2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Doug Adair

R. Hawes

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 53 — Family Day Act

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Multiple sclerosis awareness

M. Mungall

Asian-Canadian and aboriginal war veterans

R. Lee

Rick Hansen's 25 th Anniversary Relay and sturgeon recovery initiative

K. Conroy

Multiple sclerosis awareness

K. Krueger

Parents Day celebration by Korean community

J. Kwan

Seva Foundation eye care programs

E. Foster

Oral Questions

Privatization of liquor distribution

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

M. Karagianis

J. Horgan

Report on oil and gas industry health and safety issues

V. Huntington

Hon. M. de Jong

Privatization of liquor distribution

M. Farnworth

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Kwan

Payment of legal fees in B.C. Rail court case

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 52 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond

K. Corrigan

L. Krog

D. Routley

M. Sather

N. Macdonald

J. Brar

N. Simons

C. Trevena

Hon. S. Bond

Bill 44 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Act

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

C. Trevena

C. James

J. Brar

Hon. S. Bond

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

S. Simpson

B. Simpson

[ Page 11655 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted today to make a couple of introductions. First of all — oh, they're not in the gallery; maybe I'll give them a minute to get here — I would like to introduce, from the north Island, Dan Berkshire, Nick Facey, Norm Facey, Alex Woods and Darlene Woods; from Maple Ridge, the fabulous Terry Becker; and from Delta South, David Fredrickson. I hope the House will make them all very welcome if they see them around the chamber.

In the gallery today Amy Sharma is here with her three-year-old daughter, Amiyah Sharma, and 18-month-old daughter, Elisha Sharma — gosh, you wonder what she was thinking, moving so fast on that — and her sister-in-law Harinder Jassal. Amy has the distinct pleasure of being married to Rishi Sharma, who works for us in the Legislature and does a fantastic job.

Amy and family, welcome.

Last — they haven't arrived yet — I am pleased to say that in the precinct we have 38 visitors from Queen Mary Elementary in my constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey. They're travelling with some parents and their teacher, Ms. Maria King.

[1335]

They're here to experience the history of these buildings, learn a little bit about parliamentary tradition and take some pictures and notes that they'll share with friends and family when they get home. I hope the House will please make this fine group of young students very welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: Today I have the privilege to welcome back a group I hosted in 2007, five years ago. Actually, since then these guests have talked about their visit to the Legislature. Once again I decided to bring them back, and this time a much bigger crowd has joined us.

First, we have friends from the Chinese Canadian Military Museum Society. This organization operates a unique museum, with its goal being to highlight to the general public that there was a significant contribution by Chinese Canadians in both world wars, which is largely unknown within and outside the Chinese-Canadian communities. Not only do they operate a museum; they also organize tours and talks and undertake special projects designed to promote awareness of the experience of Chinese-Canadian soldiers.

Here with us today in the gallery are Col. Howe Lee; Cdr. King Wan; Lt. Cdr. Kit Wong; George Ing, retired lieutenant colonel; Alfred Woo, retired major; Paul Lee, retired lieutenant; Tim Chu, retired sergeant; and Hank Lowe, retired master warrant officer.

We also have World War II veterans George Chow, Ed Lee, Monty Lee, Peggy Lee, James Wing, Frank Wong, Bill Wong, Thomas Wong, Chong Joe, Leonard Wong, Victor Wong, Gordie Quan, Andy Wong and Michael Chow. Also, we have veterans from Hong Kong: Paul Tsui, Edmund Wu and Kelly Kwong.

Secondly, we have a number of aboriginal veterans joining us here at the Legislature. Echoing with the Chinese veterans, the contribution of aboriginal veterans has not been fully recognized. The main work of this association is to remind all Canadians of that contribution.

We have with us in the gallery Richard Blackwolf, president of the B.C. and National Aboriginal Veterans associations, and Victor Flett, Marlene Lefever, Elmer Sinclair and Joy Ward Dockery in the gallery as well. Accompanying them are veterans Chaplain Wesley Lowe, Trevor Sam and Vincent Chan.

Would the House please provide a warm greeting to these folks for their outstanding service and dedicated commitment to protecting the freedom of our great nation and province.

Hon. M. de Jong: Multiple sclerosis is a chronic and disabling neurological disease that affects 55,000 to 75,000 Canadians, and that includes 8,000 British Columbians. In the House today are representatives from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. They are here in recognition of the fact that May has been proclaimed MS Awareness Month. I was pleased to meet with them earlier and introduce the House to them now.

They are Marilyn Lenzen, chair of the B.C. and Yukon division board of directors; Todd Abercrombie, executive director of the south Vancouver Island chapter; Sharon Farrish, director of programs, B.C. and Yukon division; and board members from the south Island chapter, Carol Pal and Ernie Stigant.

I know all members will make these representatives from MS Canada very welcome here in the precinct.

M. Stilwell: I'd like to introduce three guests in the gallery today. Sarah Hardy, Cameron Bishop and Tina Cantrell came to visit. They work for Reckitt Benckiser and were here to talk about a new drug for the treatment of opiate addiction. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am pleased to introduce two people who work very hard, along with their teams, on behalf of families all around British Columbia every day. Marianne Drew-Pennington, executive director of the B.C. Association of Family Resource Programs, is with us in the House today, as well as Marilee Peters, executive

[ Page 11656 ]

director of B.C. Council for Families. I'd like everyone to make them very welcome.

M. Dalton: In the gallery are two very special and lovely ladies: my wife, Marlene Dalton — we have been married almost 27 years, and she's been a tremendous support to me — and also my daughter Hannah. It's the first time watching these proceedings live and in colour. Hannah is a third-year university student going to SFU, taking public administration and French and political science. Bonjour , Hannah.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1340]

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two staff members from the Ministry of Education. Heather Langton is the executive administrative coordinator in the ministry, and Susan Baines is senior executive assistant. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Joining us in the gallery today is chair of the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia, Lana Denoni. Lana is working hard to make sure we have strong representation from the tourism industry, one of B.C.'s most important sectors. Would the House please make Lana very welcome.

Tributes

DOUG ADAIR

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, it's with regret that I advise of the passing of Doug Adair. Doug was a longtime Mission activist. He served on the Mission city council with me for a number of years. He was father to Robin Adair and Marisa Adair, both of whom I think are well known to many members in the House here. I hope the House will send their deepest sympathies to the family.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Today is the last day we can look up at the gallery and introduce Joe Trasolini and Gwen O'Mahony, because tomorrow they'll be sworn in as members for Chilliwack-Hope and Port Moody–Coquitlam. Would the House please make Joe and Gwen very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — FAMILY DAY ACT

Hon. M. MacDiarmid presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Day Act.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that Bill 53 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Supporting B.C. families is an absolute priority for our government. In 2012 families had a long stretch between New Year's Day and the Easter break without a long weekend. It was 94 days, to be exact.

Beginning in 2013 we're setting aside one day a year — Family Day, a day in February when families can spend quality time together. Of course, we strongly encourage families to get out, to be active and to spend as much quality time with each other every day. But an extra day off will be a great chance for all of us to recharge and focus on what's really most important in life — our family.

The new family holiday is just another example of how the government is helping grow stronger families and communities all across the province. By waiting to implement the holiday until 2013, we've given the business community time to plan and prepare, part of wanting to keep our economy strong and protect jobs in this province.

We recognize the timing of the new holiday itself is important. Our government is undertaking an engagement process, because we want to hear from British Columbians about which day in February they believe should become the new statutory holiday. We want families to help us select a day that works best for them. Because we recognize that a new holiday will have an impact on our economy, we also want to hear from worker groups and educators as well as tourism and the broader business sector about how the timing of the new holiday will impact them and what their preferences are.

Once this feedback has been taken into account, a final decision will be made, and the date of Family Day will be confirmed. With the passing of this bill, British Columbians will have ten statutory holidays, including Family Day, beginning in 2013.

I move that Bill 53 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 53, Family Day Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS

M. Mungall: May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, and today is specifically dedicated to raising awareness about MS. As the flowers bloom this month, most of us take for granted that we can bend down to

[ Page 11657 ]

enjoy their fragrance, maybe pick them for our moms on Mother's Day. But many with MS struggle to do this and other simple tasks. My mother-in-law is one of them.

[1345]

MS is a complex disease. It is unpredictable, affecting vision, hearing, memory, balance and mobility. Its effects are physical, emotional and financial, and last a lifetime. Everyone in a family is affected. Everyone in a community is affected. We need to ensure that those left disabled from MS can still access their community and have the supports they need to live well, because there is no cure.

Most of those diagnosed are women, and it is the most common neurological disease affecting young adults in Canada. Every day three more Canadians are diagnosed, leaving us with one of the highest rates in the world. Unfortunately, we don't know what causes multiple sclerosis.

For some, liberation therapy is making a positive difference. For others, it isn't. We need to know more about why this therapy has a wide variety of outcomes for those diagnosed with MS. So research continues, as it does for all aspects of MS.

On May 27 people living with MS, their families, friends and community will be gathering at Lakeside Park in Nelson for the annual MS Walk. With each stride they are not only raising funds for a cure; they are raising awareness that we all have something to contribute in finding that cure.

ASIAN-CANADIAN AND

ABORIGINAL WAR VETERANS

R. Lee: As we celebrate Asian Heritage Month in May, it's also a time to remember the history of Asian Canadians and recognize their contributions. Let's not forget the Komagata Maru incident in 1914, the Japanese-Canadian internment during World War II, the Chinese head tax from 1885 to 1923 and the Chinese Exclusion Act from 1923 to 1947. Chinese-Canadian veterans played a major role in the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act on May 17, 1947.

Visiting the House today are many of the heroes who volunteered and risked their lives for Canada. At that time they were denied the right to vote and banned from occupations that required one to be a citizen, such as dentistry, law and politics. We have Thomas Wong from Victoria, who was the first Chinese Canadian to enlist and be accepted by the RCAF. Interestingly, his father was a cook at Government House.

Frank Wong from Alert Bay was in the second landing in Normandy during World War II. His unit fought their way across France and Belgium and eventually took

part in the liberation of Holland.

George Chow from Victoria also landed on Normandy Beach. His unit was the first Canadian unit to shoot down an enemy aircraft. Chong Joe joined the Canadian army and fought in India and Burma during World War II.

Special welcome to veterans Ed Lee and Monty Lee, whose father and my grandfather are cousins.

Today we also have five aboriginal veterans led by president Richard Blackwolf in this group of respected heroes.

I want to offer my thanks to the Chinese Canadian Military Museum Society for preserving this valuable part of our history. I would like to ask the House to recognize the significant contributions of the Chinese-Canadian veterans and aboriginal veterans in fighting racism and helping bring equality to British Columbia and Canada.

RICK HANSEN'S 25 th ANNIVERSARY RELAY

AND STURGEON RECOVERY INITIATIVE

K. Conroy: On April 23 to 26 the Rick Hansen 25th Anniversary Relay travelled through Kootenay West, involving hundreds of participants. In addition to the relay events, we also had the pleasure of Rick himself participating in the sturgeon release event on the Columbia River. Not only is Rick an advocate for spinal injury research; he's also an advocate for sturgeon.

I participated in a number of these sturgeon releases, but that one was definitely exciting, with Rick there to talk to the hundreds of school kids and the public who came out — well over 1,000 participants in total. Approximately 4,000 baby sturgeon were released into the Columbia River, with over 2,000 of those at the event at Hugh Keenleyside dam.

You might ask: why are white sturgeon so important? It is North America's largest and longest-lived freshwater fish. It can live for over 100 years. The sturgeon family has remained largely unchanged for the last 175 million years, when dinosaurs lived here, and they can grow to be over 19 feet in length.

[1350]

All fish released had a tag on them about the size of a grain of rice carrying a unique ID number. If the fish is caught in the future, it will be scanned and the catch data entered onto the program's website. We all got the ID number of the fish we released, so we can track the sturgeon to see if they made it or not.

I wanted to thank everyone that was involved in making a really great event that my grandkids and I thoroughly enjoyed. This is the 11th release hosted by the Upper Columbia white sturgeon recovery initiative program, coordinated by Angus Glass and funded by B.C. Hydro, the fish and wildlife compensation program, Teck and FortisBC.

In addition to Rick and his relay team, including locally raised Max Voykin helping out, there were other sturgeon helpers at the information tent and down by the water where the fish were released. These included students from Stanley Humphries; the Castlegar Rotary

[ Page 11658 ]

Interact Club; support from Celgar, Golder, Interfor and Mountain Transport Institute; and the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C., who raised the very healthy baby sturgeon that we released.

I know they all made an impact, and the day was an incredible success when my five-year-old granddaughter Aiden squealed with delight as she released her sturgeon: "Oh, she is so cute, Granny." Have you seen a sturgeon? They just aren't that cute.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS

K. Krueger: Today we proclaim the month of May as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. I wanted to acknowledge our colleague from Nelson-Creston across the way, who has spoken to this already, and the Minister of Health — a tremendously important issue.

MS Awareness Month calls attention to British Columbians and all Canadians living with the challenge of MS. We recognize the strength and dedication of those with MS who continue to live life to its fullest.

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, often disabling neurological disease affecting an estimated 55,000 to 75,000 Canadians, including 8,000 British Columbians. MS symptoms vary widely and affect people differently. MS may lead to problems with numbness, coordination, vision, speech, as well as extreme fatigue and even paralysis. Unfortunately, the cause of MS is not known, and currently there is no cure.

Those with MS face an uncertain future, despite progress in treatment options. That is why the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada is so important. Founded in 1948, they have been leaders in funding vital research, support and services for people with MS.

We're seeing advancements in treatment for MS. Research into the cause, prevention and treatment has paid off. Accessing these supports, treatments and services means people with MS can live long, independent and fulfilling lives.

The dedication of the MS Society of Canada ensures MS research and support will continue, and our government is committed to continuing to raise awareness about MS. Raising awareness about MS ensures that those with MS are supported in their communities, and British Columbians with MS know they are not alone.

During the month of May we celebrate the strength and dedication of those British Columbians and Canadians living every day with MS. We honour their perseverance and hope, and we share their hope.

I ask all members to take a moment today to share MS awareness with your communities.

PARENTS DAY CELEBRATION

BY KOREAN COMMUNITY

J. Kwan: A child is a beautiful sight. As parents we offer unconditional love, support and guidance to nourish each of our children's growth and development.

In British Columbia it is traditional for us to celebrate Mother's Day in May and Father's Day in June. It's an opportunity for us to say thank you to the very people that brought us into this world.

In South Korea and here in British Columbia's Korean community May 8 is the Parents Day celebration. Parents Day, just like Mother's Day or Father's Day, is meant to celebrate and honour parents. It is a day to say thank you, a special thank-you to our parents for all the times that they put their children's needs ahead of their own.

It's a time to show our gratitude for the selfless sacrifices. In Korea carnations or roses are often given to parents as a symbol of thanks, but it is recognized that the most important gift of all on this day is the gift of time spent together.

Today in my constituency the Korean Senior Citizens Society is hosting a gathering in honour of Parents Day, a time to reflect and express gratitude for our parents as well as to gather and celebrate with food, music and dancing.

The Korean community has a very active senior citizens society, and they often host events so that the seniors have an opportunity to network, socialize and engage with the community. The many volunteers prepare delicious traditional Korean home-cooked foods for everyone, and beautiful performances are enjoyed by all.

I've had the pleasure of attending many of their celebrations. Each time I feel the warmth of their welcome, the joy of their spirit and the beauty of their culture.

[1355]

Let us join with the Korean community in thanking all the parents and elders for all they have done, by reflecting on how we can work together to support parents and grandparents for what they have given and still give to their families and to our communities.

SEVA FOUNDATION EYE CARE PROGRAMS

E. Foster: I rise today to recognize the great work of Seva Canada, an international multicultural eye charity. Seva is based in Vancouver and was founded in 1982 to prevent blindness and restore sight in the developing world. The organization provides funding and expertise to help local partners deliver community and clinical eye care programs in nine of the poorest countries in the world: Nepal, Tibet, India, Tanzania, Malawi, Madagascar, Cambodia, Guatemala and Egypt.

In consultation with local organizations, community leaders and governments in these areas, Seva works to determine the needs of an area and then provides support to help create eye care programs that are financially self-sustaining and culturally sensitive. Seva assists with the planning and launching of programs, funds the creation of hospitals and eye camps, trains local doctors and

[ Page 11659 ]

community outreach personnel, and provides technology and supplies for the programs.

To date, Seva's partner programs have restored eyesight to over three million people. Often it is a simple solution to restore sight or prevent blindness. A $10 pair of glasses will bring the world into focus. A ten-minute cataract surgery that costs $50 will restore sight. A $2.50 treatment for an eye infection will prevent years of blindness. These are simple solutions but ones that make all the difference for children who can see the chalkboard, adults who can go to work, and communities that are healthier and more productive.

"Seva" is a Sanskrit word meaning "service," and I would like to thank the organization for its compassionate service in preventing blindness and restoring sight.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: We've raised a number of concerns about the request for proposals for liquor privatization. We've raised concerns about the lack of a business case, about the potential for increased prices for consumers, and concerns about the perception that Exel Logistics, a client of Patrick Kinsella's company Progressive Group, has orchestrated an unfair advantage in the bidding process.

Today we see a story by journalist Bob Mackin in Business in Vancouver that reinforces all of those concerns. Mr. Mackin is in possession of a strategy memo, entitled "The Last Spike," written by Exel vice-president Scott Lyons. This memo talks about Exel wanting the get the contract by direct award, and when they couldn't achieve that, they determined to use "their strong relationship with the minister to 'influence the writing of the RFP.'"

Whether it is perception or reality, many who read the RFP today will see those influences in the document. Will the minister do the right thing, pull the RFP and engage in a credible, open process with industry and the public so we can determine whether anyone other than the B.C. Liberals, Patrick Kinsella and Exel Logistics is satisfied with what's happened so far?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been in this House for 16 years. That question I can only categorize as the most demeaning, insulting and disgusting question I've heard relative to the public service of British Columbia since I've been here — in 16 years. This is being run by professional public services. They've done the research. They've done the RFP without influence. They have been out on the street. They're doing their job, and to say otherwise is actually an insult to those professional public servants.

There's a fairness commissioner on this file. There is no influence. There is no discussion taking place by this minister whatsoever with regards to the making of the RFP by any possible proponent whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This is a lucrative contract. Exel has projected they can generate $55 million to $95 million of annual revenue from this takeover. They have said that prices will go up, but they will be offset, in the public's mind, by greater selection. We know that Exel tried to get this deal under Premier Campbell, and he refused. Yet less than a year after the new Premier comes to office, after winning the leadership race with Patrick Kinsella as one of her key advisers, this has been fast-tracked to get it done before the next election.

[1400]

We have seen this government try to orchestrate bids in the past with B.C. Rail. The concern is that we are seeing it again with the Liquor Distribution Branch, especially since this is being done with no business case whatsoever.

The process is tainted, and all the bluster in the world from this minister can't change that. Will he do the right thing, pull the RFP and end this before it becomes another debacle like B.C. Rail?

Hon. R. Coleman: The work has been done by the professional public service on this. The research was also done by the Minister of Finance's staff, as well as people from within government, whose reputation, as far as I'm concerned, over the years that I've worked with these deputy ministers, is impeccable. I actually believe that they've done the work that we've asked them to do. They've done it in a professional way.

There has been no influence on this process whatsoever. I know the member opposite would like to go quote from a bunch of stuff he may have read somewhere else, but I'm telling the member opposite: absolutely no influence by the minister, absolutely no influence from outside in the writing of the RFP — none.

If the member wants to say that about professional public servants and start to demean good people, take it outside and face the consequence. This is the wrong place to actually take a shot at people that are good people, professional public servants in the province of British Columbia doing their job in a professional way without influence.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

S. Simpson: This is about whether, as I said, this is perception or reality. It is about a company that has prepared a memo that has talked about trying to influence this process. And it is about a process that looks like that. This isn't about civil servants. This is about the B.C. Liberal government. This is about this cabinet.

[ Page 11660 ]

If the minister won't do the right thing here, my question is to the Premier. Will the Premier do the right thing, pull this request for proposals today, open this process up and show us a business case instead of bluster, or else rip the thing up entirely?

Hon. R. Coleman: Your perception; nobody else's — not reality. The reality is that the RFP has been designed by a group of professional public servants who've done the job they've been asked to do. There will be a fairness commissioner on the process. There is no influence with regard to this, because it is not going to be a decision that's going to be made…. It's going to be made arm's-length by us.

I know, hon. Member, that from time to time you like to get up and you like to really put the question of the reality of whether you really want to actually ask a question or demean somebody's personality or reputation. Today, for you, it's all about demeaning somebody's reputation and not a question about reality.

M. Karagianis: I would put to the minister that this process for privatization of this liquor distribution is tainted. One of the main proponents, Exel, wanted to use — and have said that they wanted to use — their "strong relationship" with the minister to get involved in the writing of the RFP.

Clearly, the government is desperate to get this out the door before the next election. That RFP has been drafted and has already been made public. It has been posted.

To the Premier, if not to the minister: will the Premier step up and put this process on hold? It has all kinds of taint on it. Will she put the process on hold until this can be investigated?

Hon. R. Coleman: The fact of the matter is that in the budget speech we announced that we were going to look at privatizing the distribution and warehousing of liquor in British Columbia. A process was then put in place with some professional public servants to go out and do some consultation to prepare an RFP. They did that work. Then they got the RFP ready, and they put it on the street for bids.

[1405]

There will be no influence, and there hasn't been. There has been no discussion by this minister with any possible proponent with regard to this RFP, and there will not be. This is an independent process that will take place over the next number of months. When people will come in with their bids, there will be a fairness commissioner in place, and the process will be run in a fair way.

To absolutely, in any other way, say that members of the B.C. public service are being unduly influenced in any way whatsoever, to me, shows a situation in the House today where members of the opposition actually don't believe in the honesty and the integrity of the people in the public service, which I happen to believe in.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: This has absolutely nothing to do with the public service in any way, shape or form.

Exel Logistics makes it clear that they want the contract for liquor distribution. Together with lobbyist and good friend of the Premier Patrick Kinsella, they want to have a say in how the proposal is being drafted as well — the request for proposals. They were optimistic that they might just have some say in that matter because they had a special relationship with the minister.

I think it's pretty clear. There is a clear perception of conflict of interest here. I would say that for the minister to clear this up, the Premier needs to remove him from this process, call for an investigation into this and clear the air.

Otherwise, what have you got to hide? What have you got to hide?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the members opposite still don't get it. The fact of the matter is there's a fair process in place. It's arm's-length from government. There's a fairness commissioner in place. There will be bids, and in actual fact, those bids will be measured on their merit.

I know the members want to actually say: "Oh no, it's not about the public service," but when you start to demean a process that is being completely run by the B.C. public servants — people that I have trust in and I have faith in — go ahead and say it any other way, Member.

You actually live in the Victoria region, Member. You go out and you tell the people in the B.C. public service that you don't trust them. I do.

J. Horgan: The memo from Exel vice-president Scott Lyons notes that the liquor privatization scheme that the minister referred to was shelved by the previous Premier in 2010. I assume then that the government — not just the Premier but the government — was supportive of putting that to one side and moving on.

A week before the last budget, all of a sudden, that changes. Can the Premier tell me, aside from the $70,000 in political contributions from Exel and their lobbyists, what changed?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that the member will not want to hear this, but he's going to hear it anyway.

At the end of the 1990s you considered selling the Liquor Distribution Branch, B.C. Hydro and ICBC because you wanted to find some cash. Yet you now want to be purist on the fact about privatization of something.

In the year 2001 and into 2003 when I had the liquor file for the first time, there was discussion about actually selling the liquor stores and the distribution. To the member opposite, that discussion took place, and for the

[ Page 11661 ]

member opposite's information, as part of a labour negotiation, it wasn't done.

Over the years, during negotiations with labour with regard to the liquor distribution and the storage, there have been a number of discussions. In this particular case, we got to where we thought we might be able to do something with liquor distribution and warehousing. We decided to put it out in RFP.

The reality is the same answer as before. The people that have done the work are professionals. I trust them; you should too. They are people who are senior members of the public service. They have great reputations, and I believe in them.

The process will be independent. The process will not be influenced. It will be a bid like any other bid, in fairness, and there will be a fairness commissioner on the file.

I know you don't like that. I know you don't like that, but the fact of the matter is: this decision has been made. The work has been done. It has been done by professionals. I know the member from Vancouver, particularly, wants to demean their reputations in his questions today. I am not buying into that. I am going to stand behind the public servants of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1410]

J. Horgan: It's always a delight to go down memory lane with the minister, but let's try some recent history. Let's try the time period which we're focusing on today.

The privatization of the Liquor Distribution Branch was a dead issue, according to a senior vice-president of a company that wanted to purchase the operation. It was a dead issue until the arrival of a new Premier and a new handler, a guy named Patrick Kinsella.

So my question to the Premier is this: what changed your mind? Was it just the political contributions, or was it pressure from the guy that delivered the Premier's chair to your office? What was it?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's about Finance doing a job as they go into an annual budget, identifying opportunities where there might be possibilities to get some funds into the fiscal plan that will help balance the budget. It's about that work being done by Finance — most of it, usually, in confidence, with Treasury Board. Nobody else actually is involved. Then they come back, and they come out with the budget speech, and the work is done to do with an RFP.

That work got done. It's out for bid. It's going to be a fair bid. It will be a bid that's monitored by a fairness commissioner, and it has actually been written by professional public servants.

I know the member opposite doesn't want to go down memory lane, and maybe I shouldn't do that to him today. But Mr. Speaker, I'm going to tell you one thing about memory lane. As I stand here as a member of this Legislature, I actually believe in the professional public service of British Columbia. I trust their integrity. This bid will be run — you may not like it, Members — by people with integrity that I trust in the public service of British Columbia.

REPORT ON OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES

V. Huntington: Following a series of sour gas leaks in the northeast oil and gas fields, the member for Cariboo North and I joined demands for an inquiry into the health impacts of intensive oil and gas exploration.

Demands for an inquiry were coming from organizations — and I hope the Minister of Finance doesn't fall asleep on us — as diverse as the Northern Health Authority, the Peace River regional district, First Nations, and the Peace Environment and Safety Trustees Society. The list was a very long one.

The government finally agreed not to the inquiry under the Public Health Act requested by the public but to a contract with the Fraser Basin Council for phase 1 of a human health risk assessment.

Phase 1 was an initial consultation to identify health concerns, and the report was received by the Minister of Health on March 31. I wonder if the minister would advise this House when that phase 1 report will be made public.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for what I think, by and large, was an accurate chronology of what has taken place. The report has been finalized. I look forward to it being presented to the public soon — and also to getting on with phase 2.

I'm not certain that will involve the Fraser Basin in the same way. It may. But I'm looking forward to taking the results of the report, the consultations that took place, having that in the public domain and then moving ahead with phase 2 of the study.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: Phase 1 was to advise the ministry of the terms of reference for phase 2. I wonder if the Minister of Health would tell us when he anticipates those terms of reference to be available, whether the stakeholders will have input into those terms of reference and when we can expect the phase 2 report to be available.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think, in reverse order, we are in the process of finalizing the terms of reference for phase 2. But I should say to the member this: that the terms of reference will be guided in large measure by the work in phase 1.

[1415]

[ Page 11662 ]

The member will know from what she has read and from some of the contacts that she has that there were suggestions that involve examining the health risks associated with various aspects of the oil and gas sector — air quality, water quality. There were also suggestions around some of the socioeconomic impacts associated.

So that's finalizing the terms of reference to move ahead with phase 2, but that is very much a product of what we heard in the consultations that took place with people, largely in the northeast of the province.

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

M. Farnworth: Let's go back to liquor distribution. The minister said that he….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

M. Farnworth: Thank you. It's just that they seem to be a little nervous on this subject, hon. Speaker.

The minister said that he will protect the pricing and that the privatization scheme will save us thousands of dollars for consumers of British Columbia. Yet the memo from the Exel vice-president and client of Patrick Kinsella acknowledges they can generate $55 million to $95 million in annual revenue from this takeover and that this will increase prices. Some consumer protection that is.

It's not the public service we don't trust. It's this government that we don't trust, and neither does the public of British Columbia.

My question to the minister is this: will he table, in this House, the business plan and the work that he says has been done that shows that the public consumer interest will be protected?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe the member would like to do just a little bit of research about this. The warehousing and distribution side, which is subject to the RFP, has nothing do with liquor pricing in British Columbia. In actual fact, all the pricing and the taxation and the markup of liquor are being retained by the existing Liquor Distribution Branch.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The memo from Exel speaks for itself, and this government has not denied that memo once in this question period. So that gives us cause for concern right there.

The memo from Exel speaks for itself, and this government has not denied that memo once in this question period. So that gives us cause for concern right there.

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: I know when the bluster goes up that the first answer actually caught you off guard and you didn't realize you hadn't done your research.

We're talking about the warehousing and distribution of liquor going out with successorship in a bid so the union members have actually…. It's successorship in this deal. The proponents have to make a bid based on warehousing and distribution. The retention of the pricing and the management of liquor sales in British Columbia are going to stay with the Liquor Distribution Branch within government.

J. Kwan: A recent report from the chair of the commission on the reform of Ontario's public services, Don Drummond, recently pointed to the vital importance of entities like the B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch to the government's bottom line. He said specifically that this should not be sold off: "The net, long-term benefit to…the province is considerable and can be clearly demonstrated through comprehensive analysis."

The minister said in this House over and over again that there was tons of research done before the RFP was put together and that his people had done that work.

[1420]

My question to the minister is this: where is that work, and why won't he table this information in this House for the public so that we can see for ourselves the analysis of that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, maybe the members would like to do some research. The Drummond report actually spoke about a whole different type of sale, a whole different type of distribution and store system that was up for sale.

I do find it really rich that they're quoting the Drummond report of Ontario, a province that recently had a credit downgrade — compared to British Columbia that has a triple-A credit rating — a province that is desperate because they're in such a huge deficit of operation.

I know you want to go measure yourselves against that

[ Page 11663 ]

kind of success. We're not going to do that. We're going to have a fair process with warehousing and distribution in British Columbia. That's what we decided to do in B.C. The Drummond report has nothing to do with British Columbia, hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The minister said he's done his homework. Well then, where is it? Except maybe the dog ate it, because he won't table it in this House.

What have we got? We've got the privatization of the B.C. liquor distribution system. We have a lucrative contract with a projection of some $55 million to $95 million in revenue generation annually. There is no business plan that the government could table for the public to see and the main proponent who wants to use their strong relationship to influence the writing of the RFP.

Whether the minister likes it or not, the fact is that there is a perception of a tainted process here — Exel Logistics, a company that has been lobbying the government through Liberal insiders Patrick Kinsella and Mark Jiles since 2005 to have access to this contract.

Based on these facts, how can anyone have confidence on….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: Based on these facts, how could anyone trust the integrity of this RFP process or the credibility of this government?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, this member actually calls speculation "facts," which is really astounding to me. In actual fact.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister. Continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm encouraging them to get it out of their system, because then I'll get to my answer.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: To the members opposite: "Do your research" is what I said to you, Member, and you haven't done that. You've decided to go along and speculate a bunch of things, throw a bunch of people under the bus — good public servants and other people — because you've got a…..

I will tell you this, hon. Member. No company has helped our professional public service write this RFP.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

L. Krog: Yesterday in this House the Minister of Justice gave us her government's "story" — her word — about the Liberal government waiving $6 million in legal fees for political insiders Basi and Virk. In this version of events, the Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Minister of Finance were the only two people in all of government who were involved in the decision to waive $6 million in legal fees.

Following from that, within days of the decision being made and with no knowledge of this decision, Basi and Virk switched their plea to guilty.

We are meant to believe that these two events happened in complete isolation from one another. My question to the minister: does she expect the public to believe that these two events were completely unrelated and there was no communication between the party arranging the guilty plea and the party dismissing the $6 million in legal fees?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, we've canvassed this continuously. I think one of the things that's absolutely essential for the member opposite to be aware of — and I'm certain he would be — is that any discussions regarding a guilty plea would have been dealt with by a special prosecutor that in fact we put in place. That special prosecutor worked independently of the Deputy Attorney General, as is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: The minister has said that the Auditor General is now reviewing the situation — that's been her answer — and will in due course outline his view of the events. Well, unlike a matter that is before the courts, the Attorney General has a responsibility to answer questions. It's the Auditor General examining this. It's not the courts.

Again to the minister: in your government's version of events the guilty plea plan was put together by the special prosecutor, was done in isolation of the decision to relieve the Liberal insiders of their $6 million in legal fees. So can the minister tell this House whether there was anyone in government or anyone acting on behalf of government who communicated the decision to pay the legal fees to anyone involved in putting together the guilty plea plan?

Hon. S. Bond: We started this question period with the members opposite impugning the reputation of the public service. We continue the discussion by impugning…

Interjections.

[ Page 11664 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …or making accusations about the role of a special prosecutor, and we continue that by impugning the reputation of the Deputy Attorney General.

The facts are clear. It was an independent process. It's been publicly stated. It's been clearly outlined. It's time to stop throwing mud and hoping it sticks.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will start with second reading of Bill 52, intituled the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2). Should that complete, we would then move to second reading of Bill 44, intituled the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. Should that complete, we go to second reading of Bill 51, intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012.

In the small House, in

Section A, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Finance. Should those conclude today, we would be moving to the Ministry of Health.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 52 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to speak today about the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act in Bill 52.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This bill will create a new, streamlined process to resolve disputes related to traffic contraventions. The amendments will create justice sector efficiencies by shifting most driving-related disputes to an administrative process under the superintendent of motor vehicles and an independent board.

This is innovative. It certainly will free up court resources for high-priority cases. It will also provide more efficient, effective and timely access to dispute resolution for our ticketed drivers.

These amendments will also result in savings for taxpayers. The changes will free up police from most traffic court appearances. As well, electronic ticketing will reduce administration costs related to existing duplicative, paper-based processes.

Most disputes will be resolved by phone so that drivers who challenge tickets no longer face the cost and inconvenience of attending court. The new process will cut resolution time to an estimated 90 days from the current seven to 18 months that it takes.

[1430]

The new dispute process will also include easy on-line payment options for drivers. Electronic ticketing will allow the police to efficiently and accurately create and issue new administrative notices and will reduce errors and allow information to be shared rapidly and accurately between justice sector partners.

The new administrative system is closely linked to the superintendent's authority over licensing and driving behaviour. The superintendent does not have authority over out-of-province drivers. Therefore, only B.C. drivers will be included in the administrative model at this time.

The new administrative model is fundamentally different in nature from the present court-based regime and is grounded in the enhancement of road safety and deterrence of poor driving behaviours that pose a risk to the public.

We believe that this is an innovative process. It gives us the opportunity to free up important resources. We've heard consistently from communities about the need for police officers — that they spend a lot of time sitting and waiting outside traffic court. We believe there are significant savings.

In fact, this will allow us, once again in British Columbia, to lead the country in looking at how we can do things differently. It's an important component of justice reform, and we certainly look forward to hearing the comments of other members in the House regarding an opportunity for us to do something incredibly innovative and forward-thinking here in British Columbia.

I now move second reading.

K. Corrigan: I rise to speak on Bill 52, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. I suspect that we will be supporting this bill. There is some innovation, and there are some changes. But the changes are fairly significant.

I think that it is disappointing that yet again we have a bill that was introduced yesterday afternoon, a bill that represents significant changes to the driving regulatory scheme in this province, to the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act — it sets up new processes; it sets up a new board; it represents a fairly significant change — and yet we have had less than 24 hours in order to scrutinize the bill.

I've not really had an opportunity to contact stakeholders who might have an interest in this bill, which does make fairly significant changes. Committee stage, which is what will come next…. After we have a chance to speak about the bill as a whole, committee stage comes next. Committee stage gives us an opportunity to go clause by clause through the bill, asking the minister questions about the bill, on that basis.

I am very concerned about whether or not we are going to have the opportunity in the next stage, let alone this stage, to go through the bill and scrutinize the bill

[ Page 11665 ]

clause by clause — which, of course, is the job that we have here in the House as MLAs representing our constituents, acting in opposition, seeking clarification information and making sure that there has been full debate on the bill. I am looking forward to the committee stage, and I'm assuming that we will have a full opportunity to discuss this bill in committee stage.

I do point out that this is not a small bill. This is a bill that consists of 22 pages and has many sections in it. It deals with changing a lot of the present content of the Motor Vehicle Act. We do need to have full time to debate this and the other bills.

I would also point out that it seems to me that this bill was rushed. It makes me concerned when we have legislation come to this House which was put together in a rushed manner. I'm not referencing the possibility of whether work was done in the background and so on, but the bill itself, to me, seems to be rushed. I'd be happy to provide a couple of examples.

[1435]

For example, it is typical when bills are brought to this House that on the page facing the actual amendments, the changes to the act, there are explanatory notes to help us and to help members of the public read bills, which are often complicated. Bills are complicated, particularly when you have bills that are amending other acts.

You have an amendment that refers back to the original act, and unless somebody has that original act and has the ability to read that original act — read legal language, read the statutes — it's difficult to interpret what is going on. This is one of these types of acts. Much of the act refers back to the other act and says that this definition has changed or something has been added to it or some other change that can be significant. In terms of the number of words, it is not lengthy, but it could have a significant impact.

Yet with this bill, of the total 22 pages in the bill, from pages 3 through to 21 — almost all of the bill — we have no explanatory notes. There's just a little bit on page 3: three bullets that explain, essentially, the rest of the bill. I think that is an indication that this bill was hastily put together.

It's not very helpful when the full explanatory notes for all of those almost 20 pages are that it "adds new parts to establish driving notices under the act in place of violation tickets," that it adds new parts to establish "the ability of the superintendent of motor vehicles to conduct resolution conferences in relation to driving notices" and that it adds new parts to establish the driving notice review board.

That, the establishment of a new board, is to cover all the provisions that provide for the establishment of a resolution process, a hearing process. I mean, to me it's quite astounding and would indicate to me that this bill has in fact come to this House in a rushed manner and in a manner that is not very helpful to the members of the public who might want to take a good look it and try to understand and discern exactly what these changes mean.

They will mean significant changes to the people of British Columbia in dealing with tickets they get, and I'll talk more about exactly what those offences are, because it's not clear from the bill.

I also want to say that another indicator to me that this bill was rushed in…. For some reason, there's this great desire to bring everything in. We have, I think, around 19 or 20 bills that have been brought in and have not made it to committee stage yet or even second reading.

Here's another example of why I think this bill was rushed. On page 6 is a typo saying, under

section 275(1)(a), "anotice of dispute." It's a simple little typo. Two words have been run together. But to me this is concerning — that we have a government bringing a bill to this House that has typos in it. Another typo. In

section 276 two words are run together, "admittedthat," with no space between the two of them.

To me, sloppiness is a concern. I don't blame anybody, because my suspicion is that what has happened is that somebody in the ministry has been told to get this piece of legislation ready in a hurry. It has been brought in, in a hurry — you know, poor House management by this government or some reason. Some of my colleagues, I believe, have found some other typos as well. They will probably bring those to light so that the minister can ensure that the changes are made in order to tighten and tidy up this piece of legislation.

To me, it's not the typos. It is the fact that it's come to this House in this form, and I think that is a concern. When I was growing up, I was always taught to be a real stickler about grammar, about the form that you present a piece of writing to somebody. I think many of my teachers said that if you provide something in a sloppy form, then it will be seen to be sloppily thought out and not properly thought out. So that is a concern I have as well.

[1440]

When you combine it with the fact that we received this piece of legislation yesterday afternoon and we're expected to debate it today, I think it's a concern. It's a concern that we have had with a number of bills. I think we had an example just last week of a bill that was brought in, and then discussion happened the next day. Government forced the discussion to have….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

K. Corrigan: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: Bill 52.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Well, I do hope that the comments that I have made about this, the concerns that I have…. Typos, I think, are perfectly legitimately mentioned, because it's something

[ Page 11666 ]

that I assume will need to be cleared up. If it takes the opposition to mention that we need to clean up typos in the bill, then I'm happy to provide that service to government. But I do think it is indicative of the process that has happened.

The bill itself provides for the replacement of violation tickets with driving notices — what are called driving notices — in some cases. In addition, the bill partially transfers over — certainly provides for — the ability to use electronic tickets and electronic notices in a far wider range of cases. So that's one part of the bill that seems significant.

It also provides for dispute resolution conferences with regard to driving notices. It seems from the bill — and I'm looking forward to having a deeper discussion about this and questions of the minister during committee stage — that it also provides that you're going to…. It's going to make it possible to have dispute resolution conferences in order to, presumably, resolve some of the driving notices — what we would previously call tickets, I guess — in a more informal way and, hopefully, get rid of some of the backlog. I think the minister talked about a backlog of something like 50,000 tickets.

This is a significant change as well, but also very significantly, this bill creates a driving notice review board appointed by the treasury. My understanding is that this board is going to conduct hearings relating to driving notices. It is not clear exactly what driving notices will be covered or new types of offences, but it's going to cover a variety of offences.

One of the concerns that I have is that the legislation does not provide exactly what those kinds of driving offences are going to be. I am going to turn to one of the sections of the act. This brings up another concern, and perhaps I'll deal with my other concern first.

We have a large number of areas in terms of putting the structure together. The administration of these very significant changes is going to be determined by regulation. In other words, they will be determined after we are forced to vote on this bill. Then regulations will be decided by government behind closed doors by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or cabinet, on a number of pieces of this bill.

It's very difficult for us to evaluate or make comment on or provide critique of a bill when there is so much that we don't know what it's going to look like. Some of it I understand.

Section 278 says: "Without limiting any provision of this Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council" — i.e., the cabinet — "may make regulations for the purposes of this Part as follows."

The first one makes perfect sense, prescribing the form and content of driving notices issued under this act. That I understand. But I do get a little more concerned when under subsection (

f) it says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — cabinet, behind closed doors again — can make regulations for the purposes of this part as follows: "designating a person or class of persons as a driving enforcement officer and prescribing the driving enactments in respect of which a designated person or class of persons may issue a driving notice under

section 272 (1)."

[1445]

In other words, we don't even know with this act which of the laws of British Columbia are going to be covered by the act. There are a large number of laws that are under the Motor Vehicle Act and other acts, and we don't know exactly what those driving enactments are. So we have this very general term of driving enactments that are going to be covered by this act, and we will not know until after the bill has been completed and debated exactly what it's going to cover.

I think the people of British Columbia will want to know what types of offences, what acts are being referred to when they're saying they're going to be covered by this new regulatory scheme. That does concern me.

I've mentioned earlier that in addition to having more use of electronic notices…. I think that in committee stage I'll certainly be raising questions about privacy issues, ensuring that we have privacy every time we add one more piece of electronic…. We digitalize our information, and at the same time we have to safeguard people's privacy rights.

I think, as well, I'll certainly want to be asking questions about whether or not…. How much of this information is going to be stored? If somebody gets stopped for a ticket and there's an electronic version of that ticket and it goes first to a resolution conference and then maybe it goes to the review board afterwards, if it's not resolved at the resolution conference….

Let's say the board clears the individual of culpability for whatever that driving enactment or offence is. Will that information, for example, be stored in Crime B.C., which is the criminal database for the province of British Columbia and which includes those cases where there has been "negative contact" with law enforcement? I'll be interested in that.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't leap into the 21st century and further use and widen the use of electronic notices and storage. Absolutely, I agree with that. But I do think we want to at the same time…. As I have said before, we need to absolutely protect privacy and make sure that the appropriate protections are in place to protect people who will be covered by these changes.

I want to make another more general comment about this bill which is similar to comments that we have made about other bills that have come before this House in the past couple of years. There is definitely a move by this government to shift things from the courts to administrative processes. We've had it in a variety of areas.

I'm not saying that this is not appropriate, but I do think that when we are doing that, we lose the protections of the courts, the process of the courts, the oversight

[ Page 11667 ]

of the courts and the court system and all the protections, evidentiary protections and so on, that are built into the court system.

There are times that that is appropriate, and this may be one of those times. But we are, in a number of ways — civil forfeiture and in this act and another act that's going to be dealt with today, Bill 44, which is going to deal with strata and small claims moving to more of an administrative process — shifting matters away from the court system to more administrative processes or tribunals.

I will be asking questions about that as well when we get to committee stage. I do think that we need to be aware of that, because as we do it, it can raise concerns about making sure that individuals' rights are protected.

Of course, we have that in the context of what has generally been very clearly seen to be a court system which is in crisis, which has been underfunded, where there are delays which are leading to stays of proceedings with very serious cases that are in the court system for so long that the judges of our province are letting people off, sometimes in very serious cases — drug cases, the puppy killer case and so on.

[1450]

I understand that there is definitely an impetus. There is certainly a good reason to want to move things away from the court system in order to relieve some of that pressure.

When there is that impetus there, I can certainly understand that government will want to do that, but that's all the more reason to say: "Are you doing it in order to take pressure off the court system, or are you doing it because you want to have a better process that is more effective?"

I think we always have to look at things through the lens: "Are people's rights being protected, and is the motivation to make sure that we have a more effective system?" If it is, that's fine. But I think we also have to always be making sure of what exactly the motivation is.

I also think it's strange that we are getting this bill, Bill 52, that sets up these processes, at the same time preceding the conclusions of what was supposed to be a very wide-ranging review of the justice system.

It seems odd to me that we would be presupposing the recommendations that are being made by the justice reform review process that is going on in this province, which has been going on for some time and will be going on for the next several months, and doing this before we get the results of that system. It seems odd to me that that would happen.

I don't believe that in this and other bills that are coming up — for example, Bill 44 — that the Law Society was consulted. I'm not sure. I haven't had a chance to talk to many other organizations about what the impact is going to be and whether or not there was consultation, but I am concerned about whether or not the right consultation happened.

As I've said earlier, I do believe that we will for the most part support this bill. I will have more specific questions about how it's going to be administered.

When we talk about that we're going to have the driving notice review board appointed by the treasury, it gives one the sense and the feeling that there is going to be a tribunal, essentially, that is going to have some safeguards built into it. I've expressed some concerns about whether or not there are the appropriate safeguards and justice will be done.

It sounds like when you have a review board, you will have perhaps two or three people sitting there. But in fact, the act provides that when you have a hearing, "the board" means one person. So yes, there will be more than one person appointed, but in any hearing there is only going to be one person.

One might get the wrong impression when they read the word "board." There is more than one person who is going to be appointed, but it very specifically provides that only one person is going to hear a case when it goes to the driving notice review board.

In conclusion and in

summary, we will probably support this bill. It has been very difficult to effectively scrutinize the bill and evaluate it. It has been impossible to contact stakeholders who might have an interest in it, particularly given that there are some fairly significant changes represented by this bill. That concerns me.

I'm concerned somewhat by the sloppiness that is represented by typos and so on, the lack of explanatory notes and what that means and why that has happened and why there was such a rush, particularly given that we know that we're in the middle of a justice reform process. Overall, I suspect that we will support this with vigorous questions during the committee stage.

With that, I will retake my seat.

L. Krog: Always a pleasure to speak to a bill produced by the busiest ministry in government of late. More legislation flowing out of the Ministry of Attorney General than you can shake a stick at.

[1455]

I must say that there's clearly very good news for ICBC in this legislation, because there is no question — with the continuing added responsibilities given to ICBC, the prospect of ICBC being privatized is obviously completely off the government's agenda. That's a good thing.

That's a very good thing, because as I think of my old friend Dave Barrett, it would be a great, sad day in British Columbia to see ICBC disappear into privatization. But it's pretty clear, hon. Speaker, when you look at this bill, with the new responsibilities being given to ICBC — allowing them to cancel a driver's licence if you owe government money, allowing them to issue short-term licences, if you will, on conditions, if you've made an arrangement — all of those things obviously indicate that ICBC is going to be integral part, certainly, of the re-

[ Page 11668 ]

mainder of this government's mandate when it comes to handling motor vehicle offences in the province.

This is, however, a fairly significant piece of legislation to be dropped so close to the end of this session, and I'm not going to go on at great length about that. I appreciate what the purposes of second reading of any bill are, but I would be remiss if I didn't second the comments of our critic the member from Burnaby who pointed out so ably a number of the problems and issues that arise from this legislation.

I appreciate that there was not exactly a warm response to her criticism around the misspelling in a couple of sections. But candidly, in all the legislation that I have reviewed in this House in my time in this chamber, both back in the '90s — as we refer to them on this side; the dismal decade, as they refer to it on the other side — and in this new century, I have never come across an error. It's quite unusual, because the Queen's Printer, I think, has done an incredible job historically. To see any kind of error here is, really, actually quite surprising.

I think, with great respect to the Attorney General and the members opposite who take a differing view, it does indicate a certain speedy passage or approval of this legislation before it hit the House, perhaps without the kind of scrutiny that it deserves. I think we all know that we are here in this House and will be amending other legislation that was passed with closure in previous sessions, again, because there wasn't the kind of public scrutiny that's important.

Now, the minister describes it as innovative, and she is correct. It is innovative. It is a significant change to our existing system. Part of that, no doubt, reflects the fact that the government has found itself in great difficulty with the court system generally. Latest information would indicate that we're back down to 128.25 Provincial Court judges, full-time equivalents, from 143.65, where we were in 2005.

Hon. Speaker, what that tells you is that all of those judicial appointments that were made that were supposed to help solve this problem, in fact, did nothing, really, more than replace the members of the Provincial Court bench who were retiring.

I appreciate the government's drive to cut costs, and that's important. But again, the member from Burnaby pointed out quite well that things that take this out of a judicial process, out of our justice system, and into an administrative process, which is what this bill is all about, may or may not be good public policy. I think we always have to weigh off that balance between easy access to justice and fairly early disposition of matters against rights. This bill may strike that balance; I'm not sure.

We recognize that a great deal of police time can be consumed with traffic violations. We appreciate, on this side, that a great deal of time can be consumed by courts dealing with traffic violations.

I think we are all conscious of the fact — we've all heard the stories, and let's not pretend to be naive in this chamber — that many people dispute their traffic violations in the fond hope that if they show up on the day appointed, in fact, there'll be a police officer who won't show up on the day appointed and there won't be a case to be prosecuted, so to speak.

I mean, that's a pretty standard defence tactic and not unreasonable. It's one of the few ways that people that can't afford counsel understand how to try and combat any violations they may be presented with.

So I appreciate that this system is designed to deal with some of those issues, but I also appreciate that it's designed to deal with what the minister, to her credit, acknowledged was a significant problem that has grown up under this government, and that is that the current court-based system for traffic ticket disputes is overburdened with an estimated backlog of 50,000 ticket disputes.

[1500]

Currently it takes seven to 18 months to resolve a dispute. That's a traffic ticket. You can only begin to imagine what it says about the other aspects of our justice system — if you have a serious family law issue or you're involved in a criminal matter.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we try and engage in the speedy justice of some nations that don't treat their justice systems with the esteem and respect that we do in British Columbia. I'm not suggesting that we go to a process where you're hung, drawn and quartered within a week of the violation, or whatever the case may be.

Nevertheless, it is very clear that underfunding of the justice system has contributed to this horrendous backlog. Processes that are in place are not functioning in the way they should, and we are, therefore, at this juncture where we have Bill 52, which is a hoped-for remedy.

It does, as I said, though, give a great deal of authority to ICBC. It is clearly an administrative process. It's not a process that enjoys the benefit of court supervision of it, if you will. It does, as the minister well pointed out, however, free up police. As I mentioned, there's no question that police spend a great deal of time on traffic violation.

I know that there has been discussion in the past around the possibility of the sheriff services providing traffic supervision. I know that has been met on most occasions by concerns from the police. They express over and over again that a great deal of police work dealing with other very serious crimes is dealt with…. They have an option or opportunity through traffic investigation or stopping some vehicle for another purpose that, in fact, leads to convictions for much more serious offences. I appreciate that argument.

But it is certainly an issue that I think has to be considered. I don't think any government should close its mind to possibilities of change. I use the term "change" without necessarily saying "reform," because you never know whether it's really a reform or not until you see what the change actually impacts in the system.

[ Page 11669 ]

The promise here is that this will be quick. This new administrative model will in fact be quick. That is a good thing. If there is anything that is certain in the justice system…. The distance between the act and the consequence should be as short as is reasonably possible, consistent with our beliefs in freedom and the right to plead your case versus the power of the state.

After all — let's be blunt about this — even though it's a traffic violation, the power of the state is enormous in comparison to the power of the citizen. So it's important that the system actually be fair and be seen to be fair.

There is some concern, though, that the solution here isn't driven necessarily by a desire to reform; that it's driven by the fact that the government's overall funding problems with the court system have led us to this juncture. We have an enormous backlog, as I said earlier, that needs to be dealt with.

It's also of concern to the opposition. It's not clear yet — I'm sure the Attorney General in committee stage will be able to advise the House — whether or not the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has had a chance to review this legislation in the way that would be appropriate.

Certainly, in two previous bills before the House we know we've had some very critical letters from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner — quite striking, actually, in terms of the language and the serious concerns that have been raised.

Now, I don't know what sort of consultation was undertaken. But allowing ICBC to refuse to issue a driver's licence if there are unpaid tickets and to refuse insurance, I'm not sure that's had the kind of public debate and scrutiny…. You may have to ask yourself, in a particular case where genuine poverty can be involved….

These are always difficult cases. You can't afford to pay the fine, but if you can't pay the fine, you can't drive a vehicle, and you lose your job. I'm not sure that that's good public policy. I'm not sure how the minister will address that and how we're going to deal with that issue. That is a significant concern.

[1505]

The statistics are all there. We have a growing underclass in our province, a shrinking middle class and a very wealthy upper class, if you will. For many people the opportunity to obtain or retain a driver's licence — and in this particular case, I'm really talking about retaining or renewing — is absolutely crucial to their economic well-being and their family's economic well-being.

Those cases may be few and far between, but I think it is a consideration that we have to really worry about. I am hopeful that with the ease of this dispute system — and hopefully that's what it will be — people who might otherwise just roll over and admit or acknowledge guilt will be prepared now to go through the system and go through it quickly rather than just give up.

There are the significant changes around the establishment of the driving notice review board — a great deal of change from what we have. You've got the opportunity to dispute, under the proposed

section 275, all contained within

section 9.

It's interesting. You have to be so careful when you're looking at legislation like this.

Section 9 of the bill refers to page after page of sections that are, in fact, added. Sometimes you can get yourself lost in this. I'll try not to do that.

The concept of getting this reviewed fairly quickly, I think, is important. But one of the concerns I have is: in setting up this process, is the government going to have the money or commit the resources necessary to deal with it? If you've got 50,000 tickets in the system…. I haven't raised the issue — nor can I comment, because I haven't had an opportunity to read the bill because, as the member pointed out, we've had it for a little over 24 hours now — of whether or not the new process will apply to a number of those outstanding tickets.

If that's the case, it might generate enough government revenue from those people who actually pay their fines that you might be able to pay for the folks who are going to run the new system. If there's no money to run the new system, all we're really going to be doing is creating another system that will be underfunded, that won't produce any better results and that won't resolve the issues of the public. That is a very serious concern.

Section 279 sets out that: "After filing a notice of dispute under

section 275, the disputant must participate" — must participate — "in a resolution conference with the superintendent in accordance with the notice sent under

section 275 (5) and with this Part."

Now, it does provide — and this is, I think, some of the guts of the bill — in 279(2) as proposed: "A resolution conference may, in accordance with the request of the disputant, or in the absence of a request, in the discretion of the superintendent, be conducted in writing or by telephone or by a combination of those methods."

That's probably a pretty good thing. I do have some concerns about verifying that the parties are, in fact, the parties to the dispute. If it's conducted by telephone, it might be the violator on the other end of the line, or it might not be.

I think we can safely trust that if you call the government, you're going to get the right side at that end of the telephone conversation, but I'm not convinced how you're going to confirm that the party at the other end is the party who has been charged with a violation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Section 279 goes on to give a number of options at the resolution conference. The superintendent can cancel the driving notice, accept from the disputant the disputant's admission that he or she has contravened the driving enactment indicated that was served on the disputant, offer to reduce the amount of monetary penalty that is indicated, or offer to provide the disputant with time to pay

[ Page 11670 ]

a monetary penalty.

Some of the more conservative elements of the B.C. Liberal Party historically haven't been too happy with the concept of plea bargaining. Essentially, what this is, at a very crass monetary level, is plea bargaining. "Are we going to have a sale on traffic violations today?" You've got a little bit of a defence but not a really big defence, so the superintendent can say: "Well, the prescribed fine is 179 bucks. How about 75 bucks today, and we'll let you go."

[1510]

That is exactly what the legislation provides. There are no ifs, ands or buts. I will be interested to hear what the Attorney General has to say when we come to this

section in committee stage, but that's really what we're saying.

You can offer to reduce…. Indeed, I think if you read…. The common and plain reading of this language is that the superintendent may offer. So the superintendent gets to make the first offer, and the disputant gets to accept it. The superintendent is being authorized quite literally to do bargaining.

Now, I appreciate that this does happen — the plea bargaining process in our criminal justice process — and it isn't always the prettiest thing to watch or see. I'm aware of one case in Nanaimo where a person who — I think, on good evidence — admitted to molesting their child, in fact, got off with a peace bond. So it isn't always a pretty process. I appreciate there are evidentiary issues and costs and time and delay and the prospect of children on the stand and all of those things. It isn't always a pretty process.

This has the image of, frankly, the kind of bargaining that we associate with Third World countries — that kind of unpleasant driving down of the price — and I'm just not sure it's consistent with the dignity of Her Majesty's government that we're going to engage in haggling over traffic tickets and how much you're going to pay.

That aside, if you're not happy with the result of the resolution conference…. So the superintendent has decided against you — thumbs down, so to speak — then the superintendent may, under sub 279(5)(c), "advise the disputant (

i) of the procedure for an application to the board for a determination by the board of whether the disputant contravened the driving enactment indicated on the driving notice, and (ii) that the disputant must apply for the determination within 30 days after the resolution conference."

Then we jump on to another fairly substantial section, again a proposed section, all contained within

section 9 — 291(1). "Within 30 days after the date of a resolution conference held in accordance with

section 279, the disputant may apply to the board in the form established by the board for a determination of whether the disputant contravened the driving enactment indicated on the driving notice that was served on him or her."

Interesting that there's a provision in 292 that says: "The board must dismiss an application if the disputant has paid all or part of a monetary penalty or has agreed with the superintendent at a resolution conference to pay the monetary penalty or a reduced monetary penalty."

I'm just a tiny bit concerned that this seems to remove the right of an individual who says: "Look, if I don't pay the penalty, I'm going to lose my licence. So I pay it, but I dispute, in fact, the decision that says I did breach the Motor Vehicle Act." I'm a bit concerned that this

section seems to foreclose one of those opportunities.

Often in legal matters one will pay a sum of money as security so that an action can continue. You will make a without-prejudice payment on the basis that there may be liability found against you, but it's not, in fact, to affect the outcome of the proceeding. This seems to contemplate that if you've paid part of it, then you can't have the board adjudicate in your favour, because the board "must dismiss an application if the disputant has paid all or part of a monetary penalty."

Now, it says: "…or has agreed with the superintendent at a resolution conference to pay the monetary penalty or a reduced monetary penalty." That's different. But it says if you paid all or part.

Again, in a situation where someone is forced by circumstances to pay it for whatever reason but says, "Look, I really want to dispute it," then the board has no jurisdiction, it appears to me, to do anything other than what the bill directs, which is to dismiss the application. So that is a matter of some concern as well.

There are a number of saving provisions that allow one, if you miss a board or hearing and you had a valid reason under

section 297 for failing to participate…. All those kinds of things — fairly positive. It says that a hearing must be open to the public.

The one thing I can't determine…. I know the Attorney General is going to help me with this when the time comes. I don't see that there's any appeal process beyond the board. In other words, if you get to the board hearing, once you're done, you're done — unless, of course, there's still a right for judicial review.

[1515]

When you look across at the Attorney General, you sometimes actually, notwithstanding what she does in question period, get an answer, and I appreciate that.

Having said that, I think it's fair to say the opposition has a number of questions. I don't want to be repetitive when I say that. Anytime we lose the protection of our court system, by instinct and training and experience, I have concerns about that. But I recognize the reality of modern, complex societies and the time that people have to spend on certain matters.

Overall, this legislation appears to address a problem, admittedly — in fairness, I think — created by this government and its practice and funding. But I do have to ask the question with respect to the legislation generally: what is Geoff Cowper doing?

This is just one of many bills before the House that are

[ Page 11671 ]

making fairly significant changes to our justice system or things related to our justice system while Mr. Cowper is still busily beavering away on his project, as designated by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. So I'm a bit concerned that we may be entering into a number of things sort of helter-skelter.

To me, it's not the same kind of principle involved in entering into interim agreements with First Nations, many of whom are struggling either inside or outside the treaty process, who are waiting for some kind of justice. One can see the very good argument in those circumstances for entering into interim agreements that allow First Nations to move forward — to recover, if you will, from the long racist history of this province.

But in this case I am a bit concerned that we are doing piecemeal reform to the justice system in the broad sense — taking things out of the courts, putting them in administrative tribunals — without necessarily having an overall scheme or plan in place or having heard from Mr. Cowper.

Mr. Cowper, I appreciate, isn't being paid very much for what he's doing, notwithstanding what some people may think. He doesn't appear to have piles of staff, although I understand he can rely on the Attorney General's ministry.

Nevertheless, if we're going engage in a significant reform of the justice system, I'd like to think it was part of a holistic process. At this stage I'm not convinced that that's the case. Although I suppose, from the opposition's perspective, one should always be grateful for anything that is seen as an improvement or change or reform.

With that, I'm going to take my place. I appreciate that there are some other members who wish to raise issues with respect to this. However, frankly, I am concerned, obviously, that as the closing date of the session appears on the horizon very quickly, we will not have the opportunity to scrutinize this bill, or any other, in the way that it deserves.

We do, after all, have a fall sitting. It's part of the legislative calendar. With great respect to a man I've criticized often in this chamber, that was one of Gordon Campbell's great reforms, a great improvement in this chamber.

Ah, one member over there points out that he's gone. Yes, we're all aware he's gone, hon. Member. He's gone off to a better place. He's gone off to one of the peak jobs you can get in the British Commonwealth. What could be better than being high commissioner to the Court of St. James? I just love to roll it off my tongue. It sounds so sweet.

An Hon. Member: You're next.

L. Krog: One member suggests I'm next. I'm not old nor powerful enough to secure that position, but it's a lovely thought.

Having said that, it was a great reform. We do have a fall session scheduled. We do have an opportunity to give all of these bills — and this one, for example, because it is a significant change to practice in our province — a full and proper scrutiny. I suggest, with great respect to the Attorney General, that she have a discussion with the House Leader and they talk about that.

D. Routley: As has been indicated by several members of the opposition, it appears that this bill, Bill 52, will secure the support of the opposition, although I think a lot of detail needs to be examined in the third reading before commitments can be made. Certainly, it may be open to amendment.

[1520]

As has also been said, we're nearing the end of the session, and we've seen bill after bill introduced every day. We've had several months in order for the government to bring these pieces of legislation forward and provide adequate opportunity for scrutiny and debate, but as has been the case in the past, the government has chosen to rush legislation at the last minute and at the end of the session.

It isn't only at the end of the session that legislation is rushed upon this House. Earlier in this now extended session from this past fall, I was involved in the debate on a bill which amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The indication of a rushed and hasty nature there was that I was asked to do second reading debate on that bill at the very same moment I was scheduled for a ministerial briefing. The government refused to separate those two obligations, so it really affected the ability of this side of the House to scrutinize that bill.

Here again, with Bill 52, we find the same haste which could make waste of the democratic process. It's an important consideration, particularly given that two of the other bills that we're debating in this House at this time are bills that were brought forward to correct previous bills that were rushed through with closure in previous sessions.

The Attorney General might consider that the apparently worthy aspirations of this legislation — addressing a problem of backlog in the courts which has, in large, part been created by B.C. Liberal underfunding of the court system — would benefit from greater consultation with stakeholders and more opportunity for scrutiny in this House.

When it comes to consultation, I wonder, given that this bill has some privacy implications, whether the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner had been consulted before this legislation was introduced.

We've had the unusual circumstance in past weeks of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner writing letters to the government criticizing the government's recent legislation and its impacts on privacy protections. It only would beg the question of whether or not

[ Page 11672 ]

the commissioner has been consulted around the privacy concerns when it comes to data-sharing across ministries that this bill will provide.

Currently there are 750 pages of legislation yet to be debated in this House with only ten days left, and we have yet to see the HST bill, presuming it's coming, added to that total. That is obviously an impossible situation where the ability for stakeholders to have input into this debate, for the opposition to adequately scrutinize the legislation that's before the House, just won't be provided.

This Bill 52, which makes significant changes to the way that traffic violations are adjudicated and the way fines are collected, falls into the same category of being rushed and not providing adequate opportunity to be scrutinized. It is unclear as to which laws and which offences will fall under the scope of this legislation, which makes it an important consideration.

We have, apparently, a 50,000-ticket-dispute backlog, which is an obvious problem. This bill may go some way to addressing that situation, but only if adequate resources are directed towards supporting the mechanisms created by this legislation.

At the same time, Mr. Cowper is doing a review of the justice system, and yet bits and pieces of the justice system are being addressed through various pieces of legislation, including this one.

What will the government do if the justice system review recommends a different policy when it comes to traffic violations and traffic court issues? Will the government then be forced to bring further legislation to again correct legislation that was rushed and brought forward without due consideration?

[1525]

The legislation provides for a telephone resolution conference with the superintendent of motor vehicles. As the critic has pointed out, it will be very difficult, at least in my imagination, to verify that the correct person is on the end of the telephone line in such a conversation.

The dispute resolution conference also provides for, essentially, a deal-making exercise, a haggling over the value of a ticket, which obviously has the potential to undermine the intent of traffic control.

Will the legislation before us balance the rights of a person — their access to justice or their rights to an adequate defence? It may. One of the more contentious issues, I believe, with this legislation will be the power granted to deny a driver's licence or insurance through ICBC for those people who have not paid their traffic fines.

This province has very high rates of poverty. People who find themselves unable to pay their bills, unable to meet the demands of a traffic violation, may find themselves then disqualified from work. How that equates to good public policy, how that equates to a fair and judicious treatment of people who are already struggling, escapes me.

I'm looking forward to third reading debate where we can delve into the details of that aspect of this bill, because people who find themselves in a situation unable to meet their obligations generally, specifically a traffic violation, and then find themselves without a driver's licence may in fact find themselves without work. That would hardly be the result that I would expect the Attorney General to be seeking, so I hope that there's some sort of test or option to be offered to those people who will not be able to meet their obligations.

The privacy concerns that I have, as critic, will have to be scrutinized in further readings. The data sharing across ministries, the requirement of ICBC to provide driving contraventions in providing an extract of a person's driving record — these are aspects of the bill which do present some challenges from the protection-of-privacy perspective.

I would hope that the Attorney General, in formulating this legislation, has had extensive consultations with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It's only in this past week that the Privacy Commissioner has written to the government three times, on three separate pieces of legislation, with concerns, asking legislation to be removed from debate because of concerns around privacy issues.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will take my seat and take my place in the debate.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 52, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. As one of my colleagues already mentioned, we have had a lot of legislation around the Attorney General and Justice Minister's ministry, and it just keeps on rolling. We are striving gallantly on our side to keep up, best we can. In first reading of the….

Interjections.

M. Sather: I missed the comments by the minister — not the current minister; the Minister of Environment.

[1530]

Anyway, in first reading the minister mentioned that these changes support the government's justice reform agenda and are based on a commitment from the October 3, 2011, throne speech.

Well, we have heard a fair bit — it's true — about the justice reform agenda of this government. We of course have been back in this House to reboot one of those pieces. That was on the law that dealt with folks who were drinking and driving and then taking a breathalyzer or one of those roadside screening devices, etc. So we've dealt with that.

But there are other aspects, of course, of the justice reform agenda. It's not entirely clear to me what this government's justice reform agenda is, in some regards. For example, as the House will know, there have been lots

[ Page 11673 ]

of moves by the federal government, the Harper government as it's known, to also come up with a transforming — I suppose you could say — justice agenda. This bill, Bill 52, is of course not part of that. In respect of the minister's comments, I'm left kind of wondering how it all fits in.

When we have had occasion to question the minister, for example, about how we're going to pay for all this, she has responded by saying: "Well, you're against child molesters." I've got to say, Madam Speaker, that is pretty offensive, but there we have it. We're certainly not…. We are asking the government that claims a lot of financial acumen…. It's not proven in the record. Nonetheless, they persist in that fantasy.

We'd like to know who's going to pay for it all and how much it's going to cost British Columbians for these justice reform agendas, be they provincial or federal. There are aspects of this bill that have some monetary consequences that I'm going to be touching on a little bit as I go through this bill.

Referring to some of the other comments by the minister in her opening statement, she talked about how this legislation will help to free police from most traffic appearances. Certainly on the face of it, that has to be a good thing. As my colleague mentioned, it's a crapshoot as it is now, if you decide to go to court on a traffic violation. If you've been accused of a violation, it's a crapshoot as to whether or not the police will show up. If the police don't show up, of course….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would draw your attention to the use of parliamentary language.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

If the police don't show up at the court appearance, then, of course, the case is thrown out. So the minister is quite correct in saying that freeing police from traffic appearances is beneficial in terms of opening up space in our criminal justice system. There are a number of factors that affect, however, the ability of police officers to attend court as requested to do so. One of those is proximity to a courthouse.

[1535]

I know it has made a difference in my community of Maple Ridge when some number of years ago now this government closed down the courthouse in Maple Ridge, causing police — the RCMP in our case — to have to go to Coquitlam or Port Coquitlam, which isn't that far for those that know the terrain. But driving it can take a period of time, altogether too long.

I'm sure and I've heard that it has contributed also to police at times missing their appearances. If this bill is going to help — and it appears that it will — to reduce the necessity for police to show up in court, then that sounds like a good thing. And it probably is a good thing.

However, you know, there's always that niggling that one has to have in the back of the mind, I think, about due process. Again, we saw a lack of due process with the drinking-and-driving legislation. I'm hoping that this isn't in any way going to get snared by some similar considerations whereby administrative processes may not be seen to be adequate. But I'm trusting that that's not the case and that this will be a positive thing for British Columbians, not only the police but those that have been accused of a crime.

The minister mentioned also that this legislation is applicable only to B.C. drivers because the superintendent of motor vehicles has no jurisdiction over drivers outside the province. Of course, a lot of these administrative processes under this bill will be overseen by the same superintendent of motor vehicles.

And you know, the Alberta drivers are terrible to start with. They're using the Golden Ears Bridge, getting away without paying for it, and now we're going to allow them to drive at will, however they wish, apparently, around the province without being prosecuted. That's how it sounds to me. And that's not a good thing, because there are a lot of visitors to our province. I'm from Alberta, and I certainly welcome those from my native homeland, but we expect them to behave. If there are no sanctions against their driving behaviour….

I would sure wish that we would get the opportunity to debate this in committee stage, wherein the minister could clarify issues such as that. But I don't think…. I will be surprised if we do get to committee stage with this bill or a whole lot of others, because when I looked at the list yesterday, there were nearly 20 bills that had yet to go through second reading. We have now less than 10½ days remaining to cover all this ground.

It was so slow to begin in this session, Madam Speaker. There were some bills that came in, but it was a very leisurely pace — very leisurely. Now, it's whoof! All kinds of bills are coming at us — right, left and centre. Is that just happenstance? Is that kind of ill planning, or is it intentional? Is it a strategy that this government has — to limit debate on bills by bringing them in late?

Of course, they would only be able to do that if they didn't adhere to the legislative calendar that this government brought into place. The one thing I have always said to people that I agree entirely with the B.C. Liberals about, and that's having a fixed legislative calendar. Unfortunately, as we know, this government hasn't lived up to the requirements of that in the Legislature.

Rather than bring in closure, which I'm afraid we're going to see, why not bring this legislation that we're not going to have enough time for in this session back to the fall session? That may happen. I hope it happens. I believe some of the legislation that we had last fall was brought forward to this spring.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I bring you back to consideration of the bill.

[ Page 11674 ]

M. Sather: Yes, Madam Speaker.

[1540]

We look forward to a progressive agenda by the government. I would think that that is the intention, so we will assume that that's the case.

I wanted to talk for a minute about

section 3 of the bill, which, in the explanatory notes…. There are explanatory notes in this bill, for which I guess we are grateful — at least on page 1. I remember debating the Animal Health Act recently. I don't think there were any explanatory notes for that bill, so that's a step backwards.

Here we have some. In the explanatory note it says, under

section 3, that this

section "allows the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia" — otherwise known as ICBC — "to cancel the driver's licence of a person who owes the government a monetary penalty." We're hearing more of this, of licences being cancelled if you're not good. For example, in my constituency on the Golden Ears Bridge, which we share with Langley, if you don't pay your toll, you don't get your licence renewed.

I mean, it sounds fair enough on the face of it, and I suppose it is. The problem is that the administration of the toll at the Golden Ears Bridge has been fraught with problems. Folks are finding themselves billed when they shouldn't be. The timing is wrong. There's been a whole myriad of problems. I know of constituents who have lost work, actually, as a result of finding at the eleventh hour that: "Guess what. I can't renew my driver's licence because apparently I didn't pay a fine."

That's a problem — to lose a day's work. That costs you serious money. Cancellation of a driver's licence is a significant thing. We want to be sure that it's done correctly and there's not undue harm for residents.

Section 4 says that it "allows the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to issue a short-term driver's licence to a person who owes the government a monetary penalty but who has made an arrangement for payment of the penalty." Maybe therein is an out. I guess if you make the case or whatever successfully, you can get a short-term driver's licence even though you owe the government money.

It's kind of an interesting bill in that respect. The member for Nanaimo, my colleague, was mentioning some of the sort of trading provisions that appear to be in this bill. I want to refer to one of those in a moment.

I wanted to make note of a comment by the opposition critic for this bill. It is with regard to the driving notice review board. She said that it's not clear what offences will be included under that review board. There again is a real huge need to have committee stage debate on a bill.

The government may have all the answers. We hope they do. But you know, we're not on the governing side. We aren't privy to all the information that the government has. We very much need that opportunity to learn the details of the bill so that we can advise our constituents accordingly. I remain hopeful, but as I said earlier, I'm doubtful that we're actually going to get to committee stage on very many of these bills. But perhaps this will be one of the lucky ones.

I wanted to turn to sections 12 and 13 of the bill, which are way at the back because most of the bill is about amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act. That's the big chunk of it.

[1545]

At the back of the bill, though, you come to sections 12 and

Section 12 talks about driver assessment points, and it defines driver assessment points. It means "points that may be recorded against the driving record of a driver under the Motor Vehicle Act or under this Part and the regulations under this Part."

Then

section 13 says that it "allows the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to use driver assessment points to assess and levy a driver premium for basic or additional insurance and to establish or adopt a method to use driver assessment points in addition to, or instead of, penalty points." It's confusing to me. We've got driver assessment points on the one hand, and then on the other hand, we've got penalty points.

You know, it's funny. Sometimes you have a piece of legislation, and it goes through this and that. Later on you find out there were actually some serious or considerable consequences to this bill that nobody really figured out during the time, especially when bills are flying through like this. Interest groups don't have time to study them or to give their feedback, and sometimes they've not even been consulted.

I heard with one bill, the Trial Lawyers Association wasn't assaulted…. That was a Freudian slip there, Madam Speaker. I meant to say they weren't consulted on a bill which was very germane to their area of expertise.

Great haste is what we're seeing. I guess we're not left with a lot of choice but to trust the government. But as the Health critic said earlier in the day, there sometimes is that lack of trust that's going on these days. Therefore, it kind of bogs down the system a little bit.

I wanted to turn to

section 13. This is the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. This is the same one that I was talking

[ Page 11675 ]

about before with the driver assessment points and penalty points. It goes on to say:

[1550]

Well, I'd have to consult my colleague from Nanaimo. He can make it clear to me just what capacities ICBC has at this time. I wasn't aware that ICBC had that kind of power. It's a continual learning experience.

That pretty much sums it up for me on Bill 52. Again, I think it's probably a good bill, and I expect we're going to support it. But it's just so frustrating to have to try to debate a bill without due consideration and without common courtesy, quite frankly, being afforded by the government side.

With those comments, Madam Speaker, I'll take my seat and allow for my colleague to continue the debate.

N. Macdonald: This is an opportunity to speak on a bill with implications, in particular, I think, for rural areas. Bill 52 was, as members have said, introduced yesterday, among other things, and it's a fairly lengthy bill. It talks about the ability to take away licences. Obviously, in rural areas in particular, that can be a profound sanction on an individual.

In Golden, for instance, over half of the people that are resident in the area live outside of the boundaries of the community and depend on transportation, and it's going to be a personal vehicle. We don't have transit anymore. Even when we did have it for a short period of time, it was pretty limited.

What we have, then, is a bill. If you look in the short comments that we had from the minister, we see that they're laying out something that sounds pretty straightforward. The minister talks about 50,000 tickets that are in dispute, that are currently in a backlog. Doesn't it make sense to try to deal with that backlog? Doesn't it make sense to set up a system that is going to be cheaper and more efficient?

All of those things sound completely reasonable, just as it seemed reasonable with DriveABLE to have a system in place that would fairly judge whether a senior was able to keep their licence or not.

The devil with all of these things is in the detail. I mean, we would all agree with the sweeping assertions that the government makes. But to actually pull it off and to do something that is fair and actually accomplishes what the government says it is going to accomplish is something that is completely different. That seems, in recent time especially, to be beyond the capacity of this government to actually produce.

Now, I'll just come back to DriveABLE. DriveABLE is a mess. Nobody would put in place a piece of legislation like that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I will draw you back to consideration of Bill 52.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: I mean, it's a sensitive place for them, but this is exactly the same thing.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I trust you're taking the advice of the Chair.

N. Macdonald: I always take the advice of the Chair. I always listen to the advice of the Chair. I would not drift from the advice.

What I would point out is that this is a bill where all can agree on the general sentiments that are expressed around efficiency, around the fact that there's going to be less cost. All of those are motherhood statements. But whether the government actually accomplishes them or not is another question.

We have a history here where the government puts forward something that they say is straightforward, and then as we go through the detail, or the courts go through the detail, or it's applied on the ground, it becomes a complete mess. The comparison to DriveABLE is a fair comparison — a mess. It's a mess.

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, it's not.

N. Macdonald: Well, ask a senior, Minister. Ask a senior.

This is a sensitive spot for the minister.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct your comments through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: Let's come back to this bill. This bill was put in place yesterday, like I say — filled with detail, filled with new terms, filled with implications for people that are profound.

[1555]

It is the responsibility of this government to have thought through this legislation, to have done the work before they present it to us, and it's the responsibility of the opposition to try to dig in to what is actually going on in this bill.

Let's look at the genesis of this bill, as far as I can see. We had this as supposedly part of a justice reform agenda. That's what the government is talking about. Let's think back to when that justice reform agenda was first talked about. It was when there was a crisis in the courts. I think it was evident about a year ago that we had a crisis in the courts. This government had decided to save money and

[ Page 11676 ]

not appoint judges that, in retrospect, were needed.

We had cases being thrown out. We had a government under pressure on a file that they thought they owned, which was on justice. They tell themselves, amongst many other myths, that they can manage justice, and clearly they weren't…. There was the bungled Riot TV initiative. Then there was a need to deal with another bungling, which was the fact that they had not managed the court system so that there were judges to actually deal with cases. Very serious cases were thrown out, case after case.

Under pressure, the government said: "Don't worry. We have a justice agenda, a reform agenda. You don't have to worry about judges. We're going to move to administrative law. We're going to do something different that's radical, that's well-thought-through."

Here we are. This is the piece of legislation that we have in front of us. It attempts, apparently, to streamline traffic violations. Some other members talked about this, but I'm going to take a bit more time, because the Minister of Justice referred to something that I said in the debate yesterday.

For the Speaker's benefit, because I know she'll be interested in this point, yesterday, to give context, we talked about a bill that was in place to fix previous B.C. Liberal legislation that courts had found unconstitutional. The minister objected to the fact that I pointed out that this was about the third bill we were dealing with that dealt with B.C. Liberal legislation that courts had thrown back to this Legislature to fix.

The courts had said that the base level of being constitutional…. I would think that is a pretty low bar — right? — to actually produce legislation in this Legislature that's constitutional. That would be a pretty low bar, but apparently, we couldn't do that. The minister took exception to me pointing that out, saying that it was an insult to those that produced this legislation.

I have no doubt there are people working very, very hard, and I also don't doubt that if there are errors made, the responsibility sits nowhere else but in this House. It is always a weak defence, as we saw in question period, to say that the blame sits somewhere else. It always sits with the minister responsible.

We all understand that we have people working for us that produce work for us — that we don't do all of these things and that we're not responsible. There are few here that are more capable than this minister. I mean, I say that. I know, genuinely, there are few. Nevertheless, the mistakes that are made are mistakes that sit with that ministry. The minister knows this; they all do.

I want to point out four places…. This is something that I haven't seen before, and the critic pointed it out. Go to page 6. I would invite government members to go to page 6. It's a first that I've seen here. It's not a spelling mistake, but it's a printing error.

You have "anotice." Well, there is no such word as "anotice." There is now, I suppose. It's there on page 6. Now, many will say: "Well, that's a small thing. Who cares?" Well, this is a piece of legislation we're making. You get the small things wrong, and it puts into question the big things.

[1600]

Turn to page 7. I'd invite members to do that. Turn to page 7 — "admittedthat." Well, "admittedthat" — when I say it, in your mind you divide it. You know that it's two words, "admitted that," but in this legislation, Bill 52, page 7, "admittedthat" is one word. I'd like the Speaker to look at it, page 7. It's in

section 276, "Failure to respond to driving notice."

It goes beyond that. It goes to page 11 — "date,apply" all fused together into something different. Go to page 14 — "performanceof" — again, one word.

There you have a piece of legislation where the real basics of putting in front of this House a document…. Well, the minister is shaking his head as if that's a trivial thing.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: With a record of legislation that the courts have found unconstitutional, where the fact that the government cannot even produce a document without printing errors and put it in front of this House….

It seems to me that it speaks to a sloppiness. Well, it does more than speak to a sloppiness. It is sloppy, and the government can either accept that that's the new standard….

Okay, the Minister of Environment thinks it's no big deal. That's the new standard — right? It doesn't matter. We don't have to worry about these things — this word, that word. You can figure it out, except that we have people within the House who've served as lawyers.

My experience is as a teacher's president. We did work where we had disputes, where we had to look at contract language — I know that the minister had to look at contract language — where one word means something. You go into that dispute, and you look at what the word says. It can go one way or another. In this bill we have words that aren't even words.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might draw you back to the contents of Bill 52.

N. Macdonald: Well, I'll point to the contents. It's a word called "anotice." What does that mean?

So we have a law being put forward where there's not even proper language.

Hon. S. Bond: It was a formatting error.

N. Macdonald: A formatting error. So there is a sloppiness. The minister says it's ridiculous. The minister says that's the new standard for the day. These are the things

[ Page 11677 ]

that can be put in front of the House, and it's all okay. It's just a waste of time — right.

At the same time, the minister will say….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members.

Member, please take your seat.

Continue.

N. Macdonald: You have disputes, then, that are decided by language. You have within this bill, laid out in detail, how a new system is going to work. The government is saying…. Okay, I'm sure at the end they'll stand up and say how picky, how churlish to point out that there are mistakes. Okay. Fine. That's the standard that the government has. Fine. It's churlish.

Then, let's look at the content of the bill. The content of the bill is extensive. It introduces new language. It talks about new systems. Is it faster? Is it more fair? What are driving notices, exactly? How are they created? How does this new administrative review work?

Well, where could I go and get that information? I suppose I would look at the notes, but the government, showing a tremendous capacity, doesn't have the ability, for 20 pages, to put explanatory notes on any of the new terms.

So where else do I listen? Do I listen to all the ministers who are willing to participate in the debate from their seats, or will they stand up, explain how the new system works?

I looked at the minister's speech — concise, short, no detail at all. So what we're left with in second reading debate is the opportunity to go through it — to take a day