2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Energy and Water Efficiency Act

Hon. R. Coleman

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

John Drenka

J. McIntyre

Victoria Cougars hockey team

M. Karagianis

Economic recovery in Burns Lake

J. Rustad

Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House

J. Kwan

Earth Hour

B. Bennett

Saanich Neighbourhood Place

R. Fleming

Oral Questions

DriveABLE program

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

K. Conroy

N. Simons

Government video and Kitwanga mill operations

D. Donaldson

Hon. P. Bell

J. Horgan

Coleman Road Shingle operations and log export policy

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Thomson

Release of media correspondence with government to Eminata Group

C. James

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Tabling Documents

Summary of Ministerial Accountability for Operating Expenses , fiscal year ending March 31, 2012; revised

schedule F, February 8, 2012

Orders of the Day

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

K. Corrigan

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

S. Fraser

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011 (continued)

Hon. S. Bond

Reporting of Bills

Bill 15 — Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

B. Ralston

J. Horgan

Hon. G. Abbott

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued)

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

J. Brar

J. Kwan

Estimates: Ministry of Environment

Hon. T. Lake

R. Fleming

B. Simpson

[ Page 10473 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have two sets of introductions to make. The first one is.... I'd like the House to welcome Lisa Silverio. Lisa works in my minister's office. She's actually a new staff member, and I'd like the House to make her welcome, as well as recognize a very special guest who's with Lisa.

This person has been with me for almost a year to keep our office organized and moving efficiently, but more importantly, she always brings a heartwarming, calm energy to our office. In the chamber today is Crystal Fonk, my administrative assistant. She has decided to move on to other things, but we won't hold that against her today. Would everyone please give my two assistants a warm welcome.

I've got another set of introductions.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd like to introduce to the House four members from student unions in British Columbia — Jaraad Marani, Lucia Orser and Ben Johnson from UVic — sorry, that's three; Jeremy McElroy and Kyle Warwick from UBC; Edward Quinlan from the University of Northern B.C.; and David Clarkson from Capilano University.

I believe both sides of the House had the opportunity to meet with the students and discuss some important issues with them today. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Carl Strand and Teri Strand, constituents of mine in Delta North. Carl is a former business agent for the Labourers, and he was inducted into the hall of fame — or he's an honorary member — of the buildings trades of British Columbia. Carl is also president of the Delta North NDP constituency association. He is also one of two members of my outstanding election sign crew, and he has never once broken any sign bylaws. Can the House please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Joining us in the gallery today are two great entrepreneurs and two friends of mine, Ken and Jason Armstrong. This father-and-son team oversee the Sussex Insurance organization, and I understand they're B.C.'s largest ICBC agent. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Black: Today I would like to join the Minister of Advanced Education in welcoming a group of student leaders to the Legislature today. They're here to engage MLAs in a conversation about post-secondary education and the financing of post-secondary education.

Up in the gallery we have, from the University of Victoria Students Society, Jaraad Marani, Lucia Orser and Ben Johnson; from the UBC Alma Mater Society, Kyle Warwick and Jeremy McElroy; from the BCIT association, Nicola Gardner; from Capilano Students Union, David Clarkson; and from the UNBC Northern Undergraduate Student Society, Edward Quinlan. Could the House please once again make them welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I have some guests to introduce that are here purportedly for regional district chair and CAO meetings, although I really think they're here to see the Blazers win again tonight. We have the chief administrative officer of the TNRD, Mr. Sukh Gill. We have the chair of the TNRD, Mr. Randy Murray. Also with them today is the chair of the regional district of Squamish-Lillooet, Ms. Susan Gimse. Would the House please make them very welcome.

B. Ralston: I'd invite the House to welcome Rita Werner, who's a constituent from Surrey-Whalley. Visiting the House with her is her sister, Lana Broker, who is visiting from Edmond, Oklahoma. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

Hon. S. Bond: I want to introduce today representatives of the Law Society of British Columbia who are visiting with us. They do important work in the province, obviously, as they regulate the legal profession in British Columbia. They also protect the public interest by making sure that they set and enforce standards of professional conduct for lawyers.

We're very pleased to have the president of the board of governors, Bruce LeRose, QC, with us. He is the Law Society's first president from the Kootenays in its 128-year history.

Joining him are Tim McGee, the Law Society's chief executive officer; Kathryn Berge, QC, an elected member of the Law Society's board, representing the Victoria area; and Ben Meisner, who is a publicly appointed governor of the Law Society and perhaps more well known for his role as an active journalist and media person in Prince George. Please join me in making all of them very welcome to the gallery today.

Hon. D. McRae: Today in the gallery I have a friend

from the Comox Valley joining us. Up in the gallery is Starr Winchester, a longtime resident of the north Island

[ Page 10474 ]

Comox Valley. Would the Legislature please make her welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome to the House today two classes from Sir Charles Tupper high school from Vancouver-Kensington. They're accompanied by their principal, Mr. Gill; the lead teachers, organizing teachers, Ms. Burnell and Mr. Lum; as well as a counsellor, Mr. Lee; teaching assistants Heather Paris and Katherine Olsen; as well as a student teacher, Dan Cramer.

They're concluding part of their government unit of their social studies class. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — ENERGY AND WATER

EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy and Water Efficiency Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 32, the Energy and Water Efficiency Act, which will reduce consumers' energy bills and lower operating costs for B.C. businesses.

This legislation will replace the current Energy Efficiency Act and will enable administrative penalties to ensure manufacturers, distributors and retailers comply with energy efficiency guidelines; broaden the scope of energy efficiency requirements to include commercial energy systems, industrial reporting and water efficiency; and enable the minister responsible to enact regulations for technical standards.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Energy and Water Efficiency Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

JOHN DRENKA

J. McIntyre: I rise today to ask the House to join me in honouring the life of one of Squamish's iconic figures, John Drenka, who passed away last Monday, March 19, at the remarkable age of 95.

As we speak, many are gathering today at the Squamish Valley Golf Club, which he helped to co-found, enjoying the Rotary Beef BBQ, which he helped to become so famous in town, and sharing anecdotes and paying homage to a local legend and forestry pioneer affectionately known as J.D.

It was just about a year ago that the Squamish Historical Society, on their fifth anniversary, dedicated an afternoon to honouring the accomplishments of John, launching the premiere of a film about his life by local film-maker Helmut Manzl. It was filled with uproarious stories of past adventures, mixed in with some great archival photos.

J.D.'s story was a story of logging in Squamish, going back to the early days of logging with horses, prior to machines, and his then visionary introduction of the first grapple loader and first steel spar into the valley. This is along with many stories of his business adventures with his renowned partner, Pat Brennan, with whom he co-founded Squamish Mills in 1951.

But J.D.'s contribution was not only on the commercial front. He was very engaged in community life. He was instrumental in the founding of Alice Lake Provincial Park, a major attraction in the Sea to Sky corridor. He was also involved in delivering the first municipal swimming pool, with Dr. LaVerne Kindree. In addition, John was one of the founders of the Squamish Rotary as well as a past president of the Truck Loggers Association of B.C.

Will the House please join me in acknowledging the significant contributions of John Drenka and join me in extending our sympathies to his wife, Colleen, and their seven children and their respective families. He truly will be missed.

[1345]

VICTORIA COUGARS HOCKEY TEAM

M. Karagianis: Today I'd like to share with the House some hometown pride. This past Saturday the Victoria Cougars came from behind to beat the Peninsula Panthers 5 to 2 and win the Vancouver Island Junior Hockey League Championship, the Brent Patterson Memorial Trophy.

The Cougars won their best-of-seven series in four straight games. They finished first in regular season play over the 48 games and ranked No. 1 in the province in the regular season. The team calls the Archie Browning Sports Centre in Esquimalt their home arena. I can tell you that my community is very proud of that.

The Vancouver Island Junior Hockey League is made up of eight teams from Campbell River to Victoria. The Cougars are the only team in the Victoria area owned and operated by a non-profit society.

[ Page 10475 ]

The team encourages the players to apply themselves to their studies. The players all balance their hockey commitments with the demands of work and school. They are winners in very many ways.

In the past seven seasons the Cougars have placed first in the standings three times and have been in second place four times. The Cougars have made it to the Vancouver Island Junior Hockey League Championship series six times in the past eight years.

They've built their support too. At the beginning the games were lucky to attract 100 spectators, but now the stands at the Archie Browning are filled as greater Victoria hockey fans have come to love their Cougars.

We're all excited for what comes next. The team is heading to Abbotsford for the Cyclone Taylor Cup, the B.C. Provincial Junior B Hockey Championship, from April 12 to 15.

I hope members will join me in congratulating them on their terrific season so far and wishing them well at the provincials in Abbotsford.

Go, Cougars, go!

ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN BURNS LAKE

J. Rustad: After the tragic fire at Babine Forest Products the community of Burns Lake is looking forward to the recovery and rebuilding for the future. The mill was a significant part of the Burns Lake economy, and we need to assess how the community will move forward in the changed circumstances.

We have already come a long way. More than half of the former mill employees are re-employed, and we are continuing to pursue employment opportunities for the remaining displaced workers. We are refreshing the area's tourism strategy and exploring new opportunities for investment and expansion.

For the past three days an economic recovery team from the Economic Development Association of B.C. has met with a broad array of community stakeholders, including local, regional, First Nations, forestry, tourism, skills training, businesses and a variety of other community members.

Based on these meetings, the team performed a SWOT analysis to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats involved in the economic transition and recovery of Burns Lake. From this analysis, the team will compose an economic transition action plan for Burns Lake with long-term recommendations for development. I look forward to their final report.

I am proud of the way Burns Lake has come together in a united effort to renew and strengthen our community. I expect we will come out of this tragedy stronger than ever.

MOUNT PLEASANT NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

J. Kwan: With a little know-how and a lot of determination, it's amazing what can grow from a great idea shared by neighbours.

In 1976 Mount Pleasant residents wanted to create a hub for neighbourhood growth and social inclusion. Inspired by the British settlement house movement and with the financial help from the Association of Neighbourhood Houses of B.C., a group of neighbours started up a youth leadership program in a rented church basement.

From this humble beginning, the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House was born. The next year the fledgling neighbourhood house opened a space on East Broadway and began to develop community-oriented programming.

The neighbourhood house soon became a magnet for community activities. In 1996 the neighbourhood house celebrated its 20th anniversary by opening its current home at 800 East Broadway.

Today the neighbourhood house offers many programs, including daycare seven days a week, family drop-ins, a StrongStart program in conjunction with the Mount Pleasant Elementary School and many programs for seniors, including the Chinese calligraphy club, whose beautiful art I've been often been invited to enjoy. To meet the diverse needs of the community, the dedicated staff at the neighbourhood house run programs in some of the many languages of the community, including Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Spanish and Russian.

Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House, like many communities agencies, has had to meet growing needs of the community with budget reductions by funding cuts. In spite of the challenges, it's kept its welcoming role as the living room for the community. Staff and volunteers have worked hard to keep the activities of the neighbourhood house connected to the broader community.

[1350]

The history of community involvement in Mount Pleasant is rich and vibrant, from exciting community festivals to active participation in neighbourhood-planning processes to programs run for the community by the community. Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House is an integral part of our community partnership.

Today, at this very minute, they are hosting their 35th anniversary celebration, looking forward to future years of connecting neighbours and building a better neighbourhood.

EARTH HOUR

B. Bennett: Earth Hour is organized each year by the World Wide Fund for Nature on the last Saturday of March. The idea is that we should turn off our lights to raise awareness about climate change.

Now, perhaps some members might question why a guy whose most valued possessions are a .270 Magnum Weatherby hunting rifle and a beautiful old Ox-Head axe

[ Page 10476 ]

would be talking about Earth Hour. It's easy to be cynical, especially in this place.

My grandparents were turning off the lights 50 years ago probably at least as conscientiously as us baby boomers, and I'm sure they didn't feel nearly as self-righteous about doing it. It is also true that if the Earth, as some folks seem to think, is going to you-know-where in a handbasket, surely we need to do more than just turn the lights off this Saturday morning for an hour. But a symbolic nod to Mother Nature one hour a year is not a bad idea, no matter which side of the climate change hypothesis you're on.

I grew up in the country. I spent long summer days as a child building forts in the forest with my friends and getting dirty, and smelling and touching and tasting the natural world. I learned to participate in nature, to hunt and fish and to clean and eat what I caught and to use that Ox-Head axe safely before I was even a teenager. Later in my life I spent years in fly-in wilderness fishing camps.

My happiest times throughout my life, especially since taking up this particular line of work, occur when I'm outside, away from town, on a mountain or by a stream, canoeing on a lake or just walking silently on a forest trail.

This Saturday, after I turn off my lights, I will go to the Kimberley Alpine Resort in my eight-cylinder truck, and my wife and I will ride up the ski lifts powered by diesel generators. But we will also let the mountains bring us peace. We'll soak up the fresh air, and we'll thank God for all our blessings. We will remember that one of our duties as human beings is to be good stewards of the Earth, however we each decide to accomplish that.

SAANICH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLACE

R. Fleming: I rise today to talk about a valuable neighbourhood house in my community as well, a non-profit society located in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake. I'm referring to Saanich Neighbourhood Place.

Since 1983 Saanich Neighbourhood Place has been supporting the well-being of families, children and youth while recognizing the varied and changing needs of our community. They provide a relaxed and supportive atmosphere. Saanich Neighbourhood Place is a place that wholeheartedly believes that everyone has the right to access services, programs and resources within their own community.

With that said, families in my community and here on the south Island in general rely on the wide selection of key programming and many free services that Saanich Neighbourhood Place delivers, including life skills programs and workshops, parenting skill development courses and parenting support groups, and resource and referral information on a daily basis.

Saanich Neighbourhood Place helps mothers and fathers discover their own strengths and their own resources to develop the self-knowledge, self-confidence and self-trust that will enable them to meet the challenges they face to raise healthy, happy and very active kids in our community.

This organization is also highly respected for their longstanding food security program, which is critical for providing quality food for lower-income families in my constituency. Moreover, this organization is dedicated to cultivating awareness and initiating action around food security in our region for the long term.

The economic downturn has hit our community and many families, particularly single-parent families, very hard. Like other well-respected advocacy agencies, they have seen an increase in the demand for their services recently. It is critical and crucial that vital support services to our families and our community be maintained. That is why Saanich Neighbourhood Place is so important.

I invite all members of the House to join me in thanking Saanich Neighbourhood Place's executive director Colleen Hobson, her staff, board of directors and volunteers for the work they do.

[1355]

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: Joining us are southern neighbours from the United States, a group of kids and their mother from Portland, Oregon: Susan McFee, her daughter Ashley and her sons Shane and Trevor. I just met them out in the hallway. That's why I'm late, to the Whip. We had a long discussion about the difference between our parliamentary system and their republican system in the United States, on how things work here in this parliament and what they might expect in question period.

I also, in a very unbiased and non-partisan way, informed them on which side of the House good sense resides at the current moment, so you can imagine what I had to say to them.

I'd like all the House to help me make them welcome to Victoria, British Columbia, on their visit to the B.C. Legislature.

Oral Questions

DRIVEABLE PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: On March 19 the B.C. Liberal government issued a release saying: "DriveABLE is in the process of being peer-reviewed." To the minister responsible for DriveABLE: why was DriveABLE not peer-reviewed by the Liberals before making it a mandatory, sole-sourced driver-testing program across British Columbia?

[ Page 10477 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I think all British Columbians recognize, first of all, that anytime someone, whether they're aging or not, has the possibility of losing a driver's licence, it is a very emotional, difficult circumstance for them.

For the member to suggest that there hasn't been research done on DriveABLE…. She's totally incorrect about that.

Let's be clear. DriveABLE is used in Alberta, in Ontario, in other locations in North America and in other parts of the world. In fact, Alberta adopted DriveABLE long before British Columbia did.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, a third-party review of DriveABLE by leading experts in public safety at the Monash University in Australia said: "DriveABLE is more likely than the other test options to misclassify drivers as unsafe when they are in fact safe." This review came out a year before this Liberal government made the DriveABLE testing system mandatory.

Given that there was no third-party evidence to support the DriveABLE system and given that the Liberals waited until now to conduct a peer review, why did this Liberal government put a mandatory testing system in place that has a real possibility of classifying safe drivers as unsafe?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said and have said continuously in public, in fact DriveABLE is used in numerous locations around the world. It wasn't started or created here in British Columbia. As much as the members opposite would have liked to have cast those kinds of aspersions, we actually should look at the facts.

Do you know what's really unfortunate? What's really unfortunate is that individuals who end up taking a DriveABLE assessment are, in 95 percent of the cases, referred by their physician.

Now, members opposite can sit and be smug and smirk about that, but I can assure the member opposite that if there is an individual who has a cognitive impairment…. While the member opposite might want to smirk and laugh about that, what we were not prepared to do was bring seniors into rooms, like the member opposite did, and scare and fearmonger. That is unconscionable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Conroy: What is unfortunate is that B.C. Liberal testing policies are unfair to seniors. It's caught them off guard, caused unnecessary anxiety, forced them to travel long distances and spend a lot of money, only to take unfair tests that the Liberals now admit were never independently validated. Today seniors are still being forced to travel far from their home to get tested.

[1400]

To the minister responsible, what will she specifically do to ensure that seniors are able to take the driving test close to where they live?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, what we did was actually took the time to look at the options for change that might need to be considered. What we didn't do was actually set up meetings, invite hundreds of seniors into the room and scare them with misinformation. That's the way the members opposite….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: There are over three million drivers in British Columbia. Of the three million drivers, 80,000 are over 80. Of that number, physicians refer about 1,500 people — 1,500 across the entire province of British Columbia. Ninety-five percent of them have a concern. Their physicians have a concern about their cognitive ability to drive.

All of us need to find a reasonable and respectful approach to making sure that those drivers are safe — and the rest of the drivers in British Columbia. That's why we agreed to change the assessment process. We will consider three things: the medical referral, the screen assessment and a driving test for those seniors.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: That's exactly what seniors in this province want — a respectful approach — and that's not what they've got.

The minister told this House months ago that seniors would be tested closer to home and repeated this again last week. Yet we are still hearing about seniors who can't get a driving test close to home. People from Golden have to travel to Kelowna in the winter, Oliver to Kelowna, Haida Gwaii to Prince George, Bella Coola to Williams Lake.

Since last fall the minister has been saying she's trying to sort this out, trying to be more respectful. But that's just not happening. We are still not closer to a solution. They're all empty words so far.

To the minister: will the government please tell us today what the specific plan is to ensure seniors can have a driving test closer to home?

Hon. S. Bond: What is disrespectful is inviting hundreds of seniors into a room and actually implying that hundreds of them will go to DriveABLE. That is absolutely being used for what is unbelievably crass politics.

[ Page 10478 ]

That's what's embarrassing, and if the member wants to stand up….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: What we did was recognize the importance of addressing the concerns of 1,500 individuals across the province — there are 80,000 seniors — 95 percent of whom are recommended by their physician. If the member opposite thinks that's amusing….

We actually are concerned about seniors. That's why we changed the test. That's why we're going to work on adding more regional locations. But what we are not going to do is spread information and frighten seniors in British Columbia, like the member opposite.

[1405]

N. Simons: If seniors are afraid or upset, it is because this government's policy is maddening, ill-thought-out and ill-conceived. British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in North America that makes this test mandatory, and the minister should know the facts.

The government implemented a policy, ill-thought-out and in a roughshod and disrespectful way. My question is to the minister. On an important issue…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: …such as maintaining seniors independence, what excuse can the Liberal government offer to explain such mismanagement?

Hon. S. Bond: There is an inevitability as we age that we all face the potential of challenges with cognitive impairment. The member opposite stands there and suggests that we should simply ignore the fact that physicians refer their patients to the superintendent of motor vehicles because they are concerned about their ability to drive safely.

We actually believe there does need to be a process for assessing the appropriateness of having a senior drive. Where we disagree with the members opposite is in implying that every senior is going to go to DriveABLE. That is misinformation. It is shameful, and the member should simply stop spreading misinformation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: The meetings organized are often organized by seniors organizations themselves, who have expressed in great numbers…. I've assisted the seniors in getting their voice out, and it's taken a year and a half to finally get this government to listen.

My question. The impact of losing one's licence is significant, and we all agree that we want unsafe drivers off the road. But even members of this minister's caucus have expressed equal concern as we have, because they've heard from seniors as well. It's about respect. It's about fairness.

You don't have to be patronizing — through you, Mr. Speaker. The seniors know what policies impact them. After months of serious and legitimate complaints, how come it's taken so long for the minister to even recognize that there is a problem?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, perhaps if we want to clear up the whole issue of whether or not the member opposite is contemplating the political nature of this, it would be great for the member from Burnaby to actually stand up and explain how, at this point in time, she managed to invite seniors in Chilliwack to come into a room and talk about all the problems there were with DriveABLE — Chilliwack, all the way to Chilliwack.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1410]

Hon. S. Bond: What would be interesting to note is whether or not the member from Burnaby actually held a session in her own riding, instead of using it for political purposes in Chilliwack. Do you know…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: This is a very serious issue for seniors in British Columbia. It is horrific when families have to go through the difficult circumstances of having a loved one lose their opportunity to be mobile. That's why we listened, we looked at options, and in fact, we made changes to the assessment. That's the appropriate process that we took.

GOVERNMENT VIDEO AND

KITWANGA MILL OPERATIONS

D. Donaldson: In July the Premier showed up for a photo opportunity at the reopening of the Kitwanga sawmill. The video of the announcement is still on her government's website. Meanwhile, the sawmill shut down indefinitely in October, and the owner declared bankruptcy and padlocked the doors in December.

The Premier got her photo opportunity. But what about the workers — workers like Randy Good from Kitwanga, who was employed for more than 30 years? He got nothing. He has had to move to Alberta to find a job.

[ Page 10479 ]

Can the Premier please inform the Legislature what she has done since October to help workers in Kitwanga preserve their jobs or keep the mill open?

Hon. P. Bell: As the member opposite knows, that particular company went through an insolvency. However, we have been working specifically with that operation. I do think, as a result of the work of this government and the leadership that this government is showing — expanding into the Chinese market, the growth that we're starting to see in the United States market — there is an opportunity for that mill, as well as all the other mills across this province, to have a long-term future.

The member only has to look at the good work that the member for Nechako Lakes is putting into reinvigorating the Burns Lake sawmill, seeing that operation reopen. That's leadership, not what that member is doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: I'm quite surprised by the answer from the minister. He is from the north, and he should know where Kitwanga is. It's 300 kilometres from Burns Lake.

My answer to the first question is that government has done nothing — no action around the Kitwanga sawmill. And what a coincidence. We filed a freedom-of-information request to find out what action the Liberal government has taken to preserve workers' jobs or keep the Kitwanga sawmill open. The response was nothing — no action.

They're still taking credit for the mill reopening. The video is still there. That's an insult to the workers who used to have jobs there. To be forthright, it's reprehensible behaviour. It's what gives politics a bad name, and it's a sad state of affairs.

So instead of running from photo opportunity to photo opportunity, why doesn't the Premier actually do something to protect forest workers' jobs in Kitwanga? Will the Premier finally commit today to take real action to protect those jobs in Kitwanga?

Hon. P. Bell: You know, there is no one — no one — that knows more about business failure than the NDP government of the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what leadership is.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: You know what? On the day — in fact, within 20 minutes — of the Burns Lake fire the member for Nechako Lakes was on the phone to me, literally within 20 minutes. I met with him the next day. He talked about the opportunities associated with Burns Lake. He worked aggressively each and every day to revitalize that operation.

This member has not once asked for a meeting with me to work with the Kitwanga operation. He chooses to make this a political issue in this House, instead of doing what he should be doing, which is the hard work as a local MLA, just like the member for Nechako Lakes is doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: I know that my colleague from Stikine has given a geography lesson to the Minister of Jobs, but I'd like to turn my attention to the Premier.

The Premier was quite happy to stand before a camera crew last summer and pronounce jobs for everybody. That didn't happen. Does the Premier have the decency to at least remove the video from the website so that the people from Kitwanga don't have to be constantly reminded of how dismissive she is of their future?

Hon. P. Bell: You know what? Leadership is about actually working to resolve issues, not standing up and trying to make cheap political points in question period.

I already talked about the member for Nechako Lakes. Let's look at other leadership out of this side of government. The member for Parksville-Qualicum. When the Harmac mill….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Your time, Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: When Harmac in Nanaimo faced its economic challenges, the first person to call the Minister of Forests, despite the fact that it wasn't in his riding, was the member for Parksville-Qualicum. Each and every day that member pushed the issue of how we could help support the redevelopment of that operation. Today the results are obvious. Because of the work of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, we have a thriving operation in Nanaimo.

Not one of the members opposite ever came to the minister and said: "How can you support this redevelopment?" The job of an MLA is to work actively to make sure there is support in his local community. Members on that side are failing badly in that area.

COLEMAN ROAD SHINGLE OPERATIONS

AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

S. Fraser: Coleman Road Shingle is a small business in Port Alberni. It's been there for 30 years. They make quality roofing products.

[1420]

[ Page 10480 ]

Back in the year 2000 the owners invested substantially. They were able to raise the workforce from 12 to 32. That's all at risk now. Mr. Butch Taylor, the owner, has been forced to do major layoffs. He's back where he started. He's back to 12 jobs, down from 32. He can't get fibre. Liberal raw log policy is killing his business and killing jobs in the Alberni Valley.

To the minister responsible…. See if we can get a minister responsible to stand up. How can he justify a Liberal policy that is shutting down essential small businesses like Coleman Road Shingle?

Hon. S. Thomson: We've discussed this issue before in the House to make it clear that the log export policy provides that balance. It keeps jobs and people working in British Columbia and keeps people working in those communities.

But the member opposite will realize that with the cedar shingle mill, that cedar is not able to be exported under the export policy. So the issues with respect to the fibre supply for this particular mill are not at all related to the log export policy.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: The minister doesn't understand that small businesses like this mill are the backbone of the economy. Thanks to the failed….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: Thanks to failed Liberal forest policy, Mr. Taylor has been forced to lay people off. They can't get fibre, while truck after truck drives by with trees being sent for export. Again, to the minister: why are jobs in Port Alberni being sacrificed so that Liberals can continue to export raw logs?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I just mentioned, cedar is not able to be exported under our current export policy. The supply issues with respect to that cedar shingle mill are not related to the log export policy.

The log export policy in British Columbia is one that provides for jobs in communities in British Columbia and ensures that we have that broad range of harvest on uneconomic stands to make sure we have lumber available for domestic mills. That's the balance that's employed. That's one that we continue to work on.

Again, to be clear, this particular operation — as the previous member spoke.... If it's one they want us to look at specifically, the member is more than welcome to come and talk to us about that operation specifically, which he has not done to date.

RELEASE OF MEDIA CORRESPONDENCE

WITH GOVERNMENT TO EMINATA GROUP

C. James: For two weeks now we've heard the Minister of Advanced Education stand in this House and refuse to be accountable for a leaked e-mail from her ministry. The minister admitted the e-mail was shared by her staff with the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The minister admitted that the former minister leaked that e-mail to an organization that the minister is responsible for regulating.

But the big question remains: why? So my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. No point in reading Hansard again. The minister has not answered this question before. Why was this e-mail shared with that specific minister, and has the minister herself asked her staff that question?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: This issue has been canvassed in the House. In fact, my father, who is very hard of hearing, heard the questions over and over, even with his limited hearing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I won't reread my Hansard responses. I will, though, direct the member opposite to take the time to read it herself.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: To the minister, I'm sorry her father heard the questions over and over again, because there were no answers coming from the minister. That's why the questions were asked over and over again.

This is an issue of credibility. This is an issue of trust, of ministerial responsibility. The minister said: "There are circumstances and there are times that ministers share information with other ministers." So can the minister explain just what circumstances there were that led her staff member to share this confidential e-mail?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I said yesterday, the sharing of information amongst ministers and ministers' offices is in order for us to operate efficiently. We share information, and our expectation is that information is to remain confidential. I'm sure the member opposite, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, wishes that her side of the House acted more as a team last year. This side of the

[ Page 10481 ]

House works as a team, and we share some information.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with

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

schedule F for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012. The revised

schedule F reflects the changes to ministerial accountabilities resulting from the government reorganization that took place on February 8, 2012.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will begin by doing committee stage on Bill 15, intituled the Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. We will then move, if we get that done, to committee stage of Bill 18, intituled the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

Should we complete that, we would then move on to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012, in second reading, Bill 24. If we get that done, we would move to Bill 21, intituled the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, in

Section A, we will begin with the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. Should that complete, we would then move to the Ministry of Environment.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: The Government House Leader is rising on a point of privilege.

[1430]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. R. Coleman: I rise on a point of privilege and reserve my right, as this is my first opportunity to deal with the behaviour of the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, and we'll move now to….

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — ATTORNEY GENERAL AND

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could explain the reason for

section 1?

Hon. S. Bond: In essence, it's technical more than anything. We're removing a redundant section. In fact, it's a double negative, so we're simply clarifying that.

K. Corrigan: Minister, I agree that this is largely housekeeping, but I do have a couple of questions about it. The

section says that the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act is amended by striking out "Sections 4 and 5 of the Offence Act do not apply" and substituting "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply."

Section 4 of the Offence Act reads: "Unless otherwise specifically provided in an enactment, a person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment…." Just for clarification, is that redundant because there are penalty provisions in the act itself and so this isn't necessary?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: But what this change does is it removes

section 4 as redundant and then substitutes

section 5. We'll now just have: "...Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply."

Section 5 says: "A person who contravenes an enactment by doing

an act that it forbids, or omitting to do

an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment." I'm wondering why it is that the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act requires a

section that says that that

section I just read out from the Offence Act.... Why is it in there to say that it doesn't apply? I don't quite understand the reason for that.

Hon. S. Bond: Without actually putting this particular clarification in there, the entire act would be an offence. We do not want that to be the case, so we're simply clarifying it and ensuring that it is very clear — the intent of the act.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

K. Corrigan: Well, just a housekeeping question on what is essentially a housekeeping section. So my question simply is: is the changing of

section 13 of the Body

[ Page 10482 ]

Armour Control Act — which strikes out "Sections 4 and 5 of the Offence Act do not apply," substituting "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply" — simply doing the same thing as was the change with regard to

section 1 of this act related to the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm in terms of adding an offence that was omitted — no change in penalty for any offences.

The Chair: Would the member repeat his question please.

[1435]

L. Krog: Just to confirm: there are no changes in the nature of the penalties as a result of this section.

Hon. S. Bond: No, there is not.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

K. Corrigan: I just want to confirm my reading of this section, which says that

Section 23 of the Coroners Act is amended by striking out sections 24 to 29 of the Jury Act and substituting sections 24, 25 and 29 of the Jury Act. Is that amendment being made because of sections that are going to be later on in this bill which are going to change the numbering of the sections of the Coroners Act? Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, that's correct. We'll actually be making the adjustment to the Jury Act.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Krog: I'll perhaps wait a moment for the minister's next staff to come in.

I'm just wondering…. On the face of it, this looks like something quite simple. It simply changes the period from seven days to 21 days under

section 12(1).

Section 12(1) provides for the setting down of an inquiry: "If the minister receives a request under

section 10, the minister must, within 7 days after service under

section 10 (3) (c), appoint an inquiry officer who, subject to

section 11, must hold a public inquiry." The inquiry officer must set a time and a place, etc., "not more than 21 days after the date of his or her appointment...." And he or she must serve notice of the date, time and place on various persons, etc.

I'm curious to know what is the reasoning behind this change, which is actually quite significant. It's a tripling of the amount of time involved.

Hon. S. Bond: It's really a matter of time in terms of how quickly you can get an officer to do the inquiry. Seven days is a short turnaround time, and there has been concern expressed that it's not long enough. Obviously, some of the questions that you have to deal with around the inquiry make it a very compressed time period. It's simply a matter of trying to give a reasonable amount of time for the minister to find an inquiry officer candidate, and seven days was considered to be very, very compressed.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister can outline the history of this

section and how long it's been a requirement that the minister must, within seven days, appoint an officer.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm always really proud of the staff in this ministry. To the member opposite: they anticipated that question. The Attorney General has been responsible for appointments of inquiry officers since 2003. There have only been three occasions on which the Attorney General needed to appoint an inquiry officer. It was in 2007, 2009 and 2010. In essence: rarely used, but concern, again, about the length of time it would take to find a candidate to do the inquiry.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could outline to the House, then…. This

section or some similar

section has existed and been the responsibility of some previous minister of the Crown, obviously. So I'm curious to know, again, predating…. The minister, I think, referred to the statutory change in 2003 or '04. What was the history prior to that in terms of the amount of time that was provided for?

[1440]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm told that immediately preceding the Attorney General, it was the Expropriation Compensation Board and that the utilization was five times since 1998. But in terms of how long the Expropriation Board had it or who had it prior to that, we're not aware of that at this time.

L. Krog: The reason I'm raising this is that the power of government to expropriate one's private property is pretty significant. We recognize it is necessary in a free and democratic society for public purposes. No one argues about the expropriation of land — the concept — for public highways or public schools. Certainly, no one objects during wartime to having property taken for public purposes in order to support the war effort. We understand all of those things.

But in the circumstances, taking one's property never-

[ Page 10483 ]

theless leads to the concept of compensation. The minister has outlined that there have been three occasions since the occupier of her position became responsible for this particular appointment. There's only been three times in the last several years.

I would assume that the minister must have access to a list of persons who would be competent to undertake such activities. I'm wondering what has been the practice in the ministry in terms of the people that it would draw on for these appointments, and there have been three. Perhaps the minister could outline that.

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, there are a couple of complexities. Specifically to the member's question directly, currently there's not a really long roster of names because of the infrequency of the use. People aren't necessarily on a list that would be current. Right now there is one person and a backup basically.

But I'm reminded that part of the complexity is that during the course of those seven days, there is occasionally the need to determine whether or not an inquiry or the appointment of an inquiry officer is even necessary. That's particularly true when a highway is involved. Part of those seven days that you would have to appoint the inquiry officer could actually be taken up with sorting out whether or not the inquiry itself will proceed.

It is a very tight timeline, and I think the whole point of the amendment is just to allow a more reasonable time within which to appoint an inquiry officer. Sometimes it can be complex. An inquiry may not proceed. But if it does, some of those valuable seven days could be taken up with that first exploratory piece.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could give — no pun intended if we're talking about highways — a concrete example of a circumstance that would lead to the seven days being needed to determine whether or not it was appropriate. What's the kind of practical circumstance that would arise where that decision wasn't made before the notice was actually served?

The way I read this section, if you receive a request under

section 10, clearly there's been a process in place already. Perhaps the minister might want to outline what that process is — why you'd be in that position that far down the road that it would take time to determine whether or not the appointment of an inquiry officer was in fact necessary.

[1445]

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have as clear a specific example as we would like, but I'll use this in the attempt to try to explain what the complexity might be.

An inquiry is not available to someone if the proposed expropriation is a linear project. That would mean a highway or a railway. There may be a differing view as to how you determine whether it's linear or not. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether that project is linear, and information from the parties would be required. Inevitably, that takes more than seven days.

That's the hypothetical example that I can give the member opposite — the use of the word "linear." You don't get to have an inquiry. In essence, it would be that exploratory phase in trying to determine whether or not the inquiry moves forward.

L. Krog: I appreciate that, with my limited abilities, I can get lost in the language of the statutes. I know the minister is going to help me through this.

What I understand it to mean is that under

section 10, if it's a linear development — which in a broad definition "includes a highway, a railway, hydro or other electric transmission or distribution line, a pipeline or a sewer, water or drainage line…." In other words, it's anything that's going to run over some length.

We're not talking about a square here. We're talking about a lengthy rectangle, so to speak. The

section that

section 12 refers to, which we're proposing to amend, refers back to owners "whose land is included in an expropriation notice, other than an expropriation notice in respect of an expropriation for the construction, extension or alteration of a linear development…." In other words — all other alternatives.

Again, if the minister could give me an example of something that wouldn't constitute a linear development. I'm hard-pressed to think of something that would fall in between. If you're expropriating land for a school, that's pretty obvious. You're not moving school to school to school. Highways are pretty straightforward.

What possible description or example would there be that wouldn't fall obviously into the category of linear versus non-linear? In other words, where the grey area could possibly be is what I'm trying to understand.

Hon. S. Bond: All right. We're going to give this as best a shot as we can to explain this. There's the potential of a pipeline being built, and it involves expropriation. There is the need for a pumping station. So the pumping station would be on a piece of land, and the person who was facing expropriation would be able to argue — or would make the argument, potentially — that that isn't linear. It is on a separate piece of property that is not directly related to the pipeline.

The argument would be that the company putting in the pipeline, or whoever is doing that, would argue that is all part of the pipeline. You need the pumping station. The debate would become whether or not that piece of property is linear or not. The company putting in the pipeline would argue that it was part of that linear development, and the person whose land was going to be taken would argue that it wasn't because the pumping station is on a separate piece of land. You can see how complex this is in terms of….

[1450]

[ Page 10484 ]

The point is that, currently, it would take seven days for the discussion between the parties about what is linear and what isn't. Within that seven-day period, should you decide to proceed with an inquiry, you'd have to actually put the inquiry officer in place. So the whole point of this somewhat minor amendment is to simply extend the period of time that allows that discussion to take place and the appointment of the inquiry officer.

L. Krog: I don't wish to seem critical of the minister's example, but subsection 10(2) says: "An owner whose land is included in an expropriation notice, other than an expropriation notice in respect of an expropriation for the construction, extension or alteration of a linear development, may request an inquiry by serving the minister with a notice of request for an inquiry."

Surely, a pumping station is absolutely integral to the construction of a pipeline — an office site, a piece of property necessary to provide access to the pipeline site, assuming it's in some rural area. The definition of "linear development" includes "a highway, a railway, a hydro or other electric transmission or distribution line, a pipeline or a sewer, water or drainage line or main." In other words, linear development is very broadly defined by simply saying it "includes." It's not an exclusive definition. It's a broad definition that includes these particular items — as we always say at the law, without limiting the general of the foregoing.

So I'm trying to understand, again, from a practical perspective, what would be a concrete example of something that wouldn't be attached to a linear development that wasn't obviously a non-linear development? Again, I come back to my examples: a school site, a building site — something of that nature. I cannot for the life of me today….

I'm sure that the minister, with her able staff there, will be able to come up with a concrete example, because we're making a legislative change here. She must be able to come up with a concrete example of something that is obviously in that grey area, where anyone in this chamber could hear the example and say: "Oh yes. I'd have to think long and hard about that one" or "I'd have to consider getting a judge to decide it."

It seems to me we're proposing an amendment that increases the time from seven to 21 days because this is a real issue. So I'm assuming that, based on the previous three experiences and the expropriation board prior, there must be some concrete examples of situations where this grey area has in fact arisen, where there is a concrete example of a serious legal issue as to whether or not something is a part of a linear development or it's not, and we're not sure, and it falls in that grey area. There must be some examples.

Again, I'm asking the minister to give me one example, or perhaps in the last three expropriations there's been an example.

Hon. S. Bond: The explanation that the member opposite provided is precisely the reason we actually need the additional period of time. He and I might see the issue as very black and white around the pumping station. That may not be the case and is often not the case for the person who is about to lose a

section of their property through expropriation.

The point is simply that even if it may be as black and white as the member opposite would suggest, that doesn't mean the person can't make the argument or at least ask for clarification or clarity, and that takes a process. In fact, potentially, there are people who would argue that it is not the definition of linear. So I think that we have provided an example.

I think the issue here is the amount of time that would be permissible in order to sort through whether or not there are any challenges or debate regarding whether an inquiry moves forward or not and then the ability for the Attorney to find and appoint an inquiry officer.

If you look at the rest of the country, Alberta provides approximately a 15-day time limit, and in every other Canadian jurisdiction they either don't impose a specific time limit or they're silent on the issue. British Columbia is not asking for anything out of line with what occurs in other jurisdictions. Again, it is simply to allow for a more reasonable time frame in which to appoint the inquiry officer.

[1455]

L. Krog:

Section 11 provides that an inquiry officer "may, by order, refuse to hold a public inquiry if, on the application of the expropriating authority and after granting both parties the opportunity to be heard considers that (

a) the request for an inquiry is (

i) frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith..." etc.

The way I understand it…. I'm the aggrieved landowner. I'm satisfied it's a non-linear development. It's not a linear development; it's a non-linear development. Therefore, I'm entitled to make my request to the minister in writing. The minister — and it's a mandatory section,

section 12, the way it reads, and we're not changing that aspect of it — must, within 7 days, under

section 10(3)(c), "appoint an inquiry officer who, subject to

section 11, must hold a public inquiry."

So for practical purposes, it's really the minister making the legal decision, if you will, that in fact it is an appropriate request — in other words, that it truly is a non-linear development. Is that the correct understanding of the section?

Hon. S. Bond: Legal counsel would obviously provide advice to the minister.

L. Krog: I appreciate what the minister has just said, but I'm just inquiring. My understanding of this is that it will be the minister, with the advice of counsel, who will

[ Page 10485 ]

make the legal determination whether or not the property involved is non-linear.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, the process would be as the member opposite has described it. There would be legal counsel that would work to provide the information — after discussion between the parties, if that's necessary — and provide advice to the minister. The minister would make the decision about the inquiry officer and the appointment.

So the ultimate responsibility is that the minister does make the appointment of the inquiry officer — but obviously, after any information needed to be exchanged or advice would be provided by legal counsel.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear on that understanding. Once the minister has made that decision, the only out, as I understand it, is for the expropriating authority to then go to the inquiry officer, once appointed — because there's no authority on the party being expropriated, as I read

section 11. The expropriating authority can then go to the public inquiry officer and ask that the request be declared to be "(

i) frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith, or (ii) based solely or a claim for compensation..." etc.

I take it that there's no appeal provision in the act for the landowner to say that the minister has made a mistake here. In other words, the minister has got the final say, is what I'm getting at.

Hon. S. Bond: Any other potential remedy would be the courts after that decision was made.

L. Krog: Related to it, in

section 11 the inquiry officer may refuse to hold the inquiry if he's satisfied that it's "(

i) frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith, or (ii) based solely on a claim for compensation."

[1500]

I'm just wondering if the minister can explain: what does that mean? I thought that was the whole point of expropriation. That would be the subject of the argument. What we're really saying here is that money can't be an issue. Is that really what this

section is saying?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, we'll get clarity on that. The staff that is here with me today wants to be sure before we provide that answer. In fact, it is outside the scope of the amendment. The amendment relates specifically to the period of time that we are referring to, so in fact, it's outside the scope of the amendment. Having said that, we will get clarity and share that with the member opposite.

L. Krog: In terms of the inquiries that have been held…. The minister outlined that there have been three since 2003 or 2004, as I understand it. In those cases, was there, in fact, an issue in determining whether or not the land was linear versus non-linear? Was that an issue in those three examples? Again, I come back to my point. We have a solution looking for a problem.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised that in at least one of the cases that occurred, one of the inquiries that occurred, there was an issue related to the definition of "linear." This is the catalyst for the change, at least part of it, not only to line up with a more reasonable time frame that exists across the country, but also there has been a challenge in terms of that definition and example that I gave the member opposite.

L. Krog: I suppose what this leads to is the sort of obvious question. The point of the amendment is to give an expanded period of time — literally triple the time — to the minister to appoint the inquiry officer. That's the concept here.

We're going to give a break to the government, in a sense, to have more time to determine whether or not inquiry officers should be appointed, and the minister's explanation for this has been that there will be legal issues around the definition of whether land is linear versus non-linear.

It begs the obvious question: why are we doing this to give the minister more time to make a legal determination as opposed to amending the statute to make it very clear what would constitute a linear versus non-linear development?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think that the member opposite also neglected to mention the original answer that I shared. It is actually more than simply around linear. It's actually related to the fact that this is a very infrequent process, and finding an inquiry officer continues to be a challenge.

I don't think that it's unreasonable to suggest that we also want to make sure that if there is a required exchange of information between the parties, using a compressed time frame doesn't help the person who is concerned either. I don't think this is at all about giving government a break. I think this is about being reasonable, ensuring that we have the time to have a discussion, if it's necessary. We believe that, in fact, the process is not one that we consider flawed.

What we want to do is simply have more time to ensure that we can find an appropriate officer and also ensure that if there is complexity in determining whether an inquiry is necessary or available, that that time is appropriate.

[1505]

L. Krog: I didn't mean to narrow this down and suggest to the minister that I was holding her up for only one example, and that is the question of making a legal

[ Page 10486 ]

determination. Again, it does beg the question, since that is the example that she used.

Why not expand, redefine, clarify the definition of linear versus non-linear development so that there would be less potential for the necessity of the appointment and less necessity for the time involved? It seems to me that if we can legislate certainty and avoid litigation, that's always a good thing.

I'm just wondering if we're dealing with this

section in terms of allowing more time…. It is, amongst other things, to give the parties more time to perhaps come to some arrangement, agreement or settlement, but also to give the minister time to make that legal determination, which under the statute appears to be only within the minister's purview — in other words, the minister's sole jurisdiction. The minister is the person solely responsible. There's no Court of Appeal. There's no Supreme Court of Canada to go to, in a sense. It's the minister who makes this legal determination.

Why not simply expand and clarify the

definitions so that they're much clearer? What this proposed change is based on is an assumption that we want to avoid problems. We know that the numbers of cases that have probably involved this definition have been fairly limited in scope, so why not change the legislation to deal with those very concrete examples that have occurred in the past when it came to the definition of linear versus non-linear?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that the concept of legislating certainty is an honourable thing. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that well. If we could legislate certainty, we would have a lot fewer complex issues to deal with, either in the courts or elsewhere.

Legal advice and certainly legal counsel that works through these particular cases was very clear that their view was the most appropriate and reasonable way to deal with this issue — by extending the timeline rather than attempting to legislate certainty. So we bring this as a reasonable alternative. We think that lining up our time frames with other jurisdictions across the country is reasonable, and in fact we think it's a fairly straightforward amendment.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

K. Corrigan: Maybe I'll just clarify my understanding that this change to the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, which strikes out the words from

section 1 "by collusion, guile, malice or fraud," means that the

section will now read…. This is talking about fraudulent conveyance to avoid debt or duty of others:

"If made to delay, hinder or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful remedies (

a) a disposition of property, by writing or otherwise, (

b) a bond, (

c) a proceeding, or (

d) an order is void and of no effect against a person or the person's assignee or personal representative whose rights and obligations…"

These are the words that are going to go: "by collusion, guile, malice or fraud."

"…are or might be disturbed, hindered, delayed or defrauded, despite a pretence or other matter to the contrary."

My understanding is simply that this

section is being changed in order to align itself with a decision that was made in the B.C. Court of Appeal, I believe it was. The minister may want to correct me what level the court was. It decided that those words — "by collusion, guile, malice or fraud" — were essentially irrelevant. That was in the case of Botham Holdings. I just wonder if the minister could confirm that that's the case.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: For the wonderful listening public and watching public, what that essentially said was…. There was a case wherein a company that transferred some of its holdings to another company that it owned, which was a related company — transferred it for good reason, in their view — to get tax advantages. But they did it in order to avoid a court decision which said that they owed money, essentially, but that it was for a good reason.

[1510]

They argued that there was no collusion, guile, malice or fraud — that therefore, although they were trying to avoid their creditors, since they did not do it with collusion, guile, malice or fraud, it was okay. Is that essentially the background and the reasoning in this case and for this section?

Hon. S. Bond: It's very straightforward. The Appeal Court of British Columbia has said clearly that motive or thought or language that was used in this act was irrelevant to the point. In fact, the heart of this issue is that someone is transferring assets and attempting to hinder the creditor's ability to get access to it, and the court simply said it doesn't matter.

What matters is that the language we were using was potentially misleading and irrelevant, so we're simply bringing this into line and saying that a transfer of assets…. Whatever the thought pattern was is irrelevant. The fact that the creditor is being denied access to those assets is the only intent necessary.

L. Krog: The Fraudulent Conveyance Act has been around a long time and not often used successfully. The creditors in British Columbia have often had great difficulty relying on it. It's a fairly expensive process. It's a second kick at the cat. You're working on the assumption, in many cases, that judgment has been obtained by default when in fact it's often not the case.

Creditors have to pursue their remedies rather vigorously and at great expense and time in the court process, then

[ Page 10487 ]

obtain judgment and then have to take this step with respect to making claims under the Fraudulent Conveyance Act. So I'm just wondering: in terms of this change, does this change bring our statute into…? How shall I say it? Will it be comparable to what exists in other provinces now?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it will. We were the only province that had that language, and more importantly, we're actually going to bring it in line with what the Court of Appeal told us was most appropriate.

L. Krog: In terms of bringing us into line with other provinces, did other provinces have this particular language in place? If so, does the minister have any knowledge today about which was the last province to abandon this rather ancient language?

Hon. S. Bond: We're not certain whether or not the exact same language was used, but certainly British Columbia is the last holdout in terms of this language. Obviously, when the Court of Appeal says the language is obsolete, irrelevant and potentially misleading, I think we probably need to get it fixed, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

L. Krog: This is a change to the Judicial Compensation Act. In my understanding, the explanatory note reads that it "clarifies the operation of the

section in relation to a period in which the Legislative Assembly is adjourned by changing references from days to sitting days." I'm just wondering what necessitates this particular amendment.

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: The concern is that there is some ambiguity. What the changes do is clarify the act's timelines — in particular, respecting the effective period of adjournment within a legislative session. It's very difficult to calculate the days. There was some concern that there was ambiguity. That became apparent, actually, in the last process. We're looking to make the change proactively so that in 2013, when the process is next underway, it is absolutely clear how we will count the days that are in place to actually provide the response.

L. Krog: As I understand it, then,

section 6 says that the minister has to "lay the final report of a commission before the Legislative Assembly, and must advise the Legislative Assembly about the effect of subsection (3)." That says: "If a recommendation is not rejected by the Legislative Assembly within the time limited by subsection (2), the judges or judicial justices are entitled to receive the remuneration...proposed..." etc.

I take it what we're really saying here is that this is to protect the government from finding itself in a situation because of the miscalculation or calculation of days. In fact, the taxpayers, if you will, or the government will be stuck or forced to implement the recommendations that are made as opposed to being able to legislatively determine what in fact the compensation changes, if any, will be.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member described it accurately. I think the only thing I would add is that it's also to protect the assembly's right to have the discussion and debate here in the Legislature. So it does provide that protection, as well, if you have clarity in terms of the dates. But other than that, I think the member's description is accurate.

L. Krog: If I can just ask a couple of questions around this

section and its determination. This

section in its entirety,

section 6, which we are proposing to amend today — how long has this been the practice, if you will, in determining judicial compensation?

Hon. S. Bond: There has been a process in place that was captured previously in the Provincial Court Act in the 1990s. We're not certain if the language was exactly the same as this, but a process for dealing with judicial compensation was in that act in the 1990s.

[1520]

Then in 2003 this stand-alone act was created, and the pieces relating to judicial compensation were brought into this act. They were incorporated into a stand-alone act. Previously in the Provincial Court Act…. I'm not sure whether the language was identical, but certainly the process was captured there.

K. Corrigan: My reading of the changes to the previous 6(

a) and (b), and 6(1)(

a) and (b), and the changes to the now 6(1)(

a) and (

b) is that previously the minister had to lay the final report of the commission before the Legislative Assembly and advise the Legislative Assembly about the effect of subsection (3).

It said: "if the Legislative Assembly is sitting at the date the minister receives the report, within 7 days after the date the minister receives the report." The new wording is: "within 7 sitting days of the Legislative Assembly…."

If you interpret seven days as being either seven working days or seven calendar days, it does…. The change lengthens the amount of time in which the minister can bring the report of the commission to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. S. Bond: The primary goal isn't to extend government time. It's to give more clarity. What it does effectively is provide two additional calendar days. We believe it's a minor amendment that provides a kind of

[ Page 10488 ]

clarity, and it is not an unreasonable extension. It would technically be two calendar days.

K. Corrigan: Then with respect to the previous

section 6(1)(c), which essentially becomes

section 6(1)(b), previously it was: "if the Legislative Assembly ceases to sit within 28 days after the date on which the report was laid before the Legislative Assembly…." The new

section says: "if the Legislative Assembly is prorogued or dissolved within 16 sitting days after the date…." I'm wondering how the minister chose to change it from 28 days to 16 sitting days.

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond:

Section 6(1)(

c) is actually the area where we were concerned about ambiguity. The phrase we were concerned about is "ceases to sit." So what it does in

section 6(1)(

b) with the new wording is not intended to provide more time. It's intended to provide more clarity. Now, 16 sitting days, if you think of that, is four weeks of sitting in the Legislature, which equates to 28 calendar days. In essence, it doesn't change or extend the length of time. It's a matter of clarity.

L. Krog:

Section 6, as I've stated and as is obvious to anyone paying attention or reading the statute, deals with the report of the commission, which is the commission set up under the terms of this act. It provides that the Judges Compensation Commission and the Judicial Justices Compensation Commission comprise the minister appointing two individuals; the chief judge, after consulting with the Provincial Court Judges' Association, must appoint two; and the four individuals who've been appointed under paragraphs (

a) and (b) "must appoint one other individual to the commission to chair that commission."

It then provides in

section 4 that if any of them cease to hold office for whatever reason — "if there is a vacancy" is the actual language used — then the person whose seat is vacant, so to speak, has to be appointed in the same manner, so it'll either be the minister's choice or the chief judge's choice or, alternatively, the fifth person, the chair.

This whole complex structure was set up to deal with the very difficult issue of judicial compensation. The Attorney General and the public are well aware of the recent letter — signed by the Chief Justice of the B.C. Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court — dealing with the whole issue of the review announced by the Attorney General respecting our justice system and the independent judiciary.

From a philosophical perspective, that goes to the absolute heart of our justice system — the concept that judges are free, absolutely free, to make decisions and apply the law in accordance with their responsibilities. It doesn't get any more basic or important than that. It's the hallmark of our system. It's the result of literally hundreds and hundreds of years of decisions and governmental changes and cases and precedent and everything that you can possibly imagine.

This section, in and of itself, contemplates that the default position is that the report of the commission must be accepted unless the Legislative Assembly rejects one or more of the recommendations made in the report as being unfair or unreasonable, and (

b) set the remuneration, etc. If it's not rejected, then what the commission recommends becomes, in fact, the appropriate compensation.

I guess my concern is that as we're amending this

section to give clarity — and it's perfectly reasonable, and it's not an overly shocking thing to do, I suppose, in terms of some of the minor legislative changes that are made from time to time — it does draw attention, however, to something that has become extremely important, and that is the concept of judicial independence.

Now I might say for the record — and some of my friends who sit on the Provincial Court bench and, I'm sure, some of the Attorney General's friends — that I think it's a pretty good pay package. On the other hand, we expect a great deal of them. It's demanding work — determining the guilt or innocence of individuals, frequently; determining — I was about to use the term "custody," but in view of the changes to the Family Law Act which are not yet proclaimed — who will have what parenting time with children; whether or not parents have treated their children in such a way that should deprive them of their right to parent those children and have the state take over.

These are all very difficult and important matters. They require skill. Certainly in my experience, I might say for the record, the quality of the judicial appointments has improved over time. There were some judges in my early days that I thought might have required, and would have benefited from, some judicial training — certainly some training when it came to moderating their temper.

[1530]

However, I think that by and large we are very well served by our judiciary, and I say that for the record in light of the comments made by others about the quality of our judiciary. Generally speaking, we are well served indeed by the individuals.

Having said all that, my concern is…. It strikes me that it might have been better to consider a change, because of the importance of judicial independence, that suggested it would have to be a pretty remarkable circumstance that would allow politicians to come to a differing determination of what fair judicial compensation would be, as opposed to accepting the recommendations of a commission.

Now, I understand that in the course of ordinary labour negotiations, often the parties don't wish to engage the services of a binding arbitration process because the results can on occasion be unfavourable to the

[ Page 10489 ]

person having to foot the bill. In this case it's no small amount of money.

We have dozens of judges sitting on our Provincial Court benches and JPs across the province. They cost the taxpayer a fair bit. Their pension benefits are quite generous, although I think my experience is that many of them never live long enough to collect them in any event, which is one of the sad facts of the pressure of the work they undertake and the nature of the legal profession generally.

It strikes me that we are in a situation where haggling, if you will, or being seen to be haggling with judges about compensation is not the healthiest process in terms of encouraging people to accept judicial appointments or to continue to act as judges in our province. It draws into question, of course, the independence of the judiciary.

I come back to my main point. It's not an esoteric topic. It is not a topic just for those who practise in the courts or who are having some involvement in it. For those who value democracy, it is absolutely fundamental because judges can rule against the state. Judges make decisions that go against the will of elected officials, if you will, and that's a pretty important thing.

We don't have to look very far around the planet to see jurisdictions where that is not in fact the case. So I'm just wondering if the Attorney General in light of the changes she is proposing today with respect to the time, which really doesn't have any significant impact on the timing, has considered a process that makes it even less likely that this assembly will ever have to make a decision about judicial compensation — that in fact these decisions should, by and large, always be left to independent commissions who will be seen to be fair.

Whatever the political fallout — if the public is not happy with the level of compensation, so be it — that is the necessary price to pay for judicial independence, which must not only be the case but appear to be the case.

[1535]

Hon. S. Bond: I very much, and regularly do, appreciate not only the comments by the member opposite, but he has a great deal of experience — experience that I don't personally have. But I can assure the member opposite that in all of the questions that we are asking about the necessity for us to look at the justice system in British Columbia, inherent in that discussion is a recognition of the independence of the judiciary.

I have been very clear, in my personal comments to the chief justices and the chief judge, about the importance of that to the system of justice we have in our country. What we're suggesting here is not at all implying that there is any less recognition of the independence that judges must have — and certainly on the bench. But the Supreme Court did make it clear that in fact there is a role for the legislature in terms of judicial compensation. The Supreme Court, in essence, gave that responsibility to legislatures.

We're not seeking to change any of that. In fact, what we're asking for, I believe, is a very reasonable response to clarify time frames related to the response to the commission reports that will be presented in the Legislature.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is legislatures who retain that ability. It isn't that the legislatures can simply willy-nilly make decisions about judicial compensation. They have to provide rationale. They have to provide reasons for a decision that they might make.

This is not about fundamentally looking at an undermining of judicial independence. It's simply an administrative change in the time that we have to respond here in the assembly to that ability to discuss judicial compensation — again, provided by the Supreme Court.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

K. Corrigan: This change to

section 8 of the Judicial Compensation Act, I believe, essentially provides the chief judge the authority to allow extra compensation for part-time judges.

What the original subsection 8(2) says, under "Salary and Benefits," is: "A part time judge's salary in any year (

a) must not exceed 40% of the salary of a full time judge, and (

b) must not exceed the difference between the salary to which a full time judge is entitled for that year and the part time judge's pension for that year."

My understanding of this

section as it now exists is that essentially the maximum is 40 percent of a full-time judge. That, plus the pension, cannot equal more than what a full-time judge makes. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: I was doing the math there to ensure the numbers were correct, and that is correct.

K. Corrigan: I had to read the

section a couple of times to make sure I understood what it was saying as well. We agree that that's what the

section presently says.

This addition of a subsection (2.1) says that there are circumstances when somebody can actually make more than what a full-time judge makes presently, working as a part-time judge.

It says that the "limits imposed under subsection (2) on a part time judge's salary may be exceeded, by an amount no greater than 20 % of the maximum permitted under that subsection" — in other words, 20 percent more than a full-time judge, if you put together their present pension and the 40 percent time or just add extra time — "if (

a) the chief judge authorizes the part time judge to sit in excess of the part time judge's scheduled sittings…and (

b) the extra sittings are necessary, in the chief judge's opinion, to meet urgent and unforeseen needs of the court, including needs arising from the illness or injury of another...."

[1540]

[ Page 10490 ]

Am I correct in assuming that what this essentially means is that somebody can work an extra 20 percent of the time, which also would mean that their salary is going to be…? Is it 20 percent of the 40 percent, or is it 20 percent of a full-time position? Maybe I'll ask that question first.

Hon. S. Bond: It does not imply changes to their pension. The best way to describe this is that it allows part-time judges to sit more days. That's what this allows.

In fact, to the point of the previous discussion with the member opposite about judicial independence, what's key here is that we're not actually telling the chief judge to do anything. We're actually providing him with the tool that, in fact, the chief judge requested during the discussions around judicial compensation. So what this does is allow for a higher limit of compensation for senior part-time judges under certain specific circumstances, and we've clearly articulated what those might be.

K. Corrigan: I think, on reading it, that what it says, though, is essentially that a part-time judge can make an extra 20 percent more than the total of 100 percent of a salary, which we were talking about earlier. In other words, a part-time judge could make a maximum of 40 percent of the salary — I would assume sitting 40 percent of the year — plus an amount that would take them, if their pension was enough, up to 100 percent, and then we can add another 20 percent. So essentially, what we could have is a part-time judge who is making up to 120 percent of the salary of a sitting full-time judge. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: The new section (2.1) outlines that in fact a part-time judge can make 20 percent more than the 40 percent that's noted in (2)(a). Currently a part-time judge's salary in any year must not exceed 40 percent of the salary of a full-time judge. The new

section we're adding says that the part-time judge may exceed that by up to 20 percent of the maximum permitted in (2). So in essence, it's 40 percent to a maximum of 20 additional percent.

K. Corrigan: I probably have not worded it properly. What the

section now says is that the part-time judge…. The total they receive in the year, pension and salary included — if you add those two together — could be 20 percent higher than the salary, the income, that the full-time judge is making. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: We need to remember that the circumstances under which a part-time judge would be able to sit more frequently…. The criteria are very specific. Injury or illness to another judge, unanticipated resignation — there are a number of specific reasons that this tool might be used by the chief judge. It is possible that when you add their pension benefits plus the 40 percent of the salary of a full-time judge and up to 20 percent additional, they could, in those circumstances, earn more than a full-time judge if you account for their pension as well.

But let's remember that this is a tool provided to the chief judge. It is to be used in certain limited circumstances. Is it possible? Yes, it is.

[1545]

Do we consider it likely or a regular occurrence? No, we don't.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm asking the question, and I appreciate that the minister has acknowledged that the total that a part-time judge brings in could be up to 20 percent more than what a full-time judge makes.

It does seem significant because, in fact, I believe that this

section was in place previously, saying that there was a limit and that there was a reason for the limit. I'm wondering if the minister knows when the

section 8 that we are now amending was passed in this Legislature.

Hon. S. Bond: In 2002 the program for part-time judges was created, and that is when that would have been outlined.

K. Corrigan: In 2002, when the present government was the government, there was a

section passed that thought it was a good idea to limit the amount that a part-time judge could make and essentially limit that their earnings as a part-time judge plus their pension did not go any higher than that of a full-time judge. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me why that provision, then, was put into place at that time.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, this is a fairly ironic conversation because I think if this were question period, we would be hearing about the need to add additional judicial resources. In fact, this is precisely the reaction. What is really interesting is that when the judicial compensation review was actually carried through the Legislature, the members opposite actually supported this.

We are bringing it through the Legislature because we agreed as a Legislature, as an assembly — unanimously, as I recall — that this was an important tool for the chief judge. In fact, it is a way in unforeseen and urgent circumstances…. No part-time judge gets to even be considered for this type of compensation unless the specific criteria of unforeseen and urgent circumstances are met.

If there is an unexpected retirement of a judge, if there is a sudden injury or illness — certainly, as the Attorney General, I hear about those from time to time — this allows the chief judge to have another tool to be able to address that. Do we expect this to be a regular usage? The answer to that would be no. Having said that, the chief judge asked for it, and this Legislature approved it.

[ Page 10491 ]

K. Corrigan: I certainly appreciate that we need more members of the judiciary, and we support that, but we also want to make sure that it is the most effective and efficient use of taxpayers' dollars in the way that we are filling those positions. The question is whether doing it this way is the most appropriate way to do it.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell me…. My understanding is that there have been appointed a number of retired judges who are coming back as part-time judges. Are those judges captured under this section?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, retired judges come back, and they act as part-time judges. There's a part-time judges program. Does it automatically qualify them under this section? No, because the chief judge has to determine that and has to meet the criteria that it is unforeseen and urgent needs of the court.

[1550]

We think it's actually a very efficient process because it gives the chief judge the ability in certain circumstances to say: "I need to have that part-time judge work additional hours, sit for additional days." But it does not give the chief judge a blank cheque — although I'm sure he would like one, from most of the conversations I have had him.

This does not do that. In fact, it caps it at 20 percent, in addition to the 40 percent. So we believe there's an appropriate cap in place, that we have clearly defined limited circumstances in which this particular

section would be applied by the chief judge.

K. Corrigan: So the part-time judges that the minister and others in government have talked about having been appointed recently to cover the gaps, really, in the judicial system…. The fact is we are, I think, 15 judges — something like that — down from where we were in 2005.

Unless the criteria that are talked about here were met — that there are unforeseen needs and urgent circumstances, essentially — those part-time judges, then, would be limited to the 40 percent time. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That is indeed correct. In essence, a part-time judge would work up to 40 percent of the salary of a full-time judge, unless the chief judge had a set of unforeseen or urgent circumstances. He could then allow that particular part-time judge to exceed the 40 percent salary of a full-time judge.

Again, when it comes to judicial resources, we are diligently adding, where appropriate, additional judicial resources. In fact, part of the discussion we're having about justice reform in the province is really about looking at the other things that impact the need for judges and the appointment of judges. We have to look at a drop in crime rate and a number of other factors which I have articulated numerous times in the House.

This

section would be used by the chief judge at his discretion when certain specific circumstances are met.

L. Krog: I just have a question for the Attorney General with respect to the use of part-time judges. What percentage of the judiciary, or judicial time involved, is used by part-time judges presently?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the specific percentage, but certainly, our staff can work to do that and provide that to the member opposite, as we have done with other issues in the past.

L. Krog: The reason I raise the issue in the context of this clarification, if you will, or allowance for an exception so that a part-time judge could be utilized more fully, is simply this. And it's particularly applicable in those jurisdictions outside of the Big Smoke of Vancouver, where there can be a certain reluctance for judges to start cases because they know that they're only there for a few days and then they're back to Vancouver. In other words, they're not a resident judge.

We have resident judges in Nanaimo, Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, Victoria, etc. But in the smaller centres a judge is there for a few days from another jurisdiction, filling in because of whatever the situation may be. It may be health. It may be holidays. It may be an increased caseload in that particular registry.

My concern — and this is an issue that can certainly be communicated to Mr. Cowper in the course of his review, and I'm sure he's already considered this and talked about it with the chief judge and other judges he may be talking to — is that we are seeing cases adjourned, whether they be civil or criminal, because judges are not in a position to guarantee that the litigants, whoever they may be — or the Crown, the accused, as the case may be — will be in a position to have his or her return in a timely way.

The last thing judges like to do is split cases. You don't like to be hearing two or three days of evidence and then six months until you hear the next part of the case. The only way you're going to be able to handle that, of course, is if you engage in having transcripts prepared. We all know that that's a very expensive proposition and leads to more costs in the justice system.

[1555]

That's the context in which I'm raising the issue around the use of part-time judges. I'm wondering if the Attorney General has considered that in a general way.

What this

section is really doing is giving an opportunity to the chief judge to utilize a part-time judge more effectively. But it raises the question: why is the chief judge having to do that?

Would we not be better served…? Might not the efficiency of the system and might not justice be better served generally if we ensured more full-time resident judges in the various communities that now may be being served by a significant number of out-of-town judges

[ Page 10492 ]

there to fill a specific need? In other words, might we not get cases dealt with more effectively?

Indeed, the prospect of encouraging local knowledge of a situation, I think, is always a healthy thing. I think justice must serve the communities. It might in fact lead to an enhanced and more efficient justice system. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could comment on that.

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite referenced in his first question, I think that those are exactly the kinds of issues that Geoff Cowper is looking at.

I can only assure the member this — that when the chief judge recently requested additional judges, we agreed to provide those. In fact, the chief judge identified exactly where those judges were going to go. He outlined the needs that he felt were most significant, and it was appropriate for us to respond by providing the resources that he requested. We did that, and in fact, judges were appointed virtually right across the province in a variety of areas.

This is not the answer in and of itself to systemic issues in the justice system. I think what this is, is another tool to give as much flexibility as possible, fully recognizing the independence of the chief judge to deal with extraordinary circumstances. I think that's prudent. In fact, this Legislature agreed with that, and what we're doing now is simply putting in place the legislative mandate to do what we agreed to do.

Is it the answer to every issue related to judicial capacity? No, and in fact, that's why I'm very pleased with the kinds of engagement we're seeing across sectors in the justice system who are very much prepared to talk to us about what kinds of things, fully recognizing the independence of the judiciary, we could contemplate.

I think there's healthy debate going on. This is not the answer to that in and of itself, but I think it is creative, and I think it's a productive way of responding to the chief judge's concerns.

L. Krog: Just a couple of points around the section. I take it this section, the proposed amendment, is the result of a request from the Provincial Court judiciary, from the chief judge. I'm just wondering: was any indication given of how many exceptions there would likely be in the course of any given year that we would require this kind of leeway to allow for a 20 percent increase in the maximum permitted under the section?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it was a request of the chief judge and, again, a part of our response to the review.

I know that the member opposite is going to know this, but we did contemplate, obviously, the circumstances related to serious injury or unforeseen circumstances. But by the very definition of the criteria, it would be hard to quantify when it says "unforeseen." It's pretty difficult to quantify something that's unforeseen.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 8 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

SECTION 8, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 3 of the Jury Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 242, is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (1) (

p) and (

q) and substituting the following:

(

p) a person convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) for whom a pardon record suspension has not been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada),

(

q) currently charged with an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada), or , and

(

b) by repealing subsection (2) . ]

[1600]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: The amendment to

section 8 replaces the word "pardon" with the term "record suspension" in subsection 3(a)(

p) of the Jury Act. It is being done to reflect the recent amendment to the Criminal Records Act made by the federal government. That was done on March 13, obviously after we had tabled this legislation. In fact, that is the amendment that we are moving.

Amendment approved.

section 8 as amended.

K. Corrigan: There's a slight change here. It's not a pardon; it's a record suspension. Maybe the minister can just confirm, first of all, that the effect of this…. This is talking about a disqualification from serving as a juror. You know, serving on a jury is one of the very important, I think, privileges in our country and in our province. It is part of one of the very important institutions of a democracy.

While it may be true that many people do not end up serving on juries for a variety of reasons, including just the luck of the draw, the disqualification of having somebody serve on a jury is, I think, a serious matter, because it's part of our judicial system and part of our democracy. It is a privilege, as I said.

My reading of this is essentially that it's going to change the present

section 3 of the Jury Act, which talks about who is disqualified from serving on a jury. Presently it says: "A person is disqualified from serving as a juror who is...." And there's a whole list, like "(

a) not a Canadian citizen, (

b) not resident in British Columbia, (

c) under the age of majority," a member of the Legislature, and various other reasons.

Section (

p) presently says you can't serve on a jury if you're "a person convicted within the previous 5 years of

[ Page 10493 ]

an offence for which the punishment could be a fine of more than $2 000 or imprisonment for one year or more, unless the person has been pardoned."

That's going to be changed to say that a person can't serve on a jury if they've been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for whom a record suspension — which would have been like a pardon, I take it — had not been granted. I have a real concern. First of all, maybe the minister can confirm that anybody who has been convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada, if they haven't received a pardon, will no longer be able to serve on juries in this province.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, that's incorrect. This doesn't change who can serve on a jury. What it is, is clarity in wording. The concern is that if you read the old sections, it's very difficult to interpret whether or not you fit in that category. For example, a person who is being summoned is rarely aware of the full range of punishments for their convictions or their charges. The

section that is the old

section is now simply being clarified and categorized in the new section.

We're not radically changing the ability to have a person serve on a jury. We are simply clarifying the wording of the two jury disqualification criteria. Currently in British Columbia the disqualification criteria are noted, and we are simply clarifying the wording. Of course, we amended it to line up with the recent changes by the federal government.

[1605]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: Well, the old

section says that you can't serve if you were convicted within the previous five years. Presumably, under the old

section — I could well be misreading this — it seems to me that if you had been convicted ten years ago, you could serve on a jury. The new section, to me, says that if you've ever been convicted, then you can't serve on a jury. I might be missing something there, but that's my reading of it.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we are looking at clarifying the wording. In fact, the existing disqualification provisions in the act with regard to criminal convictions and criminal charges are very difficult to interpret, so we are creating a precise definition of the disqualifications. The translation of the old

section is now included in the new section.

If you have been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for which a record suspension has not been granted, you will not be able to serve on a jury in British Columbia. Those are the disqualification criteria, and the purpose of the amendment is to clarify and simplify the wording of those disqualifications.

K. Corrigan: I'm sorry. I just don't get it from the reading of what's in front of me. This is for our great listening audience. The old act says disqualified from serving as a juror is someone who is "a person convicted within the previous 5 years of an offence."

It seems to me, apart from the fine part, that presently if you were convicted ten years ago for an offence, then you could serve on a jury. But under the new act, if you were convicted ten years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when you were 18 years old or whatever, you are no longer able to serve on a jury. Is that not correct — the comparison?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite previously, we are clarifying the sections that outline the disqualification criteria. So if you have been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and you have not been granted either a pardon or a record suspension, you will not be able to serve on a jury in British Columbia, or if you are currently charged with an offence under the Criminal Code or Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The concern was that people who were summoned rarely would have the full understanding of the breadth of their convictions and charges and how they would fit into the old section. This is simplifying and clarifying the wording in

section 8.

K. Corrigan: Would you agree that it's not just simplifying and clarifying; it is changing?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: The changes include clarifying the wording. If you have been charged under the sections noted in (

p) and (q), you will not be able to serve on a jury unless you receive a record suspension or a pardon.

L. Krog: I don't think the minister is deliberately trying to miss the point here that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake is trying to make, but I think it's fairly clear it me. The existing

section 3(1) says: "A person is disqualified from serving as a juror who is…(

p) a person convicted within the previous 5 years of an offence for which the punishment could be a fine of more than $2 000 or imprisonment for one year or more, unless the person has been pardoned."

So if I was convicted four years ago of drunk driving and I haven't received a pardon, then I can't serve on a jury. If, however, I was convicted of drunk driving six years ago — doesn't matter whether I've been pardoned or not — I am qualified under the existing

section to serve as a juror. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: The member has articulated the change in language. The

section now reads, as I have said, that a person convicted under the Criminal Code or Controlled

[ Page 10494 ]

Drugs and Substances Act will not be able to serve on a jury unless they have a record suspension or a pardon. In fact, this language mirrors language that's in place in other jurisdictions.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's answer, but what we're simply trying to get her to acknowledge is what I think is pretty obvious, and it's not a tricky question. Under the existing act, the way it reads now, if my conviction is ten years old, happened in 2002, I am entitled to serve as a juror. I am not disqualified. Is that correct?

The Chair: Member for Nanaimo, can you please repeat the question?

L. Krog: Just a simple example. The existing legislation, under the existing act, 3(1)(p) — my reading of it — very simply says if I was convicted of an offence ten years ago, I am qualified to serve as a juror under the existing provision. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: Unless there has been a record suspension or a pardon, the

section clearly outlines that if you have been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code or Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, you will not be able to serve on a jury. You can, however, obviously, apply for a record suspension.

L. Krog: I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. I'm referring to the existing

section which is proposed to be amended. It says: "a person convicted within the previous 5 years of an offence for which the punishment could be a fine of more than $2 000 or imprisonment for one year or more, unless the person has been pardoned."

What that says to me — pretty plain reading — is that if four years ago I was convicted of theft under $200 but I've received a pardon, I can serve as a juror. If I haven't received a pardon, I can't serve as a juror under the existing provision. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: The change removes the five years, and in fact the person would be required to look at a record suspension and apply for that.

[1615]

L. Krog: That's the point that we've been trying to get through to the minister. This, in fact, is a fairly significant expansion of the disqualification. I'll give the minister a perfectly good and historic example: the former distinguished member of this assembly Frank Howard. Frank Howard sat as an MLA in this chamber for many years and sat in the federal parliament — a distinguished parliamentarian. He was the subject, if I recall my history correctly, of a bit of a blackmail attempt when he was a very young man. As stupid young men do…. As the minister well knows, the greater percentage of crime in a society is determined by the percentage of 18-to-24-year-old males in it.

He was convicted of armed bank robbery — I think I'm correct in that — and served three years. Frank Howard at the age of 40 or the age of 60, under the proposed change, notwithstanding all his distinguished time as a parliamentarian, if he were able to do so, would be ineligible to serve as a juror under proposed amendment.

If a 19-year-old male was convicted of public mischief, tearing down a stop sign, and then went on to complete law school, became a Provincial Court judge and retired, under this

section he would be ineligible to serve as a juror. This is a pretty dramatic expansion of the disqualification of persons to serve as jurors.

Now, I could make some cute joke about: any criminal would want a jury of his peers, so to speak, to decide his or her guilt or innocence. One can understand that, you know, you're up for bank robbery, so you want 12 bank robbers. But jokes like that aside, I'm asking the minister: does she think it makes sense to expand it this broadly?

You know, we recognize in our society that people make mistakes when they're young and stupid. Some of them make them a little older. But they reform themselves, and they become productive and useful members of society. The right to serve on a jury — and I see it as a right and a privilege, not an imposition by the state — surely must be an important one. I can't understand, given the legislative restriction now — it says it has to be within the previous five years — why we're now expanding it, literally, to a person's lifetime.

I could be wrong, and the minister will correct me, but I don't believe that there's a disqualification based on age per se. It just says: "subject to a mental or physical infirmity incompatible…."

Interjection.

L. Krog: Yes, subject to minors.

So if I'm a 75-year-old long-distance runner who has had a distinguished career in business in the province, if I committed that act of mischief when I was 19, tore down a stop sign, under the proposed legislation I'm ineligible to serve on a jury.

Does the minister think this is, in fact, a good thing to do, given the more restrictive wording of the section? I don't disagree with the minister that if you get a jury notice and you read it and you're not the most sophisticated individual, you might not realize whether or not you fall within a crime for which you could be imprisoned for more than a year or fined more than $2,000. Most of us don't have a Criminal Code lying around the house to check.

What this

section is doing is dramatically increasing the number of persons who'd be disqualified as serving as jurors. I just want to hear the minister say that she thinks

[ Page 10495 ]

this is a really good thing, given that I think she understands now what the opposition's concern is around the broadening of the expansion of disqualification.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I certainly understand the member opposite's point, but there is a way back to serve on the jury. That is that after three to five years, if someone has been convicted under the Criminal Code, they can actually apply to have their record suspended or a pardon granted. We believe that other jurisdictions have used a similar criteria. I certainly understand the member opposite's view. We actually believe there is a way back to being able to serve on a jury.

[1620]

So it is incorrect to suggest that, in fact, this precludes jury service, but this relates to individuals who have been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, for whom a pardon or, now, a record suspension, has been not been granted under the Criminal Code.

So yes, there is a step. The person would need to apply to make sure that they have the ability to serve on that jury, but it is not about automatically disallowing them. Probably on this point we'll have to agree to disagree. I certainly respect the member opposite's view. This is about clarity. It is about consequences, and it is about…. There is still an opportunity that the individual could eventually serve on a jury.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response that one can simply go and apply for a pardon, which is now called a record suspension, I suppose, but that process is often extremely time-consuming, quite onerous, can be difficult and it applies — to use the line of the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain — whether I was an axe murderer or a person who'd been in possession of a small amount of marijuana. The process is the same in terms of the paperwork and expense, as I understand it.

It just strikes me that this is an over-the-top reaction to a problem, again, that may not exist. In other words, as I've said earlier today: are we creating a legislative solution to a problem that really isn't an issue? I just want to ask the minister: is she aware of, or have the sheriffs or anyone else given her, statistics or numbers that would indicate that this is an issue that requires this Legislature to, in fact, so dramatically expand the nature of the disqualification?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I said earlier to the member opposite that to suggest that there's a dramatic expansion…. I don't think that's accurate, and I don't think that it's fair to this piece of legislation, actually.

Not only that, there is no ultimate end point. In fact, the person who has been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code would be required, if that is something that is important to them, to actually apply for a pardon or a suspension of their record.

To suggest that it's a dramatic expansion is not, in my view, accurate. I respect the member and his view. Secondly, it does not mean that there is a lifetime preclusion from serving on a jury. It is simply stating that, in these areas, if you have been charged and if you have been convicted, there is a step that you would need to take in order to be able to serve on a jury.

K. Corrigan: Well, first of all, the minister said that there was no change and insisted in several questions that there was no change whatsoever. Now it has been acknowledged that there is a change and that somebody who has had a conviction that is more than five years old would have been able to serve on a jury and now can't.

I do not understand why it is that somebody who could have perhaps had a conviction 20, 25 years ago, simply because they have not gone and sought a pardon, cannot serve on a jury in this province. One of the things about our judicial system and about democracy generally is that we are supposed to be treating people equally.

When somebody has done their time, they have presumably become contributing members of society. I would think, actually, that person who was now a contributing member of society and had not committed further crimes would be a desirable person to consider for a jury. They'd perhaps have a depth of experience — not all good, but perhaps somebody who has been rehabilitated and has done well in the world….

I simply do not understand why the minister, first of all, would say that there has been no change and then, when acknowledging that there is a change here, would say: "Well, the person has to go apply for a pardon." That's an onerous thing, and I really don't understand what the connection is between whether somebody gets a pardon or not when they have no longer been committing crimes and it's been many, many years. That's my feeling about it.

[1625]

L. Krog: Forgive me if this appears cheeky, but if the former Premier of this province had been convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada for what he did in Hawaii, he — notwithstanding he is now the high commissioner at the Court of St. James — would be ineligible to serve on a jury in British Columbia. That is the effect of this legislative change.

I don't say it to be cheeky. I say it to bring focus to what's being asked of this Legislature today. It is a dramatic expansion, no matter how you cut it.

There are numerous individuals in this province — safe to say, thousands of individuals — convicted of possession of small amounts of marijuana who would be ineligible to serve on a jury as a result of this section. Right now, if it was six years ago or five years plus a day, they'd be able to serve under the terms of the existing legislation. But under the proposed change, they would be ab-

[ Page 10496 ]

solutely and utterly disqualified unless they sought and obtained a pardon.

Moreover, we're not just dealing with convictions. The proposed change,

section 8, adds: "(

q) currently charged with an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada)."

Let me give an example again. I think I have a certificate for medical marijuana, and there's an issue with the bureaucracy whether I obtained