2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. K. Heed

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Gerry Zimmerman

N. Letnick

Rent banks

S. Hammell

Local food and agriculture

R. Cantelon

Homelessness

J. Kwan

Richmond Olympic Oval

R. Howard

Women's equality and leadership

M. Elmore

Oral Questions

Government purchase of Olympic Games tickets and hospitality suites

C. James

Hon. M. McNeil

K. Corrigan

J. Kwan

Olympic Games tickets for government MLA s

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. McNeil

Provision of traffic fine revenues to local government

V. Huntington

Hon. B. Bennett

Government action on gambling and organized crime

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Heed

Status of integrated illegal gambling enforcement team

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Heed

Funding for carbon reduction initiatives in school districts

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

R. Fleming

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

N. Letnick

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

L. Krog

Hon. G. Abbott

Hon. M. Stilwell

S. Simpson

Hon. M. de Jong

Hon. B. Bennett

V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport (continued)

Hon. I. Chong

Hon. M. McNeil

K. Corrigan

S. Simpson

K. Conroy

D. Routley

J. Brar

S. Fraser

M. Farnworth

B. Ralston

S. Herbert

R. Fleming

[ Page 1357 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to introduce my two constituency assistants who are here today, Rachel Garrick and Brenda Tombs. I really want to thank them for the remarkable work they do for me every day in Vancouver-Hastings. Without them, the work simply wouldn't get done.

I'd also like to introduce my wife, Cate Jones, who is visiting us here today. I hope everybody will make them welcome.

Hon. K. Heed: I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming a number of guests here today. These people share my commitment to public safety and safer roads in British Columbia.

First of all, Dr. Brian Brody, president of the B.C. Medical Association; also Clayton Pecknold, vice-president of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and deputy chief of Central Saanich.

Also here today are Oak Bay Police Chief Ron Gaudet; Insp. Ted Smith, RCMP Island district traffic services; Staff Sgt. Andrew Isles, RCMP capital regional district integrated road safety; Trace Acres from the B.C. Automobile Association; Jane Dyson, executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities; Lindsay Olson and Serge Corbeil with the Insurance Bureau of Canada for Saskatchewan and Manitoba; and Nicolas Jimenez from ICBC.

Thank you all for taking the time to be here today.

N. Macdonald: A couple of introductions. First, Mr. Kendall Duce, who is a friend and a fellow teacher from Golden Secondary School. He's here attending the B.C. teachers institute — a great teacher, a great basketball coach. I'd like you to join me in making him welcome.

As well, I would like to introduce Ms. Joy Orr and Ms. Leslie Adams, who are constituency assistants attending the opposition's CA conference. I'd also like to ask you to make them welcome.

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, I'm pleased to welcome and introduce 14 teachers from across British Columbia who have been selected to participate in the ninth B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They will be with us for the remainder of this week, expanding their knowledge of the parliamentary and political systems. They are joined by three of their peers who are acting as facilitators: Ms. Ashley Bakker, Ms. Donna Dunn and Mr. Grant Frater.

I trust many of you will have the opportunity to meet with them during the institute and specifically at the reception this evening hosted by the hon. Minister of Education. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Black: I'm pleased to rise today and introduce the constituency assistant from my office in New Westminster, Jarrah Hodge. Jarrah is a young woman with a lot of energy and a very high intellect, and I am delighted to have her as my constituency assistant. Please make her welcome.

[1340]

D. Barnett: Today I have two of my constituents here with me who own Meadow Springs Ranch in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. They are ranchers, and they are also guest-ranchers — Kathy and Mark McMillan. I would like to say that Mark and Kathy are also very involved in the Cowboy Heritage Society, Mark as a vice-president and Kathy as secretary-treasurer. I ask the House to welcome them here today.

M. Mungall: It's my great pleasure to introduce my two constituency assistants, Laurie Langille and Della McLeod. They are both here all the way from Nelson-Creston, joining a wonderful conference where they're getting educated and learning as much as they can to be wonderful CAs, which they will be in the next four years. May the House make them very welcome.

P. Pimm: I have a couple of very special guests here today. My daughter Jennifer Pimm and her boyfriend, Karl Waugh, are here. They've come down from Fort St. John to be with us today. They wanted to join us for question period, and I'm sure we'll be very polite and thoughtful in question period today for them. Thank you very much, and help me welcome them to the House.

K. Corrigan: I'm very delighted to have here today two constituency assistants, one of whom I think is going to be introduced three times today because she is none other than the incomparable Cate Jones, who has been announced once already as Shane's wife. As well, David Pereira, who is a wonderful young man, has joined my staff. So we have a wonderful team, and I hope the House will make them both welcome.

M. Dalton: I would like to acknowledge the presence of a special guest today from Mission. Merlyn Horton is the founder of SOLOS, an acronym for Safe Online Outreach Society. She and her team have made

[ Page 1358 ]

over 500 presentations before tens of thousands of students.

She addresses social technology related to cyberbullying, sexting, luring and gang recruitment. For years she has worked as a social worker with youth on the streets. She wanted to be where they were. Today, increasingly, youth are on social networks with their hosts of potential dangers, and that's where she is to help.

We appreciate all that Merlyn and others like her are doing to make our children safer. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

L. Krog: I'm delighted today to ask the House to welcome my constituency assistant, Pauline Carroll, who served not only myself but previous members of this assembly and does a very good job in protecting me.

R. Chouhan: In the gallery today we have already two wonderful and very great CAs who, unlike yours….

An Hon. Member: They're on their way.

R. Chouhan: Oh, they're on their way. Okay.

Cate Jones and Laarni de los Reyes are here with us today, and they are going to be here all day, so please make them welcome.

N. Simons: It's with pleasure that I welcome to the House today my two constituency assistants: from the upper Sunshine Coast, the incomparable Maggie Hathaway, and from the lower Sunshine Coast, the other incomparable, Kim Tournat. Will the House please make them welcome.

R. Austin: It's my privilege to welcome my CAs from the northwest. From Kitimat, I have Roberta Walker here, and from Terrace, Denis Gagné and Arjunna Miyagawa. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

V. Huntington: I'm pleased to introduce a guest today from my riding of Delta South, Miss Kristen Bishop, who is a native of Tsawwassen, a graduate of South Delta Secondary School and BCIT and the sales manager of the Coast Tsawwassen Inn. She's also a director of the business improvement association of Tsawwassen.

Kristen is the daughter of Sylvia Bishop, also a constituent and good friend of mine, who is well known to the opposition members in this House for her activities within their party. Would the House make Kristen welcome.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to join my colleagues in welcoming my CAs today. I will not be introducing Cate Jones, because she actually doesn't work in my office. But I do have two amazing people, and they are Jayne Ducker and Dave Ferguson. I would like everyone to make them very welcome.

[1345]

J. Brar: We have two very, very special guests today — so special that the majority of the time I do whatever they ask me to do. They are Ruby Bhandal and Peter Leblanc. They are both constituency assistants at Surrey-Fleetwood. Please make them feel welcome.

M. Elmore: It's my pleasure and a great privilege to introduce my terrific team of constituency assistants from Vancouver-Kensington: Thomas Lou, Kelly Read, Steven Klein and Maita Santiago — terrific representatives. They are a great team. I ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House — and with all due respect to my colleagues — the two hardest-working CAs in the province of British Columbia. I'd like to introduce Sheryl Seale, who is unfortunately not in the gallery but in my office working as we speak, and my other CA, Lorinder Birak, who is here today in the gallery. I have to give her a quick plug. Lorinder, of course, is a former radio broadcaster, and she now has her own TV show — Cultural Connect , I believe. It's at 6:30 to 7:30 Tuesday or Thursday, something like that. Check it out on your channel 4 in Delta.

D. Routley: I'd like to join my colleagues in welcoming CAs to this building. Karlene Bara and Patty McNamara are great servants to our community. Our CAs provide excellent service to those people that we represent. They do it on a daily basis. They never seem to fail the people that we seek to represent, so we owe them our greatest and most sincere thanks.

S. Hammell: I'd also like to introduce my CA, Brett Barden. Brett joined me in January from CanWest, and my constituents and I have been very lucky with that decision he made to come with us. So would the House please make Brett welcome.

D. Donaldson: Somewhere up there in the rarefied air is a dream team, and there they are — Julie Maitland, Shelley Worthington and Michelle Larstone, constituency assistants for Stikine. Would the House make them welcome, please.

M. Sather: I, too, would like to welcome my constituency assistants to the House: Sidhartha Ramsoondar and Donann Kinar. This is Sid's first visit, and Donann has been here a number of times. I also wanted to wel-

[ Page 1359 ]

come Sheryl Seale, who was my CA before the member for Delta North stole her from me.

G. Coons: I also would like to echo the gratitude for having my two constituency assistants here, Pauline Woodrow and Erika Rolston, who serve the North Coast extremely well. Please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North.

B. Simpson: Thank you, Madam…. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My apologies.

Mr. Speaker: And I didn't even move you this time.

B. Simpson: I know.

I just would like to introduce two people — and it fits with my gaffe — who keep trying to make me look good against all the odds. My two CAs are in the House today, Adam Schaan and Angie Sandve. I ask you to make them feel welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to introduce my CAs, Edena Brown and Elaine Whitehead. It's interesting that Edena and Elaine have been with me since 2005, but Elaine actually worked with my husband, Ed, for seven years before that. So she's been a CA for 12 years, which I think is one of the few that are that long.

I just want to take a personal moment and wish my husband a happy birthday. He's home watching QP on dialysis, and I'm sure it's one of the few dialysis units in B.C. that actually watch QP.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker: I think we'd all like to say hi to Ed and wish him a happy birthday.

S. Herbert: I would like to acknowledge my constituency assistant, Sian Madoc-Jones, who has joined us today. She serves the West End very well. Thank you very much for being here.

I would also like to acknowledge Daniel Royer, who is a teacher here today for the parliamentary democracy sessions. I'd like to thank him for doing the work he does with his students and welcome him to Victoria.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that members of the House have caught on that this is CA appreciation day for the NDP caucus. Like all my colleagues, I would like to welcome, of course, Stuart Alcock, who has been with our office for a long time now and manages to keep me on the straight and narrow. With Stuart is Lisa MacLeod, who has newly joined as a constituency assistant in our office and who will soon be cracking the whip to keep me on the straight and narrow. Would the House please welcome Lisa.

H. Lali: Mr. Speaker, just when you thought it was all over. I know everybody loves their constituency assistants, and I know some of the members opposite made some comments about their constituency assistants being the best, but I really am saving the best for last.

I know both my constituency assistants are here. One is actually sitting up in the gallery, and the other one is actually in the precinct somewhere. I don't see her. Shirley Rhodes is one of the constituency assistants who has been working with me. This is her fifth year now. Before that she was the constituency assistant to Member of Parliament Nelson Riis. My second constituency assistant is Kim Sekhon, who is sitting up in the galleries there with her husband, Sam. Sam is here for the first time in the Legislature.

I would like the House to make my constituency assistants and Sam welcome and give them a big round of applause, please.

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I don't have a constituency assistant to introduce today, but I would like to acknowledge and ask the House to once again welcome Oak Bay's finest, Oak Bay police chief Ron Gaudet, who joins us here today. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kootenay West, we already wished Ed a happy birthday.

K. Conroy: I just have one more acknowledgment I'd like to make. My other CA, Sheren Spilker, couldn't be with us this week because she's home with her sister, Sandy Korman. We had an acknowledgment of Sandy last night for the incredible work she's done as a CA for the past years in the '90s and again for Corky in the past five years. We just want to acknowledge her work again in the House here today.

Mr. Speaker: If you are a CA from the opposition benches, I'm sure that the members would have welcomed you if they had a chance.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. K. Heed presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009.

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

[ Page 1360 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Heed: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009. This bill contains amendments to address the problem of driver distraction caused by the use of cell phones and other electronic devices while driving. These amendments will mean safer roads by helping to ensure that drivers keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road.

This bill prohibits drivers from holding electronic devices, operating them, talking on hand-held cell phones and using them to send e-mails or text messages.

All drivers in British Columbia will be covered by these changes. However, new drivers in the graduated licensing program will be prohibited from using hand-held and hands-free devices while driving. Exceptions to these rules include police, fire and ambulance personnel while they are performing their job functions. The only other exceptions are when drivers need to call 911 to report an emergency or if they are safely parked off of the roadway.

[1355]

We have all seen near misses on the road because drivers were not paying attention, and some of us have seen the devastating consequences of driver distraction. At the end of the day, I believe the changes I am announcing will save lives in British Columbia.

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

Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009, 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)

Gerry Zimmerman

N. Letnick: I would like to make a special mention and thanks to someone who is well known in our province, and that is retired Kelowna Fire Chief Gerry Zimmerman.

In 2003 the Okanagan Mountain Park fires caused the evacuation of some 45,000 people and consumed 239 homes. Sixty fire departments, 1,400 Armed Forces troops and 1,000 forest fire fighters took

part in controlling the fire but were largely helpless in stopping the disaster.

Gerry is a local and provincial hero for his leadership in fighting this fire. This is why he received his honorary doctor of laws degree from Okanagan University College in 2005.

Gerry, at age 60, retired as fire chief in early 2006 after 15 years of brave service. However, for the past six months Gerry has been fighting his own personal battle with acute pancreatitis. Two of those months were spent in an induced coma.

Five hundred people, including our Premier and his wife, attended a public prayer service in Gerry's honour early in his illness. The very next day he began to react positively to his treatment and started the slow road to recovery. I am pleased to report today that on October 9, Gerry was released from Kelowna General Hospital to be with his family.

During the fires Gerry said: "I thought we had lost people and there was nothing we could do — that tomorrow we were going to count the bodies." He also said during his battle with pancreatitis that there were many down days. However, in both battles he has shown incredible leadership, bravery and perseverance.

It was through the amazing support of friends, family, staff at Kelowna General Hospital and the community as a whole that he is home today. He has a way to go, including getting strong enough to hold his new grandchild — his granddaughter, who is six months old — but as always, he will achieve his goal.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing Gerry Zimmerman, one of our province's heroes, and give thanks for his recovery.

rent Banks

S. Hammell: There are three new banks opening soon, one in Surrey, Abbotsford and Prince George. Hopefully, a branch will open near you.

These new banks are modelled on a concept that has been running successfully in Ontario and Calgary. It's a rent bank, and its sole purpose is to prevent homelessness. At this bank small loans are made to people who are in danger of becoming homeless to shore up their ability to survive during a difficult period of time.

Today I'm pleased to share with the House this new local initiative from Newton Advocacy Group Society, also affectionately known to many of us in Surrey as NAGS. Last week NAGS received $60,000 from Surrey Homelessness and Housing Task Force to deliver this 24-month pilot project, the Surrey rent bank.

The project is a homelessness prevention initiative aimed at keeping a roof over the heads of renters at risk. The project will provide emergency loans for families and individuals to prevent residential evictions and avoid termination of utilities.

In the pilot period approximately 30 loans will be provided to pay for rental and utility arrears. Program participants will be expected to repay their loans within two years and participate in money management workshops focusing on such topics as budgeting, improving credit, asset-building and responsible consumerism.

For the past ten years the Calgary rent bank has proven to be a permanent and positive solution to prevent homelessness. The Newton Advocacy Group hopes

[ Page 1361 ]

to follow in Calgary's footsteps by bringing this successful rent bank initiative to Surrey.

[1400]

The Surrey rent bank will help low-income residents stay in their homes, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate NAGS.

LOCAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

R. Cantelon: We all returned this week after Thanksgiving break, and many of us came back with slightly tighter waistbands as we took full advantage and indulged — perhaps overindulged, I hope — in some of the fine, great locally grown and raised products from pumpkin pies to turkeys.

I bought my turkey from a man called Eric Bolton. He is a farmer on Gabriola Island. His farm is really the hub of agriculture. He's an integral part of the entire community, because not only does he raise excellent beef and poultry, but also the manure from his farm fertilizes and enriches all the tomato growers and vegetable farms throughout Gabriola Island. It's really an integrated farm system.

You can buy Eric's beef and poultry at Pipers Meat in Nanaimo. They rush off the shelves as soon as they hit it, because everybody knows how wonderful the food is, how nutritious and enriching it is. You eat healthy; you'll be healthier.

I called Eric up to thank him for the wonderful product that I and the family enjoyed. We didn't have a scrap left, which was unusual. Eric asked me for one thing on behalf of the farm industry, and I'm sure it's something that both sides of the House can endorse and apply. He wasn't asking for thanks, and he certainly wasn't asking for money. Eric said: "Farmers just want one thing. Farmers want encouragement."

I ask both sides of the House to join with me in encouraging farmers to continue to produce the excellent, fine B.C.-grown products that they do and thank them for all their hard work and commitment in raising these products for our tables.

HOMELESSNESS

J. Kwan: Last week was Homelessness Action Week. It is estimated that there are over 10,000 homeless people in our communities, of which 32 percent are aboriginal, and amongst women, 50 percent. A homeless person dies every 12 days in B.C. Last week the opposition leader and I met with representatives from the aboriginal transformative justice project, where they once again raised the desperate need for additional aboriginal-specific services, housing and homeless shelter.

We met with VanDo and the Carnegie action project. CAP recently finished a community visioning and mapping process that involved over 1,200 low-income residents in the Downtown Eastside. The mapping project identified at least ten community assets in the Downtown Eastside that residents want to preserve. They include acceptance, empathy, social justice, appreciation for community and cultural heritage, a strong sense of community.

People at all the mapping sessions stated the need for good-quality, affordable self-contained housing to be built in the community. As one woman said: "I could have a whole other life if I could just be in affordable housing. Living in an SRO limits my capability of being a grandmother. More social housing is desperately needed."

One person said of Mavis McMullen Housing: "When my life crashed and burned, I needed housing, and welfare was only $610. This housing saved my life, and life lost is harshness. It kept me from destitution."

Currently there are nearly 700 people homeless in the Downtown Eastside. Displacement is really happening. In 2009 CAP's hotel survey found an additional 800 hotel rooms between 2008 and 2009 lost to rent increases beyond what people under the low-income cutoff can afford.

Canada is the only G8 country without a national housing plan or poverty reduction strategy. I ask all members of the House to join me in renewing our resolve to end homelessness.

RICHMOND OLYMPIC OVAL

R. Howard: The run-up to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games has been given another boost. There's an increasing sense of confidence and a strong sense of pride in Richmond and, I think, the province.

The pride was felt again last Friday when the multiple award-winning and iconic Richmond Oval beat out a strong field of competitors, including Beijing's spectacular bird nest stadium and the Wimbledon centre court roof, to win the Institution of Structural Engineers top international award for sports or leisure structures.

In granting this prestigious prize, judges singled out the inventive use of trees killed by the pine beetle to construct the incredible wood wave roof.

[1405]

I would like to extend my congratulations to the company that conceived the design idea for the oval and resulted in this award, Fast + Epp structural engineers. This local firm was charged by the city of Richmond to design an innovative and distinctive landmark with a strong focus on sustainable building practices. I'm very proud to say that this outstanding firm not only met the vision set out by the city but exceeded it.

Congratulations are due, as well, to the city of Richmond staff who lived and breathed this building for

[ Page 1362 ]

many years now and, of course, to the architects, Cannon Design, to Fast + Epp structural engineers and all the others whose dedication and passion went into the planning, design and construction of this world-class facility. You can take great pride in this latest major award and in the legacy that the Richmond Olympic Oval will provide for many years to come. I ask that the House please join me in congratulating them all.

WOMEN'S EQUALITY and leadership

M. Elmore: In 1992 October was designated as Women's History Month to encourage greater appreciation of the notable contributions of women to Canadian history.

Women in Canada have accomplished many incredible achievements, often facing many obstacles such as those faced and conquered by the Famous Five who fought to have women legally recognized as persons in 1929. Women in Canada, however, still face serious obstacles to obtaining equality in this country. Women earn only 71 cents for every dollar earned by a Canadian male. Women continue to struggle with a lack of child care, and there's a need to create an universal early education and child care program and the need to invest in social infrastructure during this economic downturn.

These issues and the numerous other issues faced by Canadian women could be addressed most effectively by having more women in leadership within government. Women comprise 52 percent of the population in Canada, yet make up 22 percent of Members of Parliament, 21 percent across Canada at the provincial and municipal level, and in B.C. 29 percent of MLAs. There's a need to elect more women to government and apply a gender and race lens to government policy.

The value and contribution of women in leadership has been marked by the SFU Nancy McKinstry Award, which awarded B.C. Hydro for recognizing their leadership in women and diversity in their workforce and in their leadership. In B.C. Hydro six of the ten top positions in the company, one of the largest electric utilities in Canada, are held by women. They have one of the highest averages in the country.

The global corporate world is recognizing the impact of women as a powerful economic force and the value of diversity — women in leadership from diverse backgrounds and what they can bring to the corporate world — and that diversity is a key means for attracting talent.

So I would like you to please join me in congratulating B.C. Hydro to receive the first SFU Nancy McKinstry Award to recognize the importance of leadership in gender diversity.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF OLYMPIC

GAMES TICKETS AND HOSPITALITY SUITES

C. James: Documents obtained through a freedom-of-information request show that three days after the provincial election, the Olympic secretariat bought 2010 hospitality suites from VANOC. To the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport: can she tell the House what exactly the Olympic secretariat purchased and how many taxpayer dollars were spent?

Hon. M. McNeil: As the member opposite knows, FOIs are processed by the public service under the FOI Act, and there's an independent commissioner that they can talk to on this. Having said that, of the approximately 1.6 million tickets available, the British Columbian government has approximately 3,000 tickets.

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

C. James: I shouldn't be surprised at the response from the minister or the response from this government, who has tried to hide Olympic spending all along. It's very clear that they haven't been open and transparent, and you don't encourage support for the Olympics by hiding the truth from the public.

The public expects transparency on Olympic spending. Here's what the documents confirm: "Tickets will be provided to MLAs and cabinet ministers for the purposes of hosting business leaders and dignitaries during the 2010 Olympic Games."

[1410]

But the invoices were heavily severed. There's no way to tell exactly how much was spent. So again to the minister: will she stop stonewalling, and will she be upfront about exactly how many taxpayer dollars were spent by the Olympic secretariat?

Hon. M. McNeil: The provincial government has an opportunity to showcase British Columbia — our province, which we're proud of — to the entire world during the most incredible event. These are the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and we have the opportunity to invite high-profile dignitaries, business leaders from around the world, investors from around the world to meet with us and participate in the Olympic experience. Again, we have been allocated approximately 3,000 tickets out of 1.6 million tickets.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

[ Page 1363 ]

C. James: What I heard from the minister is that she expects British Columbians to just trust this government with taxpayer dollars. Well, I'm sorry, but the people of British Columbia don't trust this government to be open and accountable with taxpayer dollars.

Let's remember that this was the government that also said the Olympic secretariat wasn't Olympic spending. I mean, remember that? Remember that quote?

So again to the minister. We're treating these tickets like they're a state secret. The public deserves to know exactly how many dollars were spent and who is going to get those tickets that the minister and the FOI say very clearly are for MLAs for hosting business leaders. Who makes that determination, and who is going to get the taxpayer tickets?

Hon. M. McNeil: In addition to inviting high-profile dignitaries, business leaders and investors, we have also, through GamesTown 2010, given tickets to communities all around the province because — as you know, Mr. Speaker — many in this province are thrilled that the 2010 Olympic Games are coming.

Of our tickets, we have given tickets to Campbell River. We have given tickets to Princeton. We have given tickets to the Chemainus First Nation and to Ladysmith. People in Saanich will be attending. People in Tofino will be attending. I could go on; the list is long. Many people are going to be enjoying these games.

K. Corrigan: Potentially hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent on buying hospitality suites for government guests, dignitaries and a select few. The Olympic secretariat paid for these tickets with taxpayer money, but the minister is saying that the public doesn't have the right to know how much was spent and how it was spent. When will the B.C. Liberals stop treating taxpayers like they don't matter, and when will they start being accountable for their money?

Hon. M. McNeil: I find this very regrettable — that during the same week that the Olympic torch is being lit the NDP is trying to pour water over such an incredible event.

Interjections.

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

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd also like to advise the members opposite that these tickets and suites were offered to this province as a sponsoring body of the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games. In 114 days the games will begin in British Columbia, and most in this province are excited about these games — but obviously not those across the aisle.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: It's shameful the way this government treats the taxpayers. For years the B.C. Liberals have refused to admit that the Olympic secretariat has anything to do with the Olympics, never mind its name and never mind that it's now paying for B.C. Liberal ministers to host their 2010 guests.

To the minister: why is her government once again hiding behind the secretariat? Why are the B.C. Liberals refusing to reveal how they plan to entertain their Olympic guests and how much it will cost?

Hon. M. McNeil: These Olympics are the largest economic stimulus that this province could ask for at this time. Leaders around the world…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: …would welcome this opportunity, as was shown two weeks ago. These games are going to drive tourism, they're going to create jobs, and they're going to reinvigorate our economy at the very time this province needs it the most. I think these folks….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think it's lost on the members opposite what an incredible economic opportunity these are.

J. Kwan: Last month we learned that B.C. Hydro has spent $264,000 to buy luxury suites at GM Place. ICBC and BCLC have also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on 2010 tickets. Now we know that there was another purchase made on the taxpayers' dime, this time for the government's own MLAs and cabinet ministers.

So a simple question for the minister: just how much are these tickets costing taxpayers, and which MLAs and cabinet ministers will be attending the Olympics on the taxpayers' dime?

Interjections.

[ Page 1364 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: I find this quite shocking — that people are surprised that the province would be interested in buying tickets to the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. This government is proud to be the host province for these games. Apparently, it's a shock to the members opposite that we would actually want to attend the games that we are hosting.

Again, 250,000 people will be coming to this province for these games, and yes, this province is looking to see what we can do with respect to relationships with business leaders and investors from around the world.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: What is shocking is that this minister would not tell British Columbians just how much it is going to cost them to host government MLAs and cabinet ministers at the Olympics.

Last month we learned that $264,000 of taxpayers' money was spent by B.C. Hydro, over $400,000 by ICBC and nearly $390,000 by BCLC. But what about this government's MLAs and ministers? Well, we still don't know, and this minister won't come clean and tell British Columbians. Why is she hiding that number? Why is she not telling British Columbians how much it is going to cost them for them to buy tickets for government MLAs and government cabinet ministers for the Olympic Games?

Hon. M. McNeil: There is nothing to hide here. I think if the members opposite.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: To help them with the math, 3,000 tickets is approximately $900,000.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS

FOR GOVERNMENT MLA s

M. Farnworth: Well, Minister, that wasn't painful. You know, you just had to…. Why did it have to be severed? Why did it have to be severed?

So here's the next question. Ottawa has made it clear that no government MPs will be attending the Olympics on taxpayer-paid-for tickets. If they attend the Olympics, it'll be on their own dime.

My question to the minister responsible for the Olympics is quite straightforward. Will she assure this House that government MLAs will only be attending the Olympics on their own dime and not on taxpayer-subsidized freebies? This side of the House will be attending on our own dime. Will you be making the same commitment?

Hon. M. McNeil: As for the amount that the MLAs and the cabinet ministers will be paying, that has not yet been decided.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This gets more interesting by the question.

Whereas Ottawa has already made it clear that MPs will attend the Olympics on their own dime, that side of the House is clearly considering attending the Olympics at the taxpayers' expense.

Let me make it clear. We're not talking about the Premier or the minister responsible for the Olympics. But the public expects that government MLAs will attend the Olympics on their own dime, not the public's dime. Will the minister stand up and commit to doing that today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: When the decision has been made as to how many of the tickets we have been allocated we will be using, and how many guests we will be entertaining, we will then let you know how many will be used by the MLAs.

PROVISION OF TRAFFIC FINE REVENUES

TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

V. Huntington: I think the other side could do that too, so it's a little less.…

My question isn't as exciting, but it's just as important. Municipalities across this province have been asking the government to institutionalize the traffic fine revenue-sharing program so that the municipalities can have some certainty in their long-range budget planning. To date the government hasn't provided them an answer.

Given that the Minister of Community and Rural Development is responsible for the delivery of the program, can he give the municipalities of B.C. and the members of this House an assurance that the traffic fine revenue-sharing program will extend beyond 2010 and

[ Page 1365 ]

become a guaranteed component of the municipal policing budgets?

[1425]

Hon. B. Bennett: If I understand the question from the hon. member, I think she is asking whether or not the traffic fine revenues will continue to be paid to local government. The government, I can tell the member, has absolutely no plans to change the good news that communities in this province receive 100 percent of traffic fine revenues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I know the municipalities get 100 percent. The concern is that they won't be getting any after 2010.

At the UBCM, Delta council spoke with the Minister of Finance about this very issue. I wonder if he can give a commitment to this House that those revenues will be ongoing following July 2010.

Hon. B. Bennett: I would like to assure the member — and equally important, I would also like to assure local government in the province — that the province has no plans to change the program. The province will continue to pay 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to local government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member who asked the question is being very courteous, as is her style. I do hear some chirping from the other side, so…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: …perhaps it would be in order to just remind members who were here in the 1990s that when they were government, they actually reduced the money that was left with local government by $860 million. So in fact, the member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just sit down, Minister.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: In fact, I have a copy of a news release that was released, not by government, by UBCM. It inventories the provincial downloading and cumulative impacts by government of the day. In total, they downloaded $846.7 million to local government. In contrast to that, we have given local government 100 percent of traffic fine revenues, and we have doubled small community grants.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

GAMBLING AND ORGANIZED CRIME

S. Simpson: Fred Pinnock was a 29-year police officer and former commander of the RCMP's integrated illegal gaming enforcement team. He has raised serious concerns about what he calls the wilful blindness of the Liberal government on matters related to gaming and organized crime.

Mr. Pinnock stated that he had the impression the government was more concerned about the appearance of doing something rather than meaningful results. The government's response has been to shut the RCMP down seven months after Mr. Pinnock retired.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he tell this House why at this time, when we should be increasing pressures on organized crime, the government is shutting these resources down?

Hon. K. Heed: First of all, we are not shutting the RCMP down. I think the member made reference to that. We are absolutely not shutting them down.

When we're dealing with crimes here in British Columbia, we have the resources to deal with significant crimes. We have the resources to deal with crimes related to gaming, to organized crime, to gang organizations and members that are involved in this particular type of crime. That will continue.

We have enforcement officers with the gaming branch that are working with not only the RCMP, which we're keeping here in British Columbia, but with local law enforcement people that operate around the issue of gaming and organized crime and gang members that are involved in this type of activity. That will continue.

[1430]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Downloading this onto local governments isn't anybody's solution. When speaking of casinos, Mr. Pinnock stated that there's a ton of criminal activity

[ Page 1366 ]

being conducted in these places every day, including money laundering, loansharking and other enterprise crimes.

He went on to say: "It seems the way to remain in favour with this government was simply to maintain a statistical, check-the-box-type, radar gun level of enforcement and not meaningful targeting that would significantly disrupt criminal activity."

The government is aggressively increasing gaming in B.C. while slashing supports for problem gamblers. Now they're failing on enforcement protections. How can the Solicitor General abandon this aspect of the fight against organized crime and claim he's doing his job?

Hon. K. Heed: This government has added 1,100 police officers to the province of British Columbia since 2001. This government continues to commit to ensuring that we give back 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to local governments.

We are committed to deliver on our seven-point gang and organized crime strategy and deal with these groups that are involved in this type of activity in British Columbia, and we'll continue to deliver on that. We'll continue to ensure that we have comprehensive approaches to organized crime people in this province, and we will continue to deliver on that as we go forward.

STATUS OF INTEGRATED

ILLEGAL GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT TEAM

B. Ralston: My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he confirm that the unit that's being spoken of, the anti-gaming unit referenced by Mr. Pinnock, has been shut down?

Hon. K. Heed: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

FUNDING FOR CARBON REDUCTION

INITIATIVES IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

R. Austin: This government keeps piling costs onto school districts — the HST, increased medicare premiums, slashed PAC grants, funding for B.C. School Sports. Now we learn that cash-strapped schools are being forced to spend scarce education dollars on an expensive and unproven carbon-calculating computer program.

My question is to the Education Minister. If this government feels this program is so important, why isn't the ministry fully funding its purchase?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, our government is absolutely committed to tackling climate change. British Columbians are overwhelmingly concerned about this, and they're counting on us to make sure that we meet our targets.

Fully 100 percent of school districts signed on to the climate action charter — 100 percent. It was unanimous. They're all supportive of this, and they all knew that they would be required to use a tool to measure. To be clear, we're talking about 82 cents per student for the use of this tool. This is at a time when core funding for education is at an all-time high of $8,300 per student — an increase of $84 million this year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: The government is asking schools to take money out of the classroom to buy an unproven computer program, yet the annual facilities grant provided funding for schools to make badly needed upgrades — things like replacing single-pane windows with dual-pane windows. This government eliminated that grant, scuttling projects across the province that would have reduced emissions.

Again to the Education Minister: if this government is concerned about reducing emissions, then why did they eliminate the annual facilities grant?

[1435]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member is well aware that this year, we are under unusual financial pressure and that school districts were asked to use the almost $100 million they had on reserve at the end of the last fiscal year to do the work for the annual facilities grant.

But just to be clear, here are some of the investments that we have made. We're investing more than $1 billion into 40 new and replacement schools that will meet LEED gold standards.

I think what would really be illustrative for all of us would be to go into a school today and ask one of our students: should we be investing this 82 cents in this tool? Should we be meeting our climate…?

Let me just tell you what a student from Abbotsford Middle School said yesterday about some of the climate change projects that are happening in her school. This is what she said — Tega Wall, age 11: "Being involved with this project is the chance of a lifetime. I enjoy being able to be part and make a difference that will change the world forever."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: I'm glad the minister finished with the example of Abbotsford, because let me read a quote from the same

article from the Abbotsford school district's coordinator of school infrastructure, Mr. Rick Walker. He says, in light of the budget situation that is

[ Page 1367 ]

this government's fault: "If this project was to happen now" — the greening of the school computer labs project — "today we wouldn't have the money to do it." That's the reality for every other school.

My question for the minister is: given the downloaded costs this year that school districts are struggling to pay for — MSP, a $50 million wage step that is unfunded for teachers, $110 million of cuts to facility grants….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: Given all of that and given the fact that government owns this software — the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services developed it — can't they in this instance give school districts and kids….? This money will come out of the classroom for our kids. Can't they give them a break, help with the costs, give them the software for free that we own, help with the implementation? Will she do that today? That's what school district leaders are asking for across B.C. Will the minister do it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I will again remind the members opposite about the record investment in education that we have made this year, an additional $84 million on a budget of $4.5 billion.

When school districts, all of them, agreed with the climate action charter, they were aware that they would be using this tool. It was clear to them from the outset, as well…. When they signed on for this agreement, they also knew that they would be receiving rebates on their carbon tax. This will be, by 2011, over $7 million.

We've also set aside $10 million which school districts can apply for to upgrade heating and cooling systems. We're supporting school districts in a multitude of ways.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

N. Letnick: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

N. Letnick: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The member is making a report.

Continue, Member.

[1440]

Law Clerk:

October 21, 2009

Mr. Speaker:

Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

(1) that the

preamble to Bill Pr401, intituled Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009, has been proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second reading;

(2) that the

preamble to Bill Pr402, intituled Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009, has been proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second reading;

(3) that the

preamble to Bill Pr403, intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, has been proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second reading.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Norm Letnick, Chairman.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

N. Letnick: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of the motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

N. Letnick: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Bills Pr401, Pr402 and Pr403 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. In this chamber, committee stage debate of Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; L. Reid in the chair.

[ Page 1368 ]

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: With respect to both sections 1 and 2, I take it that these are exactly what they appear to be. We're simply adding "Treaty First Nation Taxation Act" so that it will extend to manufactured homes and there will be no issue around that. Is there anything else the minister wishes to explain on that section?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has read it correctly.

[1445]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Krog: Just to clarify.

Section 3, I take it, will apply — the exemption will apply — to manufactured homes that are not located on treaty first nations lands. It will, in fact, apply to manufactured homes located off of treaty taxation lands. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised, further to the member's question, that this provision will ensure that the property tax exemption that is currently available for manufactured homes owned by governments or municipalities and occupied by or on behalf of the governments or municipalities is also available to the taxing first nations.

L. Krog: What I understand the minister to say is that, in fact, these will be subject to taxation.

Hon. G. Abbott: In fact, the act does not apply to manufactured homes owned by a taxing treaty first nation.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Krog: Just so the minister can perhaps explain this to me so that I understand…. I gather what this means is that if it's a tourist accommodation on lands covered by a treaty, in fact, that accommodation or improvement will receive the benefit of the reduction provided for under the act in terms of its assessment.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

L. Krog: Just to clarify. As I understand it, this

section exempts — from treaty first nation taxation — improvements that are owned by the treaty taxing first nation or jointly with some other regional district or level of government. I take it that this is to encourage cooperation between various levels of government. Is that the intent of this

section — and the purpose?

Hon. G. Abbott: The intent is that this provision will parallel the current exemption for municipalities under the Community Charter.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Krog: As we appear to have sorted out who is going to be responsible, I am delighted to have the Minister of Aboriginal Relations continue in this matter.

With reference to the College and Institute Act, which this will regulate, I take it that this

section is in direct response to the British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Barbour v. the University of British Columbia . Is that correct?

[1450]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'll just take a moment, please, to introduce my staff and then ask you to repeat the question. This is Tony Loughran and Deb Hull.

L. Krog: Now that we've sorted out where the answers are going to come from….

With respect to

section 7 of this bill, I take it that this is in fact a response to the decision in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia , the Supreme Court decision of Justice Goepel. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Prior to the court decision, the ministry believed that the post-secondary institutions had the necessary authority under their governing legislation to regulate parking on their property, including fines. The recent decision of Barbour v. UBC simply highlighted the information to us that the act was not doing as it was intended.

L. Krog: I want to confirm that the minister is then admitting, in fact, that the government agrees with the decision of Justice Goepel in Barbour, that it is correct in law, and that is why the amendment is before the House.

Hon. M. Stilwell: No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the decision simply highlighted that the law was not drafted sufficiently to meet the intention and desire.

[ Page 1369 ]

L. Krog: The Supreme Court decided that the colleges didn't have the authority to impose fines and do the things that they were attempting to do in terms of the imposition of fines. Now, either the court is right or the law is right — or wrong, so to speak. I need to hear from the minister. Is the minister basically saying, then…? Are we doing this simply to clarify a decision? Or is the government admitting that, in fact, when these fines were imposed the colleges were not in a lawful position to do so?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Our

interpretation is that the colleges do have the authority to levy parking fines.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response that that may be the opinion. If that's the case, then I have to ask the minister: what are we doing in this chamber amending the act if, in fact, the government has the lawful right to do so?

The Supreme Court of British Columbia happens to disagree with that opinion, so I guess I'm looking for an answer here. Who's right — the court or the government?

[1455]

Hon. M. Stilwell: As you know, under the governing legislation, B.C.'s colleges have the responsibility for managing all aspects of their operations. The amendments to the legislation simply affirm that the institutions do have the authority to regulate vehicle traffic and parking on their property. Until the recent court decision, it was understood that the institutions had this authority under the act.

L. Krog: Well, I appreciate the suggestion that it may have been understood, but clearly Justice Goepel has a different conclusion. Again, I come back to the basic question. I don't know why it's so difficult for the minister to simply acknowledge that the reason this amendment is before this chamber is because the B.C. Supreme Court has said that under the existing legislation, the colleges don't have the power to impose parking fines.

That is what a court has decided. I'm asking the minister to acknowledge…. If she is right, and the institutions have the power to do it, why is this amendment necessary? It can't be both. It's got to be one or the other.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that we are confirming it so that, in fact, it will be understood, again, that they do have the authority to do that.

L. Krog: I don't wish to appear to be difficult, but I would just simply like the minister to acknowledge what is obvious to everyone in this chamber and to the lawyers who pursued this class action lawsuit. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has said that the law does not allow colleges to impose a fine. That is why this legislation is before the House to amend — so that it can in fact legally impose a fine. Will the minister just acknowledge that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The goal of these amendments is to ensure that public post-secondary institutions have the full legislative authority to regulate parking and enforce parking regulations on their campuses.

L. Krog: I think the minister came as close as she could to acknowledging, without a full admission, that I am right — the court is right — in saying that the government didn't have the authority to impose these fines.

Now, I appreciate that it's difficult for this government to acknowledge that it's wrong on any occasion. I understand that. But I'd just like the minister to answer this question simply. I'll try and put it as simply as I possibly can.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has said that colleges don't have the power to impose these fines. This amendment is before this House. Will the minister simply acknowledge that under the present legislation, without this amendment, the colleges don't have the lawful authority to impose the fine?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The proposed amendments are intended to bring clarity to the legislation for all public post-secondary institutions and reconfirm the government's intended policy in this area.

L. Krog: Well, with the greatest respect to the minister, I think Justice Goepel brought a great deal of clarity to this situation. The issue is whether this government is prepared to stand up in this House today and acknowledge that their legislation didn't authorize colleges to impose fines.

[1500]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think we agree to disagree in that the proposed amendments are simply intended to clarify the legislation for all public post-secondary institutions and to reconfirm the government's intended policy in this area.

L. Krog: Well, it's slowly inching out, slowly inching out — clarify policy, understanding, whatever. I guess the obvious question is….

This is still before the courts. Barbour v. The University of British Columbia is still before the courts. It is still a live legal action. If the minister is so absolutely convinced that the government is right — that under the college act, these institutions have the power to impose fines — why is the government bringing in this legislative change? Why isn't the government simply allowing the appeal to be heard and presumably, if the minister is

[ Page 1370 ]

so confident, the B.C. Court of Appeal to agree with the government on this?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Without the retroactive provisions, the institutions could possibly have to pay refunds from within their operating budgets and increase fees for students, negatively impacting programs and services for students and increasing the financial burden on students. This unexpected expense for those institutions would also negatively affect institutions' financial position.

It was felt that it was not reasonable or fair for students to bear the unreasonable burden of the expenses of people who chose not to obey the parking regulations.

L. Krog: I appreciate that the case is about the money. I understand that. All I'm simply asking the minister to acknowledge is what is patently obvious. Instead of letting a court decide this…. A court has made a decision, the government has appealed, and the matter is still a live action before the court. Mr. Barbour, as a representative plaintiff, has entitlement to proceed with his case.

The effect of this legislation, and we will get to the appropriate sections…. The effect of the change in this provision is to make lawful that which a court has decided is not lawful. Isn't that, in fact, simply what we're talking about?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia are in the process of being appealed, and the case is before the courts. So I will not comment specifically on that case.

However, in general terms, it means that fines and penalties which were appropriately imposed on institutions' property at any time in the past are valid. It also means that despite the court decision, institutions will not be required to refund previously paid parking fines.

L. Krog: I sense the presence of the ghost of the late, lamented Attorney General, a man for whom I had great respect, who might have given me a very straight answer on this question. "It's now before the courts." We've just spent — what? — ten or 15 minutes discussing the very court case which I enunciated, I think, in the second or third of my questions here today. The minister's response is, "It's before the courts," so we're not going to get an answer.

I'm glad the minister has acknowledged that the matter is before the courts. That's certainly a first step in this. But what I'd like the minister to acknowledge is that a court has said that the law means, presently interpreted by a court — the institution in our society to which we look for direction with respect to our laws….

The court has said: "You've illegally collected fines. You have illegally collected fines in our post-secondary system." This amendment, the effect of it, is to legalize the collection of fines by colleges. I don't want to spend the whole day here on this question. I'd like the minister to just acknowledge that what the government is doing by bringing in this amendment is acknowledging that, to date, these institutions have been illegally collecting fines.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is no, that is not our position.

[1505]

L. Krog: Well, if that's not the government's position — and I think there are only two positions you can take in this matter — I'd like the minister to stand up and tell me now: what exactly is the government's position on the decision in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia ? Is the court wrong?

Hon. M. Stilwell: To reiterate, as it is before the courts, I won't comment on that specific case.

L. Krog: Well, this isn't Salome and the seven veils But when you've pulled the veils off, the rules say you don't get to put them back on again. That's a fairly well-recognized principle in our system. If there's any privilege to be honoured here, or positioned by this government that it's before the courts, that was waived several questions ago.

Again, my question to the minister is: will she simply acknowledge that the B.C. Supreme Court has said that the collection of fines was illegal and that that is the purpose of having this amendment before this House?

The Chair: I would caution the member on the repetitive nature of this debate.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Although the questions do feel repetitive, I actually forget what it was. Could you ask it again?

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I'm sure the minister isn't showing contempt for your suggestion that my questions are repetitive by asking me to repeat the question. I'm sure that wasn't the minister's intention.

It's a fairly simple proposition. The B.C. Supreme Court has said that under the existing legislation, you cannot collect fines. We have an amendment before this House that authorizes the collection of fines. Now, either the court is right, and the government can't — and that's why we're here — or if the court is wrong, and the government is right, why don't they let the appeal proceed?

Hon. M. Stilwell: While we disagree with the court's decision, we do respect it. But to clear up doubt and ambiguity around these circumstances, we had two choices. One was to appeal; one was to bring the amendment forward. We chose the latter.

[ Page 1371 ]

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister for the clarity of her response at long last, and I appreciate it. So the minister has essentially acknowledged that by this amendment, we are circumventing a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court.

Hon. M. Stilwell: No, what we're doing is attempting to clarify the legislation.

L. Krog: Well, I appreciate that we're on

section 7, but we can't pretend that we don't know what's in the following sections. It's pretty clear that this legislation will be retroactive. It won't be just clarifying. It will be covering the fiscal posteriors, if you will, of various college institutions.

Perhaps the minister could answer, with respect to this legislation: how much money are we talking about at the college level in terms of fines that would potentially otherwise have to be returned pursuant to the class action?

[1510]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I don't have the information breaking down colleges or universities, but the aggregate total for all post-secondary institutions is approximately $10 million.

L. Krog: So we could effectively characterize these amendments as the $10 million question, then. What this is really about is ensuring that a successful class action will, in fact, not be allowed to proceed.

Perhaps the minister didn't get the intent of my question. I'm asking the minister…. The real intent of this amendment is to ensure that the legitimate rights of litigants who have been successful so far will in fact be, if you will, voided by virtue of this legislation?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, our intent was to clarify the legislation and ensure that taxpayers and students were not on the hook for parking fines of other people at post-secondary institutions that we believed and intended to have the authority to charge parking fines.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear. I think I heard the minister acknowledge, frankly, that we're here because government didn't pass legislation that appropriately created the authority to impose fines.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, the intention of the legislation was to give the post-secondary institutions that we've been discussing the authority to charge those fines. It was our intention and our understanding that they could, and this simply clarifies that indeed they do.

L. Krog: Well, it does a little more than clarify. What it does is authorize moneys that have been declared by the Supreme Court to have been illegally collected to in fact be retained by the institutions that illegally collected them. Isn't that, in fact, what's happening here?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Making amendments to the legislation retroactively will ensure that current and future users will not be negatively impacted by institutions having to pay back fines that were collected in the past. Government's view is that the post-secondary institutions always had the authority over these matters, the power to make decisions about what happens on their campuses to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all students and staff and visitors to the institution.

These amendments clarify authority over matters such as parking regulation, which the government intended them to have.

L. Krog: Well, with great respect, I understand it may have been the government's intention. But the reality is that institutions have illegally collected money and are now asking the Legislature to approve the picking of the pockets of the students and others who paid fines that they weren't lawfully required to pay. Isn't that, in fact, what's happening here?

[1515]

Hon. M. Stilwell: At the risk of reiterating ad nauseam, until the recent court ruling, the ministry and institutions believed the existing legislation was clear that it gave universities full authority to collect the fines and penalties as part of their regular enforcement activities. Again, if the amendments were not made retroactive, it is estimated that this would cost our institutions over $10 million for refunds — money that would have to come from important programs and services provided to students.

L. Krog: What the minister is admitting is that we're going to take the $10 million from the students who paid fines that they didn't legally have to pay. That's essentially the choice we're making.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, no, that's not the case. What we're doing is clarifying that the intent was that the universities and colleges would have legal authority to enforce parking fines.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, I take it that what this means is that you can't be imprisoned. Is that the import of the addition of the amendment in

section 8?

Hon. M. Stilwell: This amendment is made because it is unnecessary for institutions to rely on the Offence Act for enforcement of rules and bylaws made under the

[ Page 1372 ]

authority of the act. Proceedings relating to enforcement of such rules and bylaws are administrative in nature rather than penal.

This provision is included in order to align the College and Institute Act with the University Act provision, to similar effect.

L. Krog: What I think the hon. minister is saying is that we can illegally take your money with retroactive legislation, but in future we won't be able to imprison you if you park too long. Is that the effect of this?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is no. This never gave power to imprison someone, and we never thought that it did or intended that it would.

L. Krog: Is this another

section where we're clarifying, so that we're really clear now, that we won't be able to imprison anyone? Is that the intent of this

section — that we're again covering up for a previous error?

Hon. M. Stilwell: No.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could just explain: why is this amendment before the House? What exactly does it do?

[1520]

Hon. M. Stilwell: This provision adds a

section within the College and Institute Act to exclude the application of

section 5 of the Offence Act to the College and Institute Act.

Section 5 of the Offence Act is the general provision specifying that a person who contravenes an enactment, whether by committing a forbidden act or omitting to do a required act, commits an offence against the enactment.

L. Krog: Is the minister's answer, then, telling me…? And I'm very obtuse today, I suspect….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Just today, one of my colleagues unkindly suggested.

The Offence Act won't apply. We get to fine you, but the Offence Act doesn't apply to anything you do if you breach that. This is to clarify the law. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The addition is to clarify that

section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, what we're really saying is that there may have been an implication in the existing legislation that the Offence Act applied under the college act, and now we're clarifying that in fact it doesn't apply, that you're not subject to imprisonment for breach.

Hon. M. Stilwell: In

section 8 we are clarifying both the original and current intent of the act and also making it uniform across all four acts, really, that we're amending.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

L. Krog: So just to confirm, this

section is to ensure that Thompson Rivers University has the same capacity as a natural person of full capacity. In other words, they can buy, sell, be born through statute, die through statute, whatever — the same kind of principle as applies with respect to corporations in British Columbia now. Do we give them a heart and a head, not necessarily a conscience?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Thompson Rivers University always had the powers of a natural person, and we are simply clarifying the language again.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, again, it's the same provision with respect to 9 as in 11.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes, it's the same issue.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

[1525]

L. Krog: This is the

section that again arises out of the Barbour v. The University of British Columbia decision, which gives the university clarified powers to in fact impose requirements in relation to parking and property, etc.; to remove, immobilize or impound vehicles — in other words, to do all of those things which, in the minister's earlier answer, she said everyone thought the institution had an ability to do but that the Supreme Court of British Columbia said the university didn't have the power to do. So this is in fact designed to have the same impact, if you will, as

section 7.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes.

L. Krog: Just to confirm again. This will protect the University of British Columbia from the problems related to the return of fines if the Barbour case either stood or was successful at the B.C. Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, should it go that far.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

[ Page 1373 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Indeed. Again, as in the previously discussed sections, this clarifies that the university has the authority outlined more specifically in

section 12.

S. Simpson: One of the critical issues around this section, as it relates to the court case that was the motivation for much of this, clearly is the issue around whether it's appropriate for the government to be interfering in what is an ongoing court case.

The minister will have received a letter dated October 8 from Sharon Matthews, who is counsel for Mr. Barbour and for a number of the class action litigants. I'd just read a brief

section of this letter, where Ms. Matthews says: "Apparently, notwithstanding your government's consistently stated opinion that it will not comment on or interfere with matters that are before the court, it has chosen to not only interfere with this matter but to pass legislation which, if valid, eradicates the rights of the class members as found by the trial judge which are the subject of the current appeal."

Now, clearly the legislation hasn't passed yet, but should it pass, that will be the effect of this. My question to the minister is: does the minister agree with Ms. Matthews that that is essentially the effect of what this bill does, and if not, could she explain why not?

[1530]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, we disagree with Ms. Matthews. While we respect the courts obviously, to clear up the doubt and ambiguity we had two choices. We could appeal, which may or may not have cleared up the ambiguity around the powers of the university, or we could amend the acts, as we have chosen to do.

S. Simpson: This government has on a number of occasions talked about the sanctity of the courts and has used that as a shield to protect itself from transparency on any number of issues that we could talk about here for hours and hours. But the question here is this particular instance.

My question to the minister is this. When there is an appeal in process now, why has the government chosen to introduce this legislation now rather than let the court system exhaust itself — let the appeal proceed and let a judgment be made on the appeal — and at that point let the Legislature and let the government decide whether it has to take some action? What is the rationale or the reason for breaching the court process, for interfering in the British Columbia court process by doing this when there is in fact an appeal in process?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Once again I have to reiterate that we had two choices we could have pursued to clear up the doubt and ambiguity, which we felt was important so that students would not face the negative impact on programs and their costs. We chose the path of amendment.

S. Simpson: Could the minister explain why it took what is an extraordinary decision, I would say, to interfere in the court process in the middle of that process when an appeal is moving forward? That's an extraordinary decision for this cabinet and this government to take.

Could the minister explain in some detail? It would be good to know what the logic is or if there's any rationale to this — what the logic is for not allowing the appeal to proceed, to be heard, with a judgment — which would not, as I understand it, at all have excluded the government from taking another extraordinary path of retroactivity afterwards. What is the minister's decision?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The government concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interests of British Columbians, helping to ensure that students' fees and public investment in post-secondary education are directed to where they benefit students.

S. Simpson: The decision to do this…. Clearly, the minister had discussions with UBC. I mean, we've heard about all the people that were hired as lobbyists by these institutions to come and lobby the government for this extraordinary legislation.

My question to the minister is this. Did the minister take the time even once to sit down and talk to the people who are engaged in this class action, to understand their side of this issue and, in fact, to see whether they could put a balanced solution in place rather than this decision?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I did not meet with the plaintiffs.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could explain why she believes it's okay to meet with one side in this issue, the side that lost in the court, yet it's not okay to meet with the other side and try to find some kind of balanced resolution to this rather than ramming this legislation through.

[1535]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The issue was brought to my attention by the Research Universities Council. As previously stated, it was the full intent and understanding of the government that the universities had the power to enforce parking fines. For that reason, the government concluded that the proposed amendments were in the best interests of British Columbians, helping to ensure that students' fees and public investment in post-secondary education are directed to where they benefit the students.

S. Simpson: That may be the understanding, but clearly it's not the law as far as the courts are concerned. The courts made a pretty clear decision in this. We would have seen what would happen under appeal, except for this extraordinary intervention and interference by this minister and government.

[ Page 1374 ]

This is a government that has purported to have respect for the law and the courts. This is hardly respect for the courts and the process of the courts — to intervene in this way in the middle of a proceeding.

Just one last comment in relation to this. Again, just a brief excerpt from the October 8 letter from Ms. Matthews, the counsel for Mr. Barbour and the litigants. In this, Ms. Matthews says: "We urge you to give a sober second thought to the retroactive nature of this legislation prior to it being passed. The B.C. government needs to respect the judiciary and show that respect. It also needs to treat all constituents with an even hand. The class members are your constituents. Please meet with them and hear their views."

Before this legislation passes, will the minister meet with those members of that class action group?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Meeting with the plaintiffs is not necessary. The government has clearly concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interests of British Columbians.

S. Simpson: I understand that consultation and talking to anybody outside the closed cabinet room is a unique thing for this minister and this government. It doesn't happen.

Why on earth does this minister think that this group of people who convinced a judge, through their case, of the merit of their argument and won that case…? Why on earth does this minister think that she doesn't have any obligation to talk to those people when, in fact, she's ripping up a court decision here? It's a remarkable decision — certainly not the decision to be made by a thoughtful legislator.

Will the minister commit to meet with these people?

[1540]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I've answered the question.

S. Simpson: This is not necessarily a question, because questions aren't something that get answered on this — clearly. We've seen that.

All I would say is that the minister certainly has disappointed these people, has disappointed any fair-minded person in this province, has shown a bias that is remarkable and has in fact disappointed due process.

I really, really would urge the minister to give this some of that sober second thought that's talked about in this letter. What the minister is doing is more than disappointing. It's really shameful for a democratic process, and she should consider that.

L. Krog: It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that you hear both sides in any matter, and the minister in this government sits in a unique position in this. This was a decision of the courts involving private plaintiffs and, arguably, private defendants. What this legislation also does is clarify that colleges and universities have the capacities of a natural person, and with the capacity of a natural person come the responsibilities that apply to that as well.

If you apply that principle fairly, the minister here through this legislation is going to override a decision of our judicial system. Our independent, independently appointed judiciary is going to be overridden by this legislation.

It is clear, unless the minister wishes to deny it today, that this government has met with representatives of our post-secondary education institutions and has come to the conclusion that they should be supported in their losing court battle without ever, it appears, having taken a minute of her time or this government's time to meet with the plaintiffs who happen to represent thousands of British Columbians who are natural persons at law.

My question to the minister is simply this. Why can she not take time out of her schedule, as she's clearly met with representatives of the post-secondary educational institutions of this province, to meet with the representatives of the plaintiffs in this action?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, it relates back to the choice that the government had between appealing to clear up the doubt and ambiguity around this issue, which may or may not have accomplished that, and amending the acts, which we chose to do.

L. Krog: Well, I'm just not sure I understand the minister. She said the government had the choice of appealing. I thought it was the post-secondary educational institutions which were under fire here. They are natural persons at law. They are independent, presumably, of government, apart from the fact that their boards are appointed by this government.

It wasn't the government's "decision" to appeal this legislation. This government wasn't a party to the legal proceeding in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia , to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, the minister, I'm sure, will correct me with the assistance of her staff.

Again, my question is: why, then, didn't the minister on behalf of the government, who's not a party to this proceeding, take the time to meet with constituents who have, according to the courts, equal rights and indeed superior rights when it comes to the matter of being fined for parking on a university campus?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The issue was brought to our attention by the Research Universities Council. As previously stated, it was our understanding and the full intent of the act that the institutions in question have the powers to enforce parking regulations.

L. Krog: To confirm, is it this government's practice in future court cases, then, that they will step in on

[ Page 1375 ]

behalf of the institutional defendants but not meet with the individual plaintiffs in actions? Is this a government policy, and if so, could the minister articulate it for this House?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I won't speculate about future cases.

[1545]

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm that this

section relates back to

section 10. It relates back to the clarification, if you will, that a university has "the power and capacity of a natural person of full capacity." I take it there is some concern about the existing legislation, and that's the sole reason this is being passed. Or is there some other purpose or intent behind this particular amendment?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The purpose is simply to clarify the intent of the act as it is.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

L. Krog: We have just approved a

section that provides that a university has the capacity of a person of full capacity. Now we're amending a

section to state: "For the purposes of carrying out and advancing, directly or indirectly, the purposes of a university, a university may acquire, by gift, purchase or any other manner, and hold, property of any kind."

I guess I need an explanation as to why we have to do that. If a university has the capacity of a natural person, then it goes without saying that they've got the ability to receive, acquire by gift or purchase or hold property of any kind. I mean, that's an absolute given. So what's the point of this section? Is there something I'm missing, or is there some other intent to this?

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding is that this clarifies the public law powers under the University Act versus their private law powers.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

L. Krog: My reading of this section, which is fairly lengthy, is that the government is asking the Legislature now to retroactively approve the collection and the retention of all the moneys that the post-secondary institutions of this province have collected by way of fines at a time when they weren't authorized by law to do so.

Hon. M. Stilwell: To reiterate, the intent was to clarify that, indeed, the colleges and universities have the authority to enforce parking fines.

[1550]

The government concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interests of British Columbians, helping to ensure student fees and public investment in post-secondary education are directed to where they benefit the students.

L. Krog: As delighted as I am to hear the minister read from her script again, it doesn't quite answer the question which is obviously raised in

section 16(2), where it says: "Despite any pre-amendment provision and despite any decision of a court to the contrary made before or after the coming into force of this section."

That indicates to me that this is not something about clarification. This is a retroactive change of the law. The minister can try and maintain the pretence in this House that it isn't, but in fact this is an acknowledgment by that very provision in

section 16(2) that despite a decision of the court, we're retroactively allowing the retention of these fines.

I would ask the minister to acknowledge once and for all — another opportunity to simply say — that this government's legislation, the existing statute, didn't authorize the collection of these fines, and this amendment, in particular

section 16(2), directly acknowledges that a court has said it was illegal to do so, and we are now making it legal to retain those moneys.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Making the amendments to the legislation retroactively will ensure that current and future users will not be negatively impacted by institutions having to pay back fines that were collected in the past.

L. Krog: I don't know if the minister has ever heard these words quoted to her, but this was the Leader of the Official Opposition at one point. He said: "It is critical that we maintain everyone's rights in this province, that we not act retroactively. Retroactivity sends all of the wrong messages to everyone that has been involved."

That was the then Leader of the Official Opposition, now the Premier and First Minister of the province of British Columbia, the hon. minister's leader and Premier. So I'm just wondering: does she agree that it's wrong to pass retroactive legislation?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, in this instance we had two choices to clarify the ambiguity surrounding this issue. We chose the amendment.

L. Krog: I don't think there was anything terribly ambiguous about the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision. It was pretty straightforward. There wasn't the

[ Page 1376 ]

authority and power to do this. The court said no, and now the government is before the Legislature asking for passage of legislation that will retroactively make legal the retention of moneys that were illegally collected.

The former Attorney General said so elegantly at one point that "statute after statute, order-in-council after order-in-council, fee after fee and regulation after regulation for over a quarter of a century will be retroactively repaired, rewritten, rehabilitated, restored, revitalized, given new life. It will happen in a flash. And 26 years of government, were it to collect revenue from British Columbians — illegally, I should say — will be made whole."

That was the hon. Geoff Plant. He was the former Attorney General. That's what he said when he was in opposition. Now we're wearing the government's hat, and suddenly the rules have changed.

I'm asking once again for the minister to acknowledge that, in fact, a court has said that what the post-secondary institutions in this province did by collecting those fines was illegal, and we are being asked to retroactively repair that mistake so the post-secondary institutions can retain funds illegally collected.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The government's view was that the public post-secondary institutions always had the authority over these matters, the power to make decisions about what happens on their campuses and to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all students, staff and visitors to the institution. These amendments clarify authority over matters such as parking regulation, which the government intended them to have.

Section 16 approved.

[1555]

Interjection.

L. Krog: I'm so flattered.

section 17.

L. Krog: Just so I can clarify for my own purposes, I take it that these amendments are necessary under

section 17 because the government hasn't yet proclaimed the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. First, let me introduce Andrea Buzbuzian to assist us through these sections.

That's partially correct, but — as the member, I think, probably realizes from reading beyond — the original act, which has not been proclaimed, deals with, broadly speaking, two issues. Whilst the government is not in a position to proceed with proclamation of one component of that relating to adult guardianship — and I won't be coy about why; it is a fiscal situation associated with the cost of moving forward — there is great interest on the government's part and on the part of people in the community to give effect to the planning-directives component of that bill.

So virtually all of what's contained here is designed to delink those two components of the act, allow proclamation for the second part dealing with planning instruments, planning directives, and maintain or retain the old committeeship provisions from the Patients Property Act.

L. Krog: To the minister: he mentioned fiscal implications and problems, and I wonder if he could give me some idea of what he's talking about and what the range of issues are that are preventing this, because the legal community has been waiting for this for a very long time. Arguably, they and potential clients and people who will benefit from the passage of the statute are in limbo as well.

I would like to hear from the minister: what exactly are the problems that are holding that up?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's not just the legal community. I recall the number of years that went into crafting the piece of legislation, the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act. It engaged interest and involvement by a wide range of interested parties, so there is, I think, going to be some disappointment, as the member points out, that only a portion — a significant portion, the incapacity planning instruments portion — of this is moving ahead.

I think the member's specific question, though, related to what the impediments are. Broadly speaking, they relate to advice we've received from the Public Guardian and Trustee, which says that to give proper effect to the guardianship provisions is going to — in his, I think, conservative estimate — involve the hiring of up to 40 additional FTEs. He and the government are simply not in a position to provide the financing for that right now.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

L. Krog: To the minister: this is an amendment to the definition of "health care provider" and "qualified health care provider," and it's an expansion. Again, is this one of those transitional issues that we're stuck with because we now have to widen the definition in order to cover off medical practitioners who aren't mentioned in the act?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: The intention here is to replicate the definition and meaning as it exists in the Adult Guardianship Act, and that's necessary because the

[ Page 1377 ]

specific reference, based on what's happening, won't be valid until proclamation does take place.

L. Krog: As I understand it then…. I'm not trying to rush through these sections. That, I take it, obviously, is the purpose with respect to

section 19, and likewise

section 20. All of these are necessary to change existing legislation that's on the books that is, in fact, changed by the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, which hasn't yet been proclaimed.

So in order to make the system function and allow provisions, particularly relating to advanced health care directives and things of that nature, we've got to do all of this in the meantime, until we're in a position to hire 40 full-time FTEs, potentially.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is, I think, an accurate description of sections 17 to 39. Just to look ahead, I can advise the member that sections 40 to 51 are included in anticipation of a subsequent proclamation of the remaining sections of the Adult Guardianship Act so that it would not be necessary to come back before the House and undo what sections 17 through 39 are doing.

L. Krog: With the indulgence of the Chair, there was a fair bit of controversy around the advanced health care directives, which the Attorney General will certainly recall even though he wasn't the minister responsible at the time. Has there been full consultation with the involved groups with respect to sections 17 through to 39? And if so, what kind of consultation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I don't want to be coy again with the member. We did not have extensive discussions around the delinking exercise that I spoke of earlier. I think the member will accept that there were, and knows that there were, extensive discussions and consultations relating to the substantive provisions.

But we've, quite frankly, been wrestling with the question of how to move ahead on the incapacity, planning instruments, advanced directives and enduring powers of attorney — the planning component of this — and recognize that there will be disappointment on the part of those who were hoping proclamation would capture all facets of the bill.

L. Krog: Just so I'm fairly clear, what we have, then — and I don't mean it terribly unkindly, notwithstanding my somewhat sarcastic nature on occasion — is a stopgap measure again, which will allow for implementation of legislation that was reached after some controversy around adult advanced health care directives, which will allow for its implementation only, without dealing with the rest of the statute itself. And it is for that reason that we haven't gone back, if you will, to speak to the various interested groups.

Was there any kind of advice sought at all? I understand that I perhaps shouldn't have used the term "extensive." But was there any advice at all sought from any of these, or is the minister satisfied, after consultation with the ministry, that these are, in fact, what we would call inconsequential matters in terms of principle and public policy — that this is very much a legal exercise?

[1605]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wouldn't call it inconsequential. Any time this House has passed a bill — and we are now delayed, forcibly delayed, in being able to implement it in its entirety — especially a measure like the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Act, which was the product of extensive discussion, I think that's disappointing, quite frankly. It's disappointing for us, and I know it's disappointing for others, and there have been discussions.

I can say this to the member. Most of the submissions, because I think there has been an awareness…. The act was passed in 2007, so it's been a couple of years. The vast majority of those submissions articulated a concern, notwithstanding the pressures and the fiscal difficulties, that the portion of this that does not bestow costs upon the Crown not be held up in the wake of those difficulties.

So we've certainly heard from people in that respect. What the member and the House has before it today is our attempted response to address those concerns.

L. Krog: I wouldn't like to think the Attorney General was suggesting that I didn't say they were of consequence. In terms of any change to the policy as enunciated in the statute, which is not going to be proclaimed, there is no change in policy here. We are doing technical, and highly technical matters, and undertaking them in order to allow for the proclamation of some portions, but not all.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's question/statement is: are the substantive provisions of the original act changed? The answer is no.

Sections 18 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

L. Krog: Just to be clear, this is as obvious as it looks. We simply have to retain the provision because we haven't yet proclaimed the legislation.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that's a fair comment. From sections 17 to 39, we have altered the reference from the guardianship act to the Patients Property Act. Sections 40 through 51 look ahead to the day when the remaining provisions of the guardianship act are proclaimed and

[ Page 1378 ]

return the reference from the Patients Property Act and committeeship to the guardianship act and the concept of guardianship.

L. Krog: Then, if I may, with the indulgence of the Chair, with respect to sections 40 through to 51, the more important question, I suspect — given what I've heard from the Attorney General today — is that we have a fiscal issue, 40 FTEs, that is holding up the proclamation of the entire statute.

We have legislation that…. I think, by and large, those who took an interest in these kinds of issues — or certainly would be forced to take an interest in these kinds of issues by virtue of age and infirmity — will be somewhat disappointed that we are not moving ahead as quickly.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if the Attorney General can perhaps give the House some idea, notwithstanding the fiscal uncertainty which we all face, when the legislation that was passed two years ago might indeed be proclaimed — given, in addition, that it represents a fairly significant change in the law and will certainly have an impact on practitioners and people whose advice will be sought with respect to this.

The process will take some time. We certainly know that we're looking at roughly 18 months, I believe, before the Wills, Estates and Succession Act is proclaimed. Can the Attorney General, in light of my comments, give us any idea when we're going to see this two-year-old legislation fully and completely proclaimed?

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure I can. But I hope the member and those who will be disappointed will take some measure of comfort from the fact that sections 40 through 51 are deliberately included, firstly, to expedite that process when we are in a position fiscally to do so and, secondly, to take it as a sign that proclamation of the remaining sections of the Adult Guardianship Act very much remains a priority.

Sections 40 to 52 inclusive approved.

section 53.

L. Krog: This is such an interesting provision. I'm wondering what particular set of circumstances would have led to the necessity for defining "lawyer" as a member of the Law Society of British Columbia. Was there some court challenge? Was there some issue around an appointment? In other words, what's the explanation behind the necessity of this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member and the House know Neil Reimer, who has joined us for this portion of the discussion.

The section, I think, needs to be read in the context of a couple of the subsequent sections where, in adding a couple of people to the Judges Compensation Commission, we actually define in the reverse who cannot participate. That's where the specific definition of lawyer…. The idea being, again looking ahead, that the additional two participants would be lay people, not members of the bench or bar.

Sections 53 and 54 approved.

section 55.

L. Krog: Again, this is the

section that simply limits, if you will, the parties that can be appointed by specifying that two of them on each commission must be persons who are not lawyers.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

Sections 55 to 58 inclusive approved.

section 59.

L. Krog: With respect to sections 59 through 64, again, these appear all consequential on the fact that we're stuck with the problem that we haven't proclaimed the adult guardianship legislation, and therefore, we have these transitional provisions until we do.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is an accurate description of sections 56 through 64 of this bill.

Sections 59 to 65 inclusive approved.

section 66.

L. Krog: The purpose of this section, as I read it, is to give sheriffs powers and duties established in the act in addition to the common-law understanding of what a sheriff could and couldn't do. I'm just wondering: what's the purpose of these sections, and does it have anything to do with the Olympics?

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer to the second part of the question is that this has nothing to do with the Olympics. It is not triggered by any Olympic-related activity and is not designed to be in anticipation of, or in response to.

I think what has triggered this…. I can't cite the specific case for the member, but back in around 2006 there was an altercation involving a sheriff and an assault that moved from within the courthouse out onto the steps and into the street. There it became a jurisdictional issue about whether or not the sheriff maintained his or

[ Page 1379 ]

her status as a peace officer as that altercation moved beyond the interior of the courthouse.

That triggered an investigation or examination of the common law and codified authority that accrues to sheriffs and led to the conclusion that the duties of sheriffs, the kinds of things they are engaged in — be it searching of prisoners, the obtaining of sometimes physical evidence from people that are in custody — required something of a detailed examination and updating. That's what these three or four sections relate to.

Section 66 approved.

section 67.

L. Krog: Referring back to his very helpful answer in

section 66, I see that we've added the definition with respect to court facility area over which presumably the sheriffs will have jurisdiction. It says: " 'court facility area' means (

a) the grounds or other areas belonging to or used in connection with a court facility, and (

b) the roads, streets or lanes immediately adjacent to a court facility or to the grounds or other areas referred to in paragraph (a)."

I'm just going to give an example. The altercation starts in the courthouse, and we've got a fleet-of-foot individual. Does this essentially mean that the sheriff has no jurisdiction to hold him if he's run across the street, quite literally, and therefore, we're hoping that some police officer will be available to detain him?

If my

interpretation is roughly correct, is there any reason to limit it to roads, streets or lanes immediately adjacent? I mean, if it's a pursuit situation and public safety is an issue — and I can imagine a situation where public safety would be an issue where the individual is escaping — is there any reason to restrict it to laneways immediately adjacent? Or is there, in fact, some further legislative

section that I'm not aware of that says a sheriff could literally chase you all the way down the street and still have jurisdiction?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can, by the way, advise the member — my notes have the citation — that the case was Regina v. Lum in 2006, and it may have inadvertently created an incorrect impression.

[1620]

The authority that the member refers to — to be in hot pursuit, for example — already exists under the Criminal Code by virtue of the designation of a peace officer. These provisions are designed to ensure that there's no doubt that in a situation, for example, where a controversial case or a controversial accused is attending at a courthouse and there are demonstrations, the authority of the sheriff to administer to the security of the overall justice facility extends beyond the interior of the building to the parking lot, to the roads.

L. Krog: Then basically, in other words, we're not going to be relying on having to get the police there to stop some dramatic activity. We're simply ensuring that sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, have the ability to continue to act to preserve peace and order in the streets immediately adjacent to the courthouse.

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

Sections 67 to 70 inclusive approved.

section 71.

L. Krog: My understanding of this

section is that it repeals the minister's powers to make regulations under

section 41 of the

Interpretation Act. I take it, then, following on to

section 72, that it means it has to be cabinet now that makes regulations. Is that a correct understanding?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is right. The minister has been stripped of this authority, and it has been vested in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the cabinet. That, I'm told, is consistent, based on advice we've received from legislative counsel, when discussing regulations relating to powers of this sort. The practice now more commonly is to vest that authority in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as opposed to line ministers.

L. Krog: Notwithstanding, the opposition — as it always does, whoever the opposition is — believes it has all the answers. I take it, then, that you could arguably say that this is a progressive provision and change to ensure a wider consideration of change by the whole cabinet, as opposed to a minister acting alone.

Hon. M. de Jong: Knowing as I do the confidence that this member has in the judgment of the cabinet, I'm inclined to agree.

L. Krog: I simply wanted to clarify for the record that my confidence in the system doesn't necessarily extend to this cabinet.

Section 71 approved.

section 72.

L. Krog: This is the general regulatory section, I take it, and that is to substitute the power to make regulation by placing it in the hands of cabinet. Is there any substantive change from the power that the minister on his or her own had prior to this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to make sure I answer the question accurately. I think it is fair to say that the….

[1625]

[ Page 1380 ]

We'll take an example.

Section 15(2)(

b) allows for the creation of regulations relating to the powers that sheriffs have. I don't believe there's a comparable regulation-making power today. So in a sense, that is new.

L. Krog: I'm sure the Attorney General, with the assistance of his able staff, will be able to assist me in my understanding. I read this

section to provide that in addition to the traditional roles that sheriffs may have performed — and having clarified that if they start it in the courthouse, they can finish it on the street and those sorts of things — this gives the power to the cabinet to establish additional duties and responsibilities.

Would those additional duties and responsibilities, for instance, extend to the provision of security for the Olympic Games or public festivals or things of that nature, and if so, are there any such duties contemplated?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to make sure I answer accurately again. I think some sheriffs are going to be involved in Olympic-related activity, but they will derive whatever status or standing or authority they have elsewhere and not by virtue of the provisions we're dealing with in the House today.

L. Krog: I appreciate that it's always good in government never to close too many doors unnecessarily. But coming back to this section, it says in a very broad way: "establishing additional duties and responsibilities that may or must be undertaken by sheriffs." I'm not sure at law that they are limited back to the concept of being sheriffs and what they historically do and what they're empowered to do under the act.

I'm just wondering. Does this

section mean that cabinet can now establish duties that the average person wouldn't have contemplated as being duties to be carried out by a sheriff? And if so, what might those duties and responsibilities be, if indeed government is considering that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I think it's fair to say that the power created here would allow for a regulation that could take sheriffs into what today we would consider non-traditional sheriffs' activities.

There's nothing specifically contemplated, although checking…. Here's an example. I'm not sure the average person, to use the member's example, would consider this non-traditional, because it's quite specific to what happens within a lockup.

For example, obtaining a court-ordered DNA sample is something that, arguably, sheriffs may or may not have authority to do today. The regulation power here would allow the cabinet to enumerate that specifically as a power. I think that is being contemplated, in fact — that they would have that specific authority.

L. Krog: To give an example, I believe that in some jurisdictions the sheriffs actually do the highway patrol, the traffic patrol. They issue the fines. They stop the speeders. They do that kind of thing.

[1630]

My

interpretation, and I may well be wrong, of this

section is that the government, if this passes, could authorize that kind of activity by sheriffs. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell me if I'm wrong or right or somewhere in between.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, they sure have that authority in Rincon county, Georgia, and I can attest to that personally.

Nothing like that is contemplated. But I don't want to get into a long, drawn-out debate, because I think the authority here is pretty wide and, I suppose, could be utilized at some point following all of the discussions and consultations that would take place. But I want to assure the member at this stage that that is not something that I or the government have turned our minds to.

L. Krog: Believe me, I'm not trying to box the Attorney General or ask whether they've contemplated it or not. I simply want to clarify the purposes of this debate because, frankly, one of my constituents — I don't know actually whether they're one of my constituents — wrote to my office and said, "Why don't we do what other jurisdictions do," and have the sheriffs do what he regarded as lower-level work that, of course, the police say is important because we catch some big-time criminals when we're doing the traffic stuff.

I just want to confirm that this legislation and this particular

section would, in fact, allow the government to do that without having to bring it back to this chamber. In other words, if next week — and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the government's contemplating this — the government said, "You know what? Difficult circumstances. We're going to get the sheriffs to do the traffic work. Now the RCMP contract is up, and away we go," I don't see anything here to stop that from happening. I just want to confirm that my

interpretation is correct.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think my only caveat…. I don't know what's in the collective agreement, so I'm always cautious to preface any remarks and, again, emphasize that nothing on that scope is being contemplated. But the words are there that speak to the possibility in the future of regulations that would establish expanded or additional duties.

Section 72 approved.

section 73.

[ Page 1381 ]

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could just explain why we've got

section 73. Is there some issue about fees that have been collected that it needs to be retroactive?

Hon. M. de Jong: This dates back to a regulation that was created in the late 1980s. The officials have identified some ambiguity that relates to the authority around which the Public Guardian and Trustee collects fees for acting as a trustee under statute.

The statutes involved I can list for the member: the Estate Administration Act, the Insurance Act, the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, the Trustee Act, the Criminal Injury Compensation Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

Though nothing has arisen in a litigious sense yet, there is concern that the authority be clearly understood to exist for the collection of fees, and I think, by virtue of when the

section is deemed to exist, it is deemed to have existed at the time of the original regulation in

Section 73 approved.

section 74.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could just explain the effect of

section 74. What's its purpose, and what will it actually do?

[1635]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member. I meant to send this over.

When the original act was brought into force on, I think, January 1, 2009 — it was an OIC; order-in-council 792 — we missed a section.

Section 74 approved.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I believe the former foreign secretary of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gromyko, was referred to as Old Iron Pants. Not every part of my anatomy is made of iron. I wonder if we might have a recess for five minutes, as I'm the lead on the opposition side on this.

The Chair: We'll reconvene at 20 to the hour.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

section 75.

L. Krog: My understanding of this

section is that it broadens the definition of "eligible supportive housing property" to include those that are funded by health authorities as well. It will have the effect of reducing assessed value of those properties to $2, resulting in nominal or, essentially, no property taxes. If that is correct, then what happens insofar as those municipalities are concerned with respect to any revenue that they might otherwise derive?

Hon. B. Bennett: For the member's benefit, the estimated municipal property tax revenue impacts by municipality are: New Westminster, $19,449; Port Coquitlam, $1,896; Penticton, $2,417; Salmon Arm, $3,614; city of Vancouver, $267,994; Victoria, $34,431; and Nanaimo, $4,512. I'm happy to provide that list to the member.

L. Krog: Just to clarify. That is, in fact, revenue that these municipal governments will indeed forgo. They'll not be compensated by any other arm or branch of government for the lost revenue.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct.

L. Krog: Just out of curiosity, were the municipal governments involved consulted before the presentation of this amendment?

[1645]

Hon. B. Bennett: Consultations were undertaken with UBCM, as we do. It's our practice to discuss with UBCM pretty much anything that the ministry is involved in that's going to have an impact on local government. So we did have those consultations, and I think it's fair to characterize the outcome of those discussions with UBCM…. They had no specific concerns about this particular amendment.

Sections 75 and 76 approved.

section 77.

L. Krog: This, arguably, is the most substantive and dramatic

section of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act before the House. My understanding is that this will have the effect, in the municipalities of Richmond, Vancouver and the resort municipality of Whistler, of giving them powers with respect to signage that they would otherwise not have, including the ability to enter, upon 24 hours' written notice.

With respect to the sign bylaws that presently exist in those two cities and the resort municipality, are their sign bylaws consistent? Can the minister advise the House?

Hon. B. Bennett: If you, hon. Chair, and the member would just indulge me for a couple of minutes, I can hopefully provide some context for these amendments that will help all of us understand what in fact is being proposed by the legislation.

[ Page 1382 ]

The member used a very interesting phrase. I don't suggest any criticism here, but I think it'll help us get to the bottom of what this is actually….

Interjections.

The Chair: Minister, could you just wait a minute.

Excuse me. Order, Members.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member used the phrase "powers that they would not otherwise have." That's an excellent way to start with our discussion of this particular amendment, because I think what the public is interested in and what I think the opposition has tried to bring out in this discussion is: what is different? What powers are going to be created with this legislation that local governments, these three local governments in particular, didn't have before?

I'd like to just sort of set the stage, if I could.

Section 77 of Bill 13 deals with the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. That goes to the sign bylaws and the enforcement of the sign bylaws that these three municipalities have.

Section 78, which we'll deal with next, is about amendments that are being made to the Vancouver Charter. I'll deal with those, obviously, when we get there, if there are questions on those.

I think it's important for me to say this now, even though we're not on 78 yet. Essentially, the amendments to the Vancouver Charter will bring the Vancouver Charter into line with the Community Charter. That goes, to some extent, to the member's question.

This particular

section of Bill 13 is bringing into force four different sections that will increase the powers of these three local governments in one particular way and only one particular way. Today, under the Community Charter and under the Vancouver Charter, these three municipalities are able to create bylaws, through the exercise of their powers as democratically elected mayors and council, to deal with the content of signs and to deal with the enforcement of their sign bylaws.

[1650]

They are, of course, subject to the Canadian Charter of