

section also defines the term "use" in relation to an electronic device. Is there anything that's not captured by this clause? Will this clause take into account changes in technology over the coming years? As we've seen, the change in technology has just been dramatic. We understand what's out there today, but is this clause able to catch changes in technology into the future?

Hon. K. Heed: With the change in technology — and it seems to be almost daily — we have built in here that addition where it will cover the changes of technology with respect to this.

M. Farnworth: The reason I'm asking is that I want to make sure, as I fully expect — and probably the government does too — that at some point there will be a challenge to the legislation, as there often is. The answers that we get are quite important in terms of, if a judge is looking

[ Page 1538 ]

and making a decision around the case: what was the intent of the legislation?

So I just want to make sure that we are clear that the intention of the legislation is, no matter what the technological advances and changes there are in technology, to prohibit the use of technology whilst driving. Whether it's cell phones now or computers or TV screens or DVDs or CDs or Blu-ray or whatever it is, I want to make sure that this

section covers that and that we're clear about that.

Hon. K. Heed: The future will be defined by regulation. Built into that will be the restriction that will allow governments to address future technology as they desire.

M. Farnworth: Under this section, you've got (a), (b), (

c) and (d). Subsection (

d) says: "taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device."

The minister has indicated that the changes in the future will be done by regulation. Is that to mean that specific activities related to the use of electronic devices — that a number of them will be by regulation even at the present day, never mind the ones in the future? Are we anticipating doing some of them by regulation at the current time?

[1435]

Hon. K. Heed: It is limited to certain activities. Currently we have "holding the device," "operating" the device," "communicating orally by means of the device." Then, looking at

section (d) "taking another action…." That's to deal with anything else that we have not currently thought of as of today.

L. Krog: I met with a representative on Friday of the Nanaimo Amateur Radio Association. People operate ham radios. Their vehicles are licensed specifically for that purpose. Indeed, they have to as a condition of their licence. They are required to comply.

Manitoba has passed legislation recently, and they exempted anyone whose licensed under Canada's federal Radiocommunication Act. I'm just wondering. Can the minister advise the House: will this extend, in fact — this ban — to CB operators?

Hon. K. Heed: Through regulation, we are looking at exceptions, which will include amateur radio operators who hold a valid radio operator certificate issued under radio communications Canada.

L. Krog: I'm just looking at the definition

section — "electronic device," as it reads in the bill itself. It talks about "(

a) a hand-held cellular telephone or another hand-held electronic device that includes a telephone function." Is the minister satisfied that that section, in fact, covers a CB, when we talk about telephone function?

Clearly,

section "(

b) a hand-held electronic device…capable of transmitting or receiving electronic" e-mail or other text message doesn't apply. And "(

c) a prescribed class or type of electronic device…." I take it that it could fall under that section, I suppose.

Can the minister advise what

section he believes the CB would fall under? Is it (a), or is it (c)? Or either?

Hon. K. Heed: It's (c).

L. Krog: Obviously, this is a matter of some concern to the individuals involved in amateur radio associations. These are people who perform a valuable public service. These are people who, in the time of a disaster, will be available to transmit vital information, regardless of what kind of disaster it is. These are people involved in search and rescue.

I think those people need to hear from the minister today. Is it the government's intention, then, to seriously look at an exemption? Is the government going to exempt, or is it simply a matter for consideration?

Hon. K. Heed: We are taking this matter very seriously, and we're giving it serious consideration.

N. Macdonald: On the same topic. During the second reading speech, I indicated as well — and the minister was here and nodded — just the concerns around this issue.

[1440]

Basically the same that has been outlined before — just the concern that the people that use ham radios and not only provide a service during regular times but are often key parts of search and rescue and in times…. I think what I cited was the 2003 fire around Cranbrook. When other systems had broken down, this system was up and working.

So just to reinforce again that idea that the minister has the ability with this regulation to provide exclusions, and this is one that, certainly, we've heard very clearly is an area that needs to be dealt with.

Hon. K. Heed: We certainly recognize the value of these individuals when there's an emergency here in British Columbia and the fact that they're volunteers. We will be consulting with them, and we will seriously be considering their recommendations.

M. Farnworth: This isn't a particularly long bill, so some of the questions — I think most of the questions — are probably appropriately dealt with under

section 3. Even if they may stray into

section 4, I think we can deal with them here.

One of the issues is under

section 214.4(c), dealing with permitted activities, and that is: "…configured and equipped to allow hands-free use in a telephone function, is used in a hands-free manner and is used in accordance with the regulations, if any."

[ Page 1539 ]

Can the minister tell the House how he intends to apply that, what regulations he is anticipating in the immediate time frame, and are there any regulations that he's looking at over time?

Hon. K. Heed: This will be dealt with through regulation on the exact manner. Let me just talk a little bit about this. The intent was just, like, a one-touch motion for the individual from where he or she knows their device is — secured somewhere in the vehicle or on their actual person. It's just meant to be momentarily to make that one touch to receive or make that particular phone call.

M. Farnworth: Would that also work as voice-activated, for example, in terms of the Bluetooth system that's used by many people? Would it be an impact on how that is used and operated?

Hon. K. Heed: That would also apply to Bluetooth, yes.

[1445]

M. Farnworth: I just want to make sure that I understand exactly how the hands-free is going to operate. If you have a hands-free in your car, and it's a one-touch — that you can touch, basically, a number, and it dials it up and connects you — that's fine. You can't use a dial pad pressing a keyboard. I see the minister nodding affirmative on that. If I'm wrong, he can tell me.

The other question, then, is if it's voice-activated, that is permissible under this legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: The member opposite is correct. Voice activation will be permittable.

M. Farnworth: One of the questions I had in second reading that I said I'd like to explore with the minister, and it's slightly out of the purview of the bill in the sense that it doesn't lay it out here in legislation, and I'm not so sure if it would lay it out in terms of regulation, but certainly I think it's an important….

It's a function that needs to take place in conjunction with the implementation of this legislation. And that is, for example, to look at the effect of this legislation over a number of years — let's say over two, four, five, six years — with ICBC not only in terms of the number of infractions that we see involving the use of electronic devices and cell phones and other devices prohibited in the legislation but in relation to accidents, settlements, all those types of things — those questions that will arise, particularly from those who are critical, saying that we don't need this type of legislation.

Will the minister be committing that ICBC will, in fact, be compiling statistics and following through and that we will be working to see exactly what the effect of this particular piece of legislation is?

Hon. K. Heed: We did make some changes in 2004 in the collection of data with respect to distracted drivers. We are now going further with the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles branch and ICBC to collect data as it pertains to hand-held electronic devices. We're going further — not just distracted drivers but to this particular category — and we'll be collecting that data immediately that this bill goes into effect. We'll be measuring the successes — hopefully, successes — as we move forward.

M. Farnworth: Will we be able to see the impact of that data and the collection of that data publicly without having to go through FOI? It would be really handy if it was released so we can see how effective this is.

Hon. K. Heed: It is our intent to ensure that that data does become public so we can determine the effects of this particular piece of legislation.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad to hear that answer because I think one of the things it's important that we realize, and a member has mentioned it during the second reading debate, is that we want to make a shift in people's habits. I think one of the key components of that, of course, is education, which means having the statistics and the facts and the figures to show whether something is working or not and whether the public is changing their behaviour.

I say that's twofold because — from the perspective of government and of opposition, because we all support this legislation — that's the best way to show that this is the right way to go. But also, there are individuals, there are groups out there, who don't see the need for legislation like this and who don't think this type of legislation should be in place.

I think one of the most effective ways to counteract those arguments is to be able to say, "Here is what the statistics show here in British Columbia. Here's what they show by way of infractions" — and you can look at it in different parts of B.C. So that's something I want to make sure that we are monitoring and following up on in the future.

That brings me to my next question. One of the issues that clearly has been highlighted by the minister in his remarks, and by members of this side of the House in our remarks, is the issue around young people and the issues regarding the licensing and the prohibition of driving even using hands-free during the learning stage.

[1450]

So I have two questions in that regard: (1) how long does that last for?

(2) Is the ministry planning any programs aimed at educating young people prior to them even applying for their driver's licence, recognizing that this is one of those things where we need to change behaviour at a very early age?

[ Page 1540 ]

Hon. K. Heed: First of all, I just want to make some remarks with respect to the member opposite and what he brought up earlier. That data is so important to us, because really, that's going to guide us, as we move forward, with respect to dealing with the problem of distracted drivers here in British Columbia. That was right from the outset. We were going to determine that. We look forward to some positive data, if I can use that term, as we move forward.

The graduated licensing program. The individual in that program is in it, on average, two and a half to three years. So the prohibition would apply to them during that particular time.

As far as the education goes, even during the first month that this is actually in effect we'll be embarking on a very comprehensive education and prevention program for all of British Columbia with respect to this piece of legislation and the problem with hand-held devices and distracted driving.

A major component of that will be the individuals that will be in the graduated licensing program — whether that's for the youth who are just getting into driving through the school system or whether it's people that do come into British Columbia that have to go through the graduated licensing program — getting the information to them with respect to this problem we have and the expectations on that.

We'll work not only with ICBC. We'll work with other partners out there in order for us to get this critical piece of education to these drivers.

M. Farnworth: I think one of the key things about the success or failure of this piece of legislation is going to be how it applies to young people and the graduated licensing program. I really do want to emphasize that I think there need to be resources put at the very front end of this, even before kids start thinking about their driver's licence.

Whether you do it through the education system…. I think that's the obvious place to do it. But in that run-up to those years — 13, 14, 15 — I think there needs to be some way of starting to get that message around intelligent use of technology in motor vehicles. I really do think we have to find a way to start to get that message as early as possible.

[1455]

Since the introduction of this legislation, driving on the weekend I paid more attention to just what other people are doing in a vehicle. I was really surprised at how many…. You can see them, and they're using their BlackBerrys while they're driving. That is just insane. That's why I say that I'd like to see resources, especially at that front end, because I think that's where you're going to have the biggest success in changing behaviour.

Now, coming to a specific in terms of the graduated licensing program. I know if you're caught drinking and driving that there are severe consequences, not just in terms of the Criminal Code but also in terms of what happens to you within the graduated licensing program.

Have any decisions been made around penalties or what happens to you as a driver if you're within the graduated licensing program and you're caught using a cell phone, watching a DVD, a TV, BlackBerry messaging — any of those things that are prohibited by this legislation? What sort of consequences will you face?

Hon. K. Heed: On the first point of the member opposite's comments, we'll be looking at the Ministry of Education to be a partner with us, because we certainly realize that giving education now is going to change future behaviour. Our intent is to start at a very young age, but our intent is also to start at the parent level. So it can be both ways, where the parent can educate the kids.

I've seen it in my time. The kids have actually educated the parents, too, when they're in a vehicle driving. The example I often use is the seatbelts — children telling adults that the law is that you must wear your seatbelt. It changes the behaviour both ways. So we're looking forward to that.

As far as consequences to individuals in the graduated licensing program, when they're caught using any electronic device in the vehicle — you know, regardless of whether they're on hands-free or not — the fine will be $167 plus three points.

When you're in the graduated licensing program, you must have a period of no infractions in order for you to get out of your particular program. For example, if you have two offences and each of them is three points, you actually go back to the start of the graduated licensing program. So you're in all of those restrictions for an extended period of time if you're caught in excessive violation.

[1500]

M. Farnworth: Of course, that's going to affect your insurance premiums. Now, if you're engaged in a drinking-and-driving incident whilst driving a vehicle, that has a significant impact on your insurance premiums with ICBC. Will the same thing happen if you are found to have been in an accident caused by the use of a hand-held device or device prohibited by this piece of legislation? Will that specifically also impact your insurance premiums in the same way, for example, that drinking and driving does at the present time?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, it can impact the insurance rates of that individual, whether it's an accident or by way of points, and that would be one of the factors that they would look at.

M. Farnworth: Is one of the potential consequences the confiscation of the device that was being operated while using the vehicle?

[ Page 1541 ]

Hon. K. Heed: No, confiscation is not part of it.

M. Farnworth: I raise that because sometimes one of the most effective tools, particularly with repeat offenders, is the confiscation. We do that, for example, if you're involved in street racing.

I'm just wondering if that is something that has been considered, particularly for, let's say, repeat offenders. If it's a TV in the vehicle, if it's a DVD, if someone is deliberately and has a number of violations…. I think that may be an effective way to show an individual that their behaviour is not only dangerous but that also: "You know what? You're going to have to find a way to live without that device that you deem so necessary that you're willing to put other people's lives in danger."

So I'm hoping that the minister would think about implementing something like that as one of the policies or by regulation.

Hon. K. Heed: We are not looking at it at this particular time, because of the privacy issues with respect to it. We feel that we have comprehensive consequences as a result of that, with the fine and the particular fact that an additional three points are part of it.

M. Farnworth: I just want to come back to one of the issues. The minister, in his remarks to a previous question, said that they're looking at this as a partnership with Education, for example. Is the minister aware of any resources that have already been targeted, in terms of being set aside, to be able to fund a potential program or programs in conjunction with the Ministry of Education?

Hon. K. Heed: Nothing specific has been set aside. We anticipate that this will be part of our general education program with respect to creating safer roads here in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: Any plans to take something to Treasury Board for approval? I can tell the minister that this side of the House would be very supportive of a request by him, if he were to take it to Treasury Board, requesting some funds be available to educate young kids in the run-up to getting their driver's licence, and for the budget for next spring, this would be something that we would be very supportive of. So I would ask him that he should do something like that.

[1505]

Hon. K. Heed: I thank you very much for offering your support here, but our intent is to have this done all within existing budgets.

M. Farnworth: Somehow I'm not surprised by that answer, but I think it is a mistake, in the sense that this type of program, given the nature of the behaviour that we're trying to change — in much the same way that seatbelts, in much the same way that drinking and driving….

I think you're going to find that there needs to be a campaign, probably an advertising campaign, that goes along with this in order to drive home to people that this is unacceptable behaviour now in this province. That's why I think it's important that we have some resources targeted to school-aged kids. I hope the government reconsiders that position.

Let me ask this question. Are there going to be resources dedicated to a public campaign around the need for people to change their behaviour and around the fact that this law is going to be in place and that people need to no longer use cell phones or other electronic devices, as spelled out in the legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: We have support with respect to this legislation from several organizations and groups out there. We'll be coordinating and working with these partners as we go forward on this critical piece of education. They include the police, the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, the BCMA, ICBC and other groups that seem to be clamouring at the bit to get involved, to assist us to deal with this problem.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying, and that argument can be applied to just about any traffic issue that we're dealing with. I mean, if you say anti–drinking and driving, yes, you have the BCMA on side. Yes, you have parents and teachers and educators on side. Yes, you have ICBC on side, and yes, you have BCAA on side as well.

But the impetus, the real opportunity, to advance a campaign is done from the provincial level. The BCMA is not able to do a sustained campaign on this issue. Neither is the BCAA, to a certain extent. They have much fewer resources than we do as a province or with our Crown corporation, ICBC.

That's why we do it with drinking and driving. We do it around seatbelts. I think we're going to need to be doing it around technology and the inappropriate use of technology while driving.

So I'd like to know: is there a plan in place to use provincial resources, through either the province or ICBC, (1) to let people know that this legislation is now or will be in effect and (2) for a sustained campaign to remind people of that and to encourage the change in people's behaviour that we're hoping to achieve by this legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: Some of these individuals have actually sought us out and have indicated that they definitely want to be our partners as we go forward on that. As a matter of fact, they've already identified funds in order

[ Page 1542 ]

for us to embark on a comprehensive education piece as we go forward on this particular item.

When you talk about 177 fatalities in the province of British Columbia and over 1,400 serious accidents, you can see that ICBC is a major partner here as we deal with this particular issue. It is of significant importance to them.

[1510]

M. Farnworth: Well, there may well be organizations that want to partner with the government, but if we don't have anything to partner with, if we're not bringing anything to the table, then it's not really much of a partnership.

Again, my question is: has the government identified or earmarked financial resources to be able to do a sustained campaign around this legislation and the fact that, once it's introduced, things change for people in this province in what they can use within a motor vehicle and the use of technology in a motor vehicle?

Key in that should be a commitment by the province to have a sustained campaign, and that requires financial resources, whether it's in the form of actual, well, money but also in personnel. Has any sort of plan been put together? Have resources been identified to implement a campaign around this legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: As I mentioned earlier, we've got people that are phoning us and knocking on our door wanting to be involved in our education piece as we move forward, and I mentioned a few of those individuals. They are informing us that they've identified resources in order for us to do it.

My direction to staff has been to work with those particular people, to coordinate those resources and to do what we can to ensure we have that comprehensive education piece in the plan. I'm informed that the groups have met, and they're already involved in discussions with respect to this piece of education.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister, then, tell us the approximate value of these financial resources, or these resources that have been identified, to implement a program?

Hon. K. Heed: No, I don't have a figure with respect to the cost.

M. Farnworth: We have a piece of legislation that all sides of the House think is important. We're trying to achieve a significant societal change in the use of technology in vehicles. The minister has indicated that other organizations have said they have resources available, but we don't know the size of the commitment they're prepared to bring to the table, as the minister says, to be in partnership.

So I have two questions. Can the minister find out what is out there amongst organizations who want to engage in a program? That's one question.

The second question, though, is…. Then, what the minister is saying is that right now there are no plans by the province to denote or to put in place any new resources to facilitate the implementation of this act. By that I mean that there are no plans for additional resources to create a sustained awareness campaign around the implementation of this legislation and the changes that we're trying to achieve.

[1515]

Hon. K. Heed: The education piece has already started. I think that when we announced in the throne speech that we were going to introduce this piece of legislation, some people started changing their habits. With the introduction of the bill, I know some people have gone even further and changed their habits. I'm sure that once it becomes law, if we can get this through, they'll change their habits even more. Of course, the education, as I mentioned, is a very, very important piece of it.

We will count on the additional resources from many of the people I've mentioned in order for us to get a comprehensive education piece in, whether it's in our schools or with some of the new devices that we have available through Twitter or Facebook or something of that nature, versus some of the more expensive ads.

If those partners want to come on board and if they want to look at the TV ads, etc., certainly, we will look at them for resources in order for us to do it. We will work with the Ministry of Education to ensure we get the material into our schools at a very young age, and even into our universities, with respect to this piece of legislation.

Again, the full commitment of the partners, which has been quite revealing even before the introduction of the bill and now since we've introduced the bill and as we move this through, is kind of refreshing in a way. They are meeting. They're discussing it. They know my commitment to make sure we have that comprehensive piece of education.

M. Farnworth: I don't doubt that the minister wants this to succeed. I don't doubt for a minute that he expects the Ministry of Education to participate. But I don't think the best of intentions are going to succeed if we don't have the resources necessary.

The reason I'm dwelling on this is because, if we're going to do this, it needs to be done right, which means having resources in place. That means not taking them from somewhere else to do that. I'm particularly concerned about that right now, at the adult population.

The minister says: "You know, some people have changed their habits." Some people will do that. There is always a segment of the population that, if some-

[ Page 1543 ]

thing's changed, will adapt very quickly. The trouble is that it tends to be a small component of the population. If it was the case, we wouldn't need to remind people year after year after year about the dangers of drinking and driving, about seatbelts or even anti-smoking campaigns.

The fact is that when people have an ingrained behaviour, you can't just pass a law and then say, "Oh, we're going to do something," and people will adapt to it. They don't. You have to remind them again and again and again through a sustained approach, and that requires resources.

What I'm hearing is that we're expecting our partners to be doing that, when in fact, the most important partner, the province, isn't bringing new or additional resources to the table. I think that's a big mistake.

I don't think we can do it by taking resources away from drinking and driving and saying that we're going to focus them on this. I think there has to be a commitment by government to put new resources on the table for this piece of legislation to be as effective as we all hope it can be.

[1520]

We have a budget coming up in the spring at the same time that this particular piece of legislation comes into effect. I think that without that commitment for additional resources, this legislation will not be as successful as we want it to be.

So my question to the minister is this. Will he be going to Treasury Board with a request for some funding to put in place a program that deals — I've talked about the education aspect — with the adult side of the equation and looking at funds for a program similar to what we do with drinking-and-driving advertising or seatbelt advertising — something of that nature?

Hon. K. Heed: We do have existing resources that are available within government. We have professionals on staff that have designed public campaigns and have been involved in public campaigns, whether it's this particular one with distracted drivers or whether it's drinking and driving or some other behaviour that creates unsafe conditions on our roads here in British Columbia.

We're confident that without spending large volumes of money, we're going to work with our partners and we're going to work with the individuals that have come forward that want to be part of the education program. We're confident that we will be able to come up with a comprehensive education program. As a result, we will not be going to Treasury Board for additional funds for this.

M. Farnworth: I agree with the minister. I don't necessarily think it's something about spending large amounts of money, but there does need to be, I think, a financial commitment there on the table.

Anyway, the minister said that there are resources available. Are they financial? Are they staff? Can the minister give us an indication of how much?

Hon. K. Heed: From government, we will be utilizing staff resources — individuals that have been very successful in previous campaigns, whether it be crystal meth or some type of other problem that we were actually facing. We'll be depending on our partners with respect to other resources available.

M. Farnworth: Well, staff resources are a good thing, but if we're going to model it on the same thing as crystal meth, I will guarantee you that you will be needing additional financial resources. The crystal meth awareness program required additional resources. It required a commitment of financial resources from government.

The next question, then, flows from that. The minister said that he would like to see a comprehensive education plan in place. Does the minister have a timeline for the introduction of a comprehensive education plan?

Hon. K. Heed: The start of that program would take place January 1, 2010.

M. Farnworth: I didn't quite hear the first part.

Hon. K. Heed: January 1, 2010.

M. Farnworth: Who's going to be doing the comprehensive education plan? Is it being done in the ministry, or is it being done outside the ministry?

[1525]

Hon. K. Heed: Staff within the ministry will be working with our partners for that particular piece.

M. Farnworth: And who are the partners?

Hon. K. Heed: To name a few of the larger ones, it's the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the B.C. Medical Association.

M. Farnworth: One of the questions that I know local government has is that…. Traffic fine revenue currently goes to them. Will the fines that are levied for infractions under this piece of legislation be counted as traffic fines, and will that revenue be going to local government?

Hon. K. Heed: This will follow our current guidelines with respect to returning 100 percent of the traffic fine revenue back to local government.

[ Page 1544 ]

M. Farnworth: Just to make sure. Yes, it will be going back to local government — the fines levied under this? Okay.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Heed: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Bond: I call committee stage on Bill 16, intituled Body Armour Control Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 16 — BODY ARMOUR CONTROL ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 3:29 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

section 1.

M. Farnworth:

Section 1 is the

definitions, and it says: "In this Act: 'body armour' means (

a) a garment or item designed, intended or adapted for the purpose of protecting the body from projectiles discharged from a firearm, as defined in

section 2 of the Criminal Code , or (

b) a prescribed garment or item."

I'm going to ask this question at this particular point in time. I've indicated to the minister the nature of the question. It may seem somewhat odd, but it was asked in all seriousness, and sometimes, you know, we do have to be on the lookout for unintended consequences.

I had a question from an individual who's involved in — and I gather they're quite popular — the medieval re-enactment societies. They wear, I gather, armoured costumes that they were concerned could be viewed as being captured by the act. I just want to ask the Solicitor General whether, in fact, that is the case or if, as I believe, the act is intended for entirely different articles other than what the people who are members of medieval re-enactment societies are concerned about.

Hon. K. Heed: The body armour as described does not apply to those individuals. The definition here applies to projectiles discharged from firearms. So that would not apply to those individuals.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation.

The next question under

definitions is around "security business licence." It means "a security business licence issued under

section 16 of the Security Services Act ." Are there any applications — for example, during the Olympics, I'm thinking of — where this legislation would impact on the Olympic security side of things, particularly security who are coming from outside of the province?

Hon. K. Heed: Security individuals that will be coming to the province for the Olympic Games would have to be licensed individuals, and once you're a licensed individual under the Security Services Act, you will be exempt.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Farnworth: One of the issues under this

section has been around the prohibition on the possession of body armour. It limits the possession of body armour to those who have a valid permit to possess it. Exemptions include persons with a valid security worker's licence that authorizes them to work as either an armoured car guard, a private investigator, security consultant, a security guard or a body armour salesperson. Other exceptions include valid security businesses and other exemptions by regulation.

Apart from those individuals that I have just enumerated, what's anticipated by regulation? Are there any other exemptions that the ministry is planning by regulation?

[1540]

Hon. K. Heed: The other exemptions, certainly, will apply to police, correction officers, conservation officers, sheriffs and individuals that have actual permits. We

[ Page 1545 ]

will be looking at the full exemptions, and it would be explored as we move into consultation with some of the interest groups and with the industry with respect to this type of garment.

M. Farnworth: That was actually the question the minister was anticipating me going to ask, I somehow think.

Clearly, I would imagine — and I guess the minister can confirm if this is the case or not — that the military would fall outside the scope of this legislation and operates under federal jurisdiction.

The minister raised the issue of consultation. If the minister can tell me, what consultation has taken place prior to the introduction of the legislation, and whom did the consultation take place with?

Hon. K. Heed: We consulted with about 650 security businesses through a survey. We also consulted with 15 companies that are involved in the wholesale and manufacturing of body armour. We've also consulted with the police and with people within the ministry and other ministries that utilize body armour for their staff.

M. Farnworth: What was the form of the consultation? Was it just by survey?

Hon. K. Heed: We had in-person conversation with delegates from the policing community, in-person discussion with some of the businesses. The majority of them were conducted through surveys to get their responses with respect to this. Within government we had personal discussions with the areas within my ministry and the other ministries that would apply to staff that utilize body armour.

[1545]

M. Farnworth: What were the key concerns and issues raised by the police in the discussions?

Hon. K. Heed: The police indicated that they would be very, very supportive of this type of legislation here in the province. They were concerned with the, if I can use the term, "gangsters" that had access to body armour — if they were frequenting public spaces and having that invincible attitude when they did have this piece of body armour on. The police certainly wanted the ability to seize this body armour from these gang members.

M. Farnworth: What concerns were raised by the manufacturers?

Hon. K. Heed: From the manufacturers we received only three replies with respect to the discussion around this. One of them indicated that they were against licensing, having to be licensed to sell, stating that the persons who purchase from them are mainly police or law enforcement officials. We had another individual that we had a discussion with, a fairly large distributor and supplier of body armour, and they were supportive of this type of legislation.

M. Farnworth: How about the private security services? It sounds like, after discussions with the police, and with the manufacturers providing about three responses, the bulk of the responses would probably have come from the private security area. I'm wondering if the minister could address a question around what their key concerns were and issues that they raised.

Hon. K. Heed: Out of the 650 surveys that we sent out, we had about a 10 percent response rate. All of them were supportive, and they indicated mainly because they would be exempt and able to wear this type of garment while they were executing their duties.

[1550]

M. Farnworth: The primary issue for them was that it would not impact on their ability to conduct their business and their operations for which they're licensed and which they operate under existing security-based legislation. I see the minister nodding.

I must admit that I can't pass without making a comment that in request to the scope of the consultation, the minister said 650, but the actual number of responses is only 65. That's about 10 percent. That's not too great a response rate, I would wager.

Having said that, for those people who are critical of this particular piece of legislation — of course, I don't think any of us in this House are — clearly, the prospect of legislation did not generate that much controversy. In response to requests for their opinion, only 10 percent of the people who were asked for their opinion bothered to respond. I take that as a positive thing in our efforts to regulate this particular activity around the sale and the wearing of body armour.

The next question, then, that flows from this is in terms of consultation — as we've heard from the manufacturers; we've heard from the private sector; we've heard from police — and that's with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I gather he has some concerns. Was he consulted about the legislation, and if he wasn't, why wasn't he?

Hon. K. Heed: We will be conducting a privacy impact assessment on this piece of legislation, similar to what we did under the Security Services Act. During that process and the process of developing regulations specific to this piece of legislation, he will be consulted.

M. Farnworth: I'm just wondering why he wasn't consulted already. Was it oversight?

[1555]

[ Page 1546 ]

Hon. K. Heed: With respect to this piece of legislation, we're aware that this piece of work has to be done, and staff have advised that they will be conducting this privacy impact assessment in the very, very near future.

M. Farnworth: While we're still on the topic of consultation, what sort of consultation took place with the federal government?

Hon. K. Heed: I've had some discussion with some of my fellow provincial ministers with respect to the problem of gang members having access to body armour and wearing it in public spaces. From staff's point of view, we have not had any direct discussions with the federal government.

M. Farnworth: I think that's actually an important consideration that needs to take place, just from the perspective of here in British Columbia, particularly as it relates to, for example, Border Services and the interception of body armour. One of the things I'd like to make sure that we are doing as a province is letting Ottawa know that this law is on the books, that we take this issue very seriously and that we expect that seriousness to be communicated to Border Services.

Just so that they are aware that body armour coming into…. I don't know what existing federal regulations there are about the importation, but certainly from British Columbia's perspective, with these regulations in place, someone bringing it across our border crossings in British Columbia now has to be licensed. It is regulated, and you are not able to bring it across.

I'm a bit surprised that that has not taken place, and I would ask the minister to ensure that that is in fact taking place and that those discussions are in fact held.

Hon. K. Heed: Staff will be doing their due diligence with respect to that during the consultation period. They will be talking to our federal partners. They will be talking to the federal RCMP and the Canadian Border Services Agency with respect to those particular subject matters.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Farnworth: Not so fast.

Section 3, under "Terms of exemption":

"If the basis on which a person who possesses body armour is exempt under

section 2 (3) from the requirement to hold a body armour permit changes so that the exemption no longer applies, the person, within 14 days after that change, must (

a) return or sell the body armour to the person's employer, if the exemption was based on the person's employment and the employer is exempt from the requirement to hold a body armour permit, (

b) destroy the body armour, or (

c) sell the body armour to a person who holds a valid security business licence authorizing the sale of body armour."

There are a number of questions around this particular

section of the bill. Two primary ones are: how is this confirmed, and how is it monitored?

[1600]

Hon. K. Heed: The practice within — and I'm familiar with that — police, corrections, sheriffs and other government agencies is that they would return that body armour to their employer.

The other area we have is the interdiction of this particular body armour when, in fact, individuals are actually caught with body armour in violation of this piece of legislation. There are consequences, you know — fines or imprisonment.

If the member opposite would like to refer to

section 7(d), there's some additional information with respect to this particular issue, what that will look like. We will also talk about what that would look like through regulations that apply to this bill.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying. I have some concern around the issue around "(

b) destroy the body armour, or (

c) sell the body armour to a person who holds a valid security business licence authorizing the sale of body armour."

We can talk about that more in

section 7 where it comes up, or we can talk about it here. But how does he anticipate

section (b), "destroy the body armour," working?

[1605]

Hon. K. Heed: We'll be looking to the registrar to set policy and to have a process to acknowledge that the garment has been destroyed with respect to that. Or the individual, and that will be determined by the registrar through policy, can return it to the manufacturer or supplier-distributor with respect to having it destroyed.

M. Farnworth: I think this is an issue that should be addressed in legislation. That's why I am going to move an amendment under

section 3(b).

[Section 3(b):

To add the words "in the presence of a designated law enforcement officer" after the word "armour"]

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: The reason I make this amendment is that when you're talking about the destruction of something — whether it is a weapon or whether it is, in this particular case, body armour — I think it's crucial that we have a level of confidence that that indeed took place, rather than allow opportunities for something to slide out — for something to say it has been done and for body armour to end up in a criminal element.

[1610]

[ Page 1547 ]

I think that we should be a lot tighter. I think that it should be done in the presence of a designated law enforcement officer. That is something that could be determined. In front of a police officer, in front of the designated law enforcement officer would give that level of, I think, scrutiny and accountability and oversight that the public expects, as opposed to, "Well, by regulation we're going to do something," or by saying: "Well, there's a process, and you sign an affidavit."

I'd like to see that it is independently verified, and I think the best way to do that is by a designated law enforcement officer who sees the fact that it has been handed in, for example, to the police station or that it has, in fact, been destroyed — that the physical body armour has been destroyed. I think that that would be an appropriate amendment that would give the public a great deal of comfort and also clear direction in terms of what is meant by destroying something as opposed to just saying that it was sent back to the manufacturer.

I think the amendment is one that is worthwhile, and it's offered in the spirit of making this legislation stronger and better. I hope that the minister accepts it.

Hon. K. Heed: If I could just ask the member opposite for a clarification on his amendment. He is proposing the amendment with respect to

section 3, which deals with the terms of exemption, and how we have been responding with respect to his questions related to

section 7 — just some clarification on that.

M. Farnworth: I'm happy to provide that clarification. It would apply to

section 3, and then it would also be our intent that it would also apply in

section 7, in

section 7(d)(ii)(B) — okay? So in

section 7(d), it would be "on or before the last day of the term of the body armour permit, the permit holder must" do all those things — right? — complying with the act. But if they did (ii)(

B) it would be "destroyed," and again, the destroyed is in the presence of a law enforcement officer.

The Chair: If I might suggest to the member that that would be a separate amendment, for clarification.

M. Farnworth: Yeah, that's fine. If that's how the Chair feels it should be dealt with, then I have no problem dealing with that. But in both those particular cases, where the issue is around the "destroyed" part, I think it would be appropriate that it be done in front of a designated law enforcement official.

Hon. K. Heed: I appreciate the member opposite proposing an amendment. The government will be voting against that particular amendment.

[1615]

M. Farnworth: The Chair has indicated that they'd like the amendment dealt with under both sections, which are

section 3 and

section 7, if I am correct in my

interpretation of what the Chair has said.

I understand the minister's comments were made in regards to

section 7, but if we're dealing with

section 3(d), I would ask if the minister has an issue and a problem with, in subsection (

b) under

section 3, putting the amendment after "destroy the body armour" and dealing with it in that particular

section in

section 3.

Hon. K. Heed: I do appreciate the member's comment. Government will be voting against the amendment as it refers to

section 3, simply because these are terms of exemption. They apply to those individuals that are already exempt. The majority of them will be government people — federal, provincial — you know, sheriffs, police, etc.

M. Farnworth: I am shocked, shocked that they would reject the amendment. But having said that, I understand what the minister is saying, that we're dealing with the issue around exemption. That's correct, but the

section is very clear in that even if you're exempt, within 14 days after the change, then the individual must "return or sell the body armour to the person's employer, if the exemption was based on the person's employment and the employer is exempt from the requirement to hold a body armour permit."

That exemption is because there's a change taking place. That's where

section (

b) comes in, and then

section (c). It's not a question of the individual or the organization is exempt; it's because there's been a change in their status around the exemption. Therefore, the requirements for either subsections (a), (

b) or (

c) then come into effect. That's why, even though it deals with the exemption, I think that when you're talking about the issue of the destruction part, I would like to see it take place in the presence of a designated law enforcement official. I think that's the key point.

Hon. K. Heed: We will be voting against this. I think it's of no surprise to the member opposite. You can imagine that police have an onerous task out there. Certainly, this

section was giving them credit. It was those individuals that are actually holding those positions that will legitimately have a reason for having

[ Page 1548 ]

that body armour in the course of their particular employment.

These are people that we trust. They're people that, you know, as I mentioned, would have legitimate access to that armour.

[1620-1625]

The Chair: Will all members please take their seats.

The question is on the amendment to Bill 16: "Section 3(b): to add the words 'in the presence of a designated law enforcement officer' after the word 'armour.'"

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 29

S. Simpson

D. Black

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Popham

B. Simpson

Austin

Karagianis

Brar

Lali

Thorne

Horgan

Bains

Mungall

Chouhan

Macdonald

Corrigan

Herbert

Krog

Gentner

Elmore

Donaldson

Fraser

B. Routley

Conroy

Coons

NAYS — 43

Horne

Letnick

Stewart

I. Black

Coell

Chong

Polak

Yamamoto

Bell

Krueger

Bennett

Stilwell

Hogg

Thornthwaite

Hayer

Lee

Barnett

Bloy

Reid

Lekstrom

Falcon

Heed

de Jong

Bond

Abbott

Penner

Coleman

Thomson

Yap

Cantelon

Les

Sultan

McIntyre

Rustad

Cadieux

van Dongen

Howard

Lake

Foster

Slater

Dalton

Pimm

Huntington

[1630]

M. Farnworth: I've had a few moments to recover from the trauma of my reasoned amendment being devastated, voted down — shocked, shocked.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I know exactly, as the member says, to put it behind me.

So we move forward to the next question. The minister indicated that part of his rationale for not going ahead with the amendment is that the registrar would be developing guidelines. I'm wondering: will those guidelines be done by regulation? Will they have to come back to order-in-council, or will the registrar be able to develop the guidelines independently of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? And when will the guidelines be developed?

Hon. K. Heed: It will be done through policy with the registrar, and the timing of that will be with respect to when the bill actually becomes law and as it is in place.

M. Farnworth: So once this bill becomes law, there's a transition period that the minister talks about. Will this, then, be a requirement of that transition period? Will these regulations by the registrar be required to be done within that six-month transition period?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, and we anticipate it will be done before the end of the six-month period.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

M. Farnworth: "Applying for body armour permit." So you can apply for a permit.

"An individual may apply to the registrar for a body armour permit or renewal of a body armour permit.

"

(2) An application for a body armour permit or renewal must (

a) be made in the form and manner required by the registrar, (

b) include authorizations for the registrar to carry out the prescribed checks regarding the applicant or permit holder, and (

c) be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

"

(3) An applicant for a body armour permit or the renewal of a body armour permit must meet all conditions and requirements imposed by this Act or the regulations."

A number of questions come to mind in this particular section, one of the first being "in the form and manner required by the registrar." So the legislation comes into effect. Will "the form and manner required by the registrar" be done before the legislation comes into effect, or will that be covered by the six-month grace period — or transition period as opposed to grace period?

[1635]

Hon. K. Heed: For clarification purposes, the bill will be put into place through regulation. During that

[ Page 1549 ]

time what the member opposite is referring to will be in place.

The six-month transition period is meant to ensure that individuals that currently have body armour, that aren't exempt — that the industry and the wholesalers comply with the legislation.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that clarification, which then raises the question…. I guess in some ways it applies more to the end of the bill in terms of when the bill comes into effect. Because the questions, I think, appear throughout the piece of legislation, I'll deal with that question now, with the Chair's okay. When the bill has passed, how long before the regulations are in place and how long before the bill is actually proclaimed into becoming law is what I'm going to ask the minister.

Hon. K. Heed: We hope to put this piece of legislation into force through regulation. After that, as I mentioned previously, we would involve some additional consultation with some of the key stakeholders out there. It is our intent to have this in force by regulation early in the new year, and at that point, we'll embark on the six-month transition period.

M. Farnworth: Clearly, one of the issues in applying for body armour…. It's addressed further down, and I guess we'll focus more on it in the body armour permit and refusal of body armour permit. But in the application, clearly, a criminal background check is going to be key. Are there any impediments or issues around doing the criminal background check with regards to other provinces whereby body armour would still be legal? Are there any issues around that?

Hon. K. Heed: The checks with respect to criminal records will be made through the national database, Canadian Police Information Centre, known as CPIC. We will also utilize the corrections branch records system that we have.

[1640]

If the individual is of criminal character or associates with gang members, we also have the ability, through our British Columbia system, to interact with other systems throughout Canada based on some of the experiences of other law enforcement and the intelligence of other law enforcement with respect to whether or not the individual has this type of conduct as far as behaviour goes.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, honourable section. The minister's comments bring us to "Refusal of body armour permit." In this section….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I thank the hon. member for correcting me because, as I know, I've corrected him on numerous occasions when he's made many small mistakes, so I appreciate his correction.

Anyway, on "Refusal of body armour permit," hon. Chair, I'm dealing with section (1) and then subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (

e) and (f), and they're fairly broad in their application. I think that's a good thing, because I think one of the key issues that we're trying to deal with in terms of this particular piece of legislation, as it deals with regard to gangs, is the issue around whether or not, in some cases, an offence has been, in fact, committed or convicted.

I think there are a number of examples where there are gang members who are charged with something who have yet to be convicted or whom have yet to be charged, but it's pretty clear it's going to happen from the type of activity that they're engaged in. Therefore, the ability to deny the ability to purchase body armour…. I think we need to ensure it's there in legislation. The bottom line is that owning body armour is not a right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as far as I'm concerned.

I do want to ask the question with regard to that…. For example, where it says, under

section 5(1)(e): "the registrar considers that it is not in the public interest for the applicant or permit holder to possess or continue to possess body armour." That's a fairly broad net that's being cast. Is the Solicitor General confident that that will stand up to any court challenge?

Hon. K. Heed: In several of the circumstances the police may be called upon to assist in providing additional information for the registrar so that he or she may make their actual decision based on public interest. He or she will also be assisted by inspectors with respect to dealing with that.

[1645]

I point out in subsection (2): "The registrar must hold a hearing before making a decision under…" this. So a hearing can also be held with respect to that, and it gives the applicant some confidence with respect to the registrar making the appropriate decision.

M. Farnworth: Now comes the next question on this section. "

(2) The registrar must hold a hearing before making a decision under subsection (1).

(3) The registrar must give the applicant or permit holder written reasons for a decision under subsection (1)."

How is that hearing to take place? Is it an open, public hearing? Is it a closed hearing? What conditions are in place in terms of…? Can an applicant have legal representation or no legal representation?

Hon. K. Heed: That is actually prescribed under

section 20, "Hearings," where "The registrar may hold a hearing

[ Page 1550 ]

under this Act in writing, electronically or orally or by any combination of written, electronic or oral hearings."

M. Farnworth: We'll explore in detail further in

section 20. But I just want to know whether the minister's view is that the way it's being held in here will satisfy and is not going to result in any problems under court challenges, for example.

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, I am satisfied.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

Are there regulations that need to be put in place before this

section of the act will be enforceable or able to be implemented, and if so, when?

[1650]

M. Farnworth: When the registrar makes a decision and gives written reasons for a decision under subsection (2), that is final. There is not an appeal process. Or is there an appeal process?

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

[To add the words "in the presence of a designated licensed law enforcement officer" after the word "destroyed,".]

The Chair: Member, for clarification, last time you said for "a designated law enforcement official" and this time for "a licensed designated law enforcement…."

Interjection.

On the amendment.

Hon. K. Heed: The government will be voting against that amendment. Again, referring to

section 7(d)(ii), "provide evidence satisfactory to the registrar that the body armour" — for example, under (b) — "has been destroyed," that does not preclude a police officer or a law enforcement or some other official there being present while the body armour is actually being destroyed. We feel this provides what's required with respect to having that evidence, which is satisfactory that it has been destroyed.

M. Farnworth: Again, I'll just make the point briefly that this, I think, gives that added level of surety that the public expects in terms of legislation. I don't think it's an amendment that is problematic. I think it's one that most people would say is the right sort of amendment to make.

If something is being decommissioned, then I would like it to take place in front of an individual who understands fully exactly what it is they're dealing with — a police officer, a law enforcement official has that expertise — and that it is truly destroyed and decommissioned. I think it's an appropriate legislation.

I know, I can tell the minister would love to do it, except others who are more….

An Hon. Member: Less informed.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says:"Less informed."

Less constructive — are sort of saying, no, that we can't do this.

Anyway, be that as it may, it is a constructive amendment, a positive policy alternative, a positive policy suggestion put forward by the opposition. We will sit down and take the vote. I know those members are told about free votes, and here's your chance.

Anyway, with that, we can vote on the amendment.

[1655]

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

M. Farnworth: Jeez, they use their power to defeat an amendment, and the next thing you know they're wanting to rush through all the sections. But the minister has

[ Page 1551 ]

lots more questions to answer. How can we possibly be efficient if we don't give the minister the opportunity to answer questions? I mean, after all, we know that question period is not the place to get answers.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Well, it's an important bill, Minister.

part 2 is on sale of body armour, licences to sell: "Except as authorized under this Act, a person who does not hold a valid security business licence or a valid security worker licence, authorizing the sale of body armour, must not sell body armour to another person."

I think one of the key issues, one of the key concerns we have is around how this will apply to other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, and I'll ask the question with regards the rest of the country first.

So let's say you've got a body armour shop in Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island or Manitoba or Alberta, and you're selling body armour. Does this legislation impact on the ability to sell?

Hon. K. Heed: With respect to body armour that's been sold, manufactured or distributed outside the province, the only way we will be able to determine whether or not an individual has purchased body armour through those means will be the detection of that garment here in British Columbia and that the individual is in possession of that particular armour. Other than that, this won't apply to those wholesalers, distributors and manufacturers outside of British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: So if someone is operating…. Is there any ability to control or regulate with distributors outside of the province? For example, legitimate, responsible companies may advertise products — life insurance being one that comes to mind or car insurance, relating to ICBC — and they may say, "not available to residents of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba" — in the case of car insurance, for example. Or, in the case of other items quite often you'll see, "not available for sale to residents of Quebec or Ontario" — other jurisdictions.

Has that been put in place? Have we got mechanisms in place to ensure that, for example, if you're a manufacturer or distributor of body armour based outside of British Columbia that they can make it clear that this is not for sale in the province of British Columbia?

[1700]

Hon. K. Heed: When one punches in under a Google search "sales of body armour," I'm advised that you will get about 8.6 million hits worldwide with respect to that.

Our intention is to notify all distributors, manufacturers and wholesale individuals across Canada, once this bill becomes law, advising them of the legal ramifications of individuals that do have body armour in their possession here in British Columbia.

As I mentioned, we'll be working with the Canadian Border Services Agency to deal with body armour that does come across the international borders into Canada.

M. Farnworth: I think it's a bit more serious than saying that there are 8.6 million hits when you do a Google search. The fact of the matter is that if you're in the car insurance industry, and you are selling car insurance in this country — or, in fact, in British Columbia — you are specifically not allowed to sell that product in B.C. It says so on the advertisements, whether they're in print or they're on radio or they're on television — whatever it is. If you read the thing, it says: "Not for sale to residents in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba."

Life insurance products. Many life insurance products, the life insurance companies that sell those products and distribute those products, make it clear: not available for residents of some provincial jurisdictions; not available to residents in the state of Tennessee, Georgia, California or wherever.

I think the government needs to be proactive in ensuring that distribution companies and those that manufacture know that they cannot just ship to British Columbia just because someone orders and says they want it. I think we should be doing everything we can to make sure that it's clear. "We cannot ship the product to British Columbia."

In fact, in a number of U.S. jurisdictions that is the case already. That's not something new. If you do a Google search and look at suppliers out of the United States, it will say that they cannot ship to, I think, the state of Connecticut. In other words, don't even ask.

I think we need to be doing the same thing here in British Columbia with those same suppliers. Don't ship to British Columbia. Don't even ask unless you have all the necessary permitting and paperwork in place.

So that's one. I'd like to know how the Solicitor General's ministry intends to deal with that particular issue.

Hon. K. Heed: The effectiveness of this particular bill is to give law enforcement an additional tool to deal with the gang violence we have here in British Columbia. This is certainly something that, even from my experience, I've found would be a very, very valuable tool with respect to dealing with this particular problem.

As I advised the member opposite earlier, we will be sending out correspondence to the manufacturers, wholesale distributors for all of Canada. My intent is not to have staff spend time on sending out correspondence to 8.6 million people worldwide with respect to this, but we'll work with Canadian Border Services Agency.

If we start to see a trend with respect to a particular supplier, wholesaler or distributor outside of British Columbia that is bringing their product in, we'll look at

[ Page 1552 ]

that. We'll examine it at that particular time. If we have to seek out that individual manufacturer, distributor or individual, we'll do it at that particular time.

[1705]

M. Farnworth: Again, I don't expect anyone to send out to 8.6 million people. In fact, I will wage there are not 8.6 million people selling it. There's a huge difference between number of hits and the number of people actually selling something.

But I do think the ministry should be proactive because they know who the major manufacturers are, and they know who the major suppliers are. This is not exactly something that, you know, is a cottage industry where I'm setting up my own body armour manufacturing plant. It's a pretty specialized product that we're talking about.

So we should be in contact with the major suppliers right off the get-go, saying that in British Columbia the regulations have now changed. I would like a commitment from the ministry that they will, in fact, do that as quickly as possible.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. K. Heed: With respect to the ongoing discussion on this, we have said that we would send out correspondence to the manufacturer, distributors, suppliers and wholesalers in Canada indicating to them what the practices are with respect to their companies' involvement here in British Columbia and the legalities with respect to individuals in British Columbia being found in illegal possession of body armour.

M. Farnworth: I would hope that that would include the United States as well, because I would suspect that they are probably one of the larger manufacturers of body armour, never mind in North America, but most likely on the global market.

Then let's address one of the other ways in which body armour can come into the province, where there is some control and, I think, the ability to have much tighter control. That is through other provinces and their own provincial auction websites.

After all, we did see in this province a situation where — after the government had announced the ban to crack down on body armour, saying that they were no longer going to tolerate the sale of body armour, and they were going to regulate the sale of body armour.... We saw the rather surprising appearance on the provincial government auction website of body armour for sale by the province of British Columbia, after they said that they wouldn't do it and that they would regulate it.

So my question to the minister is: can he assure this House that we have been in touch with other provincial jurisdictions to ensure that on their provincial auction sites — although the sale of body armour may be legal in those provinces, for example — they cannot and must not sell it to individuals or organizations who are living in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Heed: I'm informed that all of the registrars across Canada with respect to security services have been notified with respect to the pending piece of legislation.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad to hear that that is, in fact, taking place. Now, if we apply the same principle to the manufacturers outside of the provincial jurisdictions, I think we will be helping to make this legislation much more effective.

The next question: has the government worked with other provinces in terms of…? The minister said a moment ago about detecting body armour coming across the border at Border Services. How about with Canada Post? Are there issues around there where the province can be proactive in terms of Canada Post and the shipping within Canada, or is that something that the government has not contemplated?

[1710]

Hon. K. Heed: As you can imagine, there are several avenues where we can be proactive. We have been proactive, and we'll continue to be proactive, not only in British Columbia but across Canada, with respect to ensuring that everyone is aware that we have restrictions in place on the possession, sale and distribution of body armour in our province.

This is the first law to be put in across Canada, and we're well aware that others will be interested in what we're doing with respect to how we deal with it. As we move forward, if we identify particular areas that we have to go out and have some discussion and notify these people — whether it's FedEx, Canada Post or whoever — we will advise them if they're not already aware.

I'm making an assumption that once this is passed, several people will be made aware. Several individuals, organizations, etc., will officially be made aware through correspondence from our government. I'm sure that others will pick it up on the public piece that will be out there with respect to this garment.

M. Farnworth: The minister is right. This is first-of-its-kind legislation in British Columbia or in Canada. I think that's important. I think one of the things that we should try and do as much as possible is to make sure that not only is it a success, but also that we can, at this particular stage, look at ways to (

a) improve it but also (

b) identify areas where the province can make the legislation even more successful and that we can also avoid unintended consequences, which I think is a real problem.

One of the things that I have come to learn in my legislative experiences is that it is usually easier to get

[ Page 1553 ]

it right at the front end. Sometimes trying to get legislation up the legislative food chain to get changes made down the road can be exceedingly difficult. That's why I want to make sure that we are getting as much covered the first go-round so that we don't have to do amendments down the road.

The minister mentioned FedEx and UPS. I guess one of the issues is…. Are we looking at, or has the ministry looked at, for example, UPS, FedEx and those private courier organizations in terms of things such as insurance, like what is inside the package — that these organizations understand that we have made some significant changes in terms of issues around body armour and licensing and, if it comes to their attention, that there's a role for them to play in terms of permits and things like that, ensuring that those are in place? I just wonder if the ministry has looked at that particular issue.

Hon. K. Heed: We have not specifically gone to these organizations with respect to this piece of legislation here in the province. We have not identified a concern with them at this particular time. They are responsible organizations, and I'm sure with the piece of legislation that we do eventually put in place that there will be some broad publicity with respect to it.

Again, whether it's one of these delivery services that are transinternational in nature, or it's some other avenue we can detect that's being used in an irresponsible fashion, we'll seek out that particular way or firm or business and have discussion with them.

[1715]

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

M. Farnworth:

Section 9 deals with the permit cancellation or suspension. The minister knows that under section…. As he's already said, hearings are done under

section 20. Is there anything under

section 9 that will involve hearings or the ability to have hearings?

Hon. K. Heed: If I can just direct the member opposite's attention to

section 9(2): "The registrar must (

a) hold a hearing before making a decision under subsection (1)…" — that is, to suspend or cancel.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. So that's what I'd like to do, with the Chair's indulgence and the minister's indulgence. This is now the second place where we've got the issue of a hearing. If we wait until

section 20….

Perhaps it would be appropriate, then, if I can raise the questions around hearings under this section, and if I have any additional, under any other sections…. It would make the passage of this section, I think, go a lot easier and relate it to the policy thing, as opposed to dealing with it under

section 20.

The Chair: Port Coquitlam, proceed.

M. Farnworth: This is the second area where the issue of a hearing comes up. If we go to

section 20, it says: "The registrar may hold a hearing under this Act in writing, electronically or orally or by any combination of written, electronic or oral hearings." My question then becomes: are these hearings closed hearings, or are they open, public hearings?

Hon. K. Heed: Generally, these are closed hearings, but it does not preclude the individual who is the subject of the hearing having some type of legal representation.

M. Farnworth: So it does not preclude an individual from having legal access. How about media access? Will the media have access to these hearings?

[1720]

Hon. K. Heed: These are regulatory hearings. They're hearings that are held between the permit holder and/or t