2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 23, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Gladstone Secondary students in robotics competition

A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M214 — Standards of Care for Breeders of Companion Animals Act

J. Thornthwaite

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Animal Abuse Prevention Day

J. Thornthwaite

Organ donation

A. Dix

Arts and Culture Week

J. McIntyre

National Victims of Crime Awareness Week

K. Corrigan

Vancouver International Airport

R. Howard

Annual beach cleanup on Quadra Island

C. Trevena

Oral Questions

Funding for post-secondary education

A. Dix

Hon. N. Yamamoto

M. Mungall

Government response to changes to oil spill response operations

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Government response to changes to immigrant settlement services

M. Elmore

Hon. P. Bell

RCMP costs and negotiations for RCMP services

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Costs to B.C. of federal anti-crime legislation

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Forest management and forest health funding

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

Tabling Documents

Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Annual Report 2011

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

S. Chandra Herbert

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Bill 33 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

S. Chandra Herbert

S. Hammell

Hon. S. Bond

Bill 34 — Limitation Act

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

R. Sultan

B. Ralston

Hon. S. Bond

Bill 30 — Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

R. Sultan

N. Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

Hon. M. McNeil

C. Trevena

K. Corrigan

[ Page 10967 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: We're joined in this place today by three guests from Vancouver–West End. We've got Angela Burghard, who was a kidney recipient 30 years ago on May 12; Jim Snell, a friend of a kidney recipient and also a constituent; and Ada Cheung, who is a kidney recipient and a founder of the Chinese Renal Association. Would the House please make them very welcome. I'm honoured to serve them as their MLA.

Hon. T. Lake: Today, of course, there are a number of people from the real estate industry here that we'll be meeting with during the day and this evening, and I look forward to that. I just wanted to personally introduce Mr. Bob Gieselman, who is an executive member of the Kamloops and district real estate board. I hope the House will please make Bob very welcome.

C. James: I have a group visiting from Sir James Douglas School today. Their teacher, Miss Olivia Aynsley, is here with her grade 5 class of 27 students and five adults. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today we have three guests from Walter Energy, which is a coal producer from the northeast — metallurgical coal that's essential for the making of steel. It's not the black stuff that burns and pollutes the atmosphere.

[1335]

We have Dan Cartwright, who is the president of the Canadian operations; Eric Christensen, vice-president, environment and community affairs; and Nina Ng, who is the corporate communications manager for Walter Energy. They're here to discuss workforce issues and Ridley Terminal in Prince Rupert. Could we please make these guests welcome.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I'm not old enough to introduce grandkids in this House yet, but I had the pleasure this weekend of holding a brand-new baby in my arms. My brother-in-law Paul Havens and his partner, Sarah Jones, had a daughter last weekend. She was five days old, a beautiful little girl, Halle Isobela Havens, and I ask the House to please welcome her to the world.

J. Thornthwaite: In the gallery today I have some friends and supporters who were out on the Legislature back steps earlier on to help me with a media event introducing my private member's bill, which I will be doing shortly. I ask the House to please welcome Harriet Graham; Amanda Sather; Lisa Markin and her service dog, Rowan; Anne Birthistle, Graham Harrop, Laura-Leah Shaw, Carmina Gooch, Terry Roberge, Birthe Levie; my LA, Kellie O'Brien; and my CA, Carol Dawson. I'm sure everybody will welcome them.

M. Mungall: Well, it's a very special occasion when we have guests in the gallery all the way from the Kootenays. Today we have Paul Shreenan, who's the president of the Kootenay Real Estate Board, and we also have Jim Barber, who's the past president. May the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: I have a number of very special guests today. The first one is my wife, Isabelle Hayer, and my son Anthony Hayer and his wife, my daughter-in-law Sabrina Hayer.

Also in the House we have some special guests from the Fraser Valley real estate association. Some of them met with me this morning. They are Brenda Lee, Gina Cowx, Debbie Jay, Ray Werger, Deanna Horn, Paul Penner, Paul Purewal, Darcy Reddicopp, Jasbir Cheema, Chris Savage, David Foxwell and Tammy Evans. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

M. Elmore: There's a group here visiting us in the Legislature for organ donor awareness. I would like to introduce Melanie Terrett, who is joining us. She was a liver recipient in 2008, and a bone marrow recipient. She lives in Port Moody. Could the House please make her welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: I've had the opportunity to introduce this gentleman a few times before. He is one of the frequent travellers down from Prince George to join us in this House. Dennis Jackson has been a good friend and a longtime supporter. If anyone has need of purchasing a boat, a John Deere garden tractor or an RV, please see Dennis after question period. Would you please welcome Dennis Jackson.

L. Krog: Joining us here from Nanaimo today are Darcy Olsen and her children, Alexander and Lucy. I'd like the House to please make them welcome as they observe the goings-on in this chamber.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I wanted to welcome two individuals who are coming today as guests but will soon be sworn in as members of this Legislature — the new MLA for Chilliwack-Hope, Gwen O'Mahony; and the new MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam, Joe Trasolini. I'd like to ask everybody to make them welcome. [Applause.]

I'd also like, on behalf of the members of the House,

[ Page 10968 ]

to thank everyone who ran in the by-election — Laurie Throness, John Martin and Lewis Clarke Dahlby in Chilliwack-Hope; and Dennis Marsden and Christine Clarke in Port Moody–Coquitlam — for their contribution. It's an enormous sacrifice to run in electoral politics. All of us in this room know this, and I want the House to acknowledge their contribution as well. [Applause.]

[1340]

Tributes

GLADSTONE SECONDARY STUDENTS

IN ROBOTICS COMPETITION

A. Dix: Finally, because it was not a weekend in competition that was altogether great for us in British Columbia, I wanted to acknowledge that students from Gladstone Secondary in my constituency this week won and were first runners-up in the VEX Robotics World Championship in Anaheim, California. It was an extraordinary success for them. Four times they've gone down and won and succeeded and competed in those world championships, either in Dallas, Texas, or in California. They represented British Columbia and my constituency and Gladstone extraordinarily well.

Just to say to people that Todd Ablett, who's the teacher who started this program, is a winner of a national Prime Minister's award for excellence in teaching. He gave the money he earned in that award to the robotics program to support it. I know everyone would want to wish our incredible robotics champions from Gladstone Secondary congratulations.

Introductions by Members

B. Bennett: They say that for every cloud, there is a silver lining. I recognize that for Canucks fans, yesterday was a sad day, and they have, certainly, my condolences.

However, from my point of view, I come from the Kootenays, where we have the Kootenay Ice. The young man who scored the winning goal for the Los Angeles Kings was our captain of the Kootenay Ice for a couple of years. He lived in Cranbrook for three years. He's a fine young man from Alberta. I'm sure that they will do well as they go forward in the playoffs.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M214 — STANDARDS OF CARE FOR

BREEDERS OF COMPANION ANIMALS ACT

J. Thornthwaite presented a bill intituled Standards of Care for Breeders of Companion Animals Act.

J. Thornthwaite: I move that the bill entitled Standards of Care for Breeders of Companion Animals Act, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read for the first time.

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: This bill declares that breeders of three or more female dogs or cats capable of reproduction will be required not only to understand but to meet the standards of care in handling and breeding their animals.

Following the sled dog tragedy and the subsequent amendment to the PCA Act, which made our regulations Canada's toughest, I received inquiries about puppy and kitty mills. Given my background in zoology and passion for animal welfare, I decided to act. I've met with veterinarians and animal advocacy organizations to ensure this bill meets the highest animal welfare standards. I've also looked at best practices in animal care standards across Canada and around the world.

The bill does not target the many good and honest breeders in B.C., many of whom support my bill. This bill targets less scrupulous breeders who only seek monetary gains from the mass production of animals with little or no consideration for the animals' well-being. This bill gives teeth to enforce animal cruelty regulations and encourages greater levels of self-regulation amongst breeders.

In addition, this bill will protect prospective dog and cat owners by helping them identify good breeders. My hope is that prospective owners will now know what questions to ask people who are selling them their animals. Were my prospective pet and its parents conceived and raised in humane conditions? What are those conditions? These conditions are outlined in this bill.

This is neither an urban nor a rural issue, nor an issue exclusive to B.C. Rather, this is a global challenge. I hope that by passing this bill, other jurisdictions will follow our lead and that people will learn that it is all of our responsibility to protect animals and to hold those who think they can abuse animals to account.

I ask for your support, and 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 M214, Standards of Care for Breeders of Companion Animals Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ANIMAL ABUSE PREVENTION DAY

J. Thornthwaite: Yes, it's me again.

In British Columbia we believe that all animals, big and small, should be treated in a humane matter, so it's

[ Page 10969 ]

hard to believe that it was just two years ago that we saw a most horrific slaughter of 100 sled dogs. No, we don't like to remember that 100 loving, loyal, smart sled dogs were slaughtered near Whistler, but this tragedy could not and will not represent British Columbia's legacy of animal care and treatment.

April 23 has been proclaimed Animal Abuse Prevention Day in honour of the lost lives of those dogs, lost in April 2010. The proclamation states that preventing animal abuse is a matter of humanity and not just legislation.

[1345]

I believe that everyone in this House can wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments, which is why dedicating today to increasing awareness of animal welfare is especially important. As you are aware, I just introduced legislation that provides regulations which are intended to outline specific requirements for dog and cat breeders in B.C. to ensure the welfare of their animals. I think it is very appropriate that it be introduced today, on Animal Abuse Prevention Day.

I encourage all British Columbians to reflect on how they treat their pets and other animals so that we can ensure that what happened to these sled dogs never happens again.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway and the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Applause.]

ORGAN DONATION

A. Dix: Holy mackerel. There you go.

For over 26 years the B.C. transplant program has been saving lives by connecting patients with organ donors. The agency has overseen over 5,000 transplants, including liver, kidney, heart, pancreas and lung transplants.

We in the Legislature have been able to witness firsthand the success of this program. Our past colleague Chuck Puchmayr, the former MLA for New Westminster, underwent a liver transplant in 2009. Thanks to the generosity of the person who decided, in the event of their death, to save someone else's life, Chuck has survived liver cancer and has now returned to serving the people of New Westminster as a city councillor. He was re-elected to council this past fall.

Chuck is also back on the music scene. His band has a semi-regular Friday night gig in New Westminster, if people are in search of entertainment options.

We also have colleagues who are organ donors, such as the MLA for Kootenay West. In 2010 she donated her kidney under the living donor paired program, a component of the national organ donor registry that B.C. became part of in 2008, when the Minister of Education was Minister of Health.

More and more British Columbians are joining the MLA for Kootenay West by registering as organ donors. However, the rate of registration in B.C., at around 17 percent, is less than public support for the program, which is around 85 percent. While in recent years the number of transplants has increased, breaking new records, there is still a sizeable wait-list of over 370 people.

This week is National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week and aims to translate public support for organ donation into more donor registrations through outreach and awareness. Information on how to register as an organ donor is available on line at www.transplant.bc.ca or by telephone, 1-800-663-6189.

We can all become part of this effort. Thanks very much to all of the people who contribute by registering across British Columbia.

ARTS AND CULTURE WEEK

J. McIntyre: British Columbia inspires outstanding arts and culture, from the ancient traditions of First Nations to exciting, creative innovations in contemporary art, much of it proudly on display as we hosted the 2010 games.

This year British Columbians are celebrating the 13th annual Arts and Culture Week from April 22 through 28. It's a great opportunity to continue to recognize this province's talented artists as well as our diverse arts and cultural organizations, many of them thriving in the Sea to Sky region.

Events scheduled throughout the province will help British Columbians of all ages honour our talents. Art walks, public art projects, art exhibitions and performances featuring work by more than 20,000 B.C. artists will inspire provincewide celebrations of the arts. It's a time to highlight the social, cultural and economic value of B.C. arts as well as to remind us of the great contribution that the B.C. arts and culture sector, including the entertainment field, makes every year to the quality of life in our province.

I'd like to recognize the B.C. Arts Council, funded by the provincial government, which initiated Arts and Culture Week in 1999 to raise the profile of B.C. artists and art organizations. They play an integral role in the flourishing of our diverse talents and our cultural heritage.

I also want to recognize and thank the many British Columbians who volunteer their precious time to local arts groups in communities large and small throughout the province. These dedicated volunteers provide essential support for arts organizations of every kind. This includes art galleries, museums, theatres, orchestras and local arts councils, as well as festivals and events. Their energy and enthusiasm help create an encouraging, supportive environment for aspiring and established artists and help make arts and culture an integral part of community life.

Participation in Arts and Culture Week activities helps connect artists with existing audiences and fosters oppor-

[ Page 10970 ]

tunities in the arts for a new generation of creative British Columbians. I hope members of this House will join me in wishing everyone an enjoyable and inspiring Arts and Culture Week. Support your local artists.

[1350]

NATIONAL VICTIMS OF CRIME

AWARENESS WEEK

K. Corrigan: April 22 to 28 marks the seventh annual National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. It is a time to raise awareness about victim issues and about related programs, services and laws.

According to a recent report by Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, we must do more. She says that certain themes continue to surface, including that victims need more information about their rights and the offender who harmed them, the importance of ensuring victims can participate more meaningfully in the criminal justice system and the need for increased tangible supports for victims of crime.

In my work as official opposition public safety critic, I have certainly heard those concerns from victims and from victims' families, including families of homicide victims who are trying to cope not only with the loss of a loved one but a complicated and what sometimes seems to them a justice system that is simply not set up adequately to help them.

I'd like to highlight just two of the many victim service organizations that do important work in this area. Ending Violence Association of B.C. is a resource for community-based services that support survivors of sexual assault, relationship violence, child abuse and criminal harassment. EVA coordinates and supports the work of victim-serving and other anti-violence programs and provides support and training, research and resources on the needs of victims of violence to about 200 funded anti-violence programs across B.C.

The B.C. Society of Transition Houses is a non-profit association of transition, second- and third-stage houses, safe homes, Children Who Witness Abuse programs and other groups which serve the needs of women and their children fleeing violence. I think many of us in this House have heard firsthand stories of the women who say that transition houses have been literally a lifeline for them and sometimes their children in escaping violent relationships.

Thank you to the many organizations that support victims of crime. Please, this week, make yourself more aware of victim services, and take Sue O'Sullivan's advice to take a step back and consider the justice system from a victim's perspective.

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

R. Howard: As Canadians, our humble nature sometimes prevents us from celebrating our success. However, every once in a while we must stop and applaud our achievements. One such case is Vancouver International Airport, also known as YVR, located in my riding of Richmond Centre. This world-class facility connects British Columbia with the world, and for many travellers, it is their first impression of our beautiful province.

That's why I'm proud to report that for the third year in a row YVR has been recognized by over 12 million travellers as the best airport in North America and the top airport of its size in the entire world by the World Airport Awards. This prestigious honour is the global benchmark for airport excellence and quality. It is confirmation that British Columbia is putting its best foot forward when welcoming guests from across the globe.

This is important, as we will be welcoming many more visitors. This is, in part, thanks to our government eliminating the aviation fuel tax on international travel as of April 1 in support of the B.C. jobs plan. Since the government announced plans to eliminate the aviation fuel tax, the airport has signed agreements with 22 airlines to encourage the expansion of flights to YVR and create new jobs for British Columbians.

Air travel is an important economic generator, creating millions of dollars of economic activity and employing thousands of British Columbians. Please join me in congratulating YVR in this prestigious award and in supporting its continued success.

ANNUAL BEACH CLEANUP

ON QUADRA ISLAND

C. Trevena: It's an annual event. In fact, it's been going on now for 15 years — the Quadra Island beach cleanup. No, it's not for the tourists. It's part of Earth Day activities.

The cleanup, in fact, runs longer than a day, as people start to bring chunks of Styrofoam, plastic oyster trays and other detritus to trailheads weeks ahead of event. But the focus is the third Sunday of April. That's when people go to their favourite stretches of waterfront, garbage bags in hand, and start the serious cleanup of tires; plastic trays; bottles; containers; barrels; plastic ropes; Styrofoam in all sizes, unfortunately — the residue from commercial operations, from boats and from individuals.

Sierra Club Quadra Island runs a tight operation, with pickup points at selected locations on the island. The coordinating spot and lunch stop is Rebecca Spit, where dump trucks are lined up, ladders on the side, ready to take the waste. Island contractors donate their vehicles and drivers. The ferry provides a free pass. The landfill in Campbell River provides free dumping.

[1355]

It's a social time. This year one of the island's restaurants provided food and drinks for the workers who gather at the spit when they brought their garbage in.

Yesterday five dump trucks and two other smaller com-

[ Page 10971 ]

mercial vehicles were filled within a few hours. Half of what was gathered was Styrofoam. It's a dangerous product. It doesn't biodegrade, and if it breaks up, which it easily does, the small pieces can easily be ingested by birds and other creatures, as can the smallest pieces of solid plastic, the specks of blue or red that you glean among the tangle of seaweed.

Every year as I pick up these minuscule pieces, along with other larger pieces of waste, I wonder. And as I wonder whether it's better to cut that plastic rope from the piles of logs — which, as we have to remind ourselves, are waste themselves, broken off from booms — or just to leave them entwined, I think about what a callous species mankind really is. We're callous with our resources and with other species that share this small planet with us.

On Earth Day we do our bit for a cleanup. It's a gesture. It's not enough.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. The minister will know that her ministry received a cut in nominal terms in the budget in February, and the consequences in the skills shortage for students and for the economy are severe. Kris Bulcroft, the president of Capilano University, which serves the minister's own area, is foreseeing the shutdown of whole programs, starting next year, and a further slowdown in the number of graduates entering the labour force.

Does the minister agree with the president of Capilano University that the impact of these cuts will be very negative for the economy and very negative for students?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Let's put this into perspective. In 2011-2012 and the same for this fiscal year almost $38 million has been invested annually for operating grants for Capilano University. That's an increase of almost 27 percent from 2001. Let's not forget the huge capital investment that this government made, along with the federal government, in Capilano's new film and digital animation centre — over $16 million just from the province alone.

If we take a step back and look at what the taxpayers already invest in post-secondary education in British Columbia, $1.9 billion a year, that's the annual operating funding that this province has committed to post-secondary education, despite the economic challenges we are facing. That's more than $5 million a day.

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

A. Dix: As I understand it, then, the minister's defence for cutting post-secondary education and skills training in a skills shortage is that they're still funding post-secondary education — period. This is the explanation. "We decided not to eliminate post-secondary education." That's the defence for cutting funding to post-secondary education in a skills shortage.

The Minister of Finance did it. He singled out, in his own budget speech — the Minister of Finance did — the cuts to post-secondary education. He singled them out. It makes no sense for an economy in a skills shortage, where we do not have the skilled labour we need for the jobs of the future.

[ Page 10972 ]

Has the minister responded to the letter from 25 post-secondary institutions that are voicing opposition to these cuts? They understand that they're cuts, even if the Minister of Finance does not. They understand the impact on students. They understand the impact on our economic future. Has the minister responded to that letter? And what is the minister going to do about the fact that this ministry, so central to the economy of British Columbia, is being cut in a skills shortage?

[1400]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Let me correct, for the record…. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition knows this, so I'm not exactly sure what his motivation is, other than political. In Budget 2012-13 there is actually an increase to the funding for public post-secondary institutions. It's inconceivable for me to hear from the members opposite when they question the huge investment that taxpayers have made in our public post-secondary institutions.

This government inherited a desperate system after the NDP were in power. It was a desperate system. We inherited a system that was hungry for funding, hungry for student spaces. If you wanted to go to a university in Canada…. It was harder to get into a university in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada, because it was after years under the NDP of frozen capital funding.

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

A. Dix: The Minister of Finance bragged about the cuts to post-secondary education in the budget speech. I'm surprised that the minister seems unaware of those cuts. They have serious long-term consequences to the economy of British Columbia.

The government's own report on the labour market…. It's not, I know, in the minister's ministry, but that report says that 78 percent of the jobs of the future will require some form of post-secondary education, and there is a major gap.

Every time I meet with business leaders, they say there's a skills shortage in British Columbia. We need access. We need more people with the skills they need for the jobs of the future.

Instead, everywhere in British Columbia, but particularly around the province, there are cuts to that system. It simply does not make economic sense. It simply doesn't make sense for our future.

I want to ask the minister what she's going to do as minister to advocate, to turn around these cuts, and why she thinks it's appropriate that only her ministry was singled out in nominal terms for cuts this year.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Only in the NDP world do you see a $9 million increase be considered a cut. In 2012-2013 there's a $9 million increase. Not only that, just last week we announced $10 million of new funding for skills training in priority areas.

Let me tell you what our record is — 32,000 new student spaces added since 2001 and over $2 billion of capital invested in this province. We made the largest expansion of post-secondary education in the history of B.C. during our term in government.

M. Mungall: The minister can play with numbers all she likes, but the fact is that cuts are happening, and she knows it. We talked about it in the estimates process. Where was she then? Where is she today?

The fact is that the Liberals have said…. They know these cuts are happening, and they said that those cuts will not impact students, that they will only be administrative. That's exactly what the Minister of Finance said when he presented the budget.

My question is: after hearing from all presidents at 25 public post-secondary institutions, after seeing program cuts, after student housing rents going up in the north and growing student debt loads, does the Minister of Advanced Education still think that her funding cuts won't impact students?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Again, while we hear negative, destructive criticisms from the members opposite, let me tell you some good news.

[1405]

Let me tell you where some of that is going, the $10 million to deliver short-term training programs targeted to prepare workers for the current job market: BCIT, $932,000; Camosun College, $402,000; College of New Caledonia, $725,000; and Selkirk College — because I know the member opposite is from that region — $457,000.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Here's what's happening on the ground. Selkirk College announced that it will be cutting second-year programs at Kootenay School of the Arts. Camosun College announced that they are cutting their applied communications program, a successful program that prepares students for jobs in today's labour market. Northern Lights College is closing geomatics engineering technology, whose graduates are needed in land development projects in the north.

The reason for such cuts is simple, and the presidents are all saying this — the Liberals' failure to adequately invest in post-secondary education. How is it that this minister continues to bury her head in the sand and fails to admit that Liberal cuts to post-secondary education are bad for students and bad for B.C.'s economy?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Let me remind the members opposite again that this government is continuing with its record investments in post-secondary education in 2012-2013. Taxpayers are investing nearly $1.9 billion in operating a year.

Let's speak to Selkirk College. Selkirk College is receiving over $25 million. That's up from 25 percent in 2001.

Let me remind the members opposite of this — that low enrolment in some courses is simply not sustainable. Regrettably, there were a couple of programs at Selkirk College that did not meet student demand. While the low-enrolment courses may be suspended, it will allow the college to invest in areas, in new programs where there is student demand and a labour market. Taxpayers expect this.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CHANGES

TO OIL SPILL RESPONSE OPERATIONS

R. Fleming: Last week the Minister of Environment was asked about the federal government's massive shift of responsibilities, without resources, for environmental assessments to our province. He was asked about the massive cuts to Canada's environmental protection agencies, and he was asked specifically about the closure of the centre that coordinates oil spill operations on the west coast.

In response, we got, in this House, nothing but cheerleading for these federal changes. First, the minister was confident that the province could handle these changes, saying: "We think we can do that. We are doing it now in a comprehensive and rigorous manner."

Then last Friday the minister changed his tune, saying of Ottawa's plans to remove the oil spill staff from Vancouver: "I was very concerned when I heard this…. I mean, when you're talking about pipeline projects and increased pipeline capacity, to take these guys and move them doesn't look very good." That's what he said.

My question is to the minister. Will he finally get it straight and stand up for the environmental protection on our west coast, or will he continue to say that federal cuts for environmental emergency response are somehow a good thing?

Hon. T. Lake: My words were exactly as the member said — that I was concerned when I heard that some members of the oil spill response team here in Vancouver

[ Page 10973 ]

were being moved. But instead of lighting hair on fire, which is what the member opposite seems to do every five minutes, we had some conversations with our federal counterparts. Unlike the member's statements that all of a sudden everything was getting dismantled, five people that are involved in the science and planning of oil spill response are being moved.

That does nothing in terms of our ability to respond to any kind of adverse event in the environment on the marine coast of British Columbia. This government will stand up and make sure that we protect the marine environment here in British Columbia today and into the future.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Here we see the B.C. Liberal Minister of Environment standing here in the House saying nothing while the federal government replaces the Pacific coast's best-trained, on-the-ground personnel that deal with oil spill responses, and replaces them with a de-staffed 1-800 number in Montreal. That's what we get from the B.C. Liberals.

Today there is, on average, one oil spill incident per day in British Columbia. A large-scale oil spill on B.C.'s coast, like the one that the Auditor General of Canada and the federal environment commissioner say B.C. is completely unprepared to handle, would be devastating for B.C.'s economy. It would wipe out tens of thousands of jobs, thousands of businesses, and it would be left for generations to clean for decades to come.

He knows that's the risk today. The federal government is moving to take out resources that are already inadequate here in British Columbia.

My question is: when will the Minister of Environment tell British Columbians how he is standing up for their interests to strengthen and not weaken the capacity to respond to oil spills here in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: If the member opposite would like to come and discuss oil spill response and how the fact is that five people sitting in an office planning and doing the science behind oil spills and the capabilities aren't actually the people that go out there on the water and mop up or coordinate a response, I would be happy to explain that to the member. Of course, maybe he's the one that wants to go out there and wipe up all of these spills.

The fact is that we have an oil spill response here that is overlapping many jurisdictions. We work very closely with Transport Canada, with the Canadian Coast Guard, with our colleagues in the state of Washington and the state of Alaska. We run drills every year to plan for any kind of response to a marine spill.

This government, as I said before, will ensure that the marine environment of British Columbia is well protected despite any kind of increase in oil traffic here on the west coast of British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CHANGES

TO IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT SERVICES

M. Elmore: Recently we learned of the federal government's decision to remove control for immigration settlement services from B.C. and Manitoba, provinces that are leaders in providing the unique services immigrants need to adjust to their new home. Control of these services will now be based in Calgary.

For B.C., this will result in a loss of jobs and expertise unique to B.C.'s immigrant services. The Manitoba government has already spoken out, asking the federal government to reverse its decision, but we haven't heard a peep out of the B.C. Liberals.

Why won't the Liberals stand up to the federal Conservatives, protect the province's best interests and demand that these services are kept in B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, I have been in discussions with the federal minister responsible about this specific issue. We're working with them in terms of aligning their priorities to the number of immigrants that come to each jurisdiction.

If the member opposite would look at the statistics, she might discover that B.C. has a pretty good story to tell here. The federal government has talked about aligning its spending in a way with the provinces that have the larger immigration populations. We are in discussion with the federal minister and the federal ministry, and I'm looking forward to a positive relationship, which we do have with that government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: I think the minister might be confused. Maybe more in line — abandonment versus alignment.

B.C. is recognized as having a world-class model for immigration settlement services and caters to the unique needs of immigrants coming to B.C. Vancouver is the entry point for many new Canadians, and we receive more than 42,500 immigrants per year, the highest of the western provinces.

[1415]

I wonder what happened to Canada Starts Here and whether the Liberals are prepared to stand up and protect B.C.'s immigrant settlement services and jobs.

Hon. P. Bell: I think I actually just heard a compliment from the member opposite. The member opposite just said that this province has a world-class model. You know who developed that? It was actually this government that developed that exact model. So I appreciate the compliment from the member opposite.

What we're beginning to see a thread of here is the

[ Page 10974 ]

relationship that the opposition believes is appropriate with the federal government. That's a relationship where they're on attack, where they're constantly fighting with the federal government. We have seen that model before during the 1990s, and we know exactly how it worked then.

This government believes in having a collaborative relationship with the federal government, and that's why we've received more than our share of federal partnerships over the years. We're going to continue to work with them, and this one can also be a good-news story.

RCMP COSTS AND

NEGOTIATIONS FOR RCMP SERVICES

K. Corrigan: I think what the people of this province want is a government that stands up for it. It isn't just RCMP compensation levels that local governments were surprised at after the Liberal Justice Minister asked them to sign a new 20-year contract. There's also a surprise bill for a new headquarters in Surrey.

Clearly, the Premier and Justice Minister were, as their colleague from Vancouver-Fraserview put it, caught off guard. The member said: "The federal government says they advised, and we as a province said we were unaware of it."

To the Justice Minister, was she unaware, as her colleague from Vancouver-Fraserview suggested? And if so, who do we believe — this government or Mr. Harper's?

Hon. S. Bond: We've been very clear that we are in the process of negotiating regarding the costs related to Surrey–Green Timbers. That has always been a separate issue from the RCMP contract negotiations. We are going to work constructively. We're going to work hard on behalf of British Columbians.

One thing we know is that when we work constructively with our federal partners…. In fact, what British Columbians want are the billions of dollars of investment, the partnerships in infrastructure, in highways and in shipbuilding contracts coming to British Columbia as a result of a positive, constructive working relationship with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: What we have is another botched implementation by this government. The Premier said: "I'm confident that we won't see any $1 billion buildings, and we won't see any big surprises in terms of new costs. The risk of that happening in the future is much, much smaller."

Well, the Premier is wrong that there are no more surprises, because the $1 billion headquarters contract that municipalities are going to have to pay for, for the next 25 years has yet to be negotiated. There is possible retroactive pay still to come that will cost millions more, and the new agreement does not take into account salary adjustments.

To the Justice Minister and chief negotiator on behalf of B.C. municipalities: will you admit that you botched the negotiation of the contract, and will you tell us how you intend to fix this mess?

[1420]

Hon. S. Bond: One thing I know we can be absolutely thankful for is that the RCMP didn't ask to build their headquarters in Burnaby, because we'd sure know exactly what the critic opposite would say.

When we negotiated the RCMP contract, we spent years working with municipalities in an inclusive way. For the first time, in fact, we had a Union of B.C. Municipalities representative on the negotiating team. We held webinars, we had seminars, and we had discussions about what we needed to do moving forward. That's why the new contract contains management tools that have not existed in British Columbia up until today.

We're going to continue to work constructively with the partners that we have on the municipal level, on the federal level, because at the end of the day, that brings far greater benefit to the citizens of British Columbia.

COSTS TO B.C. OF

FEDERAL ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

L. Krog: Well, thank heavens we've got a good relationship with the government, because if this is what you get from a good relationship with the federal government, think what it would be if we had a bad relationship. They take you out on a date and leave you with the bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, take your seat.

Continue, Member.

L. Krog: Well, when it comes to bills, let's talk about Bill C-10. The B.C. Liberals have consistently refused to answer the questions and have dodged the financial impacts of Bill C-10. Both sides of this House have been on record that we support things like tougher penalties for sex offenders, but we've had nothing but Liberal rhetoric from them when it comes to the financial implications.

These are legitimate questions. The question is simply to the Justice Minister. We've been promised it for a long time. Where's the assessment? How much is it going to cost British Columbians?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, that's news. That's the first time we've ever heard from the member opposite that they had any interest in supporting C-10, which actually

[ Page 10975 ]

makes it tougher on people to exploit children in British Columbia. Finally, a policy position from the member on the other side of the House.

We're going to continue to look at how British Columbia will be best positioned to manage C-10, but in fact, we all know that part of the issue related to C-10 is corrections capacity. Once again, we certainly don't have to remind anyone what the opposition critic's view was of a new facility in her riding.

Let's be clear. We are going to do everything we can to accommodate the C-10 expectations within the mandate that we have.

To the member opposite: from our perspective, maybe in good time here we'll see a budget from the other side of the House. In fact, every day they announce more money they want to spend and have yet to indicate to British Columbians where that's going to come from.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, it may impress her colleagues to not give an answer in this chamber. It didn't impress the voters in Port Moody and Chilliwack.

British Columbians want to know what the cost is of Bill C-10, pure and simple. The minister's had months to consider the question. Stand up in this House today and tell us: what is it going to cost B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, one thing we know is that the cost implementation of C-10 is anything but simple.

[1425]

In fact, what we have to consider is crime rates. They continue to change. The good news in British Columbia is that crime rates are at the lowest they've ever been at in more than almost four decades.

We have to consider past sentencing practices. We have to look at a number of factors. But what I know is this. British Columbia is involved in the largest expansion of corrections capacity in the history of this province — $185 million in phase 1. That puts us in a better position than most other jurisdictions in this country to manage the impacts of a bill that members on this side of the House lobbied hard to see things included in, like cracking down on people who choose to exploit children in British Columbia.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND

FOREST HEALTH FUNDING

N. Macdonald: My question is to the Minister of Forests. You have the Auditor General, you have the Forest Practices Board as well as independent experts that are all saying the same thing — that we have a forest health crisis and that this government, over the past 11 years, has failed to adequately address that crisis.

Now, we know that with Burns Lake and that region this is primarily a forest health issue and a timber supply problem that comes from that. The question I have is for the minister. We have had a decade of cuts in forest health. Why is it that the minister intends to continue with that decade of cuts — cutting, over the next two years, $30 million more from forest health? Could the minister explain the disconnect there?

Hon. S. Thomson: The issue of the midterm timber supply through the region up there is one that is not new news. It's one that we've known about. It's one that we've continued to work on and to do the timber supply analysis through that area. We continue to consult with communities, with workers, with First Nations in that community. We're going to continue to look at all those options in addressing that issue.

This has been canvassed previously. Last week the Premier and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation clearly said that we would look at those options in a public process, and that's what we're committed to do. It's only the members opposite who would say that we shouldn't look at all the options in addressing this particular issue.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for 2011.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I will go through the number of bills in the order that we're going to be doing them over the next few days. It depends on how fast we get through things where they go and what will be added.

We'll start this afternoon in this House with second reading of Bill 31, intituled the Motion Picture Amendment Act; followed by Bill 33, intituled the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012; and then second reading of Bill 34, intituled the Limitation Act; second reading of Bill 30, intituled the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012; then second reading of Bill 32, intituled the Energy and Water Efficiency Act.

When we get through those, we will move to committee stage of Bill 23, intituled the Finance Statutes Amendment Act; then to Bill 24, intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, in committee; and also Bill 26, in committee, for Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, this afternoon we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Should that conclude, we will then move to the Ministry of

[ Page 10976 ]

Transportation and Infrastructure.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — MOTION PICTURE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to speak today to amendments to the Motion Picture Act in Bill 31.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Amendments to the Motion Picture Act will update terminology and modernize the act's enforcement scheme. These amendments will complete delegation to Consumer Protection B.C., the agency responsible for administration of the act since 2007.

[1430]

Finally, the amendments will update language to align the act with the law relating to obscenity.

The Motion Picture Act regulates the public exhibition of motion pictures in theatres and the selling or renting of adult motion pictures to the public. Under the Motion Picture Act, all theatres, distributors and businesses selling or renting motion pictures are licensed.

Also, motion picture distributors are required to submit new releases before they are exhibited in theatres, to Consumer Protection B.C. for classification. Age-appropriate classifications and advisories ensure that B.C. consumers can make informed choices about what they and their children watch at the movie theatre. This will continue under these amendments.

Consumer Protection B.C. also classifies adult home movies that are sold and rented in the province. The regulation of adult motion pictures ensures that minors do not have access to them.

Non-adult home movies — or general release movies, as they are referred to by the motion picture industry — are not classified under the act. The Motion Picture Association of Canada has a good voluntary rating system in place for these mainstream movies, which almost all distributors participate in.

Video games are outside of the scope of the act. The video game industry has, again, a good voluntary classification system in place for B.C. consumers.

These amendments reflect the fact that the Internet is outside of provincial jurisdiction. The province does not regulate private home viewing of material over the Internet.

With these amendments, we are updating

definitions and introducing terms to reflect changes in motion picture technology. For example, the term "film" is relied on throughout the current act. However, in our digital age, film is just one of many media that can capture a motion picture.

In relation to terminology in the act, I would like to advise that after recent consultations on this bill with industry stakeholders, I will be making a minor amendment to

section 12 of the act to clarify the requirements relating to proof of classification for movies shown in theatres. As we move towards the digital age, we want to be clear that it is proof of classification, rather than a physical attachment to the movie, that is required. I will bring forward that amendment and request that it be placed on the orders of the day.

Currently, Consumer Protection B.C. has limited enforcement tools under the act, with only tough sanctions, such as pulling a licence or prosecution. Changes to the enforcement provisions will represent best practices by introducing progressive enforcement with less severe enforcement tools such as compliance orders, undertakings and administrative penalties.

By applying enforcement provisions from the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Protection B.C. will have access to the same range of enforcement tools that it uses for other sectors it regulates, such as funeral services, payday lenders and travel services.

In addition, Consumer Protection B.C. will have the ability to publish information on those who contravene the act. This will not only work to deter others, but it will enhance consumer protection by allowing the public to know the actions taken against a particular business. It also follows best practices for administrative tribunals by providing transparency and accountability to decisions made under the act.

These amendments also give Consumer Protection B.C. the authority to set its own fees without ministerial approval. This will align the fee-setting model used for other sectors that the agency regulates. The fee-setting process under the act includes industry consultation and a 90-day notice period.

Further changes to the act have been made to accurately reflect the law on obscenity as set down in the Criminal Code of Canada. Once these amendments are in place, Consumer Protection B.C. will only have the authority to approve or refuse to approve adult motion pictures. Non-adult movies for theatres will simply be classified. This approach aligns with other jurisdictions in Canada.

Currently, restricted motion pictures are a subset of adult motion pictures. These amendments separate restricted motion pictures from adult motion pictures, reflecting the current reality of the distinction between the two and the way restricted movies are currently classified in British Columbia.

[1435]

The amendments retain all of the protections currently in place on how adult and restricted movies are sold, displayed and exhibited, including prohibitions on access by minors. These amendments will give Consumer Protection British Columbia the tools they need to continue to effectively regulate the motion picture industry

[ Page 10977 ]

for families in British Columbia. The amendments will ensure that the act will continue to protect children and families by making sure that all movies shown in public and all adult content movies sold or rented in the province are reviewed and given age-appropriate classification and content advisories.

With those opening comments, I will turn the floor over to other members who may want to comment on this bill.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for her remarks on this bill, Bill 31, the Motion Picture Amendment Act. I have looked forward to a bill like this for some time. Certainly, I've heard in the industry great desire to have some modernization around terminology in terms of how the act is worded.

A film is not the same thing as it used to be. Films mean many things these days, and so it's good to see that this legislation will go some way towards updating legislation to bring us into this current century. We're not quite there, I don't think, with this bill, but we're a good ways there. There are a couple of other changes that I believe need to be made.

But first, on what's in this bill, Bill 31. I'm certainly pleased to see that progressive enforcement, progressive discipline is being brought to bear. As Consumer Protection B.C. put it to me, if there was a movie distributor, a film distributor, a digital entertainment distributor, so to speak, in this province — if they broke the rules, they either had to pull the licence completely, which could terminate the business, or do nothing. There was not a lot of in-between.

I know there were questions, as well, around administrative fairness. So I'm glad to see that progressive discipline is being brought in here, as well as an administrative tribunal of sorts to ensure that people have the right of appeal — that they are able to be part of the process and not just on the receiving end, without any sort of degree…. Based on maybe just a misunderstanding, they would face losing their licence,

whereas now, with this legislation, they should be able to retain it if it was an administrative error on their part and not malicious, obviously. Those kinds of things will have to be considered as we go forward.

I'm also glad to see that the government is doing away with the right of censorship in the sense of movies. Now, to be sure, Consumer Protection B.C. and the government have not used this right for many years. But to bring it in line with the Criminal Code as opposed to leaving it kind of a bit more amorphous, where the risk could always be that some future government, or indeed this government, any government, could…. If they didn't like the morals of a movie, or something about it they did not enjoy, they might be able to step in and say, "Delete that scene" or "We don't want to see movies about those kinds of people, so these films will be censored."

Of course, that would obviously lead to the courts, and there would be a whole process with that. To get rid of a

section which has not been used — censorship — in this way makes sense. I'm glad the government has done that.

Now, we've had a range of issues in the motion picture world. Obviously, people in the wider world will have heard of the Rio Theatre, potentially, in Vancouver. I know up north in the Peace, they talk about the Lido Theatre. It's an area that's had some challenges. Here in Victoria, the Roxy. These are small, single-screen theatres trying to make a go of it. They've got big locations, so they have a lot of the rent costs, the property tax, etc. This has made it more challenging in the single-screen movie theatres in particular.

Certainly, we see that there is a bit of a change in this bill, which means that they only need one licence if they're showing general movies, rather than two — to require them to have an adult movie licence, so to speak, if they wanted to show a restricted movie which was not pornography but was European, let's say. Those Europeans make some restricted movies. Canada and, of course, North America does as well.

I think of the very popular movie Shortbus , which was restricted, requiring festival cinemas to get an adult movie licence when really it was not a pornographic movie. It was a restricted movie in the sense of its subject matter and that it was maybe more appropriate for some audiences and not others.

[1440]

I'm glad to see that has happened in this bill — that we're moving to one licence instead of requiring two for people who really should only have had to have one. That certainly will help them on the business side. A small cost but certainly a cost nonetheless.

I had hoped to see in this legislation more discussion around liquor regulation and how that intersects with motion picture theatres. The minister finally decided — not this minister, the minister responsible for liquor — to do something about that through regulation, a call that we had been making on the opposition side for a number of months. We're happy to see that that has happened so that adults and indeed movie distributors would be able to serve liquor in their venues if they become licensed and if they are serving adults.

I think we saw how antiquated some of the processes were for these small businesses with this government when it came to liquor and movies, as well as, of course, the fixes the government tried, which were not all that successful until the final fix, which indeed was what we had suggested in the first place.

That, to me, just opened the window into how challenging it can be in these small businesses, how much regulation and red tape sometimes can get in the way of a desire to have a glass of red wine with a fabulous movie, how that can make it difficult even to just keep the doors open on the theatre. I think of the Denman theatre in my

[ Page 10978 ]

own constituency and the challenges that they are having there but how hard they are working.

When I got out and when I saw this bill, I did a bit of a consultation with movie theatres. I went out to their associations. What I was surprised to hear, though, was that a lot of people had no idea this bill was even here in the Legislature. They didn't know what it was about. And these are people whose jobs are to look at regulation and to look at how things that the government does, and indeed the market does, will affect their members. They didn't even know this bill was coming.

When I asked them for opinions — did they think it should be improved, and what could we do better? — they didn't know it was here. For me, if I'm going to try to do something that's going to affect people, and certainly I think this principle should apply to government as well…. You actually talk to those people in a wider context to get that feedback.

So I'll be happy to hear from the minister in the second stage of this debate, in the committee stage, what kind of consultation was done on this, because certainly we want to make sure that there are no errors that come up because of lack of consultation. I know there is a small amendment that the minister is going to bring, which came about rather last minute, I think — in part because consultation could, in my view, have been done earlier than at this later stage.

Now, one area which is missing in this bill and, I think, deserves further attention is around classification. As movies are moving from film to digital, we're seeing changes in formats.

My understanding, through talking to people in the film sector, is that we may have the film version of Bambi or the film version of E.T. or the film version of, I don't know, let's say a Disney movie of any kind, which in film had been classified. But then it gets transferred into a digital format to be played digitally in theatres — maybe it's even 3-D. It's the same movie, but it's digital, so it's not film. You can't hold it. It's digital.

Yet that film, to my understanding, will have to go through the classification process again. So you could have just shown Snow White on Monday in the film format, but then a week later you want to show it in the digital format. It's the same film, but now you have to pay to classify it again. That, to me, does not make a lot of sense.

I know Consumer Protection B.C. is aware of that. Certainly, I've made the minister's staff aware of that issue. I think we could potentially have some sort of solution here. Maybe it's changes in regulation, where if it is the same movie and they swear, they attest to the fact that it's the same movie that was classified as a film, then they should be able to have it classified when it's digital, if it is indeed the same movie.

There's another issue which comes out of this. If there are older movies, older films — ones that maybe were classified in the 1950s, the 1960s; films that are classic — they may not have been translated into a newer version for many years. But somebody wanting to do a retrospective of an artist's work or going back to some of those good, old-time movies just for nostalgia's sake will find that they have to go back and reclassify.

[1445]

I know Festival Cinemas had some concerns around that recently. I know they worked through that situation, with Consumer Protection B.C.

In terms of red tape, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to require somebody to classify something which is the same except for the format it was in. If it was in Beta and it is now in digital…. If the movie is the same, I would think that the classification should remain the same, rather than requiring a business owner to pay a certain amount of money for every minute that they have somebody sit to watch the film to classify it.

For some of the big theatres, that may be less of an issue. But for some of the small, independent theatres, it is a real issue of costs. Regardless of if it's a giant movie house or a small movie house, we of course, on my side, want to make sure that if there's going to be a cost or if there's going to be a regulation of sorts, that it's in the best interests of everybody, that it's not just redundant and that it does not just cost time and cost money for no reason.

Indeed, for a small business, that could mean their existence, when you add that onto a whole bunch of other factors. But for a big business, it just means that there's less money that they can put into their business or indeed into their community.

I'm certainly going to be interested in

definitions as we go through it clause by clause in third reading, but the bill looks like it goes a good way to modernizing the act. I hope that, through some debate and discussion in third reading, the minister can clarify for me what she thinks around this classification issue, if it's an issue that we can work out, if indeed it is an issue at all.

To a large extent, I know Consumer Protection B.C. tries to do a number of classifications for free, in particular for small festivals or non-profit groups. But the fact is that businesses are still being asked to classify things which, really, have already been classified. It's just a change of format.

I thank the Speaker for listening to me in this House today. I thank the minister for her comments. I look forward to third reading debate on this and, hopefully, improving the economic climate for our movie theatres and our small indie theatres but, of course, the big theatres as well.

What better thing to do on a hot day? Well, go to the beach; that would be for me sometimes. But sometimes when it's too hot a day, you want to go into a nice movie theatre and catch up with friends or catch up with your favourite stars and see what's going on in the rest of the world or, really, what's going on here in B.C. with our

[ Page 10979 ]

thriving film and television sector. To be fair, it has had its challenges, but I hope that we'll see more B.C. stories shared in our theatres as well. Of course, whether it's digital, film, Beta or whatever, I love B.C. stories. I hope that this act will help our theatres survive so that we can tell more of them.

L. Krog: I just wanted to rise and take a few moments, firstly, to thank the Attorney General's staff for providing a briefing on this particular bill, and secondly, to say, things certainly have changed. There was a time when every small community had its movie theatre, almost guaranteed to be one screen. When the new movie came to town, everyone was there. That kind of theatre is very rare now, struggling in many cases.

Technology has allowed us to bring the movies into our own home. The way we think of movies in the big-M sense — the Academy Awards — in some respects represents a view of the world that isn't quite in touch with the reality.

I think it's important that the government bring forward the Motion Picture Amendment Act. I think it's important to recognize that there are changes and that technology will continue to change very, very quickly and how we see movies — whether we go to them, whether we watch them in our home, how we receive them and pay for them and all of those things.

But there is still an active film culture, and I use "film" in the broad sense. Vancouver Island Short Film Festival at Vancouver Island University just a week ago last Friday had a couple of good nights. A good cross-section of Nanaimo's citizens came out to view some of the films. Some wonderful shorts, from sort of a minute and 13 seconds to 20 minutes or so, were well worth seeing.

[1450]

On the classification issue, I've always taken the view that exposing people to what they may find as even the most distasteful or obnoxious remarks or film or books or whatever is probably not a bad thing. Ultimately, it teaches us about what some people have to say in their view of the world.

Certainly, our society has struggled with the concept of pornography for a very long time. I'm reminded of the line of a U.S. Supreme Court justice hearing one of the many pornography cases that drifted up to the highest court in the United States. He said, quite simply: "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." That probably sums up the views of many people. What is beauty in the eyes of one is not in the eyes of another. What may be distasteful to some is in fact a tool of education for others.

What we do know is that it's an important aspect of our society. Anything that helps this industry and this aspect of arts and culture in this province is a good thing. But the member for Vancouver–West End has pointed out that, around the issue of trying to reclassify things again that have already been classified, surely the government can make some appropriate changes there.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel, to plow the same field. You can use all the clichés you want. But surely, do we really have to put Snow White through it again? I don't think so. Let's be clear about this. I think we all understand that simply changing the format of how that image is delivered to you and how the voice is delivered to you really doesn't change the content.

I'm hoping the Attorney General will take the comments of the opposition into account as we discuss this bill further. Certainly I, like the member for Vancouver–West End, who is much more of an expert on arts and culture than I will ever be…. We'll all look forward to committee stage and asking those probing questions that will assist the House in understanding how we are moving forward, hopefully, with this legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the comments of both members opposite. I think there was a very productive discussion in the briefing session. I know that one of the concerns expressed there was the issue around old films that don't currently have a distributor. I think there is a way that we can work to some resolution through Consumer Protection B.C., looking at a way to manage through that.

I think there are another couple of ideas that we can certainly explore through the committee stage. Our intent in this bill is to modernize the act to reflect the difference that we see in the entertainment industry, so I very much appreciate the comments that have been shared. We are working behind the scenes. In fact, one of the amendments that I'll table actually was a result of some of the discussion we had with a number of groups and also with the members opposite.

With that, we look forward to committee stage in the not too distant future, and I would move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading of Bill 33, intituled Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 33 — JUSTICE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 33 now be read a second time.

Let's move on to some comments about what is a justice statutes amendment act. It also makes one consequential amendment. But the purpose of the amendment to the Commercial Arbitration Act is to ensure

[ Page 10980 ]

the use of a specific dispute resolution process required under a trade agreement. Related amendments to the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act would ensure that the monetary costs or cost awards made under a dispute resolution process of an agreement would be enforceable in British Columbia.

These two acts presently provide for the applicability of dispute resolution processes and enforceability of awards under three trade agreements: the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, the new west partnership trade agreement and the agreement on internal trade These amendments will provide that the appropriate provisions of these two acts would apply to any other agreements with such requirements.

At the request of the Court of Appeal, we are proposing to amend

section 7 of the Court of Appeal Act to replace the current list of orders, which may not be appealed, with the power to prescribe such a list by regulation. This will codify the common-law test that is currently applied.

[1455]

The amendment will not eliminate any existing right of appeal, and that's a very important factor. That is, it will not eliminate any existing right of appeal that is currently likely to be successful. In fact, clarifying the limitations on the right to appeal should actually increase access to justice, as it will clarify for self-represented litigants when they have the right to appeal.

Because of the change we are making to the Court of Appeal Act, a consequential amendment is also being made to the Family Law Act to remove an unnecessary reference in that act. The Election Act is being amended to remove the requirement for the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct a provincewide door-to-door enumeration prior to the 2013 provincial general election.

Instead, the Chief Electoral Officer will be given the discretion to authorize enumerations in some or all of the electoral districts, the enumerations made by door-to-door visits or by other means. This amendment follows a recommendation made by the CEO and will result in a significant cost savings of approximately $25 million.

I'm advised that Elections B.C. intends to conduct targeted enumerations, mostly by mail, before the 2013 election in a manner similar to what was done before the 2009 provincial election. As well, Elections B.C. works to maintain a continuously updated voters list through information-sharing with Elections Canada and through automatic voter information updates from ICBC.

We also are proposing amendments to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, and that will modernize the act, bringing it in line with other Canadian jurisdictions. In particular, these amendments will enhance the enforceability of B.C. orders registered in other jurisdictions as well as reciprocal orders from other jurisdictions registered in B.C. These amendments will clarify that B.C. law is to be applied first, as our province's measures for child support already meet or exceed those of reciprocal partners.

The amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will support driver and vehicle licensing services and consumer protection within the driver training industry. The amendments will clarify ICBC's authority to convert out-of-province driver's licence classes into B.C. classes and determine offence equivalents. As well, the amendments remove the need for parental consent by affidavit. It's key to note that — by affidavit, for a minor's driver's licence.

They also clarify ICBC's authority with respect to issuing driver training school and instructor licences and provide ICBC with the ability to immediately suspend or refuse to renew the licence of a driver training school or instructor where there is a public safety risk or for serious non-compliance issues. The amendments will also ensure that driving school inspectors employed by ICBC are properly authorized to enforce prescribed provisions of the act.

Finally, the amendments will remove outdated restrictions and provide greater flexibility respecting the issuance and the use of floater licence plates for transporters, manufacturers and repairers. Amendments to the Offence Act will clarify the wording in the act regarding the authority to make regulations, to prescribe fines for contraventions.

Specifically, the act supports the flexibility necessary for ministries with violation ticketing schemes to set fines where the amounts may differ. The amendments also clarify that if one fine is prescribed, that fine applies if it's paid within 30 days or if paid after 30 days.

With that very technical explanation, there are a number of items in the bill. Most of them relate to updating the various acts that we've noted, and I would certainly, with those comments, welcome any that the other members may have.

L. Krog: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to second reading on Bill 33. Perhaps I'll deal with what I will call the non-contentious or more technical aspects of this legislation first, before addressing what I think is a fairly contentious

section of the bill.

The changes to the Commercial Arbitration Act — pretty straightforward. One could hardly argue with it. Like many of the sections of this bill, it will obviously raise a number of questions during committee stage, because some of this is fairly technical both from my understanding of things and certainly, I suspect, from many members of the public.

[1500]

Around the Court of Appeal Act changes, I think that's a very good idea, what's being proposed. Anything that makes it easier for people to understand the process in the B.C. Court of Appeal is important. I don't know if my information is up to date, but certainly recently one in five litigants appearing before the B.C. Court of Appeal was self-represented.

Now, I must say that for many of us at the bar, going to

[ Page 10981 ]

the Court of Appeal is not a frequent experience. It is not common. Generally speaking, only people who have very contentious cases, lawyers with very contentious cases or narrow practices and/or fairly wealthy clients, are able to ascend the steps of the B.C. Court of Appeal to seek justice there. That's a rare circumstance.

Something that in fact makes that process somewhat clearer and easier, for people to understand when they may or may not have a right to appeal is an important step forward. No question about that.

With respect to the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, again, we want to ensure, quite appropriately, that if orders are granted with respect to monetary judgments or cost awards made under trade agreements of which B.C. is a party, they're enforceable as judgments. That's a fairly commonsense thing. Again, I really can't have any contest with that legislation. It'll simply be a question of trying to understand exactly how that will work.

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. I have spoken in this House on many occasions around the problems that arise with respect to support orders being made in Supreme Court and parties not being able to afford to go back to the Supreme Court or superior jurisdiction, if you will, in any of the given provinces in this country to try and seek a variance when there has been a significant change in circumstances.

I will certainly take the opportunity, no doubt, in committee stage to rail a little bit more about that because I think it is an issue that the governments of this country across this land need to pursue and consider.

There reaches a silly stage where people are being pursued for tens of thousands of dollars that they'll never be able to pay, and a great deal of court time and the time of public service and enforcement agencies like the family maintenance enforcement program of British Columbia gets wasted, I say with great respect, trying to flog what is, quite literally, a dead horse. There are other occasions…. Their work is certainly important. I don't discount that. It's extremely important.

What this change is talking about is to ensure that there is a legislative framework to ensure that where appropriate orders are made, they are in fact enforced. But that doesn't get back to the issue of the variance, which is the issue that I still continue to rail about and think is important for the Attorney General to consider. I know I've received assurances from time to time that she is aware of this issue and will do what she can.

I realize it's a complex jurisdictional matter, but at some point the public interest has to trump the law, if you will, in this case. By that I mean the law has to be responsive to the realities of the way Canadians live and the poverty in which many Canadians live, who in fact end up having orders made against them and who would legitimately, if they could get the matter before a court, receive justice and see a reduction or change or indeed a cancellation of arrears.

But these changes are in fact designed to harmonize the language, as it relates to residence, with similar legislation in other provinces and the Hague convention on the international recovery of child support, and that's a good thing. No civilized country should ever be a haven for nor assist those who have legal responsibilities to a former spouse or children. No country should ever assist those persons in avoiding that legitimate responsibility.

Parenting is a great gift. It's a great responsibility, and with it comes a financial obligation. It's only appropriate that British Columbia play its full role in ensuring that those who have that responsibility and obligation in fact meet that obligation in a timely way.

The Motor Vehicle Act changes, I gather, simply clarify discretion that ICBC may use to determine whether or not driver's licence classes and other offences are similar to classes here, makes some other minor changes. The part of this bill that gives me issue and gives the opposition concern is something that occasioned one of those moments in the chamber where I've said nice things about the government.

[1505]

I hesitate to quote the member for Nanaimo, but back when changes were made — which were to, now, what we refer to as

section 42 — I said: "I'll compliment the Attorney General. I'm delighted to see the call in this bill for a door-to-door enumeration. That is a positive step, and the Attorney General needs to be complimented for that." So I can hardly stand up here today and say that I'm pleased to see the government going back on the reform it passed just a few years ago.

Section 42 as it exists says:

"42

(1) For the purposes of a general election conducted in accordance with

section 23 (2) of the Constitution Act, the chief electoral officer must conduct, by residence-to-residence visitation before the general election, enumerations of all electoral districts.

"

(2) For any purpose other than a general election referred to in subsection (1), the chief electoral officer may require or authorize one or more district registrars

of voters to conduct enumerations of all or part of their electoral districts.

"

(3) An enumeration under subsection (2) of this

section may be conducted by residence-to-residence visitation or by another method directed or authorized by the chief electoral officer."

In other words, in a by-election situation the Chief Electoral Officer was given discretion. An enumeration "may be conducted by residence-to-residence visitation or by another method." That method was referred to in the opening remarks today by the Attorney General, and that's generally by mail.

The proposed section, and I think it is worth reading into the record exactly what it says…. Those British Columbians who are at home and listening and paying attention to this need to understand there is a significant difference being proposed.

The proposed

section 42, which is contained in

section 3 of Bill 33, says: "42

(1) The chief electoral officer may require or authorize one or more district registrars [ Page 10982 ]

of voters to conduct enumerations of all or part of their electoral districts.

(2) An enumeration may be conducted by residence-to-residence visitation or by another method directed or authorized by the chief electoral officer."

In other words, the discretion which formerly resided in the Chief Electoral Officer's office with respect to by-elections — to put it as simply as I can — is now being extended to cover the general election. What that means is quite simply this: the Chief Electoral Officer, between now and May 13, 2013, does not have to conduct a door-to-door enumeration.

Now, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, says it's going to save $25 million. I appreciate that in these difficult times…. If I could go to the Attorney General and ask her to cut a $25 million cheque for the constituency of Nanaimo that I could distribute to worthy causes and needs in my community, I would be an extremely happy member. It's a lot of money, and I don't mean to discount it. It's a lot of money even when you consider the budget of this province is — what? — approaching $40 billion annually.

In the context of a democratic society, ensuring that everyone who may be eligible to vote has an opportunity to be registered to vote and gets counted and heard from is, I think, something on which we cannot really place a price. I have used this line various times in the chamber before. It's like the Bourbon kings. They knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I think this is a question of value. For that $25 million, what do we achieve in British Columbia? I think we achieve a voters list that citizens can rely on, that will, even on a practical level, avoid the confusion that often arises during the course of election campaign, where people are wondering if they are on or they're not on. If they get their voting card, does that mean they're on? If they don't get it, does that mean they're off? If they don't get it, does it mean they're really off, or can they go in and find out they're on? What is, in fact, the reality?

For those of us who have worked in various campaigns, and I think that applies to most members of this chamber, how many times have you arrived at a doorstep of a dwelling or gone to an apartment building…? The HST campaign was no exception. You see the ballots stacked up for the HST campaign, or you see correspondence addressed to various people. You get a voters list that the party may provide to you. You're trying to canvass, and you see all of these people with various telephone numbers listed at a particular address, or all of these individuals.

[1510]

It kind of twigs one when you're conscious of the fact you're approaching a place that's a one-bedroom apartment and discover that six or seven people, apparently, are eligible to vote there. It probably triggers something in your mind that says: "Just maybe the voters list isn't entirely accurate."

Historically in this province…. I think it's worth considering this around

section 42. Until 1989 Elections B.C. conducted in-person door-to-door enumeration. Now, research back then said that that was becoming difficult and dangerous and ineffective. I understand that.

Again to come back to the practical experience of a politician, there's the odd doorstep with the odd large dog or the odd doorstep where you encounter someone who is perhaps impaired by alcohol or drug or who takes a different political viewpoint, who may not exactly welcome you on their doorstep with open arms and may indeed suggest that you get to the hereafter, the warmer part of it, a lot faster than would otherwise be the case in the normal passage of your life. That does happen, and I understand that.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member says: "Never to us." All I can say is that he must be indulging in something that's available, I understand, in street corners around the province. I don't believe that of the member, so I suspect he's engaging in a bit of mirth here in this happy chamber as I discuss something which is actually, I think, quite important.

I should maybe invite the hon. member to consider coming canvassing with me in the next election. You'll get some experience.

In April of 1994 my party, then government, introduced legislation that cancelled that year's enumeration. Members of the assembly generally agreed that the existing enumeration model had become outmoded. That was 1994, so it wasn't that nasty big government — as it's always referred to by the government's side — introducing it over the opposition of the then Liberal opposition, or the Socreds, who were still kicking around then.

There was a massive change to the Election Act. I actually had the opportunity to sit on the committee that reviewed those sections over and over again, I say with great respect to Colin Gabelmann, who was the then Attorney General. I'm not sure every British Columbian or every politician wishes to say: "Thank you very much for the Election Act." It presented some challenges, I think, for all politicians and all parties.

Notwithstanding, it was a step forward and very progressive legislation. That gave discretion to cancel enumeration if the Chief Electoral Officer was satisfied the voters list was sufficiently current. Again, a great deal of power and authority vested in the Chief Electoral Officer. It is a position for which I have enormous respect, which separates us from many democracies around the world — to have an independent officer, appointed by the Legislature as a whole, being in charge of elections. I think we all recognize — those of us who enjoy the benefit of living in progressive democracies — that that is one

[ Page 10983 ]

of the hallmarks of a true democracy.

But the proposed changes in Bill 33, I think, raise issues with that, because it gives discretion to the Chief Electoral Officer when, I think, in fact, we may wish to provide, legislatively speaking, somewhat more direction than discretion.

In 2003 the present government introduced legislation that removed any timeline for when the Chief Electoral Officer had to conduct enumeration. Then, in 2008, the B.C. Liberals introduced the Election Amendment Act and reinstated the requirement to conduct an enumeration by residence-to-residence visitation prior to the scheduled general election. It didn't come into force until September 2009, so it didn't affect the 2009 enumeration, prior to the 2009 election.

As I quoted myself earlier, the opposition happily supported that change, and quite rightly so. We didn't support many other aspects of the bill, including restrictions on pre-campaign spending, third-party advertising and increasing ID requirements.

The 2009 enumeration was carried out by Elections B.C. through mail and targeted visits, which are not the same as a door-to-door enumeration.

[1515]

A follow-up characterized it, I believe, as "achieving the highest-quality voters list in recent history," and adding enumeration cost only $2.9 million. Now, the Chief Electoral Officer submitted a report, and he recommended that "legislators consider providing greater flexibility to the Chief Electoral Officer to determine the best process for conducting enumerations."

I have no quarrel with the concept that the Chief Electoral Officer make recommendations. I have no quarrel with listening to someone who has expertise in the area. But one has to really question whether, given recent experience in the HST referendum, in the last provincial election and in the most recent by-elections, this is the right way to go.

I'm not satisfied that it is. I think we have to consider the words of the then Attorney General, in 2009, when Mr. Oppal made these comments.

"The bill also brings back the requirement of the Chief Electoral Officer following the 2009 election to conduct door-to-door enumerations prior to each election. Changes were made in 2003 to give the CEO the discretion to determine the method of conducting an enumeration. At that time, measures were also taken to provide for sharing voters lists between Elections B.C. and Elections Canada. The goal was to create the most complete and accurate voters list possible."

And these are the words that are important.

"However, it appears now that these measures are not a sufficient substitute for door-to-door enumerations. We recognize that enumerations take time and cost money, and we want to afford voters every opportunity to be registered and eligible to vote."

That was Wally Oppal.

I'm going to gild the lily a little here today, but Mr. Oppal was the Attorney General. He was the Liberal Attorney General, former Supreme Court justice, Court of Appeal judge and is now head of the Missing Women Inquiry — not exactly a British Columbian who lacks a certain respect from all political parties, a person who was appointed to the Missing Women Inquiry to be its commissioner, notwithstanding protests about the apprehension of bias.

I think we have to take his words and consider them carefully. However, it appears now that these measures are not a sufficient substitute for door-to-door enumerations.

The question that has to be asked is: what are we trying to achieve here? Where are you going to make the door-to-door visitation at the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer? Where is it going to be by mail? Is mail sufficient?

Candidly, hon. Speaker, when you are dealing with people of limited means, it is not uncommon to have them for a few months in one location and a few months in another location, and on and on it goes. I can tell you, as many in this chamber are aware and as I have pointed out from time to time, that there are parts of my constituency, certainly, where poverty is a real and obvious issue, where people who suffer from some form of mental illness and who are living in rental accommodation are often forced, as a result of behaviours arising from their mental illnesses, to move on a fairly frequent basis.

A process that doesn't conduct a door-to-door enumeration may well result in them missing the opportunity to make a choice about their government. I happen to think that making a choice about who gets to govern you is one of the most important aspects of living in British Columbia and in Canada.

I appreciate that there are many people who take it for granted, even though they may be on the voters list. I certainly have expressed publicly and privately to people from time to time my frustration with that attitude, with those who are cavalier about it.

[1520]

Those who will happily take their children down to a Remembrance Day ceremony and celebrate the courage of those who have served in the Canadian forces, often in time of war or in peacekeeping, or trying to ensure that there is order in some other country so that people can in fact participate in elections…. I don't know how you take your children down there and ask them to show their support for veterans of the forces when you don't bother to vote yourself.

Having said that, if the government had brought forward a

section in this bill that said we were going to fine people or sanction them somehow if they didn't vote, I can't say what the position of the opposition would have been, exactly, but I might say that, for me personally, it would have a certain appeal.

When I see a

section that says you're going to give complete discretion to the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct enumerations — and that may or may not be by residence and, most likely, it would appear from the

[ Page 10984 ]

Attorney General's remarks, mainly by mail, in conjunction with other methods — as a way of keeping the voters list up to date, I would suggest it's not adequate, and it's not sufficient.

As much as I appreciate that the $25 million estimated cost is significant, when you contrast that with the value received, I don't think its price is too high. Their price is beyond rubies. The price, if you will, is beyond rubies and pearls — or the value, certainly.

There will be some debate around

section 3, which will have the effect of repealing the existing

section 42 and substituting it with the very broad and open discretion that the new

section 42 will in fact grant to the Chief Electoral Officer. This is not a decision or a consideration that I have come to lightly, or members of the opposition generally, but I think we are satisfied that the proposed change is going to disproportionately have impact on vulnerable British Columbians, some of whom I've talked about today.

When you consider what the cost is versus its importance, again you have to ask yourself: "Is this a good thing for democracy? Is this a good thing for British Columbia?" Is this something we would hold up to other parts of the world and say: "This is the way we do it in B.C., and this is the best way to do it"? I suspect not.

The government, in its wisdom, has chosen not to implement other recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his report to government in November 2011. Indeed, he made suggestions that the government might want to consider legislative means for Elections B.C. to pursue, at least on a pilot-project basis, a variety of new voting technologies.

Now, I must say, I have enormous concerns about the concept of Internet voting. It's very interesting, and I'd love to see the greatest number of people vote, possibly, but my own party's experience with Internet voting during the selection of our brilliant new national leader, Thomas Mulcair, was in fact impacted by an attack, if you will. A cyber attack, I think, is the proper and technical term. The member for Vancouver–West End is nodding sagely and indicating to me that I've chosen the right language.

Having said that, I think there are real concerns around that, but the government did not choose to pursue that. The government instead chose to simply bring in a new

section 42. I'm not satisfied it is sufficient at a time when we know that voter turnout has been diminishing quite significantly at every level of voting in this country — whether it be for the national parliament or the provincial Legislature, whether it be for municipal council or regional district boards or boards of education, where the turnout continues to decline.

I'm not sure we are sending the message, as legislators and as representatives of the people, with the new

section 42 as proposed, that we in fact believe in ourselves. Surely, we believe that voting is important. Surely, we believe it is to be encouraged. Surely, we believe it should be made as readily available to every British Columbian, regardless of status and education and ability and knowledge and residence, as possible.

[1525]

My fear is that this is, quite simply, a way for the government ultimately to save money, that it really doesn't have anything to do with historical studies — which may in 1989 have suggested that door-to-door enumeration wasn't the most effective thing to do — and that it has to do with something as crass as cash for a cash-strapped government.

I don't want to go over the top on this issue today, but I suspect a number of the members of this chamber on both sides took time to do some canvassing in the last couple of by-elections. I'm sure that many people have visited Chilliwack who hadn't visited it before, or Hope or Agassiz or Port Moody. I'm sure what they discovered probably gave them concern around the state of the voters list.

As we have a year and a month now before we approach the general election — that great opportunity for British Columbians to pass judgment on the government in power and the opposition-in-waiting, when they have an opportunity to determine what the makeup and composition of this Legislature will be after May 13 — surely, the message should be that we want every British Columbian, legally eligible to do so, to vote.

I don't think this bill sends that message. I don't think this bill reflects the reality of the state of the voters list in many areas of the province. I don't think it reflects the reality of modern life, where indeed…. I've talked about vulnerable British Columbians who move because of issues with their landlords and things of that nature. It doesn't also reflect the state of a modern British Columbia — where many people, who are by financial standards and by economic standards successful, are likewise moving a great deal and are more mobile than they ever were.

There are not many British Columbians who are living within five or ten miles of their birthplace anymore. That is a reality. They move a great deal. What are we going to do to solve that problem, or indeed respond to that social reality? What is it we're going to do? Are we going to spend less time, less money and less effort in ensuring the voters list is accurate, or are we going to respond to that modern reality and spend more time, to give more concern and more thought to this? I think that's the direction we should be going.

I don't think Bill 33,

section 3, does that. It is going in the opposite direction. It is essentially giving the opportunity to the government, if they wish — and I'm not suggesting they would do this — to essentially starve the Chief Electoral Officer. If the Chief Electoral Officer, in his or her wisdom, as the case may be, decided on a provincial enumeration, where's the money going to come

[ Page 10985 ]

from when the legislation says that it's not a "must" but that it's a "may"?

If it was a must, government really doesn't have much choice. It would be pretty hard to go to the voters of British Columbia and say, "Sorry. We decided we wouldn't give the budget to the Chief Electoral Officer this year, so guess what. There's no provincial enumeration door to door. The voters list will be what it will be" — the Doris Day approach, que sera, sera.

This legislation sends the message that the government can essentially say: "Right, we're in tough times, from our perspective. That's what we think. That's what we believe. Sorry, Chief Electoral Officer. There isn't money available."

We give the excuse and opportunity for the government, if we pass this, to simply say "tough" to the Chief Electoral Officer. "We don't think that, in these fiscal circumstances, this is a priority for government, so we're not going to do it. There won't be a door-to-door enumeration."

[1530]

I could be cheeky and suggest…. Forgive me, because I don't wish to try and make light of it. The Premier talks a great deal about her jobs agenda. If there was ever an opportunity to create some employment that is literally spread around the province, that would reach into every hamlet — and, indeed, arguably, in an almost literal sense, into every home — surely the hiring of the people necessary to conduct a door-to-door enumeration would be that.

Surely that would be the approach, as opposed to the new proposed

section 42. That would truly spread some wealth around the province. In light of the federal government's cancellation of Katimavik — a long-respected and, I think, a very positive program that the federal Tories have chosen to kill in their, I would say with great respect, lack of wisdom — you could send British Columbians from Richmond up to Prince George or Skeena or Fort St. James.

Let them knock on a few doors and become acquainted with this wonderful province and the great variety of its geography and its peoples. Instead, we pass this. I think we know what the effect is. There will not be a door-to-door enumeration, except in very limited circumstances. There will be no pressure on the government to provide the necessary funding to ensure a door-to-door enumeration. What we will get — with great respect to the very good work of the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff — I suggest, is a voters list that is not all it could be.

We talk in this chamber constantly about hope and what we can do and what we can be and all we can achieve. I just happen to think that having a voters list that is up to date, that is comprehensive, that is accurate and that ensures with the least difficulty possible that every British Columbian who arrives at the polling booth on election day has an opportunity to vote is a good thing. It's a very good thing. I would think that this government would want to ensure that that, in fact, is what happens.

I really don't think, hon. Speaker, that you can make the argument that more democracy and more participation is a bad thing. I think British Columbians would instinctively accept the proposition that more democracy and more people voting is, in fact, a very good thing. Therefore, I am disappointed, obviously, that the government has chosen to grant greater discretion.

I appreciate that it may represent the suggestion of the Chief Electoral Officer. But our responsibility as representatives of the people is to speak on their behalf. Notwithstanding that some have been turned off by how we conduct ourselves or the negativity surrounded with modern politics or the criticism from various editorials, a majority of British Columbians still value the right to vote; believe it should be extended, not restricted; and believe in their idealistic hearts, as I think and trust that most of us do here, that the right to vote is a wonderful, wonderful thing.

Therefore, the opposition simply can't support what the government is proposing to do here, as I say, particularly in light of the fact that their own Attorney General acknowledged in his own very clear words that the various methods that were being used to complete the voters list were "not a sufficient substitute for door-to-door enumerations."

Now, I know that that was back in 2008, and in politics, as Harold Wilson said: "A week is a long time, and a year is an eternity." We're talking, basically, four years ago. But what has changed in British Columbia that makes the former Attorney General, Mr. Oppal, incorrect today?

[1535]

In other words, what's happened that puts his comments in question today? How has British Columbia changed? Has the list improved that much? Has the population remained completely static? Have no British Columbians moved residences in the last four years? Have no new immigrants come to this great province? Has no one died? Has no one attained voting age in the last four years? Of course not; I'm being silly. I'm trying to make a point.

The fact is that the very reasons that led the government to bring forward legislation that was supported, with respect to that aspect, by the opposition…. The circumstances that existed then exist today.

Again, what's changed? I don't see that anything has really changed, except perhaps that this government has decided that the value of democracy is not worth a $25 million price tag. That's really what has changed. It's not the need, not the belief, not the idealism, not the evidence, certainly, that have changed. It's simply the wish of government.

So the opposition is not going to assist the government in stepping back from one of the few good things that it actually has done in the last 11 years. The opposition is

[ Page 10986 ]

not going to say, "Congratulations for taking a retrograde step," when in fact they've had an opportunity to take a forward step.

If they had brought in further reforms to the Election Act, and that's what was contained in this bill, or if they had brought in things to ensure that even more British Columbians turned out and voted or were registered to vote, I would have applauded them. But instead, they are turning their backs on one of those occasions when they demonstrated common sense, when they listened to the evidence, when they followed their conscience and indeed reintroduced the concept of a door-to-door enumeration.

The opposition is not going to support the government on this one. I certainly look forward to talking about the other technical aspects of Bill 33 in committee stage, but the government is not going to get the opposition's support on the proposed

section 42.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I have been impelled to speak because of the testimonials that my colleague from Nanaimo has brought, regarding democracy and regarding the need to ensure that everybody has their chance to have their say through the voting box. Of course, we would like them to have their say all the time, in terms of how government is run. Certainly, I know many of us try to operate our own constituency offices in that way, by getting out and hearing from people daily, but in terms of this bill,

section 42, I'm concerned.

Getting rid of the mandatory door-to-door enumeration, to me, strikes a bit of an alarm. My constituency of Vancouver–West End is approximately 80 percent renters, renters who often move. Indeed, between elections, we can see approximately 60 percent of my constituents have moved in some form. They may have moved within buildings. They may have moved between buildings. In many cases they move elsewhere, as well, joining other communities in British Columbia and around the world.

Of course, we also have many people moving in to the constituency. So when I get out and talk to people, they often do not know what constituency they are in. They may be new. However, they may be living there for three years and still not know. I ask them: are they registered to vote? They say, "Well, maybe. I was back in my home in Surrey," or "I was back somewhere else, so maybe I still am." Or they may say: "Well, no, I've never voted. I just graduated out of high school. How do I do that?"

I take them through the steps. Eventually they get registered. But there are many people who do not receive their voting cards, even if they are registered, because they have moved. There are many people who do not receive notification of where to go to vote because they are not registered.

[1540]

Now, if they had had that opportunity of somebody coming to their door and saying, "Hello. Are you registered to vote? Who are you? What do you do here?" chances are they would register. They would know. They would feel more a part of that community. They would receive the communications about where to vote in advance, where to vote on the day of.

In my community, even though it's so dense, the voting locations are not always clear, and certainly, for communities that are much bigger, that is even less clear. So if you don't know, if you are new to the community and you don't know that people generally vote at this high school or that community centre, sometimes that's enough to dissuade somebody from voting — in particular, folks that are dealing with real challenges.

Some of the great moments of elections, I think, are when you get people who have never voted before to vote. They come out of that ballot box, they come out of that voting place, just beaming. They feel they are a part of the community. They feel they are a part of their society in a bigger way than they have been before. I think of some of the homeless folks that I've talked to who, after much encouragement, eventually go to vote.

Now, I know with enumeration, certainly, some of this issue of people not being registered is dealt with — not entirely. Certainly, sometimes through the mail or through ads or things like that, people will take it upon themselves to go do that. But if you're balancing, trying to pay your bills…. Maybe you've got the kids to feed, and you've got all these other issues that you are trying to balance in a new community that's not yours. Maybe language is an issue as well. Seeing an ad in the paper saying, "Oh, register to vote," is not the top priority that people place.

We all, of course, take this work that we do here very seriously all the time — well, most of the time. That same priority of place in our lives is not the same, of course, for our constituents all the time either, until there is some big blowup in the media and people hear about what we're doing and tell us what they think, sometimes quite loudly and proudly — which is right. But unless we have that interface between the elections people and the public in a more coordinated fashion, I'm concerned that we will be further disenfranchising people who we need to be engaging, not pushing away.

When I see language about, "Well, maybe they will do some targeted enumerations," left to the discretion…. Maybe there will be a budget for it; maybe there won't. That concerns me. Certainly, we want elections to be non-partisan in all that sense, but to do that you need a list of everybody — the most marginalized right up to the most connected — who are able to be involved in that process through being registered.

I think an enumerated voters list — one that's actually gone through and made sure it's up to date — is very important. I think of a building I went into in my community where it said there were registered voters. You went from door to door: "Oh, no. I'm an international student.

[ Page 10987 ]

Oh, no, I'm an international student." The whole building was rented out to international students. It was great for those students. They had a good place to live, and they were happy to be there. They were happy to go, "Oh, my MLA. What's an MLA?"

We had some interesting discussions, but they were not voters. Yet on the voters list it said they lived at those addresses. So they would have received cards in the mail inviting them to come vote in their local station, but they're not voters. And the people that should have got those cards have since moved and do not have those cards following them, do not have that registration either.

So I think an enumeration is important. I think this priority in terms of how our government functions and how our democracy functions needs to take a higher priority.

I was surprised, as this bill is made up of many different sections, that another recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer does not seem to have been followed on, which was the idea of provisional voting — so for somebody who is 16 to be able to be put on the list. They wouldn't vote, but they would get to vote when they had the opportunity, when they turned of age, but they would certainly be part of that system. That has not taken on.

Certainly, there was much excitement on that side of the House. I believe it was the Health Minister who came out saying that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote — full stop. Not even just provisional voting, which was kind of a smaller step forward that the Chief Electoral Officer made, which was not in this bill. That would be a small step, I think, that would help get more young people voting. Of course, the wider discussion about youth voting — 16-year-olds are allowed to drive, but cannot vote — is one that I think also needs further discussion, for sure.

[1545]

I thank the minister for the chance to share this concern.

I certainly will be very interested to hear what specific actions will be taken to ensure that the most marginalized in our communities, those who are transient, sometimes just for employment reasons but also those who may move because of choice — they go to school for a short while and then they move somewhere else — are given the full opportunity to be engaged and, indeed, that their government welcomes them to become registered voters and into the system, which is what happens with a full enumeration, which does not happen when it's more of an opt-in, "you can if you want to" kind of approach, which seems to be the direction we're heading in.

Thank you to the hon. Speaker for listening to my comments. I will sit down now.

S. Hammell: I also rise opposed to this

section of the bill. I think that we talk a lot about the turnout in this country, about how the turnout has been constantly, over time, decreasing, and that we feign huge concern over that, and we lament the fact that it is going down, not coming up.

I think that that deterioration of the vote or the lack of understanding of how many people are voting is in direct correlation with our decision not to constantly enumerate in terms of elections. I don't think, in fact, we have a clue about what percentage of any given population votes. The voters list has deteriorated so badly over time that I don't think people have an accurate understanding of how many people are in any given area that legitimately have the right to vote.

I think this is a direct result of moving the process from real engagement with the public around their registration of voting. Their ability to get out and vote in an election is dependent on them getting registered. That has been taken away from a process where people actually spoke to each other, directly, about that process.

Years ago, when there was enumeration that was done regularly, people from two different parties went out with a non-partisan person, and they canvassed the area, and they put people on the list. They confirmed for people that they were still there, that they were on the list, and they added people to the list that were able to vote.

That process has gone by the way, and we rely on all kinds of less direct methods of getting people on voters lists and, to a large extent, on people for getting on themselves.

Well, much to our chagrin and maybe our amazement in this House, people aren't consumed every day with electoral politics. They don't automatically think, when they are moving or when some change has occurred in their lives, that: "Oh, I should get on the voters list."

It's probably not even on the radar of most people that that's part of the process they should engage in. I think that in my discussions…. I was privileged enough to be part of the committee of the House that chose and re-engaged and hired a new Chief Electoral Officer. The thing that struck me most in that whole process was, to me, the lack of understanding of the Elections B.C. office of how real or unreal their voters list is. I don't think they have ever gone out and done a simple thing of checking out, say, through random audits, by going to the doorstep and finding out how accurate their list is.

[1550]

They have some theoretical checks and balances on it, but after working some time in the recent by-election, I was actually quite appalled. There were whole areas that

[ Page 10988 ]

have very few people who were enumerated at all and often some areas that, in my way of thinking, it should have been very incumbent on us to ensure that people were enumerated.

One of the places that was very obvious was clearly the areas where there was a fair amount of transiency. If you had areas where people were there for a while and then moved on, obviously, that place was the first place that there would be very few people who were on the list that were still at that place. They were given voting numbers. Information was sent to a household where no one who had the right to be on the voters list was actually at that house and able to vote.

The other place that this became really, really obvious to those of us who participate in electoral politics was during the HST. I was actually shocked at the number of envelopes that went out to households and were sitting in mailboxes weeks after. People who had moved into the house didn't want to assume responsibility for a package that had been sent to someone else, had put it back in the mailbox, and they were just sitting there.

It just seems to me that this is a precious enough right that the state, having taken some responsibility to have a list, should ensure, to the greatest extent they can, that that list is actually accurate.

Another place that there was shocking enumeration done and in fact very little response, although it had been promised, was in some of the aboriginal reserves in the province, particularly in the Chilliwack-Hope area. Huge numbers of people were not on the list, and there were no attempts previous to the election — although there had been six months' notice of the by-elections — for those people to be placed on the list and to be ensured that they were part of the process.

One of the things that happens when you're on the list is that you get…. First, you're legitimate. You're legitimized by the fact that you get notice about the election. You get a reminder of when it is. You get instructions on where it is and the time of the balloting station. You are part of the process and included and legitimized through that process.

Believing very strongly in our need to engage people and to have a large percentage of our population vote in by-elections and elections and referendums or whatever processes are put in front of us as part of our role in being a citizen and part of taking ownership of our democracy…. It seems to me that as legislators, we should be particularly aggressive around ensuring that people have the right to vote and that we facilitate that right to vote through whatever processes will come up with a reasonably accurate list.

After working through the HST, after working in numerous elections myself, I do not believe that we have a process that produces a list that is even reasonably accurate. I join my colleagues. I find the fact that we have not been aggressive about ensuring that people are on the list….

I don't believe that we even have a clue, because we've not done an appropriate test on comparing who's on the list and who isn't. All we do at the end of a period where people are allowed to vote…. We look at who didn't vote by the numbers that didn't vote, and we look at who did and say: "Well the rest of the people didn't vote."

I think a whole bunch of people are on the list that shouldn't be on the list. There are people who have turned of age that are not on the list and should be on the list. There are people who have moved in and out, and neither of th