2010 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jennifer Hao

R. Lee

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ron Butlin

Hon. I. Chong

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Creston Valley Blossom Festival

M. Mungall

Aboriginal Awareness Week

M. Dalton

100th anniversary of Prince Rupert

G. Coons

Visit to Shanghai

R. Lee

Alice Maitland

D. Donaldson

Tsleil-Waututh First Nation Olympic legacy celebration

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Waiting times for MRI and diagnostic services

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

S. Hammell

D. Routley

Self-exclusion program for problem gamblers

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

Impact of harmonized sales tax on health care products

J. Brar

Hon. C. Hansen

Implementation of harmonized sales tax

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

D. Donaldson

J. Kwan

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2010 (continued)

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

B. Ralston

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2010

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2010

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Veterinarians Act

L. Popham

Hon. S. Thomson

H. Bains

J. Brar

B. Ralston

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Veterinarians Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community and Rural Development

Hon. B. Bennett

S. Fraser

B. Simpson

D. Donaldson

K. Corrigan

N. Simons

[ Page 5621 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm just looking for my guests. I think they're probably still making their way in, but I have the great pleasure of introducing several members of the Treaty 8 First Nations, who will be joining us in the House today.

They are West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson; Prophet River First Nation Chief Lynette Tsakoza; Doig River First Nation Chief Norman Davis; Treaty 8 Tribal Chief Liz Logan; Prophet River First Nation Coun. Laurette Kaiser; and the negotiations and implementation director for Treaty 8, Diane Abel.

[1335]

Earlier today these three Treaty 8 First Nations signed four resource management agreements and a final agreement with the province that will provide greater certainty around economic opportunities, resource development, land stewardship and heritage conservation in the traditional territory of these Treaty 8 First Nations. I'd ask all members of the House to please make them welcome on this very special and historic day.

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce to this House my very good friend, Scott Lunny, who is an assistant to the director in district 3 of the Steelworkers. He's also a vice-president of the B.C. NDP.

Along with him is a special guest from the U.K., Louisa Bull. She's a deputy branch secretary of Unite, a union that represent over two-million-strong workers in the United Kingdom. Please help me give them a real warm welcome to this beautiful place here.

Hope your journey is great.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House today Coun. Richard Chang, a councillor in the city of Burnaby. With Richard are Katherine Shieh, CEO, and Bill Tulloss, the vice-president of StructuRad, a company out of Encino, California, who are here meeting with several members of the opposition to talk about their company, which offers teleradiology solutions and image-sharing networks. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

T. Lake: We're very privileged to have working in the B.C. Liberal caucus someone from a very proud and prominent Kamloops family, Stacie Dley. Today she is joined by her partner, and first time to be introduced in the House, Mr. Steve de Jong. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I'd like to welcome a friend and supporter, Silvester Law. Silvester is up there in the gallery, and he's been a great supporter of ours over the years. We really appreciate him coming to visit.

Welcome, Silvester.

S. Hammell: I have the pleasure of introducing three teachers from Surrey. Stephanie Argent is a teacher-librarian at Holly Elementary, an inner-city school in Surrey. She combines her teaching degree with a background of library, community recreation and learning support in her role as a teacher-librarian in a multicultural school with 40 languages.

Patricia Baisi has been a teacher-librarian in the Surrey school district since 1999. She has chaired the Surrey schools Book of the Year program for the last two years and currently works in two libraries.

Kathy Leko is a teacher in Surrey school district for 23 years, has worked in small rural schools, inner-city schools and large suburban schools in primary and intermediate grades. Could the House please make all these three fine teacher-librarians welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: From time to time in the House my colleague from Prince George North and I like to recognize special people. I'd like to do that today. I'd like to recognize Mrs. Brenda Bell. Today is a very special day in the Bell household. It is actually their 32nd wedding anniversary. I think anyone who could be with the member from Prince George North for 32 years deserves a special commendation in the Legislature today.

D. Thorne: I also have the pleasure today to introduce two teacher-librarians. I'd like to introduce the House to Maureen Mcdonough, who has been a teacher for 18 years and a teacher-librarian for the last three. She's currently the teacher-librarian at Laronde Elementary in Surrey. In addition to her teaching degree, she has a master's in education in curriculum and instruction and a certificate of teacher-librarianship. She is also one of the coordinators of the preschool literacy program Parents as Literacy Supporters, otherwise known as PALS.

[1340]

I would like the House to welcome them, along with the three teacher-librarians from Surrey my colleague introduced — highly educated, wonderful parts of our

[ Page 5622 ]

education system. I'd like the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Hawes: I'd like to introduce 35 grade 11 students from Heritage Park Secondary in Mission. They will be arriving just about when question period starts. They are with five parents and their teacher, Ms. Holly Mayo. They are here to take a look at what's going on here in the buildings. I would ask all members…. I'm pretty sure you'll want to be on your best behaviour for these grade 11 students, who I'm sure would like to see a very normal, quiet debate, and I'm sure they will. With that, please welcome them as they arrive.

Tributes

JENNIFER HAO

R. Lee: I would like to take this time to congratulate a grade 10 student at Burnaby North Secondary School in my constituency. Jennifer Hao won first place with an essay in Canada's Greenest School competition. Jennifer herself will receive a $3,000 scholarship, $500 in green school supplies and, most impressively, a $200,000 hybrid school bus for her school. Would the House please join me in congratulating Jennifer and all the students who took

part in this impressive green inner-city program.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: Some members of this House may have noticed there was a gathering of the Clan MacRae at the Legislature today. I would like to pay special note to some people here. Marigold MacRae, Gracious Lady of Eilean Donan Castle of Scotland and president of the Clan MacRae Society of the United Kingdom, is here. The Baroness Miranda MacRae–Van Lynden, 24th constable of Eilean Donan Castle; the Rev. Dr. Robert MacRae, president of the Clan MacRae Society of Canada; and several members of the Clan MacRae Society are here to meet for their AGM and to attend the Highland Games and Celtic Festival. Will the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

RON BUTLIN

Hon. I. Chong: All members will know that on Monday we celebrate one of our statutory holidays. Here in Victoria we have our annual Island Farms Victoria Day Parade on Monday morning, starting at 9 a.m. I know those members who are local will attend it, as well as those who may arrive Sunday night. I hope that they will participate in this.

I wanted to pay special acknowledgment and recognition to an individual, the parade chairman, who has been doing this on a voluntary basis for the past 20 years and does an incredible job. I know he would be here watching us today, but I'm sure he's watching on his television. I would ask the House to please recognize and acknowledge Ron Butlin, parade chairman.

Introductions by Members

J. Rustad: A couple months ago, I had the great pleasure of going and visiting the Rainbow Christian School in my riding. Today there is a school group that has come down here to visit us. They aren't in the precinct quite yet, but they will be shortly. It's a group of 16 grade 8 students, accompanied by 12 adults. Mr. Mark Durupt is the head of that group here. I just wanted to make them all welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Serenading visitors to the Legislature today is a group of fiddle students from Whitehorse in the Yukon, on an exchange program with young fiddlers from Victoria. Both the Yukon fiddlers and the Victoria-based fiddlers are led by my brother-in-law Daniel Lapp, who is out on the steps of the Legislature playing for tourists today. Would the House please welcome all of the students from both Victoria and the Yukon.

[1345]

D. Hayer: We have one special guest here today, Owen C. MacRae. He is the Canadian director of Clan MacRae Society of Canada and one of the hardest-working residents of Surrey. I would like to welcome him and thank him for all the work he does for Surrey. Will the House please make him very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CRESTON VALLEY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL

M. Mungall: This May long weekend presents a big weekend for the Creston Valley. The 69th Creston Valley Blossom Festival kicks off Friday, May 21, with both the Party in the Park and the opening concert featuring the Doug Arden comedy show.

Not to be outdone by Friday, Saturday shows up with fun-packed activities, most notably the Blossom Festival parade that features marching bands, floats, clowns, horses and the local MLA throwing candy to both kids and kids at heart.

There's also a street fair in Creston's downtown Spirit Square, events saluting the Creston Museum, the Classic Car Show and Shine, a soccer tournament, events at the Creston Valley wildlife management area, a spike-driving contest, a dunk tank, a climbing wall at Millennium Park, a chili cook-off and so much more. So you see what I mean when I say "big weekend."

[ Page 5623 ]

But a big weekend just wouldn't earn that title without one key ingredient. That, of course, is the pancake breakfast. The Creston Valley Blossom Festival not only hosts one such pancake breakfast, where festival-goers get to line up and get their share of syrup and flapjacks, but you will find three pancake breakfasts where you can enjoy friends, family and neighbours over a cup of joe and a stack.

Now, if all that isn't enough to get you running over to Creston for the weekend, the festival theme this year is: "New pool? That's cool." Celebrating the grand opening of the Creston Valley's new swimming pool and updated community rec centre, the festival is ringing in this community resource with style and great fanfare.

So come for the pancakes, come for the parade, and come for a dip in the pool, but whatever you do, don't miss out on Creston Valley's 69th Blossom Festival.

ABORIGINAL AWARENESS WEEK

M. Dalton: This is Aboriginal Awareness Week in British Columbia. I am proud to be Métis, and I'm proud of the progress that aboriginal people have been making over the past number of years in terms of economic development and treaty agreements with the province.

There are over 130,000 First Nations people and 60,000 Métis in the province, comprising approximately 5 percent of our population. They are a fast-growing and youthful people, which contrasts sharply with the aging demographics of the general populace.

The increased participation of aboriginal people in our workforce is becoming increasingly important as time progresses. As was evident in this year's Olympic Games, aboriginal peoples are a vital part of not only Canada's but British Columbia's social fabric and heritage.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the signing of the historical Nisga'a treaty. In just the past year we've signed treaties with six First Nations, including the first urban treaty with Tsawwassen First Nation. These treaties bring reconciliation and increased economic opportunities for First Nations people as well as for all British Columbians.

Though we have made significant positive steps together, there remain many challenges, which will only be resolved with determination, vision, cooperation and time. I make special mention of Shawn Atleo from the west coast of Vancouver Island, who was elected National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations last year. I also recognize the chiefs and elders throughout the province who work to improve the condition of native communities and their people.

British Columbia's aboriginal people are facing a brighter future, and I know we all share the desire to see more progress to close the social and economic gaps.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF PRINCE RUPERT

G. Coons: "Sold out." That's what the sign says at the headquarters of the Prince Rupert 2010 Homecoming. Two years of intensive organizing, planning and prepping have culminated in a fun-filled long weekend starting today, May 20, and continuing until Sunday, May 23.

[1350]

This is Prince Rupert's third homecoming. The first was in 2000 to celebrate the millennium. It attracted about a thousand people. The second was in 2005, with about 1,800 participants, and this weekend has 2,000 Rupertites partaking, with an amazing 1,100 coming from all parts of the globe — some as far away as Alaska, South Carolina, Texas, Germany, Norway, Dubai and Australia.

What's unique about this homecoming is that Prince Rupert is the only city in the province celebrating their 100th birthday. It's going to be a great weekend, with the usual hospitality rooms, the pancake breakfasts, the wagon rides, the golf scramble, the chauffeur-driven visits to local establishments, the five grad reunions, and the infamous gala and dance.

For Prince Rupert's 100th, there were a couple of intriguing projects. The Rupert Songs CD is a compilation of 15 songs to celebrate Rupert's centennial. It highlights unique

interpretations of the town's spirit, landscape and the infamous weather and was done by current and ex-Rupertites. Homecomers will be entertained by some of these local performers, including Ray Leonard, Cynthia Pyde and Kate Lines.

Also in celebration of Prince Rupert's centennial, a musical production was created, Raven's Story, The Dream Lives On , a musical based on the history of Prince Rupert. It was written by Peter Witherly, Rudy Kelly and Chris Armstrong, produced by Crystal Lorette, directed by Alison O'Toole. It has over a hundred people from the community participating on and off the stage, including their local MLA.

I must acknowledge and thank the eight-member homecoming committee for all the hard work and energy they put into organizing this event and also, as Barb Gruber, says: "Rupert is a place that you just don't forget; it's always on your mind." This will be the best homecoming yet.

VISIT TO SHANGHAI

R. Lee: This week we celebrate Asian Heritage Month in the Parliament Buildings. It reminds us of the deep connection of our province to the Asia-Pacific region. Also this week the Premiers of our three western provinces are visiting China and Japan to promote education, trade and investment.

Last week, in my capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, I had the opportunity to the visit the 2010 Shanghai Expo, which will

[ Page 5624 ]

last for six months with an expected 17 million visitors. "Better city, better life" is the theme uniting the exhibitions of 246 countries.

I attended the opening of the Canada Pavilion and the opening of the Vancouver Pavilion, both pavilions an example of wood in action, as the structures as well as the displays inside are made from wood. Perseverance and efforts like this are behind the success in our efforts to export wood to the Asia-Pacific markets.

I'm sure we are all pleased with the recent announcement of Canfor's mill re-opening and Tolko's agreement with China, which will support 555 direct jobs.

On this trip, together with the Shanghai Business Association of Canada, I met with the vice-mayor of Shanghai; provincial and state ministers; consuls general; independent news and institutes, including the Wenhui-Xinmin United Press Group; Shanghai Women's Federation; and Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

I shared information about the Sunshine Coast, Burnaby Board of Trade and the province with many of the people I met. It was an opportunity to help connect the B.C. delegation with Shanghai entrepreneurs, government officials and our trade representatives in China.

I witnessed strong intentions of cooperation in media, agriculture, tourism, education. I'm sure the members would welcome the trip to Shanghai in September if they want to join the trip organized by the Burnaby Board of Trade.

ALICE MAITLAND

D. Donaldson: At the North Central Local Government Association annual meeting held in Smithers earlier this month, there was a celebration to mark 40 years of municipal politics for Hazelton Mayor Alice Maitland. I'll say that again: 40 years, 34 as mayor.

I spent a decade with Alice on Hazelton council. She is a friend and a mentor and has an incredible impact on many leaders in the north, especially as a role model for women in municipal politics, and in this chamber as well.

What was honoured was not just her longevity but her quality of service, integrity and relentlessness in defending rural communities. Many speakers took the stage in what became a very emotional tribute. You could hear a pin drop when former Smithers mayor Jim Davidson said to Alice: "You were right; we were wrong. Those of us in this room did not support you. We didn't think we could fight government."

[1355]

He was referring to an unjust government decision in the late 1980s that allowed timber previously designated for the Hazelton mills to go to Prince George instead. With the support of Hazelton council, Alice battled that decision in the courts and won, but the judge ruled it was too late to reverse the path chosen by government.

The lesson Alice taught all of us, though, was not lost. It was to stand up and fight when resource extractions decisions by government run counter to what is best for the small communities where we live.

Despite that feistiness, that fearlessness, Alice also brings a very strong sense of compassion to her public role, and her ability to compromise when it is needed to get a better situation for the community is very inspiring.

So congratulations, Alice. As her husband, Bill, says, it hasn't been a cakewalk. I know there's been a lot of personal and financial sacrifice, but you've created a legacy of strength for the rest of us to look up to. And the best thing is, as Alice said that night, we aren't getting rid of her yet.

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH FIRST NATION

OLYMPIC LEGACY CELEBRATION

J. Thornthwaite: The Tsleil-Waututh Nation, or people of the inlet, live on the north shore of the Burrard Inlet. They are a small but growing community of almost 500 people. On April 26 while I was here in Victoria, my constituency assistant Carol Dawson attended the Tsleil-Waututh Nation Olympic legacy celebration that recognized all the partners that helped create the success of the 2010 games and for helping the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation reach centre stage.

Last week at the Tsleil-Waututh Nation community centre I was honoured when Chief Justin Sky George wrapped me in a blanket that signifies warmth, love and the willingness to work and help each other. I was also presented with a plaque which reads: "Our memories of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games will always remind us that when we paddle together as one, we can achieve great success. Our hands are up to you in thanks and appreciation, thanking all of you honoured ones."

Local First Nations leaders remarked that since the games, a new model for aboriginal participation has been created for a platform of new solutions. Chief Justin George has said: "We see this as a model for how we can collectively come to the table. Rather than focus on problems, we focus on solutions. It's not going to happen overnight, but this will be seen as a building block for the future."

Dennis Thomas, who welcomed the world to Vancouver wearing a wolf pelt on his shoulders during the Olympic opening ceremonies, remarked that this is the first time an indigenous group has been acknowledged as an official partner in the games. So I, too, raise my hands in thanks and appreciation for the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and agree that when all of us do paddle together with our First Nations partners, we achieve great success in British Columbia.

[ Page 5625 ]

Oral Questions

WAITING TIMES FOR

MRI AND DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

A. Dix: Ironically, my question to the Minister of Health is about wait times. If your doctor's office calls on your behalf and books a regular, medically necessary MRI at Vancouver General Hospital today, there's currently a 14- to 18-month wait time. In Abbotsford it's 18 months. That's November 2011. In Surrey it's 18 months. In Nanaimo it's 14 months. In Burnaby it's 18 months.

In many communities wait time has almost tripled since this minister became Minister of Health. Does the minister think it's acceptable for people in pain to wait well over a year for medical services in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first of all, I want to make something very clear. Any British Columbian that requires an urgent diagnostic, whether it's a CT scan, an MRI or an X-ray, will receive that — full stop. The issue is with elective, non-urgent procedures, and there is a wait. The member is quite correct to point that out.

The number of MRI machines in British Columbia has gone from nine in 2001, when we first got elected, to 24 today. The number of diagnostics that we do is up 170 percent, the number of MRIs that we're doing.

Even in spite of those increases, there is still a challenge. So we are looking at the non-urgent MRIs and making sure that we do everything we can — looking at how the system is delivering it, the appropriateness of the referrals — to deal with the virtually unlimited demand for MRIs.

[1400]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the only innovation this minister has come up with is to cut 11,500 MRI procedures in Vancouver Island and Vancouver Coastal Health — 11,500 according to the health authorities themselves — and to see a dramatic increase in wait times.

Oh, yeah, there was one more. They stopped publishing the wait-time data on the website. That's a real innovation from the Minister of Health.

The reality is that an 18-month wait time is completely unacceptable, and it's directly the result of the policies of the Ministry of Health. They did more MRI procedures before the election than after the election. That's what that was about, hon. Speaker. When will the minister do something about unacceptable wait times across British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is interesting that the Health critic brings up the issue of wait times, because I notice he never talks about the wait times that CIHI talks about — the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which said, actually, that British Columbia is number one for cardiac wait times; surgical wait times for hips, for knees, for cataracts. He never talks about that — number one.

Now, you know, I know that the Health critic likes to be selective. He's now talking about MRIs. Granted, there is no standardized measuring process across the country for MRIs. I acknowledge that. But what I can tell the member is that we have gone from nine MRI machines and 37,000 tests done in 2000-2001, when his government was government, to today where we've got 24 MRIs, over a hundred thousand procedures being done. I get that we continually have to try and improve.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: It's impressive. After a year of study the minister has discovered that every health system in the world is doing more MRIs today than ten years ago. The Health Minister has discovered, apparently not discovered, 18-month wait times. All of the procedures we're talking about, every single one of them, are medically necessary.

Now, Mr. Cruz — he's a patient in Vancouver. He was involved in a terrible hit-and-run. He was the victim of a terrible hit-and-run. He was told that for the diagnostic procedure he requires on his legs he would have to wait until July. That's July 2007. Can the minister explain to us how that was now or ever acceptable in a public health care system?

Hon. K. Falcon: He refers to a gentleman, Mr. Cruz, that did spend one week back in February at Vancouver General Hospital. The member should know that during that time he did receive urgent diagnostics. He had two CT scans for his neck and for….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Excuse me. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'll start repeating because the member interrupted me.

Mr. Cruz was admitted to Vancouver General Hospital back in February where he spent approximately a week. During that time Mr. Cruz received a number of urgent scans: two CT scans for his spine and his head as well as an ultrasound and seven different sets of X-rays.

Subsequent to being discharged a week later, he has been an out-patient and received out-patient treatments. I understand that he does have a non-urgent MRI for a knee that his doctors referred to. The member should know that for non-urgent MRIs there is a wait-list, and we are very concerned about that. We're doing everything we can to try and address those situations, not just for Mr. Cruz but for British Columbians right across the province.

[ Page 5626 ]

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, my constituents are now waiting 18 months — 18 months — to undergo a medically required MRI at Surrey Memorial Hospital. When this government's electoral prospects were on the line, resources were allocated towards reducing MRI waits in Metro Vancouver. That funding has subsequently been withdrawn, and now by sanctioning layoffs of MRI technicians, the number of tests the public health care system performs is even further reduced. Treatment cannot proceed without diagnostics.

On those grounds, will the minister reverse this course?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: It's interesting that that member asks the question, because of course, that member was a cabinet minister during an NDP government when Fraser Health had only one MRI machine for the entire Fraser Health. In fact, it was a common practice in Fraser Health that they would ship their patients to Vancouver to receive the MRIs.

Well, I can tell you this. In Fraser Health the number of MRI procedures from 2001 to today are up 528 percent. But you know, even with a 528 percent increase, the demand is virtually limitless. That's why we are actually trying to find different ways to deliver those procedures to increase productivity and to try and ensure that British Columbians waiting for non-urgent MRIs can receive them as quickly as they rightly deserve them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: This member has a lot of time wandering in the past, but this decade is on his watch. Surrey Memorial is not only my community hospital, but it also serves the Minister of Health's constituents of Surrey-Cloverdale. His decision to undercut their access to diagnostic tests leaves them waiting for over a year for treatment. The minister knows that this should not be the standard wait time, nor does it have to be.

Will the minister at least restore MRI volumes in the Lower Mainland to pre-election, May 2009 levels?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I can tell you that what residents in Surrey are really proud of is the fact that there's a $240 million out-patient hospital being constructed right now in Surrey. I'll tell you what else they're proud of. They're very proud of the fact that there's a new $600 million Surrey tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital being constructed in Surrey.

You know, the challenge for British Columbia is a challenge right across the country with MRIs. It's that the explosion of requests for MRIs for non-urgent procedures is virtually unlimited. What we are trying to do is deal with that in a thoughtful way that looks at the appropriateness of referrals, that looks at how we can try and deliver those MRIs more efficiently for non-urgent MRIs. It is a challenge for British Columbia, but we are working on a number of solutions to deal with it.

D. Routley: My constituents are referred to Nanaimo Regional General Hospital for diagnostic tests. This Liberal government, through VIHA, in the lead-up to the last provincial election announced additional funding for MRIs. That was before the election. After the election VIHA was forced to cut thousands of scans.

The wait time is now more than tripled, to 14 months. My community, like others in B.C., has invested, through their tax dollars and through donations, in these MRI machines and these procedures. Will the minister stop wasting our investment in public health care?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's important to point out to the member opposite that actually the largest investment in public health care is occurring right now under this government and has been…. I want to remind the member opposite that actually the health care budget is going up 15 percent over the next three years. That's over two billion additional dollars just for operating.

[1410]

As you know and as I've said before, that doesn't even include the additional $3 billion in capital, including the new Royal Jubilee Hospital that just recently received international acclaim and that's under construction.

Really, the challenge is this. The challenge is that even in spite of those massive investments in Canada and, indeed, in British Columbia, we still have virtually unlimited demand. So the responsibility of governments is to figure out how we can do more with the dollars, the record dollars, we're already pouring into the system.

The NDP approach is: don't change anything; just huck more money at it. Our approach is to actually try to look at doing things innovatively, differently, and that's what we're going to continue to try and do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: On the one hand, the minister boasts about spending, and then he accuses this side of only asking for spending. He talks about the cost-efficiency.

Through the chair, Minister, it is not cost-efficient…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: …to let this equipment sit idle. To allow wait times to grow exponentially is not cost-efficient. In fact, it creates a bottleneck in the system. It does not reduce health care expenditures. Instead, it accomplishes the complete opposite because patients deteriorate. Why is the minister continuing to make decisions that

[ Page 5627 ]

put more strain on Vancouver Island patients and their health care system?

Hon. K. Falcon: How refreshing to finally hear the words "efficient" and "efficiency" come out of the NDP. That's got to be a first. Let's record that one in the history books.

I can tell you that when we do other changes in the health system — like, for example, when we move towards joint procurement where all the health authorities are purchasing together, saving $150 million — they are opposed to it. Every single change we've made that improves efficiency, the NDP are hysterically opposed to. So it is surprising that that member, of all members, actually lets the word "efficiency" cross his lips.

The fact is that they're opposed to change. They are opposed to innovation. We have always said that we embrace innovation. We embrace change. We embrace the challenge of trying to deal with a health care system that in spite of record funding increases, still faces challenges. We'll continue to innovate on this side of the House.

SELF-EXCLUSION PROGRAM

FOR PROBLEM GAMBLERS

S. Simpson: Governments have a responsibility to have effective programs in place to deal with addictions. Yesterday we heard about the failure of the voluntary self-exclusion program for people with gambling addictions. This is a program, as the government will know, that looks to exclude problem gamblers from casinos after they self-enrol.

We heard about Shannon, who registered for this program in 2008 and then proceeded to gamble away $40,000 in casinos, including $4,000 in one 18-hour stint. Her physician, Dr. Jennifer Melamed — an addictions expert, as well — has called the program a sham and has stated: "If you say you're going to keep them out, then keep them out. If you're saying it's a scam and a farce and it's not going to work, then tell the patients upfront."

My question is to the Health Minister. Will the Health Minister commit today to work with his colleague the Minister of Housing and Social Development to do a third-party assessment of the self-exclusion program and to fix the problems with the self-exclusion program?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll take the question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Housing.

[1415]

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS

J. Brar: If the B.C. Liberal government continues to ignore the people of British Columbia that elected them, on July 1 we will see the HST add a new tax on a whole range of health care products that help keep people of British Columbia out of health care: vitamins and supplements, over-the-counter medications and remedies, fitness memberships, bicycles — just to name a few. That is completely contrary to the B.C. Liberal promise to promote healthy living.

My question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Has the Minister of Health Living met with the Finance Minister to let him know that the HST damages the very goals her ministry is responsible to promote?

Hon. C. Hansen: What is clear, I think, to British Columbians is that the vast majority of goods and services, 80 percent of goods and services, will not be affected at all by the introduction of the harmonized sales tax or, in fact, some will actually come down in price.

We recognize that there are some things that are going to be more expensive. That's exactly why we have put in place an HST credit for British Columbia families, and 1.1 million British Columbians will get a cheque in the mail every three months to help offset some of those incremental costs.

The other thing that I think is important for the members opposite to pay attention to is that in British Columbia today we have seen a significant increase in the take-home pay that British Columbians enjoy because of the changes that we've made to personal income tax.

For example, the take-home pay between 1990.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the members might want to get their pencils out and write down these numbers, because I'm sure they'll want to use this in their speeches. Between the years 1990 and 1999 the average take-home pay in British Columbia dropped by $1,525. Between the years 2001 and 2008 the average take-home pay of British Columbians increased by $4,482.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: It's very clear that the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport is not even allowed to stand up and defend her own policies for this government.

This is a story of an individual that talks about the damage the HST has done to that person. Phillip Gabel called us today. Mr. Gabel lives in 100 Mile House. He's a paraplegic because of a car accident six years ago. He takes vitamins to keep his body strong. He needs massage therapy services, and he also takes over-the-counter aspirin as a blood thinner. These are all going to go up under the HST, and Mr. Gabel is very angry with the B.C. Liberals, and rightfully so.

[ Page 5628 ]

My question is again to the minister. Can the minister explain why these health products necessary to keep Phillip Gabel well are going to cost more, completely contrary to Liberal policies?

Hon. C. Hansen: The hon. member will know that the vast majority of products and services that a family needs in their household budget, the core things that people rely on for their families, are either exempt or are not going to change at all as a result of HST. That includes things like home energy. It includes things like basic food and groceries. It includes things like gasoline for their automobile.

I have a question back to the member. When that constituent contacted him, did the member actually tell that constituent that he may be eligible for this HST credit in the form of a cheque in the mail that will arrive? The first of those cheques — by the way, to the member — is arriving in the first week of July. Those cheques will help offset the cost of HST for the vast majority of low- and modest-income British Columbians.

[1420]

IMPLEMENTATION OF

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

B. Ralston: The restaurant and food services industry asked both major parties during the last election: "Will your party oppose harmonizing the GST with the PST in British Columbia?" The B.C. Liberal response in writing was: "It is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal election platform." They continued: "We have no plans to move on harmonizing federal and provincial sales tax."

Why won't the Finance Minister acknowledge what everyone else in British Columbia knows — that the B.C. Liberals broke their promise not to bring in an HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I stand by what I have said in this House. I have outlined for the members opposite the timing and the sequencing of the decisions around the harmonized sales tax, and I will not stand here and have the Finance critic for the official opposition question my integrity in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The truth is that voters were betrayed, and the minister's responses are embarrassing to the people of British Columbia. Will the Finance Minister pluck up his courage and stand up in this House and admit the truth that everyone in British Columbia knows — that the B.C. Liberals made a promise not to bring in the HST, and they broke it?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we promised British Columbians in the election last year was that this was a party that was going to build the economy of British Columbia. It was going to create jobs, and that is exactly what we are delivering.

We are now seeing evidence that British Columbia is going to lead Canada in terms of economic growth this year, according to the Conference Board of Canada. We see where British Columbia is leading Canada in terms of job creation and an unemployment rate that dropped in one month from 7.9 percent down to 7.3 percent. Just this morning one of the three big bond-rating agencies in North America, Standard and Poor's, reconfirmed British Columbia's triple-A credit rating.

After a decade in the 1990s, where we saw British Columbia go from a have province to a have-not province, where we saw consecutive year-after-year downgrades of British Columbia's credit rating, we have now seen a decade of growth, a decade of positive economic outcomes, a decade of strong growth in our credit rating, to the point that we now have a triple-A credit rating. That's what British Columbians elected last year in May, and that's what we are going to deliver.

D. Donaldson: Well, the Minister of Finance brings up integrity. No one's questioned his integrity. What we're questioning is his decision not to tell the people of B.C. he was bringing in the HST before the election.

British Columbians know the HST was a broken election promise by this Liberal government. These absurd excuses are just, plain and simple, not good enough. Is the Minister of Finance saying that a declaration in writing by the B.C. Liberal Party isn't worth the paper it's written on, or will he honour what was written before the election and reverse the HST before it's implemented July 1?

[1425]

Hon. C. Hansen: That's coming from a member who campaigned on a platform of opposing a carbon tax. How many days did it take for the official opposition to flip-flop on their carbon tax after the election?

We were elected….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We were elected on a platform of making sure that British Columbia led North America in economic recovery. We are seeing that evidence today. We know from the commentators and from the leading economists in North America that if we want to truly

[ Page 5629 ]

maximize the opportunities for B.C. families, to maximize jobs all around British Columbia, the adoption of the harmonized sales tax is the single biggest thing we can do to make sure that British Columbia continues on the path of strong economic recovery that we have seen over the last 12 months.

J. Kwan: This charade reminds me of the old game show, Family Feud . What are the two worst broken promises by this Liberal government? The survey says the sale of B.C. Rail and the HST. The first issue is before the Supreme Court of B.C., and the second issue is before the courts of the people.

Will the minister save his colleagues from the wrath of the electorate and just admit that the B.C. Liberals betrayed British Columbians and scrap the HST?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is coming from a member who was actually part of cabinet in the late 1990s, when we saw a net out-migration.

Interjections.

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

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is coming from a member who was part of the cabinet in the NDP government, when we saw 50,000 British Columbians leave this province in search of jobs in other parts of Canada. That was their approach to job creation, but the problem is that they weren't creating jobs in British Columbia. They were creating jobs in Alberta and other parts of Canada.

We have set out a positive agenda. We have set out a competitive tax regime that is actually attracting investment. It's attracting the businesses that are creating the jobs for B.C. families.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Community Development — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 14.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

The Chair: The Minister of State for Mining seeks leave to make an introduction.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Hawes: It gives me pleasure to introduce a number of students — I think there are 35 — from Heritage Park high school in Mission, a great school. They're here with their teacher. I had her name here a moment ago. Holly…. She's waving, anyway.

They're here to watch what's going on. I hope they enjoyed question period. It was, well, probably different for you. But enjoy your trip to the Legislature. I'm sure you're going to learn lots here today. It's a great school. Could the House please make them all feel very welcome.

[1435]

Debate Continued

section 19 (continued) .

M. Farnworth: We're on

section 19, which is a fairly long

section that deals with the changes taking place, moving from not just .08 but down to .05, and the prohibitions that now arise when one does blow or register a blood alcohol content of between .05 and .08 and the changes that take place.

One of the issues I would like to ask at this particular point…. What is happening is that, in essence, we are tightening up the discretionary part of the roadside suspension from 24 hours — it's now if the light goes orange, there will be. I think that's an important change.

What we've done in this province historically is that there has been a significant CounterAttack program that has been accompanied by ads and education programs around that.

Is it the government's intent to ensure that in keeping with these changes, people are made aware of them — that there is an educational component, that there is a campaign component that will drive home the message that there have been some significant changes now in British Columbia and that the yellow light is the same thing as a red light? It will mean significant penalties and significant changes in the way that people who are driving impaired will be treated.

[ Page 5630 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for his comments. I think there is a case to be made for drawing the public's attention to the changes that these provisions represent. I think they are significant enough to warrant that.

There are, over the course of the balance of the year, I believe, two CounterAttack campaigns that would normally be advanced, and they would be provincewide. They would include both print and broadcast components. I think it is appropriate, as the member has suggested, and the intention would be to adapt those campaigns to take into account and publicize the changes that these provisions represent.

M. Farnworth: The effect of the driving prohibition under

section 215.41 introduces the following three categories: three days in the case of the first prohibition, seven days in the case of a second prohibition or 30 days in the case of a subsequent prohibition.

What was the basis for the determination of that length of time? Was it done on the basis of a legal opinion? Was it done on the basis of consultation with the police? Was it done on the basis of any jurisprudence? What was the basis for the determination that these would be the lengths of time?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope members will excuse me. I did not this morning or as yet this afternoon introduce the able staff that are helping to guide me and us through these provisions. Tyann Blewett, Brad Gerhart and Dan Kazmiruk are here.

[1440]

There are two components, I think, to the member's question around the genesis for this. The first relates to the fact that they are escalating penalties, and I should just take a moment and say that that is deliberate. It is built around the notion and belief in best practice that the best way to alter behaviour is to ensure that the sanction that accrues as a result of improper behaviour increases through the repetition of that behaviour.

The specifics as it relates to three, seven, and 30 are consistent with and, I suppose, to a certain extent modelled on what has been in place in Ontario since May of last year.

M. Farnworth: We're basing this in part on what has happened in Ontario since May of last year. Has there been any jurisprudence or legal issues arising out of the new legislation that they passed in Ontario that we've had to either adapt in British Columbia or potential decisions that may impact on this particular legislation that we're aware of?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not yet, but we will be watching with interest, and of course, this will be one component of the challenge that will likely arise in Ontario and, ultimately, I expect, here in B.C.

M. Farnworth: Under subsection (4): "For the purposes of subsection (1), a prohibition is (

a) a first prohibition if a person has not been subject to a previous prohibition under that subsection within the 5 year period preceding the prohibition."

The way I read that is that if today I had a prohibition and I had five years of a clean record, then five years and a day later, that would be treated as a first prohibition. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

M. Farnworth: Once this legislation is now introduced, will it take effect from, let's say, today? So you will not be looking back. If someone had a 24-hour roadside suspension, let's say two weeks ago…. If they got one once this legislation would be passed, that would be passed as the first prohibition. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is also the case.

M. Farnworth: I would just ask for the rationale behind that. Is it a legal issue or is it just: "Okay, we are now introducing the new legislation so everyone knows that this is how it functions from now on. It is this way"? Or is there a legal impediment to saying: "You know what? We have a new change in place, but we're not able to look back to determine whether that applies to your driving record in terms of a prohibition or not"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Probably three parts to the answer, the most important being that it was a purposeful decision to create a regime, moving forward. To do otherwise would have been possible. It would have undoubtedly complicated the legal instrument before us. I just posed this question to the experts, and I don't want to overstate this, but it may have been one of those features that would have rendered the amendments more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge as well.

[1445]

B. Ralston: Can the minister confirm, though, that the superintendent will retain an overriding jurisdiction to assess each individual driving record on its own merit as he or she does now and can use the fact of 24-hour suspensions, however they're treated, to continue to use those in the same way going forward? Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I think I understand the question, the answer would be yes.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm or understand. In some ways, I think one can make an argument to continue to count. If you have a prohibition for driving, then five years later you have a prohibition for driving plus a day — so it's your first — and then five years later

[ Page 5631 ]

than that…. There's clearly a pattern there. Is there an ability to take that into account, to say: "You know what? There is a pattern here"?

The reality is that either it's treated more as a longer suspension or there is the ability, as the superintendent, to say: "You know what? You need either remedial training, or you need an interlock or something of that nature." Is there the ability to take that into account?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes. The difference, of course, would be that the automatic escalating provisions would not kick in, and it would be an exercise, as the member for Surrey-Whalley has pointed out, of the superintendent's discretionary authority elsewhere in the act.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to ask some questions related to the definition of "fail" and "warn" that are set out in the act. Sometimes in some statutes…. As I understand it, for the approved screening device, what will be displayed will not be a numerical reading but will be a colour of a light — a yellow for a warn and a red for a fail.

So when this is translated into a statute, it's not exactly the same thing. In some legal

interpretations I'm aware of or I recall, that may pose a difficulty in sustaining that

interpretation of what it means to be given a warn or to be given a fail. Given that this is a statute with some fairly serious consequences in terms of loss of licence, it might be likely to be challenged in the courts, as the minister has pointed out.

Has that issue — that the legal equivalent of the display of a light, the colour of a light on the approved screening device, equals a certain numerical value of impairment — been considered?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question. Again, he's right about the seriousness of the consequences here, so these are relevant matters to canvass.

I think procedurally what would need to occur upon any sort of judicial review exercise, or possibly even an administrative review, would be the need…. Whether or not the screening device is lights or the word "fail" or "warn," it would be incumbent to present evidence that that orange light or red light or warn or fail equates or relates to an instrument that has been calibrated in a certain way — so between .05 and .08 being the warn, and above .08, the fail.

[1450]

I think at that stage of the process, there would be an obligation to present a factual basis for what the lights or the words equate to, from the perspective of a calibrated instrument.

B. Ralston: I think this is an important point. When one looks further down, let's say at

section 215.43, the words used are "where an approved screening device registers a warn." Perhaps my knowledge of statutory drafting is not what it could be, but I would have thought that one would want to clarify, in the definition

section of "warn" — I'm thinking of some parking statutes, even, where the wording is very specific that the expiry means a flashing light on such and such a device — to specify it more precisely. Because you won't be able to bridge an evidentiary gap with such a definition which doesn't include this. It may not be possible to do that.

I just want to express that concern about the way in which the definition has been drafted, because I fear that it may be something that won't bear the weight of judicial scrutiny that it might receive in the future.

M. Farnworth: In this

section you get a driving prohibition for either three, seven or 30 days. There's also the 90-day provision. The other angle, or the other aspect, is the additional consequences of a monetary penalty. If the minister could just outline what those monetary penalties are, because I have a couple of questions, and it will flow from his answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member for Surrey-Whalley: I was not meaning to be disrespectful earlier. I note his observation and didn't think I had much to add to the exchange.

To the member: two sets of fines. One relates to the fines that are imposed, where it's a warning, within the warning range — so .05 to .08: first time, $200; second time within five years, $300; and third time within five years, $400. In the fail range it is a $500 fine — yeah, a $500 amount.

M. Farnworth: In section (2) of 215.44 it goes: "The monetary penalty must not exceed the amount prescribed by regulation" — which is clearly either the $200, $300, $400 or $500, but then it goes on to say — "and in any event must not exceed $500."

My question is: what is the purpose for putting on the cap? Are you not limiting the ability to sort of quickly respond to changes? For example, if it's deemed that the reality is a stiffer financial penalty after a year or two years or down the road, you're having to bring things back to the House.

So why has that not been taken into account here, and what's the purpose?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the short answer is legal advice, and this relates to something that we have been discussing throughout this debate on this bill. We were very sensitive to the amount of the fines. The advice is, again, to insulate against what we think will be the inevitable challenge — having a statutory cap.

The member is right. Any change will require the government of the day to come before the House and seek

[ Page 5632 ]

permission and approval from the House to make the change. But its presence in the body of the statute relates to the advice we received around protecting against the constitutional arguments that we think will flow about penalty provisions.

[1455]

M. Farnworth: Then does this mirror what is in existing Ontario legislation? Are the penalties that they have the same as this, or are they different?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm just reminded that the Ontario penalties are significantly lower. We believe, based on memory, it's $150 across the board.

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

Also in 215.44, under section (1): "A person who has been served with a notice of driving prohibition under

section 215.41 is also liable to pay, no later than 30 days after the date the notice is served, a monetary penalty" — that's the penalty that we've been talking about — "in the amount prescribed by regulation." The question I have is: why the period 30 days? Again, is that a statutory one?

More importantly, I think there's an element of ability to pay here, in that if you have a high income and are financially secure, you can pay that in 30 days and that may not be a problem. But if you're not as financially sound or as financially secure, this can put a considerable hardship. While I agree that the message is clear — we don't tolerate drinking and driving — there is an issue, I think, of fairness here or in the ability of someone to be able to pay the fine.

That fairness isn't there, on the basis that someone with a higher income is able to pay, and someone in a lower income is not. Within this

section I don't see an area or the potential for relief or the ability to pay over a different period of time. If the minister could address those two issues, I would be grateful.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll begin by acknowledging the observation that the member has made, which I have heard from other sources. That is that depending on one's financial circumstances, penalties of any sort and particularly penalties that could run to the hundreds of dollars…. Of course, we are only talking now about one aspect of a broader fiscal sanction that they will visit, with varying degrees of harshness, upon people, and that is a reality.

I think the same can be said of the consequences of a driving prohibition or a vehicle…. To have a vehicle impounded when it is the only vehicle your family owns and operates is a different matter than to have a vehicle impounded if it is one of three vehicles that sit in the garage of a family. So that argument has some application and goes to the seriousness of the consequences.

In this specific case we have tried to take account of at least two things. First of all, in the case of, let us say, a three-day driver's prohibition, one could have taken the view that before getting your licence back, you had to pay your fine. The determination was made that no, there should be some period to pay.

What should that period be? Well, if you get a speeding ticket, you've got 30 days to pay that. That is equal across the board as well, so we thought that to align it with that time-to-pay period seemed to be, I'll say, a reasonable rationale. But I don't want to dispute what the member has said — that for a family earning $30,000 a year, these fines will have an impact far different than a family earning $100,000 a year.

[1500]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that question, and I agree. It is a broader issue, and it is one that applies to a whole host of things. That's why I raise it, because these are new, important prohibitions and penalties coming into place. I think what it comes back to is the importance in terms of the government educating the public, educating drivers, doing a campaign like CounterAttack. It's like: "Look, there are some significant changes here, and they have some very important consequences."

People need to understand that and recognize the importance and the significance of these changes because they will impact them, not just in their ability to use a vehicle but also in the pocketbook. Given the disparity in income and the ability to pay, I think it's important that it's just reinforced — what role that I think the government needs to be taking on.

One of the additional consequences, apart from the monetary, is the remedial program in place. "If a person is prohibited from driving for a period of 30 or 90 days under

section 215.43, the person must register in and attend any remedial program required by the superintendent under

section 25.1."

My question is this. First off, is the attendance mandatory? What's the level of discretion? And second, who will decide? Will there be, I guess, in essence, a registry of acceptable programs, or will that be just up to the discretion of the superintendent?

Hon. M. de Jong: As per the section, of course, the requirement is a mandatory one. But I can alert the hon. member to the fact that the program is in existence now, so there are drivers today that are referred to it. It may get a little busier. We hope, actually, not too much busier. But it may get a little busier before these provisions have the desired effect.

The member didn't ask, but I suspect he will. The individual driver will cover the cost of attending that program, and my recollection is that it is about an $880 charge for attending and completing that program.

[ Page 5633 ]

M. Farnworth: Yes, the minister was anticipating my next question. The follow-up question to that, then, is: will that be a one-off or will it be: "Okay, clearly, you didn't get the message this time, so the next time you get a prohibition — guess what — you're going to be going back to school again."

The requirement can be each subsequent time, but also, if additional other factors in the record indicate to the superintendent that there is a problem here, additional remedial action or education is required. Is that the case?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, that's the case.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the impoundment of the vehicle, there's the three-day, and then there's the seven-day. I think that's fairly straightforward in terms of what takes place. Is the requirement to have the vehicle impounded, or is there the ability to just have the vehicle out of use?

[1505]

The reason I ask that question is sometimes you will get two or three people in the car. The driver, particularly now that you've got the fail-safe, thinks that they're fine. You blow the warning. You blow orange as opposed to red. You get the three-day prohibition. But somebody else in the vehicle is perfectly sober and capable of driving.

Is the purpose to actually impound the vehicle or just to get it off the road? So that person would be able to drive the vehicle either to the registered owner's place of residence, where it's not used or, you know, out of the way.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct about the manner in which the

section is worded. It does provide…. Here is where, again, the notion of discretionary authority on the part of the police officer comes into play, because whilst some of the other sanctions are mandatory, the police officer has a choice here.

I don't think that choice extends to, for example, ordering the vehicle disabled onto the side of the road. I think the officer, he or she, has the option of ordering the vehicle impounded or not. In that case if there was another driver available to take custody, care and control of the vehicle and drive off, they would have that option, if the police officer chose not to have the vehicle impounded.

M. Farnworth: I think this is an important point that I just want to ask a few more questions on. I think most people accept the fact that if you've got a prohibition, your vehicle is impounded. You will not get any argument from the public on that. I think where the question on the issue of discretion becomes important…. And I think it's important that in this debate back and forth that there is an issue of looking at some of the intent of the legislation.

One of the things that I think we should be concerned about is the potential of putting individuals in a potentially dangerous situation. If you're away — if you're on a dark road, for example, or you're a fair distance from your place of residence or where the other people in the vehicle are going…. For example, there may be minors involved or younger people.

If there is someone in the vehicle who is capable and who is not impaired — is sober and not impaired — and they have the ability to take that vehicle to where it should be, including the other passengers in there, then that is an appropriate discretionary action to be taken by the officer who has issued the prohibition to the individual.

I'm thinking of cases where you could have, let's say, three young teenagers — 18, 19 — a fair distance from home, maybe no public transit in the area. It's not a question of, you know: is a taxi readily available? And you tow the vehicle away. Then it's, like, okay, they're stuck somewhere, and that's not exactly the most ideal situation.

So it's not a question of lessening the severity of the consequences but recognizing a reality that we should err on the side of caution, if the minister understands the point that I'm trying to make. I'd appreciate his comments on it.

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm reminded that we are going to come to a

section in the vehicle impoundment sections that deals specifically with obligations around ensuring the safety of people in a case where a vehicle is impounded, and I have the member's point.

It is neither the objective nor would it be prudent to create a situation in which the three teenagers are left at 2 a.m. in the morning on the side of Highway 1 with traffic whizzing by. There are provisions that speak to that later in the bill.

But I should also say this, in response to the scenario raised by the member. The police officer will have the option of deciding whether or not to order impoundment. Whilst that decision will rest with the police officer, I don't want people to garner the impression that if they make this mistake — if they do this, but they've got someone with them who actually should have been driving in the first place — all of this is going to be a little easier because they'll just ask the person who's sober and able to drive to take the vehicle. They will still risk having their vehicle impounded and all of the requisite costs that go with that.

I think the point about ensuring the safety of the individuals…. Nor, by the way, do I anticipate or expect, nor does the act, the amendments, contemplate an officer saying to the occupants of a vehicle: "The driver is

[ Page 5634 ]

being issued a prohibition. I understand that the passenger has not been drinking, so I am going to impound the vehicle but let the passenger drive the vehicle to the impound yard." That won't happen, either. There will be a tow truck, and those two individuals will have made a bad choice. But for that bad choice, they wouldn't be in the fix they're in.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying. I just want to be clear that, again, it's because we are moving from where there was discretion — you know, you've got the 24-hour…. Now we're moving to a three-day, and I want to make sure that we recognize that there are circumstances and situations that arise. Not to take away from the prohibition, not to lessen the penalty, not to lessen the impact of the legislation, but to recognize that we want to make sure that there is that flexibility that deals with those situations, whether it's Highway 1 at two o'clock in the morning or somewhere out, you know….

If you're from Port Coquitlam, and you're out in rural Abbotsford, and you have no idea where you are, we're able to deal with that and not place an additional danger to the one that has been prevented by the prohibition on the individual. So if I've got that assurance, then that's one of my concerns addressed.

B. Ralston: I had a question just about the interaction of a couple of sections. In 215.43(3), a notice of prohibition under this

section "takes effect immediately on service of the notice of driving prohibition under

section 215.41." As the Attorney General may be aware, under the current provisions for the 90-day prohibition, the prohibition doesn't come into effect for 21 days, and there's a seven-day period in which one can file for an application for review.

So in the case of a three-day prohibition, other than, I think, the possibility that on the evidence that's shown at the review…. The person asked for a second sample, and that was denied, and then the prohibition may be overturned retroactively.

[1515]

It seems to me that as a practical matter, a person who gets a notice of prohibition for three days or for seven days will be obliged to serve that prohibition, although they may be seeking review. Is that correct or not?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that's a fair, practical analysis of what will happen.

B. Ralston: On the administrative side, will there be any…? The superintendent's office…. At least, my information is that there are often delays due to the volume of applications that they receive. There are not that many review officers. So what's the present time that it takes to deal with an application for review under the current 90-day prohibition system?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can refer the member to

section 215.5(6), which statutorily requires the review to take place within 21 days.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

M. Farnworth:

Section 20 deals with the issue of seatbelts. It "eliminates the ability of a person to obtain a certificate from the superintendent of motor vehicles or from a medical practitioner exempting the person from the requirement to wear a seatbelt."

Despite my comments that the only people who would choose not to wear seatbelts live in fly-over states in the U.S. and attend tea bag conventions, I'd like to ask the minister: what were the current existing sort of medical conditions that one could choose to try and say: "I don't need to wear a seat belt"? What are the currently existing examples of the types of excuses used to not have to wear a seatbelt?

Hon. M. de Jong: I always think of the story about Muhammad Ali — speaking of flying places — where he apparently got on board an aircraft, and when the light came on to buckle up, the Great One said, "Superman don't need no seatbelt," to which the flight attendant replied: "Superman don't need no airplane."

There have been a variety — the ones that you might, perhaps, expect: abdominal injuries, back injuries, people claiming claustrophobia. The bottom line is that in some cases there may actually be a genuine belief on the part of the person that the seatbelt is problematic. The submission and the evidence and all of the material and the requests from the medical profession are built around their conclusion that there just isn't a medical basis for any of those arguments. Therefore, the exemption….

[1520]

I think in part what was happening, I am advised, is that as long as the exemption applied, people were going to their physician, pressuring them to take advantage of it and give them the letter or give them the basis for the application. So on the strength of the medical position and the medical evidence, that option will no longer exist.

M. Farnworth: I think it's important to get that on the record. This is not about a civil liberties issue, taking somebody's right away. This is about common sense. This

section is in here based on medical recommendations, sound medical research and sound medical advice. I think it's important that that is on the record for this section.

[ Page 5635 ]

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

M. Farnworth:

Section 21 deals with the reporting requirements of health professionals in relation to the ability of their patients to drive. I think this is an issue that is of increasing importance as we have an aging population. If the minister could explain how this

section and the changes that this

section will make are different from the existing legislative requirements around physicians and of conditions affecting the ability to drive.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the changes can be categorized in the following four ways. It broadens the list of health care professionals who are required to report in certain circumstances. So nurse practitioners, occupational therapists are added to that list of medical professionals.

It creates the authority to specify in regulation the medical circumstances that trigger the requirement for medical professionals to report, and again, it will specify by regulation the nature of the information that must be reported in those circumstances.

It also provides a mechanism by which medical professionals can, on a discretionary basis, report to the superintendent, even where the mandatory requirements or circumstances are not there.

So if a medical practitioner comes to the conclusion that even though one of the specific thresholds has not been hit that requires them to report, they have concerns about the overall ability of this individual to operate a motor vehicle safely, it affords that medical professional the protection they need to know that they can make that report, albeit a report that may lead to their patient having their ability to drive limited or withdrawn.

M. Farnworth: There are a couple of issues that this does raise, and one fully understands the reasoning behind it. The discretionary area, I think, is one that I have some concern around, in the fact that in deciding…. It's pretty black and white, when there's a particular medical condition that's reached a particular stage, to say: "You know what? That means you're no longer safe. It's inappropriate that you drive."

[1525]

On the discretionary side. Is the intent to look at, in essence, a cumulative effect of a number of potential disabling illnesses that are compounding on each other — that each have a cumulative effect that is leading to an impairment, an inability to drive? Neither one by itself is an impairment that would result in a reason to pull a licence, but collectively, together, they actually indicate: "You know what? It's probably best that this individual is not driving." I'll see if I can give an example.

A case of arthritis, coupled with someone who is in perhaps not an advanced stage but, certainly, in early to intermediate stages of macular degeneration, for example. They're not at a point where their eyesight is completely gone, but coupled with the other conditions they've got, it's best that they're not on the road. Is that what is anticipated under the discretionary part of this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member was going through his question and the example, I leaned next door and was told that that is precisely — multiple medical conditions for which the accumulative effect…. It's where no one single medical condition was perhaps a bar, but the cumulative effect of those medical conditions was such as to cause a medical practitioner to question the ability of that person to operate a vehicle safely.

I think this is — and the member has been an MLA long enough to know — going to become a pretty challenging area as our population ages. If we haven't had it in our own families, we've certainly had constituents come in, and it's pretty traumatic for someone that's driven for 50 or 60 or 70 years. Physicians are part of that; medical professionals are a part of that.

The short answer to the question, though, is yes. I'm not as brave, I fear, as the member. I won't even venture an example, because for every example, someone is going to say: "I know someone with that, and they can still drive perfectly well." But that's why we try to provide the protection that the medical experts need to provide as sound a report as they can to the superintendent.

M. Farnworth: Then is part of the reason for this change…? In essence, if someone is involved in an accident and it's determined that the cause of their accident is really their inability…. They should not have been on the road because they have a series of medical conditions.

That allows…. It's to protect the physician or the medical individual who has been treating the person for those conditions, in the sense that: "You know what? You should have reported this." Is that one of the issues that this is designed to address — so that there in essence is no redress or no liability on the part of the medical professional?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the legal protection afforded by this

section is slightly different than that which the member has described. What we're trying to do is that in situations where there is a positive obligation…. It's either a mandatory obligation on the part of a medical expert to report, or in exercising their discretionary authority, they do so in good faith.

That report leads to testing on the part of the superintendent and could ultimately result in the patient, citizen, losing their licence. There's no ability on the part

[ Page 5636 ]

of that patient to come back to the doctor and say: "You have really complicated my life. I believe that you violated the doctor-patient confidentiality, and I want to seek redress from you." That is, in effect, the legal protection to the medical professional that is afforded by this section.

[1530]

B. Ralston: The obligation to report is in the previous section, and as the minister said, this does broaden the number of professionals to whom that obligation applies.

I suppose the difficulty might arise in subsection (6), where they are proposed to make regulations setting out the medical conditions or functional impairments that oblige those professionals named in subsection (1) to report and setting out the circumstances when the duty to report does not apply.

I would expect it would be so. But is this something that, before that regulation is drafted, the respective professional colleges, College of Physicians and Surgeons, would be consulted on? It does involve some fairly fine distinctions that are attempting to be drawn here. As the minister says, and I think I understood him, the issue of patient-physician confidentiality does arise, and that's protected in law very strongly in a number of ways. This is a departure from that. Is that the plan in terms of drafting the regulations?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not just the plan. It's actually taking place as we speak.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

M. Farnworth:

Section 22 permits a person who has been convicted of an alcohol-related driving offence and participates in a remedial program during the balance and participates in an ignition interlock program to have the prohibition period is shortened.

Can the minister explain how this is going to work and the impact? Again, the discretionary is based on the factors of the number of prohibitions, the nature of the prohibition, the length of the prohibition and the programs that the individual has taken to address whatever issues the superintendent has determined — let's say alcohol or drug counselling or other issues that the superintendent feels are appropriate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't like to generally bore members by reading the notes, but the member has asked a lot of stuff. Why don't I alert him to the

summary note I have, which I think covers a lot of what he's asked?

The first thing is that the

section is being amended to align with provisions of the Criminal Code. Those Criminal Code provisions presently allow for a specified reduction in the court-ordered prohibition if the person convicted of that alcohol-related motor vehicle offence complies with the conditions of a provincial ignition interlock program. So that's the first thing.

With these amendments, the person will be able to apply to the superintendent for a reduction to their licence suspension to three months in the case of a first conviction, six months in the case of a second conviction and 12 months in the case of a subsequent conviction. That is to align with the Criminal Code provisions.

The approval of the superintendent is subject to the person equipping the vehicle they operate with the ignition interlock device and registering for and participating in the remedial program and the ignition interlock program to the satisfaction of the superintendent.

Yes, there are costs associated. We've covered the remedial program, and yes, there are costs associated with the interlock program. They are, I'm advised, estimated at $1,500. So the means exist by which you can apply to reduce to 90 days, but in so doing, you have to register and take these programs, and the interlock program will cost you another $1,500.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the amendment to

section 24 standing on the order paper in my name.

SECTION 24, in proposed sections 253 (6) and (8) and 262 (1), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(6) Subject to

section 255 (5), a motor vehicle impounded under

section 215.46 (1) is to remain impounded for a period equal to the period that the person referred to in

section 215.46 (1) is prohibited from driving under

section 215.43 (1) (

a) or (b) .

(8) If a driving prohibition is substituted , varied or revoked under

section 215.5, the superintendent must ,

(

a) substitute or vary to the same extent or in the case of a substitution of a 3-day or 7-day prohibition for a 30-day or 90-day prohibition, revoke the corresponding impoundment imposed under

section 215.46, and

(

b) in the case of a substitution of a 3-day prohibition for a 7-day prohibition, vary to the same extent the corresponding impoundment imposed under

section 215.46, if any, or

(

c) in the case of a revocation, revoke the corresponding impoundment imposed under

section 215.46,

and (

b) subject to the lien described in

section 255 (2) , and to the expiry of the period of impoundment in the case of a substitution or variance and the expiry of another period of impoundment, if any, under

section 251 (1) , order the person who has custody of the motor vehicle to release the motor vehicle to the owner or a person authorized by the owner.

Early release of motor vehicle on grounds of economic hardship

(1) A person who

(

a) is the owner of a motor vehicle impounded under

section 215.46 (2) for a period of 30 days or under

section 251 (1) for a period of 30 or 60 days or, if

[ Page 5637 ]

not the owner of the impounded motor vehicle, a person authorized by the owner, and

(

b) has a valid driver’s licence and is not prohibited from driving,

may, within 15 days after the impoundment of the a motor vehicle begins under

section 215.46 (2) or 251 (1), apply to the superintendent under subsection (2) of this

section for the release of the motor vehicle.]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: The amendment that I've just moved off the order paper is designed to address what I think was, in complicated drafting, an error. We wanted to make sure that the discretionary authority that we spoke of with respect to impounding vehicles existed for the three- and seven-day impoundments. But for the amendment, there was some question about the discretionary authority and it being mandatory.

That's the nature of the amendment that has been moved. It is to ensure that impounding vehicles in the case of three- and seven-day prohibitions is discretionary.

Amendment approved.

section 24 as amended.

M. Farnworth: The issue around impoundment…. I mean, it's pretty straightforward in terms of what we've been discussing around impaired driving, either through alcohol or through drugs, but this also encompasses, and the

definitions deal with, the issues around racing and stunts. So this is different in the sense that it encompasses all those other things, such as street racing, which people are concerned about.

I want to confirm that it would also encompass criminal activities, such as a vehicle that's impounded in relation to, let's say, gang crime investigation. Would it include that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. The authority that this creates is related to driving offences. I don't want to suggest that we have found a clever way to circumvent the more onerous civil forfeiture proceedings. Street racing would be an example, but they are driving-related offences that would give rise to the authority to impound. I should say, as well, that in terms of trying to alter behaviour, I think the mounting evidence is that for many people, the loss of their vehicle is perhaps the best way to bring home the need to alter that behaviour.

M. Farnworth: I agree with that. I just want to come back to it, because I want to make sure I'm not missing something here. I'm not talking about the civil forfeiture of a vehicle, but rather…. We've dealt with legislation in session that's dealt with the hidden compartments, for example, or a vehicle that has been armour-plated illegally. This would not capture any of that. That's my understanding.

Okay, I wanted to be clear on that, because if it did, then I had some issues around that that I was going to want to see addressed.

Hon. M. de Jong: No. Thank you; that's helpful. The authority for the seizure of that vehicle in those circumstances exists via those statutory instruments, not this one.

[1540]

M. Farnworth: That now brings me to the issue that the minister has stated, which is that one of the effective ways is the loss of the vehicle. Once it's impounded and the loss, are there provisions or an ability to say…? Does the Crown at this point have the ability? Does it have to go through other legislation to say, "You know what? You're not getting it back" — let's say, in the case of a street race — or can that be done through this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: No This is a temporary impoundment of the vehicle. If the Crown wishes to expropriate ownership of that vehicle, it would need to do so via other means.

M. Farnworth: This is a topic…. My colleague the member for Surrey-Whalley may have additional issues, and those are around the question of economic hardship. If the minister could outline what steps are in this to ensure….

Again, I think it's that issue of fairness, whereby it's something that's impounded and someone has the ability to pay or the ability to wait. They are able to get that out, as opposed to someone who doesn't have those resources and is, in essence, also penalized in a much more significant way.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll begin by referring to two very specific provisions that contemplate an application to address. One is at 262, which is "Early release of motor vehicle on grounds of economic hardship." And 263 relates to compassionate grounds, which might relate to health conditions. Those provisions are here.

I have — as I'm sure the member and others have — heard from people who ask about their exposure in cases where a child or a friend has borrowed the car. Yeah, that becomes an added risk. Whilst some provisions exist by which people can bring that application, most people I know these days are pretty busy, and this is not something that happens by itself or is automatic.

I'm hoping — and, I think, all of us in our own ways are hoping — that over time this will provoke a realization that when you pass your car to someone, you are

[ Page 5638 ]

entering into either an explicit or implied agreement, and if that person abuses your generosity, the consequences can be felt in fairly profound ways.

Anyway, I'm lecturing. I don't mean to do that. There is, in a very specific way, a realization that people can bring an application to retrieve their vehicles on grounds of economic hardship and on the grounds of, under 262, compassionate grounds.

M. Farnworth: I just want to pick up on that. I mean, I understand what the minister is saying.

[1545]

It's one thing to, for example, let a friend…. It's very easy to make that implicit: "You're taking it; you're responsible." That's one thing. A child in a family is completely different. There, the idea that there is an implicit responsibility is…. You know: "Dad, I'm taking the car" and "What? Ask your mother" — right? It's, "Oh yeah, Dad said," and out you go.

Those are completely different sets of circumstances, and I think that we need to recognize that in this section. I think we need to recognize the intent when we're putting this forward, particularly with family situations. They are often complex; they are often not straightforward.

We need to be able to bring some common sense in ensuring that someone…. It's not to take away from the consequences, but there's a way to deal with them that recognizes the complexity of family relationships and the reality of how in families sometimes decisions are made. I hope that that is part of the intent in this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: That would certainly be part and parcel of the consideration at play with respect to

section 263.

B. Ralston: Just a couple of questions.

Section 262(1) refers to a person who is the owner or, if not the owner of the impounded vehicle, a person authorized by the owner. So that's not intended to be the person who…. That refers to the authority to make the application, not to the person who might have been authorized by the owner to drive the vehicle whose actions led to the impoundment, I take it. I think that's relatively clear. Let me just leave that as one question.

The second suggestion is…. It's clear in

section 262(3) that this appears to be where the vehicle is used in a small business and is used for the purpose of operating the business in some way. But one often encounters, of course, people who are employed and work for wages who make similar arguments about economic hardship.

I don't read

section 263 in that way, although I may be misreading it, because it refers more to compassionate grounds: "…the eligible person to suffer a loss or curtailment of employment…."

Is that intended? The person whose vehicle is seized and lives 40 miles outside of Fort St. John on a farm — there's no public transportation, no way of getting back and forth to their employment in the town — would be an eligible person? Or a person who lives, say, in remotest Abbotsford and has a job in, say, North Vancouver that they commute to — there's, again, no effective public transportation — and requires the vehicle. Is this

section contemplated to allow that person to seek a review?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the example the hon. member has given, if I understood it correctly, the individual would not be availing themselves of

section 262(3). They would more likely be availing themselves of

section 263 in bringing the application that the member spoke of.

B. Ralston: I just want to be clear, because in my past life, certainly, that was a concern that was expressed by many. In the previous legislation, as the minister may know, despite many protestations of economic hardship from a number of people, there was no avenue in the legislation, and the courts, on review, were just obliged to reject any effort to assess that reality.

[1550]

Compassionate grounds does mean, then, and could be used where a person's employment is jeopardized, and this would be a method of seeking a review and a shortening of the impoundment of the vehicle on that basis. I just want that to be clear on the record.

Hon. M. de Jong: It was with that in mind that we included 263(2) with the specific reference to the "loss or curtailment of employment."

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm that

section 265, "Owner's right against the driver," even despite…. Okay, your friend has taken a car. The vehicle ends up being impounded, and the Crown is assessing the penalties in the impound. You're not losing your right to be able to recover that from the individual who caused your vehicle to be impounded.

Hon. M. de Jong: I just made the observation. I would have thought that the right would have existed in the common law, but this makes it abundantly clear that there is a right to recover.

B. Ralston:

Section 269, the power to make regulations, refers back to

section 255(2). I think, if I understand the

section correctly, it authorizes the superintendent to set, by regulation, fees for storage charges. Often one of the results of having one's vehicle impounded is that you're required to pay storage charges, and sometimes those can be, in the view of some, fairly exorbitant.

Is it the intention, then, to draft a regulation that would set a daily maximum storage fee for the tow yard that was storing a vehicle that was impounded under these sections?

[ Page 5639 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes. They are presently regulated. They will hereafter, pursuant to these provisions, be regulated by the superintendent.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

Bill 14, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2010, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read for the third time as reported?

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

Bill 14, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2010, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 10.

[1555]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Veterinarians Act

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 3:57 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Popham: I have one question on

section 2. It's on (4). There was a need to state that the Business Corporations Act does not apply to the college. My question is: why not? Why was that necessary to put into this act?

Hon. S. Thomson: What we're doing by creating the college is creating a corporation, and all the rules and provisions that are in the legislation and that will be in the bylaws apply. We felt that we didn't need to have the Business Corporations Act and all those additional requirements for a corporation apply specifically to this because it was covered in the legislation and the bylaws.

The next section. We can direct certain provisions of the Business Corporations Act to apply if necessary, but it wasn't felt that it was necessary to have all those provisions of the Business Corporations Act apply to the college.

H. Bains: I have some questions about this section.

Section 2(1) says: "The British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association is continued as a corporation under the name College of Veterinarians of British Columbia." Then it goes on to say: "The college consists of (

a) members of the council, and (

b) registrants." Perhaps the minister could explain what is being changed here. There used to be the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association.

[1600]

Now we're saying, according to this, that it will continue to go on but the name is being changed to College of Veterinarians of British Columbia. Can you explain what the purpose is here?

Hon. S. Thomson: What is happening here is that the association is being renamed as the college and refocused under the new provisions of this legislation, this bill, to focus on the regulatory responsibility of the college, the regulation and oversight of the practice of veterinary medicine.

The other activities that the association previously performed — things like membership, development, advocacy, those kinds of roles — will potentially be carried on by another society or organization representing those interests.

The college will focus specifically on the regulation and the oversight of the practice of veterinary medicine. It's a refocused initiative, and it's being renamed as the college.

H. Bains: It goes on to say: "The college consists of (

a) members of the council…." Perhaps the minister could explain: what is the difference between the council and the college? And how are the members of the council appointed or elected versus the college members? How

[ Page 5640 ]

does that work between the two? Are they two separate entities — college and council? Or they are one entity, but they are named differently?

Hon. S. Thomson: The council is the governing body, or the governing set, of the college. The council members, a number of them, will be registrants and can come from the registered body, who will be the individuals who are certified as registering as a member of the college.

As we get to the other sections, you'll see that there will be up to four appointees by the minister as lay representatives who will form part of the council. They're not to come from the pool of registrants. Those will be in addition to the council members who would be elected from the registrants.

The council becomes the governing…. The board of directors is the governing part of the college, and the college is the summation of the registrants who are certified by the college.

H. Bains: That I understand, this House understands and those members who are affected by the change understand. Right now I guess the best way to do that would be to describe what is there today and what it will look like tomorrow, after this has passed.

Today the members of the veterinarian association elect their executive. That's how the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association executive was created. Then they ran the affairs on behalf of its members on a day-to-day promotion of the membership, and the licensing and disciplinary part was done by the same executive, if I may call it that, who were elected by the members. I don't know what their term was, but after a certain term they were elected, and they go for re-election.

So there was one body. I don't know what the officers are — a president, probably vice-presidents. Then they would be hiring the staff, and they will be managing the affairs on behalf of the members.

That's what it is today. If you could draw a picture for us, how will it be different under this act, if this act is passed?

Hon. S. Thomson: Under the existing act, it was called the council. All the members of the council were elected from what would be, under these circumstances, the registrants — other than one. There was the provision for one provincial appointee, one lay representative, to be appointed to the council.

[1605]

Now, under this new bill, there would be a minimum of three, I think it is — I'll just get this straight — elected from the registrants, up to a maximum of five; up to four appointees appointed by the minister by ministerial order; and additional provision for one additional appointee to the council, which, as you said, would be the executive or the directors representing animal health technologists or other certification that may be envisaged under the bill.

So three to five registrants elected by the members or by the registrants of the college, then up to four appointees appointed by the minister, and one additional spot, for a maximum of ten.

H. Bains: As I understand it now, today there is a council, and then there is an executive. Are you saying, then, that the only difference now is that under the new structure, it's who appoints them? Under the current act, it was the membership entirely appointing, except one that the province could have appointed. But now it is three to five coming from the members and up to four by the provincial government. One, as I understand, was the technical person that could be appointed.

So there will be a council, and then there's a college. It's separate, and the council is separate. Council will be the one that will actually be running and directing, monitoring the affairs of the college. Is that how it works?

Hon. S. Thomson: Well, the college is the overall body. The college would refer back to what the association was, so that's been renamed as the college. That's the overall body and the membership, registrants. The council is the equivalent to the council that currently exists under the legislation, with a different structure in terms of election and appointments, as different from what is currently under the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association.

The college is the overall body. The council is the governing body, and we're implementing a different structure for that. The purpose for that is to ensure that there is greater public oversight, additional lay representation, which was one of the recommendations that came through the public consultation process when we undertook the consultation. I think it's fairly straightforward in terms of…. The college replaces the association. It's the overall membership. The council is the governing portion of the college.

H. Bains: I think my description was correct, then. The only difference now, under the new act, is the makeup of the council members. Now the government or the minister can appoint up to four, and the college will be appointing up to three to five. Is that the only difference, then?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is essentially correct. That is the difference as far as the structure of the new college. There are others, and we'll get to those when we deal with other sections in the bill. There are other differences between the powers and various other aspects of the operation of the new college compared to the previous act and the previous association, but in terms of structure, that is the difference.

[ Page 5641 ]

J. Brar: As I understand this, to make it very clear, now we have the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association. But under this, once this act becomes the law, then basically, we'll have the college of British Columbia veterinarians — whatever it's called — and the college will have a council, which will be the governing body. We understand that the makeup of that will be different than the council we have under the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association.

[1610]

I think the question I just want to ask the member is: how will the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia be different than the current B.C. veterinarian medical council? If the minister can put a little light on there. What will be the difference between these two bodies, and what will be better when we move to a college from the current medical association?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I respond to the member opposite, I didn't introduce the staff that are here with me when we got started. So I just wanted to introduce them for the record.

Beside me is Tom McReynolds, the legislative analyst with the strategic policy and legislation branch in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Behind me are Grant Parnell, assistant deputy minister with the Crown land administration division, and Joe McBride, who is the solicitor with legal services in the Ministry of Attorney General. Thank you for the opportunity to do that.

To respond to the question… I think the member is looking for what the change is. There are two main elements of the change. One is a refocused mandate to focus primarily on the regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine and some other provisions that potentially bring in certified technicians and things as part of that.

I think the other change in the structure is with the provision now for additional lay representation or lay appointees by the minister to the council. In our view, that was in response to some of the consultation that we received. We will be able to appoint specific skill sets through those lay appointees that will strengthen the operation of the council, will provide additional expertise beyond the specific expertise in terms of veterinary medicine.

But things like legal background, governance, other medical background — that kind of additional strength of skill set to the council will be what is envisaged there, ensuring that the overall practice in the work of the council is done in terms of protection and regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine and in the best public interest.

J. Brar: The one thing I like in this act is the makeup of the new council under the college, which has a maximum of five members from the profession and then five members who are appointed by the minister, which includes four members from the public, which is a nice balance. But I think it will only make sense if that balance is always maintained. There may be a time when there are three members on the council from the profession, and it will be good to have at least three members from the public.

I just want to understand the perspective from the minister's point of view. There must be a clear cause or purpose to have that balance. Is the intention here that the minister will maintain that balance, appoint public members so that they have public input, which can provide input for a better quality of care in the council and also provide some balance for making some important decisions for the people of British Columbia?

The Chair: If I might suggest, Member, these questions are better directed under

section 4 of the bill, on the council. If the minister chooses to respond in this section, that's fine, but they are specifically about

section 4.

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: I can respond here. Maybe that'll make

section 4 go quicker.

Just to say that the provisions that were here — minimum of three, maximum of five from the registrants in the college, up to four by the minister…. It doesn't say exactly four. It's up to four, and one, potentially, from the certified technologists.

I think you can see clearly that the intent is to maintain that balance, and I think I can say that that was part of the rationale for the way it was structured in terms of providing that range, but keeping that range both in the number elected by the registrants and the number appointed by the minister.

I think that our goal is to ensure we continue to have that appropriate balance between the expertise within the registrants that look after the key principle of a self-regulating organization but also that balance of ensuring we have that strength in the lay representation to ensure that that is done in the public interest.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

H. Bains: I have a few questions about the duties and objects of the college. I think that is what is listed in here. It goes on to say:

"In carrying out its objects, the college must (

a) protect the public interest, and (

b) exercise its powers and discharge its responsibilities under this Act in the public interest.

(2) The objects of the college are as follows: (

a) to establish the requirements for registration of an individual as a registrant; (

b) to establish, monitor and enforce standards for the practice of veterinary medicine."

My question is…. That was in place under the current act, and those duties were vested in the British Columbia

[ Page 5642 ]

Veterinary Medical Association. Now those duties will be of the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia. Is that correct? Are there any duties and objects changing, or are they the same as what we have today?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think, in responding, that it's important to look at the provisions under the objects under the previous bill, which simply said: "The general objects of the association are to promote and increase knowledge, skill and proficiency of its members in all things relating to veterinary medicine and to the veterinary profession." That was the object under the previous act.

What I think we've done in this act is provided, through these objects, for the refocusing of the work of the college in terms of focusing on its regulatory mandate in terms of the oversight and ensuring the correct conduct of veterinarians, the ethical practice of veterinary medicine — all of those kinds of things. And it brings in a specific reference to doing so in the public interest.

But it doesn't cover off those areas which I mentioned earlier, which was about promoting advocacy — those kinds of things which are now being separated. I know work is underway within the community for an association or organization that would cover off those interests. Things are changing under these new objects to clearly focus the work of the college on the regulatory oversight of the practice of veterinary medicine.

[1620]

H. Bains: As I understand it, currently the BCVMA…. Part of their duties were to promote and enhance the interests of their members and, at the same time, to receive and investigate complaints, and also to monitor the veterinary medicine. The licensing and monitoring and maintaining of the licence were also vested within their body, although they may have different committees.

That's exactly what is said here. Now it says that it will be "to establish and maintain a continuing competence program to promote high standards for the practice of veterinary medicine." I think that is the responsibility of the BCVMA today. Whether it was in written form listed in the act or not, that was essentially what they did. Maybe the minister can correct me if I'm wrong.

Then it goes on to say: "to receive and investigate complaints against registrants and former registrants and to deal with issues of discipline, professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming a registrant, incompetence and incapacity."

I think all of those rights were vested in BCVMA. Now they will be carried out by the college. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I think that's correct.

H. Bains: I think the issue here is…. I think it was brought to the minister's attention, and there has been a lengthy dispute going on. I'm trying to figure out if the BCVMA…. They carried out their duties under the current act, and we have the mess that we have before us. Now the college…. Simply the name changed. They still have the same rights and duties vested in the college, and these are the same members.

The minister has said on many occasions that part of the reason to bring in and update this act is to deal with the issues that the members are facing between BCVMA and the members. So how does that change under this act?

Hon. S. Thomson: I've been clear in the comments so far. We are changing over from the association to a college, providing for a different governance structure. There are also a number of other provisions, as you will see when we go through the balance of the sections, that ensure we put standards and principles in place in terms of how the college administers its responsibilities under bylaws in terms of registration, investigation and discipline throughout the balance of the bill.

Essentially, the provisions are very much the same in terms of what the association did previously. It is a self-regulating association. We're making sure that we provide them with the tools necessary to operate as a self-regulating profession consistent with other self-regulating professions, and we've provided for a different governance structure. In combination with a number of the other provisions of the bill, we expect that they will provide for that appropriate and strong oversight of the practice of veterinary medicine in British Columbia.

[1625]

H. Bains: So far what we've seen is that the difference between the current act and this act is the makeup of the council. The college structure remains the same, although with a different name. It was BCVMA, and now it's the college. How those members are appointed or elected continues to be the same process.

The only difference so far, if the minister could confirm, is the structure of the council. Even there, the only difference is that now the minister will be appointing up to four members plus one layperson, as the minister puts it. Is that the only difference we have seen so far with sections 2 and 3?

Hon. S. Thomson: We're going to go through the other provisions of the bill, I expect, but the differences that we have seen so far are the association transitioning in name to a college and the governance structure. There will still be a council. The governance structure in terms of the structure of the council will be different than in the previous act.

As we just discussed, the duty and objects provided for in this bill strengthen the focus of the role of the college on the regulatory oversight of the practice. The broader

[ Page 5643 ]

provisions that were in the previous legislation around promoting and those areas will be done separately, so that this college will strictly focus on its regulatory role. Those are the differences that we've seen so far.

H. Bains: If I read 3(2)(f), it says: "to establish and employ registration, investigation and discipline practices that are transparent, objective, impartial and fair." Could the minister explain how that is different than how BCVMA is governed today — under this particular section?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the important thing to note is that the objects being referred to here are the broad principles. They set out the broad principles of a self-regulating organization. I think they're at the high level. That's what you want to see in a self-regulating profession. You want to see these principles and these objects maintained and adhered to as the college does its work.

The detail that I think you're looking for in terms of the specifics of how those are achieved are in the following sections of the bill — as we get into the various specific components of this bill and the other sections, in terms of how those objects will be achieved, in addition to the change in the governance structure.

H. Bains: The language that we are talking about now, 3(2)(f) — is that any different than what the act has today?

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: At the basic level, the provisions that are incorporated in these objects are many of the same provisions that were in the previous act in terms of laying out the responsibilities of the association and being a self-regulating organization under the previous act.

Clearly, in this one, one of the principles that I think we've achieved in defining these objects here and with some of the separation in terms of the other role in terms of promoting…. By having the change in the governance structure, the perception of a self-interest function changes under the new governance structure — the perception of conflict of interest.

We're broadening the governance of the college through the new structure of the council to deal with those perceptions and those concerns. We're laying out in the objects a clear set of principles under which the self-regulating organization should operate.

I think they're all principles that we would agree are important, and it's what we would want to see in a self-regulating organization when we look at things like, as you mentioned, fair, transparent, objective and impartial. Those are principles that we would all want to see in a self-regulating organization overseeing a professional service.

At this point I think the basic changes are the change in structure and the appointment of the laypersons, a more focused set of objects in

section 3 and incorporating all of the objects that were in the previous act in terms of a self-regulating association.

H. Bains: Again, my question to the minister…. If this is the same language that is carried over from the current act to the new act, which is very, very important…. It talked about "establish and employ registration, investigation and discipline practices that are transparent, objective, impartial and fair."

I think this is the crux of this whole dispute before us that the members and the associations are going through. I just want to ask the minister. Currently if this language is still there…. There were members who were on the disciplinary committee. They were heard and were actually on record. They would make comments about the accused, as I call it, before they go to the table or the panel to hear the complaint, showing their bias.

I mean, they seem to feel there's no remedy available to them under the current act. What I'm looking for now is: is there a remedy available to the members facing these disciplinary hearings, who may feel or may have evidence that there is a panel member on the disciplinary committee who is biased? They have evidence to show that there is a bias expressed by that member. Is there any extra avenue available, any remedy available to the registrant facing these disciplinary hearings? Or is it the same as what we have today?

The Chair: Member, I'd suggest that some of these issues are going to be coming up in other sections of the bill. If we can move on to the other sections of the bill, this member might be able to get some of the answers that you're looking for.

B. Ralston: Just looking at the present act — in the "Objects" — there's one sentence which reads: "The general objects of the association are to promote and increase the knowledge, skill and proficiency of its members in all things relating to veterinary medicine and to the veterinary profession." Obviously, this proposed

section 3 is a substantial expansion of that one-sentence description of objects in the previous statute.

[1635]

Will the minister confirm that part of the reason to expand the objects and specifically enumerate some of the ones that the member for Surrey-Newton has referred the committee to is to provide some assistance to potential legal

interpretation should these matters — and we would certainly hope that would not be the case — go to the courts, that having this broad description of objects and some very specific provisions, such as (

e) and (

f) in particular, would assist the court in deciding on how to interpret the statute should it become necessary?

[ Page 5644 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: What we were attempting and what we have done in this section,

section 3, is to clarify the objects of the college, to strengthen the objects, to make it clear for the members of the college and the council, which will be overseeing this, what their role is, what the key principles that they need to do are in terms of undertaking their responsibilities as a self-regulating profession.

We have made these objects consistent with other self-regulating professions. It was an attempt to broaden those, to make it more clear and to make the role of the college focused in its efforts to ensure that we got the administration and the oversight of the practice in the best public interest.

H. Bains: The Chair ruled that this, the question that I asked earlier, is dealt with in further parts of this act, perhaps. I went through it, and the question that I asked under 3(f)…. I don't see any other place in this act that would deal with the question that I asked.

The question that I asked was: currently, if this language exists in the act today, how is it that the complainants feel that they have no remedy available to them in case the panel members hearing the disciplinary procedures are found to have made comments that are biased prior to going to the hearing?

Maybe the minister could help me. Where is that

section to deal with that for the complainant or the person who's going through the hearing on disciplinary matters, if they find that one or more of the panel members have shown bias prior to the hearing taking place? If there's another section, then I'll wait. Perhaps the minister could help us with that.

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think what the member opposite is looking for…. What we have done is put it in the new bill — strengthen the ob