2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 5

[ Page 1453 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery I have two good friends and constituents, Timo Sokkanen and Cathy Sainty. Cathy is also the registrar of the Supreme Court of B.C. Please join me to welcome them.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from New Zealand. Earlier this year Claire Eeles was appointed consul general in Vancouver, and she's making her first official visit to Victoria today. I was privileged to have a nice working lunch with her today. Please join me in giving her a warm welcome to this House.

M. Karagianis: I would like to make some introductions today on behalf of the member for Saanich South. She's attending the Smart Growth conference in Vancouver. In the gallery are members of a senior women's group who get together on a weekly basis to discuss topics and issues of the day. They're here today as they're curious to see how the system works, and they're excited to see the process in action.

I would like to introduce them: Valerie Wedekind, Pat Barne, Bev Bowes, Diana Randerson, Linda Clarke, Julie Davis, Shannon Glover, Chris Vogelsang, Carole Perry and Veronica Marquadt. I apologize if I've mispronounced any names. Could we please give them a good welcome.

J. Horgan: To our honoured guests in the gallery today, I say:

[A language other than English was spoken.]

Joining us today from Fiji is the Hon. Ratu Kinijioji Maivalili, who is the president of the Senate, of the Upper House, of the government of Fiji. He is a Fijian chief and political leader, and since 2001 he has represented the province of Cakaudrove. He is joined with us today by his friends from Vancouver, Natanya and Diana; from Victoria, Imore. From Edmonton, visiting us for the first time, are Camilne and Gloria. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

D. Hayer: I would like to make introduction on behalf of my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed. I had the privilege of having lunch today with principal Kathleen Jeffrey and two students: Emily Harrington, a grade 12 student and president of the student council, and Christopher Chan, a grade 12 student from Mediated Learning Academy.

They are here today with 25 other students and 12 teachers. This group of students has visited in this House before, and I hope they enjoy their trip. They're learning about how the government works in Victoria.

Would the House please make them very welcome on behalf of my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed. Also, I would like to thank the Mediated Learning Academy for bringing the students here.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1340]

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce, on your behalf as well as my own, two people who are very well known in their home town of Campbell River: Bob and Linda Brind'Amour.

Yes, the name is familiar, as they are the parents of the Carolina Hurricanes captain and Stanley Cup winner Rod Brind'Amour. In fact, Bob was his first coach and has been involved in his career throughout. Linda, as well as being extremely supportive of her son's excellent hockey career, has also been dedicated to many other young people in Campbell River through her work at school district 72 until she recently retired.

Bob and Linda were given a tour of this wonderful building by a member of the press gallery, who I'm sure has given them a completely different slant to today's proceedings. So I hope that when we do continue with question period, which they're observing, we'll be the voices of calm and reasonableness. I hope the House will give them a very warm welcome.

Tributes

LES LEYNE

Hon. M. de Jong: Earlier this week a gathering took place attended by the who's who of British Columbia journalism. God, I'm sorry I missed that. At that gathering, the Jack Webster Awards — named in honour of one of British Columbia's most honoured journalists — a member of the legislative press gallery was in fact awarded a very prestigious citation. That is the Commentator of the Year, otherwise known as the City Mike Award. I like that name.

I know that part of our parliamentary and democratic tradition in this country depends upon the give and the take, the yin and the yang between what we do in this chamber and what people in the gallery do. I know all members will want to join with me in congratulating Les Leyne of the Victoria Times Colonist for being awarded, at the Jack Webster Awards, the Commentator of the Year award.
[ Page 1454 ]

Introductions by Members

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the gallery today are three assistants from our caucus: Melissa Nowakowski, Ryan Pineo and Evan Southern. Please make them welcome here today.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Health Statutes
(Residents' Bill Of Rights)
Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 17 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased today to introduce Bill 17, the residents' bill of rights for care facilities.

In British Columbia many adults receive care and live in a wide variety of residential care facilities, but not all of them know their rights or know where they can find a comprehensive list of their rights. These adults live in residential care facilities as their primary home. As there are many more types of residential care facilities than just long-term care for seniors, we have applied the bill of rights to all adults in residential care.

This bill will further protect the rights of adults of all ages in care facilities. It will also strengthen our government's commitment to quality care. During this year's Speech from the Throne the government set out a clear commitment to care and to the rights of residents living in residential care facilities. Today, with the introduction of Bill 17, we are moving forward with our commitment.

Our plan to legislate a residents' bill of rights for adults in residential care facilities builds on our commitment to care. This includes our government's care facility investment since 2001 along with our 5,000-bed commitment for seniors. Government created the residents' bill of rights to clarify the rights of adults when they move into residential care, as the facility becomes their home.

[1345]

The residents' bill of rights will be publicly displayed in all adult residential care facilities throughout the province to better protect residents. They will help to ensure that facility licence holders, the person in care and family members are all made aware of the standard set of rights.

The rights support a commitment to care, the rights to health, dignity and safety along with the rights to participation and freedom of expression.

This legislation also supports government's new residential care regulation. This bill of rights articulates a collective set of rights for adults who live in facilities that include long-term care, mental health and substance abuse, community living and hospice, acquired injury and private hospitals and extended care facilities which are regulated under the Hospital Act.

Along with promoting the health, safety and dignity of all residents, this bill will improve transparency and accountability in care facilities.

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

Bill 17, Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

DAY OF ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

R. Fleming: In two days millions of people around the world will gather in support of protecting our planet. Some 3,500 international events in more than 160 countries will occur on Saturday, October 24, the international day of action on climate change.

In Canada from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, B.C., people are organizing street parties, concerts, even pumpkin-carving contests to both demand and celebrate a better future for all. This worldwide day of climate action takes place six weeks before the United Nations framework on climate change summit in Copenhagen, December 7 to 18.

People around the world are demanding action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with what science says is necessary. October 24 is being billed as the broadest day of environmental action in the planet's history. It was launched by 350.org, an international campaign dedicated to creating an equitable global climate treaty that lowers carbon dioxide below 350 parts per million.

The campaign calls for people around the world to organize an action on October 24, incorporating the number 350. Mr. Speaker, 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide measured in parts per million in our atmosphere. It's the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change.

We've already surpassed this number with 390 parts per million in our atmosphere. That's why it speaks
[ Page 1455 ]
to the urgent need for an international agreement to reduce carbon emissions quickly.

In the capital region there are activities planned at Victoria city hall. Vancouver is hosting the Bridge to a Cool Planet, events across Metro Vancouver on that day, and communities across B.C., large and small, are getting involved.

October 24 is a day to take action on climate change to celebrate a better future and to help make history. I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking organizations, volunteers and businesses that are putting these events together — and members to participate in these events in their communities.

SUNNYSIDE ACRES URBAN FOREST

S. Cadieux: Earlier this month I spoke about the importance of our seniors. Last week I had the privilege of meeting one of Surrey-Panorama's seniors, a man that's contributed greatly to the fabric of our community for the last 33 years.

Dr. Roy Strang obtained his baccalaureate in forestry from the University of Edinburgh and then received his doctorate from the University of London. Perhaps that explains his passion for a particular local park, a hidden treasure in plain sight — Sunnyside Acres Urban Forest.

In 1986 a meeting was held to determine what to do with this majestic and, at that time, undesignated piece of land. To convince the community that the area was worth preserving, Dr. Strang helped found the Save our Sunnyside action group, an initiative formed by concerned citizens. The group had its opponents, but after a great deal of work by these dedicated folks, a 130-hectare area of tranquil forest became a designated urban forest park. The committee became the Sunnyside Acres Heritage Society and continues to steward this preserve today, providing education and management.

Dr. Strang graciously accompanied me on a tour of the park last week, showcasing the accessible trail that was developed. He provided a phenomenal commentary about the flora and fauna and the natural change that is currently underway. We keep watch for birds, blacktail deer and the rare orchid — rattlesnake plantain. It's a wonderful place to walk, to sit, to jog and to bike.

[1350]

I join Dr. Strang in inviting you to visit Sunnyside Acres Urban Forest, perhaps at the end of March for the blooming of the trillium. I thank Dr. Strang and ask this House to thank him along with me for his longstanding and ongoing commitment to preserving this urban oasis.

FOOD BANKS

J. Horgan: A few weeks ago the annual Thanksgiving feast brought fortunate families and friends together to feast beyond filling and to celebrate the bounty of the land. In a few short months the Christmas season will be upon us, and once again many will be gathering, centred on healthy and nutritious food.

But in communities across B.C., many are less fortunate. I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women across this province who volunteer and work to ensure all British Columbians have access to food, regardless of their financial situation.

In particular, I would like to acknowledge an organization in my community, the Goldstream Food Bank. For many in my area, the Goldstream Food Bank has been a place of last resort. Sadly, despite growing prosperity in the Western Communities of the capital regional district, some days the lineup stretches clear around the block. Although the demand is increasing, donations of food and cash are on the decline.

This year to date they have served over 7,800 people — many of those, families with young children. Last year by this time the number was only 6,100. Donations are so low, in fact, that the staff are considering cutting back on so-called extras like canned pasta sauce and meat.

Gayle Ireland, president of the Goldstream Food Bank Society, says that most of the people who are coming through the door are part of the working poor, people who have jobs but can't stretch their meagre incomes from paycheque to paycheque. The number of seniors that are accessing the food bank is also increasing.

For Thanksgiving, the Goldstream Food Bank put together hampers, but this year they could not afford to include a turkey.

Now that we're back in the Legislature, I would like to ask all members from all corners of British Columbia to contemplate their food banks and particularly to see how they can speak to people in their community about increasing their donations as we come to the Christmas season. Let's make sure that everyone this Christmas has access to good, healthy, nutritious food.

honouring bill reid

D. Hayer: This afternoon I would like to speak about the community spirit, volunteerism and generosity that abound in my city of Surrey, within my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Among those who give so much of their time and money are members of the many Rotary clubs within Surrey.

Under the umbrella of Rotary International, there are in and around my riding the Rotary Club of Surrey, the Rotary Club of Surrey Fraser Heights, the Rotary Club of Surrey Guildford, the Rotary Club of Surrey Cloverdale. These organizations and their dedicated members do a great job. They work within our community for our citizens.

There is one Rotary member in particular who is being honoured today by the Rotary Club of Surrey
[ Page 1456 ]
Cloverdale. I would also like to honour him today. He is known by many as Mr. Surrey because he never stops promoting the community and all that it has to offer to British Columbia.

His name is Bill Reid, a member familiar to this House, since he sat as the MLA for Surrey from 1983 to 1991. During that time he also actually served as the Minister of Tourism and was dedicated, as he has never ceased to be, when it comes to promoting the city of Surrey.

Bill Reid is a Rotarian, a former governor of B.C. Kinsmen, a former Delta councillor and has served as the president of White Rock and South Surrey Chamber of Commerce and Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce.

In fact, his resumé of activities, memberships and good work extends more than five full pages. He is an outstanding citizen and an unrelenting supporter of all Surrey activities. I would ask the House to join me in thanking Bill Reid and all the Rotary club members and their families throughout British Columbia, who work so hard to make our province the best place to live, work and do business in.

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING PROGRAM
IN ALBERNI VALLEY

S. Fraser: In 2007 requests for proposals were put out to school districts throughout B.C. for project-based learning. Greenmax Resources, responsible for woodlot 1479 in the Alberni Valley, partnered with school district 70 to submit one of five successful applications and began an exciting and innovative project last year.

The goal of the two-year pilot program is to encourage the students to enjoy learning through a different medium and give them exposure to the skills needed to find employment.

[1355]

It is an educational opportunity not traditionally offered to grade 9 students, giving them a hands-on approach with outdoor classrooms being the learning environment, which appeals to the students.

Woodlot owners Shawn Flynn and Dave McBride have worked closely with ADSS — Alberni District Secondary School — principal Mike Ruttan and teacher Ryan Vorak. All are to be congratulated on developing and presenting activities which encourage the students to experience and participate in an outdoor program that teaches all aspects of forest management.

Students have learned a variety of aspects of woodlot management, including basic silviculture, forest ecology, flora and fauna identification, and students are learning the process and business of manufacturing maple syrup in the Alberni Valley.

The students have been actively involved in the planning for and development of an outdoor learning centre. They have learned about the salvage of blowdown timber and have been involved in milling this wood for the building involved. That building is now complete.

We are going to celebrate that, as well as the amazing success of the program, this Monday, October 26. Please join me in this House to congratulate the people of the Alberni Valley for this innovative and exciting educational program. Let's ensure that we continue to fully support this project — a true investment in our children, a true investment in our future.

COMOX VALLEY
CHILD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

D. McRae: I'm pleased to stand here today and talk about a truly fantastic organization in my community, the Comox Valley Child Development Association. The child development association has been in existence for over 30 years, serving an area ranging from Oyster Bay in the north to Mud Bay in the south. The child development association was initially based in the village of Cumberland and provided preschool classes for children, including those who needed extra support.

As a result of growing demand and a desire to expand its range of services, the child development association moved to its current city of Courtenay location. Today the child development centre offers a multitude of programs and services to the community.

They help young children with autism and their families access the treatment programs so necessary for children to reach their full potential. The centre offers a referral service for families looking for child care. They also provide training and networking opportunities, and have toys and equipment that can be accessed through their lending library.

For children with special needs, the centre offers occupational therapy to provide children with motor, self-care and school-readiness skills so they can succeed later on in life. They also have a community integration program that provides children access to community activities like bowling, swimming, Friday night teen clubs and assistance in organizing family events. The programs I've mentioned are only a few of the multitude of services offered by the child development association, but they offer many more.

While the government of British Columbia, through various ministries and programs, provides a substantial portion of the budget needed to run this invaluable institution, there has been a longstanding tradition by the Comox Valley to assist with and enhance the funding that the child development centre receives.

On November 1 of this year, the 34th Annual Children's Telethon will be held in the Comox Valley at the Old Church Theatre. This is our major fundraising activity. Shaw community television will broadcast the live event between noon and eight o'clock on that day.
[ Page 1457 ]

Local performers and artists donate their time, talent and energy to support this amazing organization. In the past this one-day telethon has been a huge success. Last year they raised over $101,000. Everyone is working hard to ensure that they beat this total this year.

I want to thank both the staff and the board of directors of the Comox Valley Child Development Centre.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I just want to commend the six members that made their presentations today. The two-minute statements were in tune with the way they're supposed to be made.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF
OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS

C. James: Yesterday we learned that the government spent close to a million dollars to buy 2010 tickets for B.C. Liberal MLAs and ministers, without a plan. When asked if there was a policy in place, the minister's response was: "That has not yet been decided."

One of the ministry's own internal briefing notes, obtained through freedom of information, states: "A final version of the provincial Olympic ticketing strategy, along with supporting documents, will be sent to the minister responsible for the Olympics by May 29, 2009."

So my question is to the minister. Can she explain why she told this House that there's no policy in place, when the ministry's own briefing note confirmed that it should have been in place at least six months before this?

[1400]

Hon. M. McNeil: The Olympic and Paralympic Games are an absolutely unique opportunity for this province to host the world. Every jurisdiction that has hosted these Olympic Games, in the history of the games, has hosted guests from around the world to take full advantage of the opportunity of the games.

To be clear, Mr. Speaker, of the 1.6 million tickets to these games, the secretariat has access to 3,000. Of these 3,000, what our goal is and what our strategy is, is to host the world. In essence, it's like every country is having a trade mission to British Columbia, and we want to take benefit from that. We have invited foreign dignitaries….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: We have an opportunity to use these tickets to invite foreign dignitaries, international investors, B.C.'s biggest customers and future customers….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: The minister completely ignored the question. The issue was around the minister's own briefing note, which said that a plan was in place at the end of May. Yesterday the minister said there was no plan in place.

So it's very simple. Either the minister is hiding the plan from the public and doesn't want people to know, or — through you, Mr. Speaker — the minister spent almost a million dollars of taxpayer dollars with no plan in place for how to spend those dollars. Either way, taxpayer dollars aren't being looked after.

This morning on the radio, when asked what the regulations were, the Premier himself said: "Well, that's not the point behind all of this." Well, I'd like to remind the minister that accountability around taxpayer dollars is the point around all of this.

Again, how can the government justify spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on luxury suites and Olympic freebies for B.C. Liberals without a shred of accountability to the taxpayers?

Hon. M. McNeil: The member opposite is wrong. Let me be absolutely clear. None of these tickets will be used by MLAs or ministers unless they are asked to be part of the official hosting business for this province. In addition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: In addition to our hosting plan that we have for many of these tickets to invite B.C.'s biggest customers and future customers in order to make our economy strong, we are also using some of the tickets, as I mentioned yesterday, for GamesTown 2010.

Let me tell you how many communities around the province will be attending the games. We have members from Delta South. We have tickets to Delta North. We have tickets going to Skeena. We have tickets going to Chemainus and tickets going to Kimberley, Maple Ridge, Merritt, and the list goes on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The only thing that's clear here is that the minister is making it up as she goes along. That's what's clear.

[1405]
[ Page 1458 ]

Apparently, we hear today that the policy is that if you're a Liberal MLA, all you have to do is ask and you get the tickets. It appears that's the new policy.

Well, when it comes to demanding accountability for taxpayer funds, the Premier says: "That's not what this is about." The minister says: "I haven't quite decided. We have options." It's incredible. Close to a million dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent on luxury tickets for B.C. Liberal MLAs when this government is cutting funding for kids' sports and Special Olympics. Yet the government thinks they owe no accountability to the taxpayers.

My question is again to the minister. Why is this government spending, through these tickets and Crowns, $2.5 million on Olympic tickets without any trace of accountability?

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd like to suggest….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: There were comments made from the member opposite about what the NDP would do. I'd like to read from Hansard, June 8, 1994, around the Commonwealth Games. The minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: If you go back to Hansard for June 8, 1994, the NDP minister of the day made these comments. "The Games Society has its own policy regarding their clientele. In terms of government, government MLAs and cabinet ministers, the policy is that unless they are on official business for the Games, there will be no free tickets."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: To me, that sounds very familiar.

The NDP minister of the day went on to say: "If I have to be there for special hosting" — for the opening ceremonies or for any official business — "then obviously I am there."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: Well, apparently the difference between the government of 1994 and the government now is that this government had a policy and that government doesn't. This government's response has changed from question….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: This government's response has changed from question period to question period and from question to question. Yesterday the minister confirmed close to a million dollars was spent on tickets for B.C. Liberal MLAs and ministers but that no decision…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Corrigan: …had been made on the policy.

Today we know this government was supposed to have a policy in place six months ago. My question is simple. Why is there no policy in place for free Olympic tickets for B.C. Liberal MLAs six months after the due date, and if there is one, why has she been hiding it?

[1410]

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd like to go back to what I said and try to be very clear again so that we hear this. None of these tickets will be used by MLAs or ministers unless they are asked to be part of the official hosting business for this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the minister saw nothing wrong with failing to have a policy that should have been in place six months ago. Today she says that there is a policy. Will she commit, then, to tabling that policy, which she received six months ago, today in this House?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, something happened this morning that was pretty incredible. That was the lighting of the Olympic torch in Olympia, Greece. I don't know about that side of the House, but this side, this government, is incredibly proud that we are going to be the host province for the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games.

Those visuals that we saw on television and will be seeing again tonight were seen all around the world, and that's exactly the opportunity this province has
[ Page 1459 ]
coming up in the next four months. We will be on the world's showcase. We will have an opportunity to showcase the province all around the world. That's an opportunity that this government is not going to forgo. We will make sure that we host every dignitary, every business leader that is going to come to this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The fact is that the B.C. Liberals got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and now they're changing their story.

Will the minister just admit that the real plan all along was to give the B.C. Liberal MLAs, cabinet ministers and their friends access to first crack of Olympic tickets at the taxpayers' expense? Will she just admit that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: The member opposite is just wrong. For one, I have been in this position since June. I will tell you that since that day, we have been talking — this government has been talking — about a hosting strategy for the games for this province.

I'm struggling to understand why the members opposite don't see what an incredible opportunity this province has. We have the opportunity to host investors from around the world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: We have the opportunity to showcase B.C. like never before. Every jurisdiction that has ever hosted an Olympic Games will tell you exactly the same thing. This is an unparalleled opportunity that this government is not going to pass up.

Interjections.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Continue playing with your binder, Minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: …the only outrage being cued right now is the public. The only showcasing that's going on is a government that is scrambling because it's been caught with its snout in the trough around free Olympic freebies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the government had one set of excuses yesterday, another set of excuses today. But the bottom line is that they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, almost a million dollars, on Olympic tickets with no plan to distribute them.

At the same time, they cut funding to sports groups like B.C. Sport and Special Olympics. Why doesn't the minister and the government get their nose and their snout out of the trough, give those tickets back to VANOC, take that money, and give it back to Special Olympics and the other sports groups that they cut?

Hon. M. McNeil: The only outrage that I know we will hear is if we pass up on an opportunity to showcase this province. Since I took on this role, nothing has changed with respect to hosting this province….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, of the 1.6 million total tickets to the Olympic Games, we have access to 3,000 tickets. We will be using this to host the world and to make sure we take every economic benefit we can for these games, because it's going to result in a strong economy not just for the next year but for the decade to come. And correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is the absolute most important thing that this province should be looking at, at this moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: You know, what is outrageous is the idea that there is a report that has been sitting on the minister's desk since the 29th of May this year, which deals with a distribution plan for Olympic tickets. The minister has refused to even acknowledge that she has seen that plan, and yet the briefing note released under FOI says that it has to be in place so that they can begin distributing the tickets starting November 2009. That's less than two weeks away.

Can the minister confirm — will she confirm to this House — that she has read the report that's mentioned in the FOI that was placed on the minister's desk back in
[ Page 1460 ]
May 2009? It would have been there when she became a minister. And if she has or even has not read it, will she table it in this House?

[1420]

Hon. M. McNeil: On June 8, when I took on this role, it was one of this ministry's plans to make sure that we did make the most of these Olympic Games. Again, these Olympic Games are offering this province an unparalleled opportunity to showcase ourselves, and that's exactly what this government is going to stick to doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

COWICHAN RESIDENTS AND
OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY SECURITY

B. Routley: When the Olympic Torch Relay comes to the Cowichan Valley, many people are planning to wear their Cowichan sweaters as a symbol of pride and to show support for local knitters. But now we have learned that the RCMP have been investigating people organizing this show of sweaters.

My question to the Solicitor General is: does this minister support the RCMP's actions in this matter?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Heed: As you can imagine, the RCMP have an enormous task to ensure that we have safe and secure games in British Columbia. We have security forces; we have military; we have all of that. They're trying to do the best they can. The matter the member opposite is talking about — I'm unaware of that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: Surely this government and this minister and the police have something better to do than to be investigating knitters and spirit drummers in the Cowichan Valley.

To the Solicitor General, the question is: are you really believing that you're going to protect the runners by investigating knitters and spirit drummers?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Heed: As I mentioned, the RCMP are there to ensure that we have safe and secure games. They have a number of tactics that they will utilize to ensure that that takes place so all of us can be proud of the Olympic Games here in British Columbia. I have no idea whatsoever what the member is referring to.

WILDLIFE REHABILITATION PROGRAMS

S. Fraser: The organization known as OWL in Delta, which saves birds of prey, lost $40,000 in funding this year. Funding for existing bear rehabilitation programs is static or on the decline. This government has committed $400,000 to a planned bear rehab facility on the North Shore, even though an expert report on the proposal said: "The author strongly recommends that the Ministry of Environment not fund this proposal."

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Why is the government backing a discredited plan to build a bear rehab centre on the North Shore, while existing and respected wildlife rehabilitation programs across the province are struggling to keep their doors open in the face of these big cuts?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm surprised to hear that the member doesn't support efforts to look after orphaned black bear cubs. A number of years ago, when the province did have a significant financial surplus, $400,000 was set aside for this pilot program, and it's something that I hope we can all learn from.

There were concerns identified by Ministry of Environment staff in the early planning stages. My understanding is that changes were made to the program proposal. We look forward to learning from the pilot program.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: What the minister isn't saying is that the minister has a report, March 2008, that has never been released by respected bear expert Christopher Parker, which says: "Do not give this money to this experimental program." It's $400,000, and there are four accredited bear rehab facilities in the province now that are scraping for any dollars they can get.

How can the minister justify not listening to his own report, which cost $43,000 of taxpayers' money? How can he justify that in the face of the information in the report?

Hon. B. Penner: It's apparent it's the NDP that's not listening, because I just provided the answer in my first answer. We did receive concerns from Ministry of Environment staff about the initial proposal, and changes were made to the initial proposal.
[ Page 1461 ]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think what I'm hearing from the NDP opposition is that they don't support giving black bear cubs that are orphaned a second chance. I do.

ANNUAL FACILITIES GRANTS
TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

R. Austin: Parents, teachers, support workers and school trustees in Vernon recently sent a joint letter to the Education Minister which says this about cuts to the annual facilities grant: "To be informed the week prior to schools opening that the funding is cancelled is totally irresponsible and shows a total lack of respect." Yet the minister told the House that districts were warned in advance about the cancellation of facilities grants.

Can the Minister of Education explain why school districts across the province are directly contradicting what this minister told this House?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In June of this year the ministry staff spoke with and met with secretary-treasurers from around the province and made them aware that we were having financial difficulties this year, that there were some budgetary issues and that they should go cautiously with their annual facilities work.

We were aware at the time that there was almost $100 million in annual facilities reserve accounts around the province at the end of March, the end of the fiscal year. At the time, secretary-treasurers were advised to go slow on their projects because of the difficulties that not only our province but the entire globe was having economically.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: Certainly, the Vernon school district was not aware that they should go slow. The letter goes on to say — and this is very devastating…. This is a devastating indictment of B.C. Liberal education policy: "The cuts and the funding freeze could result in large class sizes and less support for children with special needs."

My question to the Education Minister is this. Does the government believe that delivering a budget which results in larger class sizes and less support for children with special needs fits the definition of protecting education?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm certainly pleased, once again, to refresh the House's memory on this topic. This is a government that — in spite of a global economic crisis, in spite of difficulties, in spite of changes in revenue that were devastating over the summer….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is a government that is investing $4.5 million in classrooms around this province this year.

In contrast to what the member opposite is implying, we've actually increased education funding by $84 million this year. Not only that, but through our accelerated infrastructure capital spending, we're investing $447 million in new schools, in seismic upgrading and in refitting schools this year.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development will continue…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: …and in this chamber, Bill 7, the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act.

The Solicitor General has a statement for the House.

Statements

withdrawal from debate on bill 7

Hon. K. Heed: I would like to read into the record correspondence that I have sent to the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner dated October 20, 2009.

"I write with respect to a request you have received for your opinion regarding my role as Solicitor General and the passage of Bill 7, the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009.

"On September 17, 2009, acting in my capacity as the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for the province of British Columbia, I introduced Bill 7 into the Legislative Assembly. In fulfilling my ministerial responsibilities with respect to tabling of Bill 7, I was unaware of any legal impediments to my participating in the consideration of Bill 7 by the Legislative Assembly.

"To that end, I enclose copies of a letter dated April 14, 2009, and August 10, 2009, from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner with respect to their file No. 2009-4545. These letters indicate the Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner's decision to decline an investigation under section 55(3) of the Police Act and his findings that the matter had been dealt with conclusively.

"I have subsequently become aware of a complaint received by your office challenging my abilities to participate in the consideration of Bill 7 by the Legislative Assembly. While it is my strong belief that there are no legal impediments to me fulfilling my responsibilities with respect to Bill 7, I am anxious that attention not be diverted away from the important substantive provisions of this legislation.
[ Page 1462 ]

"For that reason and out of an abundance of caution, I believe it would be preferable for me to forgo further participation in the debate or votes that will take place in the Legislative Assembly with respect to Bill 7.

"I hope my suggested approach to this matter, guided as it is by my primary concern for preserving the integrity of this crucial piece of legislation, meets with your approval. I am available to answer any additional questions or provide any further information you may require."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy of that correspondence now.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: On to the second reading debate of Bill 7.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — POLICE (MISCONDUCT,
COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS,
DISCIPLINE AND PROCEEDINGS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong: I do move that the bill be read a second time now.

In making some comments around the operation of the legislation, let me say this. First of all, the presentation, tabling and debating of this bill does fulfil one of the legislative commitments as outlined in the throne speech heard in this chamber earlier this year. The new legislation follows the principles of the recommendations made by Judge Josiah Wood in his report, which examined the police complaint process in British Columbia.

Let me just say this, as well, in terms of the general importance of the subject matter we are being asked to deal with in this piece of legislation. We rely upon the police in so many ways for such important matters. The police put themselves in harm's way on a daily basis in communities right across the province.

[1435]

As we move through this legislation, I know that all members will want to remain cognizant of that invaluable service, that essential service that police render in protecting us from those who would seek to inflict harm or engage in insidious and criminal activities in our society.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Having said that, and having reflected upon the importance and the heroism and the courage that characterize the work of the police, it is also a fact that the hallmark of any democratic society is the ability that citizens have, when they are confronted by what they believe to be inappropriate behaviour on the part of police acting in their capacity as an agent of the state, to complain about that behaviour and, through a recognized and credible and legitimate process, have the opportunity to register that complaint, have it acted upon, and rely upon that process with some reliability that it will be taken seriously and investigated in a logical and complete manner.

That's what this legislation is about. It is about more than just refining — in many ways overhauling — the existing police complaints process. It does so in the following ways. I'll focus on how this act is going to operate in a mechanical way, how this act will operate to overhaul that complaint process.

It is going to significantly increase the oversight powers of the Police Complaint Commissioner. The significant changes to the complaint process are actually the same as those introduced in this chamber when a very similar bill to Bill 7 was first introduced in the spring. Those changes can be summarized as follows.

The intake process for complaints is, I think it's fair to say, made far more accessible to the public and the police. The complaint commissioner is responsible for providing information and outreach to the public. That was a follow-through to a recommendation contained in the Josiah Wood report.

Similarly, the oversight by the Police Complaint Commissioner is increased and will entail giving the commissioner the authority (a) to contemporaneously monitor or provide real-time oversight of the complaint process, (b) to direct when further investigation of a complaint is required and (c), very importantly, to order investigations without a complaint actually having been registered.

The commissioner, under this regime, will enjoy an independent ability to initiate an investigation and also to order that an external police force investigate any complaint if, in the commissioner's view, he or she deems it in the public interest to do so.

There will be, under this act, opportunities for expanded use of mediation and other informal resolution processes of complaints that are registered and brought to the attention of the commissioner. Significantly, all in-custody and police-related deaths or incidents involving serious harm must now be reported. They must be reported immediately to the Police Complaint Commissioner and must be investigated by an investigating officer from an external police force.

The importance of ensuring that those who are taken into custody are dealt with properly and appropriately is reflected in the inclusion of these provisions and the mandatory investigating provisions that are contained within this act.

All police officers, including those who are witnesses, are compelled, by virtue of this legislation, to cooperate with investigations. Under this legislation, police officers who retire or resign will be subject to the complaint process as well.

[1440]
[ Page 1463 ]

Fairness and transparency of the discipline hearing process, I think it is fair to say, is improved in a number of ways, including allowing the responding officer to call or cross-examine witnesses, ensuring that complainants and other witnesses are treated fairly, and the requirement to establish a complete record of proceedings.

Since this legislation first was tabled, or a similar version of this legislation was tabled in this House in the spring, there have been a couple of refinements that I want to draw to the House's attention by virtue of this debate. They include, provided that the Police Complaint Commissioner considers it in the public interest, allowing those third parties whose complaints have been discontinued in order to permit directly affected complainants to proceed….

There are provisions here that say when that happens, those third parties should have access to appropriate information in order that they can continue to monitor the outcome of the investigation and the complaint that is being examined.

Further, in view of improving the ability to define "serious harm," the commissioner now has the authority to provide guidelines in determining when serious harm incidents should be reported and also a regulation-making authority for prescribing specific injuries that must be reported. As well, the ability of the Police Complaint Commissioner to advise and consult with his or her counterparts in other jurisdictions and the RCMP has been strengthened by virtue of the provisions that are now before the House in Bill 7.

As well, there have been a few other legal or technical changes to provide further clarity to ensure that the intentions of the specific provisions are properly interpreted.

I believe that the resulting legislative provisions are both extensive and comprehensive. I do believe, and the government believes, that they will enhance the oversight role of the Police Complaint Commissioner, making them contemporaneous to the investigation as well as improving transparency, accountability and ultimately improving public confidence in the police complaints process and therefore in the police.

I said at the beginning and I will say now at the conclusion of my remarks that we are all indebted to the incredibly valuable work that the police perform on behalf of citizens in communities across British Columbia on a day-to-day basis. The fact that we have provisions and legal provisions that provide a means by which citizens can advance a complaint against something they believe is egregious, which has originated out of a police force, is in no way intended to reflect negatively on the work that police perform in British Columbia.

It is, however, designed to recognize the fundamentally important principle that says that in a free and democratic society, no citizen who believes that they have been improperly treated or they have seen treatment that falls short of the standard that we expect…. No citizen should feel that they are unable to advance that complaint and have it properly, independently, responsibly and completely investigated.

This legislation, Bill 7, does fulfil a specific throne speech commitment to introduce legislation that will overhaul the police complaints process to ensure that the police are fully accountable to the public that they serve and protect, and I commend the provisions of Bill 7 to this House.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in debate on Bill 7, which deals with the police complaints process and the recommendations that flowed out of the Josiah Wood report of a couple of years ago now.

As the Attorney General stated, the police do a terrific job. They have a very challenging job. All members of this House and all members of the public are grateful for the job that they do.

[1445]

Yet at the same time, there are occasions when complaints about how they either conducted themselves or have conducted an investigation result in a complaint or individuals feeling that something has happened that's not been right and that it needs to be investigated.

Some of these issues can be very minor. Some, unfortunately, as we have seen in this province, can be very serious in nature. They can involve beatings. They can sometimes involve death. So we need to ensure that we have a legislative framework that allows and ensures accountability of the police, that ensures a process that is accessible by the public and that, just as importantly, it protects the interests of the public and protects the police as well.

Nothing, I think, is more important in dealing with these matters than that both the public and police have confidence in how the process works. In this province we have seen, over the last number of years, that called into question. In fact, there are cases ongoing right now that deal with this very issue.

British Columbia is also facing a challenge when it comes to a police complaints process in the fact that we have two police structures in B.C. We have the RCMP, and we have the municipal police forces, the independent police forces such as Vancouver, New Westminster, Port Moody and Delta, for example.

This piece of legislation only deals with those independent forces. It does not deal with those municipalities, those jurisdictions that have an RCMP force, and that is one of the challenges that we face. I believe it is one of the criticisms that I will give on this particular piece of legislation. I understand the legislation only deals with municipal police forces because that's all it can deal with. So my criticism is not of that.

My criticism is of the fact that in this province we still have a system whereby, in one community, police officers — if a complaint is brought against them — go
[ Page 1464 ]
through one set of procedures that may have one set of outcomes and one set of consequences. At the same time, we have the RCMP who operate under a different set of procedures, under a different piece of legislation, under a different complaints process.

I think we have to get to a place in this province where we have a unified police complaints process. Whether you're in a municipal force or an RCMP force, you are under the same set of rules, the same set of principles, the same set of investigative procedures. We need to get to that model. Unfortunately, this doesn't do that.

I have some thoughts on how we can do that. I know technically that's outside the scope of the bill, but I do believe that the renewal of the RCMP contract in 2012 provides a unique opportunity for the province of British Columbia to correct what I believe is a significant problem in terms of accountability regarding the police in this province. I think that is something that needs to be resolved before we sign that contract in 2012.

I think it's a very important issue, because one of the cornerstones of our system is that the public have confidence that when there is a complaint, the process, as I said, is open, is transparent and is fair and timely. So we need to ensure that that happens.

Now, this piece of legislation is some time in coming to the floor of this House. I think the major reason is because of an election. It died on the order paper. We did not have the time to get to it. That's the fault of neither the government nor the opposition. That's just how these things sometimes work out, particularly in an election year.

[1450]

I am not critical of that, insofar as this. I think what we have seen particularly over the last eight or nine months is that in many ways, events are passing by this piece of legislation.

We'll be supporting this piece of legislation because I think it makes some important changes, but I also think that events of the last eight to nine months have raised other issues that this bill doesn't address. When this bill was first put together, when the Josiah Wood recommendations came out.... Had the Josiah Wood report taken place during those events — and I refer, for example, to the Frank Paul inquiry, the Dziekanski case, which is currently ongoing — I think we may have seen some different formats in this bill and may have seen a different piece of legislation before us.

Also, comments that have been made recently by the B.C. Chiefs of Police — who indicated that they felt there needed to be a new structure in place in terms of how complaints are investigated — again, speak to the fact that this bill is out there. Yet individuals within policing themselves are saying that there need to be changes take place.

The Solicitor General said, in reaction to those comments, that that was a starting point. Well, this is also a starting point, this piece of legislation. What we're hearing from outside — from the Solicitor General, from police chiefs — is clearly, then, that there's a lot more that needs to be done. So the issues, I believe, even with the passage of this legislation, are not going to disappear. Rather, I think this legislation will be a base from which we move forward.

I want to touch on some of what I think are the important changes or the important issues contained in this bill, then also on what I think is one of the key issues that the bill doesn't address — which I think the public is demanding that we get our policy heads around — and at the same time, I think, will be spurred at some point by the report that will come out of the Dziekanski case, for example, but also some of the recommendations that came out in the Frank Paul inquiry.

That is around the issue of police investigating themselves and the issue of greater civilian oversight and whether, perhaps, we move to a model similar to what they have in Ontario. There have even been people who have said perhaps there should be a national model that looks at forces right across the country.

But the bottom line is that this, I think, is a step forward. It will not be the end of how police complaints are handled in the province of British Columbia.

The Attorney General has mentioned some of the important changes, important components, contained in this piece of legislation. One is greater oversight by the commissioner. That is important. I think the ability of the commissioner to conduct a real-time investigation into a complaint is an important change. I think it's an important recommendation that will ensure that the time lag between when a complaint is made and the involvement of the commissioner will be speeded up. I think that's an important issue.

That was one of the key criticisms prior to the Josiah Wood report being conducted — the length of time involved. I mean, these issues need to be involved thoroughly, complaints need to be investigated thoroughly, but they also need to be done in a timely fashion. I think this type of change will allow that to take place.

The ability to order a complaint without a formal complaint having been made is, I think, also an important power for the commissioner. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a complaint may not be made. It may be in the cause of evidence that's received with the complainant not wanting to make a complaint or, as we have seen in some cases where news has come into the media, perhaps through video footage. There is a recognition that: "You know what? This does need to be investigated."

[1455]

We've seen that many police chiefs, for example, now have routinely started to say: "You know what? This needs to be referred to the Police Complaint Commissioner." I think that's a recognition of the acceptance of their responsibility to ensure that everything is on the up and up.
[ Page 1465 ]

Again, though, it comes back to the issue of police investigating themselves, and there's still a lot of public criticism around that. The issue of third-party interest and the ability of third parties to access information and the powers that the commissioner will have — discretionary powers but still important powers — to be able to allow that to happen is also a good thing and is a change that I think will be seen as a positive step forward.

All of these particular issues we're going to explore at some length in committee stage, because it is a fairly lengthy bill. In fact, that was one of the reasons why we were not able to deal with it prior to the last election. These issues raised in committee stage will be explored fully because the consequences are crucial. The consequences are crucial in terms of public confidence, and a good piece of legislation ensures public confidence. But it is a good thing for the police as well.

I want to come to the issue of transparency, which I believe is crucial. There needs to be a sense that the process is transparent and that it's deemed by the public to be fair.

That brings me to the issue which I think we as legislators are going to have to wrestle with. That is that given the recommendations out of the Frank Paul inquiry, we need to move to a more civilian-based system. I know that we will be looking at the recommendations out of the Dziekanski report when it comes down. Even though that isn't an RCMP investigation — the Frank Paul case is a municipal police force investigation — I think those recommendations, when they come out…. There will be a lot of interest in those recommendations.

I think we need to recognize that they are going to have to be taken very seriously and that we are going to have to look towards a model that has greater civilian involvement — if not a system similar to what is in place in Ontario, certainly a system that deals with what is an increasing public concern over the issue of police investigating themselves. I think we need to resolve that. We're not going to do that with this particular piece of legislation. This just, as I said, deals with municipal forces.

One of the responses I am looking for or would like to hear from the government is that they themselves, the government, do not see this as the end of a process. But rather, they see this as one step in a series of steps that are going to have to be taken over the next few years to establish what I think will be a police complaints process that is unified and has greater civilian oversight — if not an entirely civilian model based on what's in Ontario, certainly one that has significantly more civilian oversight than we have right now — and that we ensure that we have, whether it is municipal police or the RCMP police, the same set of procedures and the same set of policies.

[1500]

Now, how that's to be accomplished…. I don't have the answers here today. But I do believe it's important that we put that on the table, on the discussion. Part of it may involve bringing the RCMP under the B.C. Police Act. That may be a step that we need to take. I think that's something we need to be looking at. But the bottom line is that the public needs to have confidence that whatever system is in place, it works for them.

I'm not going to be too much longer on this particular piece of bill because I think a lot of the detailed work is…. As I said, we are supporting it at the second reading debate stage, which is where we are right now.

A lot of the detail work around this bill is something for committee stage. That's where we'll explore each of the aspects of this bill and how they relate not only to transparency, not only to the enhanced powers that the complaint commissioner will have, not only the changes that have been made between the old version of the bill and this version of the bill but other issues, as well, that are related to the, I think, important issue of how police complaints are handled in this province and the real need to deal….

Our situation in this province is pretty unique. Ontario has the OPP. Quebec has the Surêté. Other provinces have solely RCMP detachments. We're unique. Or we're not…. We have both municipal forces and RCMP forces, and that creates challenges.

It creates challenges when we're dealing with the handling of complaints. Sometimes it creates challenges in terms of the delivery of police services. But the real issue today, as I said, is the bill that's before us.

I just want to close my remarks by saying that we will be exploring this bill in considerable detail in committee stage. We will be supporting the bill, but I see it more as a step forward, as opposed to an end result. As I said at the beginning of our remarks, I think in many ways events such as the Frank Paul inquiry, the ongoing Dziekanski inquiry — we're waiting for that final report — have moved past this bill, and we need something more.

With that, I will take my seat. I know other colleagues have comments to make as well.

J. Kwan: I rise today to engage in debate on Bill 7, the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009. This bill, as my colleague has already said, carries a number of amendments which the opposition supports.

However, there is one aspect to this bill that I want to highlight, and it is of grave concern not only to myself and to my constituents but to many people as well. This is the issue that has been around for a long, long time, and change is necessary in this regard for a long time, and that is with respect to the call for a civilian-based, criminal investigation model for the investigation of police-related deaths occurring particularly with municipalities' police forces.
[ Page 1466 ]

The issue has a lot of history for the people in my community. The members of this House will recall the case of Frank Paul, an aboriginal man who died and was dumped in a back alley in the Downtown Eastside. He died due to exposure.

At the time the community — people from the aboriginal community, particularly — was worried and concerned about that death and how it occurred and had called for a variety of things, including a coroner's inquest into the matter. As well, ultimately, it was reviewed later on by the Davies Commission that looked into the death of Frank Paul. The inquiry was entitled Alone and Cold.

[1505]

The Frank Paul situation, I think, highlighted the critical need for a civilian-based investigation process. The commission reviewed that there were many mistakes made in the case of Frank Paul.

"Mistakes marked by indifference, callousness and failure to care, evident in the Frank Paul case, often occur within a system that neither requires nor facilitates best performances, nor holds individuals accountable for the effective discharge of their public duties."

It goes on to say:

"The Vancouver police department investigation into the circumstances of Frank Paul's death was methodically flawed. In particular, the unwritten, unpublished and generally unknown policy of preparing so-called 'neutral' reports into police-related shootings provided an unaccountable environment for the conduct of superficial investigations and inadequate reports to Crown counsel, and hence had the effect of ensuring that, despite police involvement in the death and assignment of responsibility to the homicide squad, facts were overlooked, suspicions unaddressed and clarifying evidence left untouched."

This is just a short excerpt that I'm taking from the report. I think it really says it all.

I think that it says that injustice has been done in the case involving Frank Paul. I think it says that the inadequacies of our act today do not put forward a system, a model, that will ensure that there is confidence in the investigative process involving the police.

I think that that confidence is necessary not only from the victim's point of view, but it is also necessary, actually, for the larger community. I think we must work to rebuild trust in that system. I think we must rebuild credibility, as well, in the investigative process involving the police.

That, of course, is not the only case which has highlighted the need for a civilian model investigative process involving the police. Other cases have also come forward, and the most recent case, of course, was the Dziekanski case. People know about the history of that. It was shocking news as the information unfolded through, again, the inquiry that showed the problems with an internal investigative process. Even the chiefs of police themselves have now come forward to say that this is not a good enough model.

I was, in fact, hoping that Bill 7 would actually be updated with new provisions and, particularly, the provision that calls for civilian-based criminal investigation models where it involves the police.

The recommendations, of course, are in the Davies Commission. Recommendation No. 4 calls for British Columbia to "develop a civilian-based criminal investigation model for the investigation of police-related deaths occurring in the municipalities policed by the 11 municipal police departments."

I have to admit that I was disappointed with this piece of legislation because it lacks that very precise recommendation to bring forward a civilian-based model, which I think is sorely needed in British Columbia. We've had a number of cases that have highlighted that need. If we're to learn from the mistakes of the past, if we're going to, I think, honour the people whose lives were lost through mistreatment in such a way, we owe it to ourselves and owe it to the public that we make those amendments.

I'm hoping that maybe this will be forthcoming by the government side, that there will be an amendment to bring forward a civilian-based model, if not in this particular bill, perhaps in a new bill, a separate bill, that calls for that. The time has come and passed, I would say, for that to happen.

Let's honour the people, let's honour Frank Paul, and let's honour the victims and their families who have lost lives. Let's actually honour the police, as well, because it's unfair for them to have that cloud over them, where people sometimes question whether or not that investigative process is being done adequately, done fairly, in a manner that actually shows confidence for the public. I think that's unfair to the police as well.

[1510]

So you could actually have a win-win on this and also do the right thing on this by bringing forward a model that I think British Columbians desire — a model that would actually be fair and just for all.

R. Fleming: I want to make just a few comments on the bill at this stage of debate. I think on this side of the House, as my two colleagues who've spoken just now have mentioned, we will be supporting the bill. We are supporting reforms to oversight over complaints around police procedure, investigations and how discipline and proceedings occur in the province of British Columbia.

I think the member for Port Coquitlam put it well that what is being amended here today will make some important reforms in the process that we currently have today, in the powers that the independent Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner has and can use judiciously.

I think the member for Port Coquitlam put it well by saying that this bill should be seen as steps along the way — that there are other reforms that the province needs to undertake. He spent some time talking about the inclusion of the RCMP into a unified system of oversight for policing in B.C. and for citizens of British Columbia to have a congruent and similar complaint process, so that
[ Page 1467 ]
they can understand it better and access their complaints, when they have them, better than they currently can.

In the case of the RCMP, it has proven to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs to have the organization investigate its own misconduct. For municipal police forces, of course, one of the benefits we have is that there is an arm's-length and independent relationship in that regard, and that rulings and findings published by the Police Complaint Commissioner are published in that regard and published with a high degree of transparency, but also that he exercises discretion, as well, when there are reasons for findings or the dismissal of complaints when those are the recommendations made by the Police Complaint Commissioner.

I just want to say that in supporting this bill, the opposition looks forward to government introducing further amendments and reforms in the future — as the member for Port Coquitlam mentioned, in looking at 2012 and the potential renewal of the RCMP's contract with the province of B.C. — amendments to either the Police Act or voluntarily or contractually asking RCMP detachments, in their agreements with municipalities, to submit and work with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, to be included in the system that we have for those parts of British Columbia that are policed by municipal police forces.

I think that is a very good idea. We certainly have so many recent cases that would support that. I think there is a measure of dissatisfaction with the first self-investigation in the Dziekanski affair. There have been controversial shootings in cell and investigations conducted by the RCMP in the northern part of British Columbia in recent years. There are serious complaints around the use of excessive force and those kinds of things, where the complainants and the public have not been satisfied with an organization that polices itself.

I hope the Attorney General understands that. I think, just in debate today, he's been reminded of opportunities that are on the horizon to look at improving the system in that regard.

[1515]

I will take my place in this debate, in support of this bill, and put on the record that I think the most important aspect of Bill 7 is that those complaints that deal with officers who are no longer in the employment of police departments are complaints that can go forward, and that potential abuses by officers who may be under investigation, leaving the force or retiring before an investigation takes place…. That will not stop the Police Complaint Commissioner from having the ability to make an investigation and to complete an investigation.

I think that's something that's critically in the public interest, and for that reason primarily, I think Bill 7 deserves support from both sides of the House.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other members, minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the members that participated in the discussion, I am again obliged for the comments and the observations. It is actually helpful to garner an insight into some of the thoughts that members of the House have as it relates to both the bill in its specifics and some of the general areas surrounding the broad area of police complaints and the investigation of complaints that are brought against the police.

I was interested to hear about the interest that exists around a single unified police complaints process that would incorporate the RCMP. I think the member from Victoria who just spoke and his colleague, the Opposition House Leader and critic, are aware of the traditional hesitancy that the RCMP has had in exposing members to a provincially mandated investigative process.

That is not to say, however, that it is not something worth pursuing. We have heard several routes identified for possibly exploring that in the days and weeks ahead.

I did discern from the members that spoke a genuine interest in some other areas as well — some of which, to be fair, are not dealt with by these amendments to part 9 of the act, which deals specifically with the powers and procedures of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Nonetheless, I have listened carefully to the interest that exists around the notions of civilian-based investigative bodies. I should like to provide to members this measure of assurance. I, for one, view legislation and statutes very much as living, breathing instruments that are in need of constant revisiting to take account of changed circumstances societally and the things that we learn through the course of proceedings and events that sometimes occur in society and around us.

Whilst I am not in a position to suggest that members should wait with bated breath for next week's subsequent round of amendments, I can say that these are issues that are engaging the attention of government. I am grateful to have learned this afternoon of the measure of support that exists for these provisions as they relate to part 9 of the act and updating and overhauling the powers and procedures available to the Police Complaint Commissioner. I know that we will investigate and discuss in more detail the specific provisions of a fairly lengthy piece of legislation.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 1468 ]

Bill 7, Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I will call Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009, and seek a brief recess while the Solicitor General reintroduces himself to these proceedings.

Deputy Speaker: This House will recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. K. Heed: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are important to improve the safety of British Columbians since they relate to the safety of all people who use the roads in our province.

It should be first remembered and underscored that road crashes are the number one cause of accidental death in British Columbia. Road crashes, on the average, kill 424 people each year in our province and injure thousands who require overnight hospitalization. In addition, thousands more experience other levels of injury, including chronic pain, disruption in life and injuries that change the way that they are able to function forever.

[1525]

Driver distraction is a major risk factor on our roads and is associated with at least 25 percent of these crashes. The use of electronic devices while driving is the number one cause of driver distraction and represents a problem that is growing every day, every month and every year.

It is estimated that driver distraction alone is associated with 117 deaths and 1,400 serious injuries each year in British Columbia. The impact of human trauma can be reduced through the right set of changes and measures in British Columbia.

The research on the use of hand-held electronic devices is conclusive. Talking on a hand-held cell phone carries a crash risk four times higher than non-distracted drivers. Drivers fail to process approximately 50 percent of the visual information in their driving environment when they are using electronic communication devices, and e-mailing or texting on hand-held electronic devices carries a crash risk 24 times higher than non-distracted driving.

Talking to passengers in the vehicle does not cause the same level of distraction. For example, the passenger is aware of the driving situation. The passenger can serve as an additional lookout for hazards on the road. The passenger can adjust speech tone and conversation to the driving environment.

Cell phone conversations suppress brain activity necessary for attention required for driving. There is evidence from peer-reviewed and replicated research to support these findings.

But there is more to it than academic research. Sadly, we have seen in our province firsthand what the results are. We have real-life stories, and more stories as we go on, of what can happen when drivers use an electronic device when driving. It has led to deaths and injuries.

Over the summer of 2009 British Columbians were consulted on the issue and were provided with a research report completed by the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles. The results were clear. Approximately 87 percent of the respondents support passing a new law to regulate the use of electronic devices while driving.

These amendments will define an electronic device as a hand-held cellular phone or other device with a telephone function as a hand-held device capable of sending or receiving e-mail. The amendments also provide regulation-making powers to define other classes of devices that may be dangerous to use while driving and require some type of limits or restrictions to be placed on them.

These changes will prohibit drivers from operating these electronic devices, talking on hand-held cellular phones and from sending e-mails or text messages while driving. The amendments will include exemptions for emergency personnel, that being police, fire and ambulance; a person calling 911 in an emergency; and a driver safely parked and off the roadway, not interfering with traffic.

With the exception of drivers in the graduated licensing program who are learning to drive — they're the ones that have the "L" or "N" — and where separate and related regulatory changes are planned, all other drivers will be allowed to use cellular phones in a full hands-free manner, as long as it is equipped and configured for that purpose.

Extending a hands-free prohibition to new drivers is important because learning to drive takes 100 percent of a new driver's attention and focus. In addition to that, new drivers are a high-risk age group with a road fatality rate approximately double that of any other driver. A combination of inexperience, a tendency toward greater risk-taking and a significantly higher-than-average use of electronic devices makes this group of drivers particularly vulnerable.

Regulation-making powers included in these amendments will ensure that other electronic devices that represent a danger on the road can be regulated.
[ Page 1469 ]

There remain a number of other electronic devices where their use may be allowed only by certain classes of drivers or only under certain conditions or with certain restrictions. Examples of these types of devices are hand-held music players, that being MP3 players; certain video screens, including GPS navigation screens; two-way radios used by commercial drivers; and mobile data terminals.

[1530]

Separate regulatory changes under the Motor Vehicle Act and the Offence Act will be made to create penalties for drivers who violate these new prohibitions. The proposed penalties will consist of a $167 fine for any violation by any driver related to an electronic device. In addition to the fine, three penalty points on the driver's licence of any driver who violates one of these restrictions and who is in the graduated licensing program.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

In addition to the fine, three penalty points on the driver's licence of any driver who sends or receives an e-mail or who engages in text messaging while driving.

These amendments also provide necessary regulation-making powers in order to further specify and regulate, over time, the use of new technologies while driving.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate on Bill 15, which deals with cell phone bans while driving, amongst other things. I think it's a very important piece of legislation. We're going to be supporting this particular bill.

It follows, I think…. We have raised this issue in the past. We think that the issue is a very serious public policy issue that needs to be addressed.

I want to touch on some of the minister's comments because I think there are some really important things here that have been raised. One is the issue around young drivers in particular. The other is the issue around distractions, because there are critics who don't think there should be any regulation, that existing rules are appropriate.

Frankly, I know that the government disagrees with that by introducing this legislation, and so do we. There are some very important points I want to make as to why that is the case.

Secondly, I think it's also important to make some comments around the issues of cell phone versus hands-free because, again, there are people who say that you should go the whole way and ban all of them. There are others who said that you don't. But I think this legislation does strike a good middle ground, and it's one that I think is also worth commenting on.

I also want to talk about the other important aspect of the bill, which is around technology. I think in many ways, even more than the cell phone issues in this bill, that is something that needs to be addressed because for many people, that is a real generational issue.

The issue around technology…. The growth of technology in the last decade has been phenomenal. I mean, when I first got elected to this House in 1991, nobody had a cell phone, or very few people had cell phones. If they did, they were big, bulky things that you had to strap on. They weren't practical.

I remember being in cabinet, and ministers were just then starting to get cell phones. Most people still did not use them, and that was ten years ago. Today you cannot function without them. They are literally glued to people's ears, and that is especially true of people under 30. Kids and teenagers now….

When you think back to when we were kids, most of us in this chamber, the idea when you were nine or ten of even using the family telephone was not something that was done. I mean, your parents regulated the use of the telephone very tightly. Now today you have nine- and ten-year-olds asking for a cell phone, and it's considered part of their daily…. Like it's a necessity.

So it is extremely important that we recognize this and recognize that if this is the way of the future — which it is; it's reality — then we need to ensure that when it comes to activities such as driving vehicles that require attention, concentration and paying attention to the road and those around you and the rules of the road, it is imperative that we teach kids that importance and that we instil in them early that, yes, cell phones, for example, and technology is a tool, and it's useful, but it's not to be done while you're driving on the road and you're supposed to be paying attention.

[1535]

I was in a car not too long ago with a young person, and they were driving. The next thing I know, they've got their BlackBerry, and they're trying to text while they're driving, and I am: "What the…do you think you're doing?"

I think all of you could complete that sentence very easily, and it would be very easy if it was one of your own kids doing it — right?

It's like: "What are you doing?" "Well, it's okay, I'm using…." "No — put that down right now. You are to be driving." If you want to use your BlackBerry, if you want to use your cell phone, pull over to the side of the road.

That's why I think those provisions in this bill are crucial, because it's BlackBerrys…. Not just for getting information like many of us use it and we check our e-mails, but kids today text with it constantly. It's like a phone, and they're constantly in communication with each other, talking to each other back and forth.

It's not just talking, but it's other things, such as sexting.

Some Hon. Members: What?
[ Page 1470 ]

M. Farnworth: Exactly. Exactly. There's a whole generational change on these issues. Sexting, for those who don't know…. I will leave it to the imagination. But just imagine involving….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Yes, but those are the types of uses that technology is used for and used for when driving. So we think of it just as e-mails, but it's a much broader range. That's on your BlackBerry. Your BlackBerry now has applications for videos. You can download and watch a video, a movie, on your BlackBerry. You can watch a YouTube video while you're driving. People do that. Kids do that today.

So it is important that we instil not just…. And that's where I think one of the steps that not just government but we as legislators need to remember — that we're introducing a law with specific focus on young people and not allowing them to use cell phones or hands-free while driving.

But we need to follow that up with an education program at early ages in the school. We need to ensure that we follow up this piece of legislation with programs that instil in kids at an early age that at some day, they're going to be driving. They're going to be 16, and they need to understand the proper use of technology. In many ways, it is an apt comparison to make the point that if you are not paying attention when you are driving, you are, in essence, using a loaded gun. We would not allow anybody without training, without a licence, without regulation, to be in that position.

So we have to make sure that we take that approach with our kids and young people, because I think that is crucial if we are to make this legislation work the way that I think we all want it to work. We want it to become force of habit in kids that when they drive that they know they don't use those devices. One of the things that I'm concerned about is that it's almost too late because once those habits are formed, they are very hard to break.

I also want to see the enforcement part on this particular bill stressed as well — that we do take it seriously. I think that we need to make sure that we have the education component to go along with this, that we have some resources at a very early age with kids — recognizing their introduction to technology comes at a far earlier age than technology did when we were younger.

For the adult population that's already driving and using cell phones, for too many people, the attitude is: "Hey, I'm fine." You know? I mean, how many of us have listened to talk radio and a person phones up, and this issue comes up: "Hey, it's great" — whatever the issue is — "Yeah, I'm on my cell phone. I'm doing the Coquihalla, and I'm doing 120K, and it's just fine, and I don't see why we need a ban."

[1540]

Well, they always say that until they're the ones in the accident. The statistics are clear. The statistics are clear on that point. Using a cell phone while driving dramatically increases the rate of accidents.

All of us have seen it, and probably most of us are guilty of having used a cell phone while driving. But I think every one of us can look around and can visualize the vehicle driving around the corner, yapping on the cell phone and not paying attention. Or the telltale sign of someone thinking they're paying attention while on the cell phone, which is sort of the braking, the speeding, the braking, the speeding. They think they're driving slowly, and they suddenly realize that people…. So they speed up, and then they slow down. That kind of behaviour happens all the time.

People BBMing, as they call it — BlackBerry messaging — and next thing you know, they're screeching to a stop before a stoplight. They suddenly see it's red. Meanwhile, they could have the vehicles right behind them piling up.

I mean, these things happen. People can say that they're the good driver. Everybody else is a bad driver, except themselves. Well, guess what. The stats are pretty clear. Hand-held cell phones increase the risk of accidents. And you know what? We need to stop that, and we need to move, I think, to a safer way of doing things.

Which brings me to the issue of hands-free. A lot of people say that hands-free is just as dangerous, but a lot of people don't. I think this represents…. I actually think that it is less likely to be in an accident, that it is safer. In many ways for many people, it is like talking. They are focused on the road.

I do think that one of the things that should take place — the minister has ICBC under his responsibility — is that ICBC does monitor, over the next number of years, the impact of the legislation so that we're able to see in British Columbia how this legislation impacts on the rate of accidents. Is there a change? Is there a difference between those drivers who are involved with hands-free versus hand-held cell phones?

I think that we need to be monitoring that so that if we need to make changes in the future, we're able to do that. But I think right now the key things that we want to do are to instil a culture of respect for the vehicle and install a culture of intelligent use around technology with young kids, prior to them getting a driver's licence.

The idea that people can somehow think that they can text and drive, at an age when you think you're invincible, is just insanity. It's nuts. I mean, I look back and think…. People say that it can't be done. Well, I believe it can be done because I look back to when I was 18, 19 in the late '70s….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: That was a long time ago. I think a lot of us….
[ Page 1471 ]

Hon. P. Bell: Did you have hair then?

M. Farnworth: As a matter of fact, I did have hair back then.

Hon. P. Bell: See, I didn't.

M. Farnworth: Oh, you didn't? You didn't? Okay. No, I did. I had hair back then.

Hon. P. Bell: How much?

M. Farnworth: Lots, actually.

My point is that back in the late '70s when I first started driving and my friends and I started going out, it was not uncommon — in fact, it was very common — for people to drink and drive. That happened on a regular basis. It happened on a regular basis. People drank and drove.

As we all know, the results of that are horrific and unbelievable tragedies. What came out of those years were organizations such as MADD, for example, and others like that and the drinking-and-driving awareness campaigns and the roadblocks. It was a combination of enforcement, of consequences and of resources into drinking-and-driving programs that changed attitudes.

[1545]

We've made significant process. We still have, on the issue of drinking and driving, a lot to do. There are still people who do that. But if you look back to 30 years ago…. I look back to 30 years ago when it was commonplace. Most people did not…. You know, it was get into the car — they've been out for a night in the bar and the pub — and then drive somewhere else. It was far too common.

Today what I notice what is the norm is that you've got a designated driver. You have in bars and pubs, for example, that if a designated driver is drinking pop or soda, they can drink that all night, and they don't have to pay for it. When a group of friends goes out, there's someone who's going to make sure they drive them home. That's the norm; that's accepted.

The idea of drinking and driving is frowned upon. It's like smoking. It was the norm in the '60s. It's not anymore. That is why I think that the real focus on this bill is not that we are banning cell phone use amongst the adult population and leaving that hands-free option open, but that we are saying no to the young driver — no to cell phones, no to hands-free. We are sending a message that the use of technology while driving is not acceptable.

I want to stress once more before I take my seat that this will only work if we attach resources to programs that instil — and we make it unacceptable to kids to use technology while driving — that a vehicle needs to be driven safely. It needs to be driven with your full attention and not through distractions.

That's a huge difference between what people sometimes say, which is: "You don't need that because we've got laws, and people put their makeup on. Have a law about that. People put their lipstick on. Have a law about that. People put their brush on. Have a law about that."

That's a red herring. That's not the issue. Most people do those things before they get into a vehicle. There's a small minority that don't. They're idiots. The real issue is that we have a cultural change around technology the likes of which we have never seen, and we need to recognize that.

This piece of legislation, I think, is key. As I said, if it's resourced with the proper programs, then we can make an important cultural change and instil in kids coming up an understanding of the responsibilities of driving. If we don't do that, if we let it get away from us, then we will see skyrocketing accidents on the road. Not only is that a human tragedy; it's an economic tragedy. That's why I think that all of us need to support this particular piece of legislation, because it is far more important than many people realize.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nanaimo-Parksville.

R. Cantelon: I'm certainly pleased, and I'm sure members on this side of the House are very pleased, to hear that both sides of the House will be supporting this legislation 100 percent. I think it's very important. As the member for Port Coquitlam had mentioned, this really is a cultural shift that we're requesting of the population. It hasn't been so long ago that everyone began to use cell phones, and then they started to use them in cars, and so on and so forth.

I'm a little perplexed by one issue that's new to me, and I have a 14-year-old daughter and a 17-year-old son. It's this sexting phenomenon, which he alluded to. I would like further information about that. Perhaps we can discuss it in the corridors following.

Interjections.

R. Cantelon: Yes, I'm afraid I may not want to hear everything, but it's true. It's ubiquitous now. Every family has not one cell phone; they have several cell phones. As many people as there are in the house, they all have a cell phone, and it has become very common.

I think it's something we all instinctively know, intuitively know, and the public is telling us overwhelmingly that they know this is an unsafe practice that must be abolished and changed. It will, I think, to speed this change and make it acceptable, require the weight of the endorsement of both sides of the House, which I now hear it's going to receive.

[1550]

I think everyone has encountered one of those "oh my dear" moments, those "whoops" moments, where they
[ Page 1472 ]
encounter someone making a wrong turn with a cell phone on the ear. I can think of many moments where I see someone going around an intersection and, all of a sudden, with a moment of terror, looking around, realizing where they are and what they're doing — with a cell phone on their ear.

I think most distressing is — well, they're all distressing, but particularly — when you see an adult with children in the back seat. I think to myself: "What is this person thinking, risking the lives of their children, driving with a cell phone plugged to their ear?"

It's compulsory because it's become culturally acceptable. It's become the norm to use a cell phone, for example, in business as well.

I think the member opposite's comments regarding children are perfectly valid. We need to give particular emphasis, as this bill does, to new drivers to not allow even hands-free during the first periods of their driving career to get used to not using it at all, and perhaps that will become the norm.

But what also has become the norm are people who are busy in the office and leave the office or the workplace or the construction site, and they've got a few phone calls to make. Instead of staying where they are and making those few phone calls or driving to their home and making those phone calls, the norm now is that they make the phone calls from what's typically a large 4-by-4 vehicle.

It's not uncommon, as I drive back home through the Malahat, that you see these cars in and out of the traffic lanes making those extra phone calls. I don't question the importance of these phone calls. They're business calls that they're making, and they need to communicate with somebody. But we're saying to them now: "Park the truck, park the car, or wait till you get home to make those calls."

We are going to make a cultural shift. I think it's important that we do this, and it's important that both sides of the House do it. It's something we all know. Both sides of the House intuitively know it's the right idea. Our public has told us it's the right idea, and I'm certainly happy to endorse the member for Port Coquitlam's comments as well as this side of the House in supporting this bill unanimously.

Deputy Speaker: I have to apologize. You are the member for Parksville-Qualicum now, not Nanaimo-Parksville.

R. Fleming: I am pleased to rise and add some comments to Bill 15 at this stage of debate. I think it is good legislation. It is legislation that is long overdue, and it is legislation that on a previous occasion…. This morning when the opposition House Leader was speaking, he suggested that he can count on one hand the number of times where the government and the opposition have collaborated on legislation like this that we have before us today. He then listed a few more examples than five.

I think this is legislation that is long overdue. It's legislation that already exists in a number of other provinces, a number of states to the south of us.

I think it's particularly gratifying, sitting on this side of the House, to see government picking up on an idea that was introduced in the last parliament by the opposition. At that time, when the opposition proposed it — and it was our Attorney General critic at the time, the member for Nanaimo — even then, B.C. still would have been following the lead of a couple of other provinces.

Since then, passage of this kind of legislation in other provinces has occurred as well. Newfoundland and Labrador is one that comes to mind — Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec. But nevertheless, it is gratifying when government takes an idea from the opposition.

I have had this experience myself with regards to payday lending. In the last parliament this side of the House talked for a couple of years about the fact that we had a massive area of financial services that was completely unregulated that many vulnerable British Columbians had no choice but to access as part of their daily lives.

[1555]

That was certainly an issue of major public significance which the government and the Solicitor General of the day rejected taking action on, felt that the unregulated payday-lending industry was just fine. But I think, with a record of jurisprudence and class action suits and Supreme Court decisions that payday lenders were illegally gouging hard-working British Columbians across B.C., government eventually came to its senses and introduced a framework, a skeleton of some regulatory oversight by the province and some requirements for background checks, for example, and penalties and measures and sanctions that could be taken by government when payday lenders were out of control and ripping off British Columbians.

That was a good example. It came late, but it was a good example where the government picked up on an opposition idea and turned it into legislation and law. That's exactly what we're talking about here this afternoon. We do not require, I don't think, for passage of this bill in this session, any more examples of the dangers and risks that drivers who operate hand-held cell phones while driving pose to the public.

Anybody who is involved as a first responder on accident scenes in British Columbia, any family member of somebody who has been killed or severely injured in an accident where a contributing cause was the use of a cell phone while somebody operated the vehicle, or a pedestrian who was hit by a driver using a cell phone can attest to the loss of life and limb that occurs in British Columbia from this practice.

I heard the member for Nanaimo-Parksville say this not in exactly these words, but he basically said that this
[ Page 1473 ]
is where legislation has not kept up with the pace of technology. That may be true. I mean, cell phones have been in popular use for maybe a decade and a half. They used to be quite large, the early models. But this observation and records of accidents kept by law enforcement, by our courts and by hospitals and emergency staff tell the full story.

There are so many tragic individual cases that I can think of in the region that I represent where people have had their lives permanently altered by deadly or severe accidents where the use of a cell phone was a contributing cause. It has taken this government some time to come around on this, but I think they can at least know with confidence that they have all of the scientific evidence, all of the studies and research, the weight of that, behind them in introducing this bill.

There are a number of studies that have been done. There was one, which I think was probably most convincing because of the scope of the study, done in Ontario that showed that a driver is four times likelier to have an accident while operating a cell phone. I mean, that is pretty convincing evidence that came out of the University of Toronto, which has not been contested.

I think it's significant, too, that if one looks at the support that this bill has outside of the House today…. We have to look at organizations that represent motorists that are also calling for this.

The Canadian Automobile Association, which advocates for road conditions and the road infrastructure investments and provides its members all kinds of benefits that basically encourage the use of the car for travelling and mobility, are an advocacy organization for drivers and generally favour, I think it's fair to say, in most instances, less regulation in terms of layering on new rules of the road. They have come around as one of the major supporters and sponsors of this type of legislation in other provinces.

[1600]

My colleague from Port Coquitlam mentioned Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I mean, this is an issue that is not particular to the deadly activity of people who drive while under the influence of alcohol, but they recognize, without diminishing the very tough laws that we have developed over time in that area, that this is something that is very much related to supporting life safety on our roads.

They recognize that driving with distractions like cell phones is just as deadly. Those organizations and others have been urging governments like this one for a number of years to take action. So we're pleased on this side of the House that government has gotten around to it, that in the main this bill conforms with legislation that already exists and is being enforced in other parts of Canada quite successfully.

I think that it's a recognition, really, I suppose, that although it is common sense that you shouldn't drive while distracted with a cell phone in your hand, life-saving legislation like this is also the acknowledgment that sometimes it's the role of government to legislate common sense, because not everybody follows that. Not everybody thinks that it applies to them.

A lot of people think that they have extraordinary powers of concentration, different from Joe or Jane Public, that maybe allow them to operate a vehicle somewhat more safely with a cell phone in their hand than another person. Well, those are the kinds of rationales that people use in their daily lives to buck against common sense. But this is a law that will be the same for everybody.

I think this is a law that has incorporated commonsense principles that are popularly received and has also been reasonably thoughtful in anticipating where exceptions might be made. There's no quarrelling, of course, with people who do use a hand-held cell phone for 911 calls in emergency situations. Nobody will be penalized or fined for doing so. People who do the right thing and pull over on the road and park and operate a cell phone, similarly, will be allowed to do so — and encouraged to, really, by this law.

We've looked at the bill. There will be some debate, I suppose, at committee stage on how some of the clauses were arrived at and what legal advice was used to determine the wording in the legislation, but for the most part, I think this bill has captured almost all of the situations where there are acceptable uses and has made a very clear distinction where there will be a prohibition on using cell phones while driving.

I think that when it comes to the exemption around hands-free devices, this may have an economic benefit that we haven't anticipated or quantified. I expect a lot of people will be purchasing that kind of equipment where they don't have them in their cars now, because they will want to use voice-activated devices that are hands-free and make calls.

That's fine, but I think the legislation gets it right where it says young drivers who are in the various stages of the graduated licensing program will not be permitted to do so. I think that's a smart and valid recognition that these are people that have not accumulated significant experience on the road and should be graduated into that provision of the law later, when they complete their licensing requirements. That's common sense.

[1605]

Not every province, of course, has a graduated licensing system, so this is somewhat unique to B.C.

There is some controversy and some research that suggests that even the hands-free Bluetooth and other voice-activated programs still distract drivers to a significant degree, and some contest that they are, in fact, no safer than removing a hand from the wheel, leaving one to steer the vehicle. However, I think there's a mix of opinions.

I do note, too, that most organizations and researchers that would favour legislation that was more comprehensive in this regard still acknowledge that what we are
[ Page 1474 ]
debating here today and what already exists in a number of other provinces is really the critically important step to take to improve road safety and to stop carnage on the road.

I think that may be a debate we will have at a later time. I think there will be more research into that contention over the coming months and years, but it certainly strengthens the argument for those who do have that position — who favour a total ban of communicating with cell phones, period, full stop. It probably puts them in a stronger position to make that argument when you already have a legal recognition that there is danger posed by operating the device in this manner, which is going to be proscribed now, and one that is similar. So they'll take some comfort in that.

I look at some of the anticipation and support for this legislation that has been recently gathered in B.C. I think it's worth mentioning that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police is giving this legislation two thumbs up. They have long advocated for it. They see it as a pretty critically important enforcement tool to create safer roads and to reduce, frankly, using police resources to attend to deadly accident scenes and use them for better purposes in the realm of public safety. I think that is an important voice to acknowledge which has entered the debate.

I think it's interesting, too, that our largest telecommunications provider in the province and in western Canada, Telus, is supporting the legislation. They made some comments on the radio yesterday, I believe. Even though this is an organization that has an economic interest, I suppose, in racking up as many used minutes and costs-per-text to send their customers, they recognize that this puts into legislation what, as corporate social responsibility policy, already exists for them as a company. They're supporting legislated solutions to the dangers posed by operating cell phones while driving.

There are some questions around how the fines were arrived at. I know that justices of the court have input over that and can revise those. B.C. did choose to sort of be in the middle of the pack in terms of where fines are at. It's important, I guess, to get it right on — what fine levels are — because that is the deterrent. A number of years ago speeding tickets on municipal roads and highways across British Columbia were raised significantly. I can't remember whether it was doubled or tripled. That did slow people down.

What is important, though, is that there be a presence on the roads. First of all, there will be a huge word-of-mouth factor when this legislation comes into existence and when the first tickets are handed out for people who continue to drive and operate a cell phone. That will travel far and wide. I suppose some people will try and contest those. It will be interesting to see trial lawyers conduct defences and test the courts on enforcement.

The point is that just as it is for drinking and driving…. The deterrent to drinking and driving is the risk of being caught. That means that there are road checks and those kinds of things.

[1610]

A number of years ago the funding arrangement where ICBC used to fund CounterAttack programs was changed by this government, and the presence on the road declined. Now, I think municipal police forces and others have been able to build that back up to some degree, but most police forces will tell you that they would like more capacity, that they would like levels to come back to where they once were. They would like to have access to ICBC as a major partner in funding that. I think that is good public policy.

The same principle stands for this bill when it becomes law. Enforcement is critical. The risk of being caught is critical. I thought it would be quite funny if drivers were reporting on each other, and police would follow up on it. I suppose the hands-free drivers using the new gear could phone in the people still using the hand-held devices and help police in that regard to enforce this. I'm sure that will happen.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Or by snail mail.

The other exemptions that are obviously commonsense that are part of legislation — that I think we would all call long-overdue common sense — are around occupations where a call like this…. Those working in various professions can continue to do that. Those would be peace officers, paramedics driving an ambulance, fire service personnel. I think those are the occupations that are specifically exempted to be able to use that technology.

I think, in looking forward to comments from other members, we probably all have…. As constituency-based MLAs, as community members, as people with extended families and networks of friends, we can all think of examples where there have been unnecessary and tragic consequences of the proliferation of the use of cell phones while driving.

I think legislators can feel good about voting for this bill. When people come into our offices and ask why nothing has been done…. In finally achieving the legislation, it doesn't matter, really, that it's a year and a half after the previous parliament could have considered it. But it is being achieved, and British Columbia is joining the growing and now majority of provinces that have this bill, that have legislation like this.

So we can say that we have taken action on what the public has demanded for some time, and that's important in terms of people's confidence that ideas, even when their time has come, can be put into law, can be enforced properly and can be done because it's the right thing to do. For too long there have been too many lives lost by
[ Page 1475 ]
failing to have this legislation and by failing to create a better culture of safety on our roads, tolerating situations that have grown intolerable.

I hope, too, that there may be — and this will be for MLAs in the Metro Vancouver area — an added side benefit to this legislation coming into being. I can't speak to this as a greater Victoria member where congestion is very low and where transportation planning is very successful.

But in Metro Vancouver, where people tend to make very long commutes in very congested areas, and where the phenomenon of road rage has been documented as almost a disorder that people fall into — that exorcising of stress — people think that trying to do things in their daily lives like making calls and conducting business in the way they've been doing on the road relieves some of that stress and anxiety and the time pressures they have in their daily lives.

[1615]

I think, as an added side benefit, drivers in Metro Vancouver — and everywhere in British Columbia, for that matter — will actually learn to enjoy the road, feel better about arriving safer, be less distracted, less harried, less stressed out, quite frankly. Maybe that will reduce some of the manifestations of road rage that get pretty bizarre that have been documented out there. Let's hope that's an unintended but related benefit to this law.

I do look forward to asking a couple of questions about how B.C. did arrive, as I mentioned earlier, at the fine schedule that is being proposed here. I did note that the province of Ontario passed a version of this law earlier this year. It will take effect next week.

They have a schedule of fines that starts at $500. Now, $500 will really cause people to stand up and take notice or put their phone down and sit in their car properly and drive safely. We have a fine schedule of $167 proposed. So that's almost three times lower than the starting rate for fines in Ontario.

I would look forward to the Solicitor General commenting on what advice he received and sought at arriving at that number. Most provinces have implemented or are implementing fines that are more significant than what's proposed here in B.C. I haven't heard in the public record or anywhere else from the Solicitor General or any member on the government side who had a hand in writing this legislation why they chose that particular number.

Coming back to the main elements of the bill, I think what the opposition appreciates is that government, first of all, has finally introduced this legislation. I think nobody appreciates that more than the member for Nanaimo who, as the Attorney General critic, first proposed it.

I think that the government has got it right on all of the major elements of this bill in terms of introducing it, in terms of crafting exemptions that make sense around emergency personnel — exemptions that the courts could have had to interpret in a bizarre way; exemptions that allow people to do the right thing in terms of pulling over and using a cell phone safely and also using it in any situation where an emergency call must be made. Those are well-crafted parts of the bill.

The other one that I mentioned earlier, I think, is around the graduated licensing system. I realize that government would have had to make a choice in coming down on one side or the other. I think, by putting a restriction on the hands-free device exemption for drivers who are learning how to operate a vehicle safely, they came down on the right side of that.

Those elements of the bill are critical. They're ones that I support and this side of the House supports.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the time this afternoon to rise and take part in this debate.

R. Howard: It's a pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of this bill. I would like to first, I think, thank the Solicitor General for bringing this forward in a timely fashion.

You know, the member for Port Coquitlam took us on a bit of a trip down memory lane, and it got me to thinking how much things have changed. Growing up, at my house, we had a party line. We had to wait for our neighbours to get off the phone so we could place a phone call. Richmond had all of two exchanges at the time. I still recall Browning 7 and Crestwood 8 were the only two exchanges in Richmond.

[1620]

The member from Parksville-Qualicum talked about the cultural shift, and I think he hit the nail on the head. We live in a different world. Ten or 15 years ago cellular phones were — if they were in existence at all — large and cumbersome and held by just a few. Now we live in a world where everybody has a cell phone. I almost hate to admit it, but in fact, I have two cell phones.

An Hon. Member: That's all?

R. Howard: That's all. That's all.

An. Hon. Member: How many BlackBerrys?

R. Howard: Well, my cell phones are BlackBerrys. I'm encumbered by two electronic devices, which tend to keep us rather busy.

I also hesitate to say that I think my wife would also thank the Solicitor General. From time to time when I fall into the very poor habit of having to use the device when I'm in the truck or in the car, she does observe that I could do a better job driving. So I think she'll be happy with this as well.

I think it's important, too, that we're making provisions for hands-free devices. We all have limited productive hours in a day, and even the ferry rides back and
[ Page 1476 ]
forth to Victoria…. It's important time to remain productive, so I think the hands-free option will preserve that.

We've all heard lots of anecdotal stories. I've been personal witness, as I'm sure many in the House have been, to some pretty crazy things on the road. You see people in the middle of intersections making left-hand turns and talking on the cell phone. You just can't help but wonder and think — with all the things that are happening in an intersection, from the lights to pedestrians to oncoming traffic to cross-traffic. I know I find myself wishing that that person would get off the phone and pay attention to what they're doing.

Just another personal witness to…. Somebody pulling in — they're in a right-hand lane, and they're pulling into a shopping centre. They stop when they get halfway into the shopping centre, and it looks like they're finishing their discussion on a phone before they proceed to enter the shopping centre.

Beyond the anecdotal stories that I've seen and we've all heard, I think it's important to acknowledge that, according to independent research and studies, cell phone use while driving is the number one cause of distracted driving. We're told that, on average, about 117 people die each year in B.C. and 1,400 are sent to hospital, all because somebody was not paying attention behind the wheel. I think that's further evidence that this is a very timely piece of legislation.

I also think it's important that in the coming months this government will launch an awareness campaign to educate drivers on the new law and just a general awareness, emphasizing the importance of people paying attention when they're on the road driving these rather large and what can be dangerous vehicles if we don't operate them safely.

I'd also like to acknowledge that this brings British Columbia into line with other provinces across the country, and I think that's important.

It's also worthy of note that there's been significant support from the public. I think the Solicitor General mentioned that something in excess of 80 percent of people who responded to on-line and written questionnaires were in favour of the government doing something.

[1625]

So there's widespread public support, but we also have support from the experts. Norm Gaumont, the RCMP superintendent of motor vehicles, is supportive of some legislation, of this legislation. I think the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police has also weighed in, as has the B.C. Medical Association.

So I think, all said and done, there is widespread public support for this. There is widespread evidence that something needed to happen to make our roads safer. I will close by saying once again that I'm very thankful to our Solicitor General for bringing this forward in a timely matter, and with that, I'll take my seat.

B. Routley: I'm happy to rise today and support such an important bill, a bill that is going to be a first for British Columbia in bringing in this kind of legislation that's going to deal with cell phone use.

I want to start by talking about some of the history that I have with technology. I remember back in the '80s when, believe it or not, we had a great debate in our office on whether or not to buy a fax machine. There were actually 12 people sitting around a table debating whether this new technology was just a phase, that maybe we'd get over it and that we probably didn't need it. Finally, it was a close decision, but the decision was made to go with the fax machine.

It's kind of funny when you look back on it. But you see the tremendous technological change that we've gone through with all of the advances coming so quickly, one behind another. Pretty soon, the cell phone that you bought a couple of years ago is outdated. It's no longer relevant, and everybody wants the latest new thing that's come down the pipe.

This bill has special meaning for me in that just a few years ago a dear friend of the family — my in-law's friend more than my wife and mine…. Fred and his wife went on a trip down to the States. Fred was going to go into the mall. At the time, his wife was getting the nails clipped on the dog and had dropped the dog off, and Fred thought he had a little time, so he was going to wander over to the mall and have a look around.

Fred didn't know that this was going to be his last walk. Fred started walking towards the mall, and he was struck down by a driver who was on a cell phone. You know, when our family heard that, I can remember we were stunned that somebody could be killed in a parking lot — essentially, walking into a mall, something that thousands of people do every day. Not just in British Columbia but throughout the world there are people walking in and out of major centres. They assume that when there are drivers approaching….

This driver, by the way, wasn't going all that fast, was actually travelling quite slowly but was distracted, was on the cell phone, and hit poor Fred — flattened him. He died of those injuries and of other ailments that he had. The shock of this whole event was just too much for poor Fred.

I think of that and go…. Definitely, to honour his memory and to acknowledge that…. I want to be the first to acknowledge that when it was not against the law, I had no problem. I thought I was invincible — I guess like so many other people that drive down the highway talking on the cell phone — but I tell you, things did change in my view when I understood what happened in Fred's circumstance.

I've also had the situation of being in a Dodge club cab driving down the highway near Whitecourt, Alberta. We pulled out to pass a semitrailer truck, and we were
[ Page 1477 ]
making a left-hand turn. I had just taken off my jacket and clipped my safety belt back on.

[1630]

I'm certainly thankful that I did that, clipped that safety belt back on just in time. We got T-boned in an intersection by a semitrailer truck, and he was clearly distracted by something else. I don't know whether he was on the cell phone. There were all kinds of concerns about what exactly he was doing. How could he possibly misunderstand our left-hand signal and cross a double yellow line to T-bone us in the intersection? I'm glad to be here because of the safety belt, for one.

I'm certain that there are going to be consequences of this bill that are far-reaching. One of them is that it will save lives.

I started out my career in the forest industry concerned about issues of safety and training. I want to support and echo those comments made by others who said that we need to follow this up, also, with some additional training. There should be educational programs developed, certainly for our youth. Also, as we make this transition, it's necessary for the message to get out to the public why we're doing this. Obviously, the polling suggests that a lot of the public are already aware of the reasons and fully support this kind of measure.

I agree that it makes sense for us monitor this. Hopefully, the hands-free works, because I think a lot of people want to have the ability to at least have a conversation on the phone. Fortunately, with today's technology, it's possible to be hands-free, and that part of the bill allows that, at least for the time being. I understand this mirrors other bills in other provinces that have similar legislation.

I'm happy to rise to support legislation that will save lives. I believe that in the coming years…. There's no way to measure the fact that people have had their lives saved as a result of this. That's often the case with any new measure or action taken to deal with an issue that's clearly a safety issue.

I commend the drafters of this bill for bringing forward a progressive action that will, at the end of the day, save lives. What could be better than that? To be, at this point in time in our lives, standing in this House and making a difference to save lives is certainly something that I am proud to be part of.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. But I do want to thank all of the other speakers who have made some very important points on this bill. We're going to save lives in the future. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important matter.

R. Sultan: It's with great pleasure and with a certain amount of personal experience that I rise to speak to this forward-looking bill. Listening to the members opposite and the praise they are heaping on this bill, it sounds like we have the unusual possibility of unanimity in this House for once, and that's good news. But time will tell.

The rush to endorse this pending statute reminds me of President Kennedy's famous and somewhat sad comment as the post-mortem took place in the White House on the Bay of Pigs fiasco — namely: "Success has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan." So we have many fathers and mothers in the House this afternoon who are proud to step forward and take credit for having the idea years ago, perhaps, for this legislation. I think we should accept their claimed parentage with grace, because this is a good bill.

[1635]

It's a very personal bill. I am one of the targets of this bill, actually. As I rush around town with one hand on the wheel, one hand on the cell phone and, if necessary, two hands on the cell phone steering with my knees, panic-stricken drivers flee my onslaught, as so they should.

I remember vividly, having been newly elected quite a few years ago, driving down the Stanley Park Causeway, dialling up somebody on what I thought was a great, urgent message. In the centre lane of the then much narrower Stanley Park Causeway and as my eyes went to the cell phone, I drifted from the centre lane quite significantly into the opposing traffic lane.

Fortunately, I woke up in time, and there was a gap there, so the House continued to benefit from my presence for a few more years. But I would have to admit it was a close call. I suspect if all members of the House were honest, they would probably have similar stories to tell.

This is a wonderful thing — cellular telephones. Texting — somebody's going to explain that to me someday. BlackBerrys — some would say an evil invention; others can't seem to live without them. But all of these are distractions.

Then we find automobiles being equipped with television screens and GPS units which will put a chart on your dashboard that will take your full attention. At least, the GPS unit and chart plotter — which is a pretty fancy toy, I must admit, and lots of fun to play with — on my boat have the merit of a maximum speed of about seven knots and a rather broad lane to drive down out on the ocean.

But I'm not sure how, in fact, people driving those expensive palaces from Germany and Japan down the middle lane of the even now only-somewhat-wider Stanley Park Causeway really interpret the data and keep their eyes on the road. The evidence is that they cannot.

We like to think that our brains in this modern world can multi-task and handle three or four tasks at once. I'm as guilty of that conceit as the next person. But the scientific evidence demonstrates that we cannot. We tend to focus on one thing at a time. As the research points out, even listening to a message on a hands-free
[ Page 1478 ]
device, without the gymnastics that I go through steering with my knees, at least when I was a little bit more agile than I am today….

Just the mere act of talking to someone else, perhaps with a hands-free cell phone, is sufficient distraction to cause accidents which begin to approach the accident rate one encounters with people who have had too much alcohol or heaven knows what other substances, which I've been told by reliable sources one may find here in British Columbia.

This is far-reaching and important safety legislation, and I commend the Solicitor General, who has had much experience in the tragic aftermaths of these distractions, for bringing it forward.

As I see in my notes here, it says that a new fine in the amount of $167 will begin to be levied on February 1, 2010, just in time for the Olympic Games. If drivers are caught texting or e-mailing, they will receive an additional three penalty points. Further drivers in the GLP — and someone will have to explain to me what that is — will receive the $167 fine and three penalty points for any violation of this legislation, and so it goes. On average about 117 people die each year in B.C., and 1,400 are sent to hospital because someone was not paying attention behind the wheel.

[1640]

I know it has been suggested by some of our members that existing legislation encompassing driving without due attention should be sufficient cause, should be sufficient rule-making and that we do not need this new legislation. But I am on the side of those who would say that we have to spell it out, because many people in their pride and confidence in their own abilities think that speaking on a cell phone or even texting is no great distraction at all.

Now, it has not encompassed the other sight that I have seen on occasion — people driving through Stanley Park reading the newspaper. Now, I know there's always gripping political news, and Vaughn Palmer is good for a read in the morning, but that, I think, is carrying it too far. I would agree that that's one category of distraction that need not be spelled out because it's so obviously crazy and dangerous.

These changes will bring British Columbia in line with the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. So we're hardly innovators in this regard. Alberta recently pronounced that it intends to introduce similar distracted-driving legislation this fall.

Now, if the free spirits of Alberta, who are the ultimate in the deregulation philosophy, seem to be moving in this direction, certainly we should not feel any twinge of regret for this added regulation in our domain.

I would also confess another personal experience. The first time I went up into the Yukon, they had some similar legislation intended to crack down on what they considered to be dangerous driving practices. That was — and I'm talking the mid-'80s here — if you wanted to take a drink from that open bottle of whisky in your lap, you had to pull over to the side of the road. They sure know how to crack down in the Yukon.

Interjection.

R. Sultan: Yes, someone says that that's going way too far.

This is wise legislation. It will not be universally acclaimed. Many of our colleagues — who rush around multi-tasking, trying to talk to their constituency office, beleaguered constituents who have somehow received their cell phone number, urgent messages from the caucus Whip, not to mention the traffic from home, wife, family, children, etc. — have claimed…. I've heard the claim recently, in fact, that perhaps up to eight hours a day is spent on the cell phone, and in members' ridings, which are quite scattered, a good deal of that time is while driving.

There was a plea that the duties of the legislators are going to be impaired if we hamper their ability to drive around and do their daily rounds with that cell phone glued to their ear. Well, they did not receive much sympathy with those arguments, and rightly so, because this is in fact sound legislation, and I support it.

I suspect my predecessors on the floor of this House have already read these very supportive validator quotes, as they are labelled, from such reckless journals and sources as the superintendent of motor vehicles, the RCMP, the Vancouver Province, the British Columbia Police Association and the B.C. Medical Association.

We have broad endorsement. Traffic accidents and fatalities remain a major contributor to the burden on our health system. We cannot really use the excuse that this is merely a case of moral hazard, but rather, we should eliminate the temptation to conduct this dangerous behaviour and put an end to it as soon as possible.

It will take some education. We will have complaints, no doubt, but it sort of falls in the realm of seatbelts, which the Solicitor General informed us some weeks ago were disparaged as unnecessary — in fact, maybe even dangerous — because in an accident one would find it harder to bail out of a car because you'd be impeded by the seatbelt.

[1645]

It has taken, I suppose, a full generation of new drivers to become used to the idea that if you do not buckle your seatbelt…. At least in my case, I feel like I'm sitting there in that taxi naked — heaven forbid.

We have to imbue the same attitude towards using these electronic gadgets, which seem to multiply in their complexity and attractiveness with each year. We have to ban them from the driver's cockpit and say: "If you're behind the wheel of that vehicle, you'd better pay
[ Page 1479 ]
attention to the road. There are no ifs or buts about it, or our Solicitor General's legions will be on your case with fines, driving points and worse — not to mention the rather high likelihood that you may not even get home in one piece." Behaviour will, indeed, change.

So thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to support this legislation. I seem to stand in good company today.

D. Routley: When it comes to driving, it's easy to point fingers. It's really easy to sit behind the wheel and behind the windscreen and be separated from the world around us, and we all know that we should all be safer. I rise to support this legislation, which takes a big step in encouraging that, but I also know that there's an old phrase: when a finger is pointed, four are pointing back at us. I'd have to join the previous speaker in admitting that I'm a target of this legislation.

We all become so hurried, and the demands of life force compromise on people's sensibilities from time to time. I would say that cell phones are definitely an example.

We often like to poke fun at other drivers. I think a quote from Albert Einstein is appropriate. "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity." I'm not sure about the former. It's easy for us also to look to others as a source of content for that quote.

Another quote, from Elbert Hubbard: "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." We see this every day when we drive our cars and curse the other drivers. Jokes are traded about this driver or that driver, but it's a serious matter. We've heard about the statistics and the numbers of people who are killed or seriously injured. The repercussions on their families are permanent; the impact on their lives as long as their lives.

Technology evolves perhaps faster than our capacity to control it. There are a number of noted quotes that refer to this capacity in human potential. There is a quote from Alice Kahn: "For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press here."

Technology has taken us to a point where we race to keep up to it. We race to keep up to our everyday lives. We live in a competitive world where the profits of business and the demands of lives like ours in this chamber demand that we take every step we can to improve our performance on a daily basis. So shortcuts are taken, and one of the shortcuts that has developed is, of course, the use of communication devices in cars.

We have heard about texting with knees on steering wheels. Not quite prepared to admit to that yet. But certainly a hand at the ear, one hand on the wheel and the mind in another place is all too common. I believe that a trip down the Island Highway with the Speaker herself…. The Speaker could remind me of a time when she cautioned me against such loose attention to detail.

[1650]

It is a humorous thing to think about how we end up in this place as human beings, but it's a very serious matter. It's a very serious matter when you consider the outcomes. We are separated by a windscreen and the shell of a car from traffic that passes us at speeds that would rend us piece from piece if we were to encounter each other. That reality is buffered by sound dampening, is buffered by stereo, is buffered by air conditioning — even climate control from passenger to passenger. We are so detached from the environment that we are actually operating in and the potential outcomes that we entertain and risk.

It's been said by Richard Feynman that: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Eventually, that's the truth, because the technology and its outcomes become obvious. The obviousness that the Solicitor General spoke of, for those people who have been respondents to the devastating outcomes of motor vehicle accidents, is what has driven us to this place.

But habit is a difficult thing to break. I think this legislation will give us the incentive, hopefully, that's needed for us to adapt our behaviour. But Shakespeare said: "How use doth breed a habit in man." We have become accustomed to these devices. People who operate in our business world have become dependent on communication at all times.

So I'm glad that the bill offers some measure of opportunity for people to continue to communicate, but at the same time, even a hands-free device does distract us from the task at hand. We're cautioned by the driving instructors when we do get our licences not to entertain conversations behind the wheel. In fact, many driving instructors will intentionally try to strike up a conversation with the driver, and if they engage in that conversation, that becomes a source of a demerit point in the driving test.

Even the hands-free option presents us with a threat to our safety, and I think we're going to eventually have to deal with that issue. But we also, as the previous speaker so eloquently pointed out, must remember that we are not excepted from this reality.

I will go to yet another quote, from Confucius. Who could challenge a quote from Confucius? He says: "He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good." Well, in fact, we all — particularly, I would say, MLAs — find ourselves the subject and target of this bill. If we aren't careful —Jerry Van Amerongen's words: "The loss of one's dignified bearing is often sudden."

We as legislators, as leaders in our communities, must now, today, commit to changing our behaviour, and standing here representing the people of Nanaimo–North Cowichan, I take this opportunity to commit that I will be adapting my behaviour and respecting the intent of this bill.

From my personal experience, I found out just how terrible the force is that we're entertaining and risking when,
[ Page 1480 ]
at a very much younger age, I found out the difference between the force that's outside the car and the reality that's inside the car when they intersect. I had a terrible crash that broke my jaw, my pelvis, several other bones and, to this day, impairs me physically to a very small degree.

I was very lucky, Madam Speaker. Through a moment of inattention, I came very close to losing my life. In fact, my younger sister was supposed to be in the car with me, and in the delirium of the aftermath of that crash, I forgot that she had decided not to come with me. All I remember, as I choked on my teeth, was the feeling of dread of where my sister was. I was asking the responders: "My sister. She's in the car. My sister. She's in the car." Fortunately, she wasn't.

[1655]

But that's the reality that we deal with every day. We jump in our cars. We have our shopping list. We have our cell phone. We have the demand that's upon us, and it can seem very important at the time. But it all pales in importance to the possible outcomes of the forces that we are engaging every time we get behind the wheel of a car in this province.

For those who would criticize my speech for relying too heavily on the quotes of others, I would offer another quote from Alfred North Whitehead. He says: "Everything of importance has been said before by someone who did not discover it" — which also could be said for this bill. Everything of importance we have to say about it and every claim we make on its fatherhood we should gracefully allow, because we discover these things along the road and, hopefully, before the big bump.

D. Barnett: I stand today to support this bill, Bill 15. Where I come from there have been unfortunate incidents caused, we believe — and we know — by young people texting when driving a vehicle. I've seen firsthand what it does to families who are left behind by the loss of a person under the age of 25 — not once but twice.

We live in a world today of communication, and in our communities we have to communicate the message. I guess if we can't communicate it in other ways, we have to communicate it by law.

Education starts at home. We know that. But we were all young once, full of adventure, and knowing, in our minds, that nothing would ever happen to us. Through many programs of education, we can help to educate not just our young people. People of all ages have got this habit. The habit comes from one thing. We're all in a hurry. Nothing is going to wait.

Many of us in our communities have got great community programs, working with the RCMP, schools, councils and the public at large. We will need education programs. I know this side of the House will support that. I believe that to make this a success, we must get our communities on board and educate our communities, our RCMP, our emergency people.

I'd like to tell you about a program that I am very proud to have been involved in. I will share this with everyone, and if you can take it back to your communities, it will make a difference. It has made a great difference in the south Cariboo.

We have a safety committee that, prior to every long weekend, as long as we have enough volunteers — with our RCMP, our flagging people, our paramedics, our fire departments and with our citizens — we close off two lanes on Highway 97. We stop vehicles. We have a brochure, and we talk to the citizens and the tourists who are going through our town and give them our safety brochure. We talk to them about texting. We talk to them about seatbelts, speed, alcohol and other things that cause accidents and incidents on our highways and take precious lives from us.

[1700]

I am proud that this bill is before this House, and I am proud of what I've heard here today — total support from both sides. I thank the minister for this bill, and I thank this House for supporting lives in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: It's a delight, as always, to take my place in debate on Bill 15. Although it's difficult, I'll do my level best to be entertaining in supporting legislation. I know that my colleague from Peace River South is looking forward to the next few minutes as I discuss this bill, and my friend from Port Moody as well. It's one of those rare opportunities.

I had an e-mail from a constituent, Marilyn Brown, yesterday decrying the fact that legislation like this was not in the House, and I was able to say that after her e-mail I had an opportunity to come into the House and look at the Solicitor General as he stood and introduced the bill. Again, another victory for the opposition to look at the minister and have him stand up and do what we were hoping he would do. I commend him for that.

I was able to then go back to my office and send an e-mail to Marilyn, saying that I had heard her outcry for some action, and I'm very happy to be participating today in this debate.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There are a couple of things I want to say, and I know that we have a growing list of people who want to make comment on this. I think it's important. I almost thought for a minute, hon. Speaker, and I welcome you to the chair…. If you had been listening, and I know you would have been observing the debate from the Speaker's office…. This almost is starting to look like a bit of a revenue issue to try and manage our ballooning deficit by just focusing on the 85 people in this room. I think we'll probably do pretty well in bringing in some money from this legislation.
[ Page 1481 ]

I, too, have to confess, hon. Speaker — it's almost like "forgive me, Speaker, for I have sinned" — that I have driven a car and texted. I have driven a car and talked on the telephone. In fact, it was the cellular telephone that got me on a seatbelt violation after I was elected.

I freely admit it. I came out of my home. I was talking to a constituent. I was late. We've had members talk about how hastily we live our lives these days. I was speaking to the member. I got into my car. Before I got my hands-free, I spoke with the phone in my right hand. I was not able, with my girth, to reach around and pull my seatbelt, so I thought: "Well, I'll certainly be through this telephone call before I get to the bottom of the driveway. I'll end the call, I'll put on my seatbelt, and I'll be on my way."

I got to the end of the driveway, and I was still on the call. I carried on down the road, and I thought: "Before I get to Sooke Road, I'm certain I'll be off this call, and everything's going to be fine." I got to Sooke Road, and there was a break in the traffic. I'll quickly get in. The phone call will be over any minute. I'm just wrapping it up.

What do I see? My good friends from the Colwood RCMP pulling me over. I threw the phone down into the passenger seat and immediately whipped around, as we would all do, to affix my seatbelt. The officer came to my window, and I said: "I always wear my seatbelt." He said: "Apparently not today."

So I'm $120 less the richer for that, but it was a very valuable lesson. I do not now use the device without a hands-free system, and I always, always wear my seatbelt, save for one exception, which is now currently affixed on my driving record.

Hon. I. Chong: And in Hansard.

J. Horgan: And in Hansard. That's right. There's a lot of stuff in Hansard that I never thought would make it there, but there you go.

But it's interesting. I raise the seatbelt question not just because it demonstrates that we do a lot of things in our cars these days, but it was the cell phone that prohibited me from doing what I normally would do, which is latch on my seatbelt. So since that time, I've managed to get the hands-free system, and it seems to be working fairly well.

With the redistribution — and my friend from Esquimalt–Royal Roads will know this well — of seats before the last election, I've now inherited the community of Metchosin, where the sheep are plentiful and the cell phones don't work. That has reduced the amount of time that I can spend doing constituency work when I'm driving around Metchosin. I've got to tell you that it's a delight.

When I represented the Cowichan Valley, where there is full cell service, I was on the phone all of the time. Our friend from West Vancouver made the point that we try and manage some of our constituency work when we're travelling to and fro, and we're not unique. People in the business community do this as well.

Our children certainly are able to communicate with multiple people at multiple times. I know that my son is here today. He and I were in an accident. We were hit by a drunk driver some years ago, and it had a profound impact on him. He didn't get his driver's licence until he was 18 years old.

[1705]

Although he texts faster than anyone I've ever seen in my life, he wouldn't contemplate doing that while he is driving because he has seen firsthand the impact of someone out of control of a vehicle. So I think it's important that the next generation…. I commend the minister for focusing on the graduated licence as a starting point to ensure that these new drivers are absolutely certain that there is a broad and complete prohibition on the use of these devices.

But for those of us…. You've heard the term "CrackBerry," I'm sure. Many of us have used that ourselves. I see my friend from Port Moody waving his CrackBerry up in the air. I think that the fine level is estimated to be about $167, and I think that that's a reasonable starting point. I am pleased that it's not higher than that.

I think that when you're changing behaviour, you want that to happen because of a sanction, but you don't want the sanction to be too high because of the adverse effect it could have on families. That's a big chunk of money. You make one mistake; that's fine. You make two mistakes; that's expensive. You're on to your third mistake, and it's a significant deterrent. So I think that $167 is a reasonable place to start.

I noted this morning that Telus was on my local radio here in Victoria, CFAX, claiming to support the legislation. I'm hopeful they'll follow up with that verbal support by, perhaps, offering free hands-free systems with every cell phone that they contract. That would be putting their money with their mouth is.

If they're genuine, as I hope they are, about reducing the amount of time that people spend with a cell phone at their ear, perhaps they will be providing the technology free of charge so that we can reduce that. I think that would be a laudable initiative by a private sector company. I'm sure that Bell and Rogers and other carriers will want to follow suit.

So I encourage Telus to not just get on board with what is appearing to be a wave of popularity towards the Solicitor General's legislation and instead to also offer some compensation to those who want to break their habit of texting and using the telephone.

I also talked about Marilyn Brown, who sent me the e-mail. She, of course, is concerned about this legislation for the same reasons that our colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin is. She's had a tragedy in her life that was
[ Page 1482 ]
directly related to someone operating a motor vehicle without full care and attention as a result of an electronic device. I think that members who have rushed to get on the list to speak to this bill want to highlight that for Hansard, for their constituents, and for the Solicitor General's attention, as we proceed through numerous stages of this legislation.

I also want to recognize that there will be those — and it's been commented on by others — that feel that this is a restriction on liberty, and they'll make that point clear, I'm sure. There may even be members on both sides of the House that feel that way, and perhaps that will come out at third reading or, perhaps, when we vote on this legislation.

I think that as we evolve as a society, a technological society…. I heard my colleague from Cowichan Valley talking about the debate over whether or not to buy a fax machine. It's a shame they hadn't kept that debate going, because they wouldn't have bought what is now obsolete technology.

We are rapidly coming to a point in our lives and in our technological society where we are being overcome by the devices, and we need to, I think, take stock and pause and recognize and reflect on what it is we're doing as we interact not just in this place, walking down the street, in the mall, but most importantly, in the car. So I'm encouraged that we're moving in that direction.

When bicycle helmet legislation was brought forward in this place, there was an outcry from some who said that this was an infringement on their civil liberties. I don't know a parent alive in British Columbia who doesn't insist on their children wearing bicycle helmets when they ride their bikes today. So over time, we adapt. We're extraordinary in that way. It's not just the opposable thumbs. We also adapt to situations, and I think that's profoundly important.

I want to raise something that takes it to the extreme. I don't know if there are fans of the television show Pimp My Ride in the precinct right now, but it's an extraordinary program. I'm not mechanical. I drive a car because I drive a car. I could barely tell you how many horses it has or what its torque is. I know it has four doors, four wheels, and it takes me where I want to go, but there are many, many people who like automobiles. They like to restore them. They like to add devices to them.

In this program, this Pimp My Ride, there's a guy called Mad Mike, and his job on the show is to install video screens, big video screens, in vehicles. It's insane.

[1710]

We're talking here about people talking on the telephone. Some of these cars on Pimp My Ride have 40-inch televisions in the back seat. They've got television screens, flat screens, in the roof panels. Drop down the glovebox, and out comes a laptop. It's quite extraordinary technologically.

I know that my engineer colleague from West Vancouver would marvel at what they're able to do, but it's ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous. That's what compels me to watch it, you know. It's like: why would they do that? Why would someone do that?

That's the challenge we face as modernity slaps us in the face. Technological revolution has come and gone. My friend from Port Moody texts away madly right now, on the cutting edge when he was in the private sector. He of all people recognizes how we are throwing these pieces of technology at unsuspecting users, and now we're trying to pull that back with this legislation.

I think it's a reasonable thing to do. I'm going to list off a couple of places in the world that do this already. It's alphabetical — it makes it easier for those who are keeping score at home. Australia, Austria, Bahrain — Bahrain is ahead of us — Belgium, Brazil, Finland…. If the Finns are doing it, it's got to be a good idea. I'm fairly certain of that.

France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Hong Kong…. I was out of order there. Forgive me, for those who are watching the alphabet. In New Delhi — not allowed to use the phones without a hand-held device. Ireland — everyone loves the Irish, and they've got the good sense to say that you shouldn't be using these phones when you're on those little tiny roads over there. If you've ever been on the roads, hon. Speaker, you're surely not going to be wanting to be on the telephone at the same time.

The Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia. Partially in Mexico. I don't know what that means. Maybe in Cancun you're not allowed to, but in Puerto Vallarta you can.

The Netherlands — practical people, the Dutch. Of course they would want to be on the cutting edge of this as well. Norway, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain.

Interestingly, not the Swedes. I don't know why that is, but they have not yet passed this legislation. I am fairly confident, once they've had an opportunity to review Hansard of the debate here, that the Swedes…. I'm sure the Sedin twins will ship this….

An Hon. Member: They're watching right now.

J. Horgan: They're watching. We know Daniel's doing it. He's on….

An Hon. Member: They're already built into Volvos.

J. Horgan: Oh well, there you go. My technological friend says they're already in the Volvos, so it's by osmosis that it's happening over there.

It is happening all around the world, and I am absolutely delighted to have had the opportunity to, in the case of my constituent Marilyn Brown, meet her request and her demand that legislation be brought into this House, and within 24 hours I've been able to do that.
[ Page 1483 ]
I see that we have almost unanimous support for that, so I'll be able to contact her and let her know that this Legislature stands together, as we have on a number of pieces of legislation.

I think of the presumptive cancers for firefighters, another one of those days where we've had an opportunity — left and right, that side and this side — to bring forward something that we can all support. I again commend the Solicitor General for the haste with which he brought this forward. I commend my colleagues who have had useful and thoughtful comments to make today.

I am hopeful that my modest contribution has assisted in that regard. I don't believe Pimp My Ride's been mentioned in Hansard until now. I'm very pleased that I wasn't ruled out of order, hon. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: Another first, Member.

J. Horgan: Yeah, another first. That's great. I don't know what we'll do with all those when we pile them up. But it's worth it for that.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you again for your patience. I will be supporting this bill at third reading.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his confession and await further revelations.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, want to rise and speak in support of Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009. I'll say at the outset I'm not going to offer a confession, although it's very much appreciated that those who have, have also indicated the consequences that could have resulted. In part, it's because I have to admit I'm not a texter. I don't know how to text very well, and if I did, I would want to pull over to the side of the road and text properly.

However, I do acknowledge that each and every one of us from time to time has had to answer our cell phones. I will say it is oftentimes I just let my cell phone ring and answer once I get to a safe place to return the call. But clearly it is a habit that I believe most of us have become accustomed to, that we see happening each and every day as we drive past people, and around us.

[1715]

I was very saddened to see, actually, one day, driving past a van with a young mom in it, and she was on the phone and also with a coffee in her hand. I saw a child in a child seat, and it was very disconcerting because you know that the slightest amount of distraction could have had very serious and dire consequences.

I think that all the comments that members have made thus far are valid. We've all seen things such as they've indicated, and we've also shared in this House, in this debate, those experiences and those that we know. That's what I'm going to go to.

I'm going to bring it right down to a phone call, in fact, that I just received today. I returned the phone call to a young lady who used to live in the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who is now studying to get her master's degree in Ontario. She made a point of calling me because I had been her MLA. She wanted to say: "Please thank the government, please thank the Solicitor General, and say how very much I applaud this legislation being brought in."

While I know that this legislation was not introduced as a result of the death that we all heard about back in January of this year, certainly it may have precipitated some of the kinds of discussions that are going on right now. Because she told me that she knew the young man who tragically died in January, and she reminded me that there were four conditions that caused that accident. Not only did he have bald tires, he wasn't wearing his seatbelt, poor weather conditions…. Yes, unfortunately, he had been texting.

In fact, it was not just a good friend. It was her best friend. That is why it had such an impact on her, her family, their families. I know she has been in constant contact. So this young woman, Alex Hick, who called me, wondered how she could come out to Victoria to listen, watch second reading debate, be here when the bill finally passes.

I said:"Well, I'm sorry, Alex. As I'm speaking to you" — as I called her back this afternoon — "I am watching some of my colleagues and members of the opposition stand up one after another debating this bill in support of it. We may very well finish second reading, and we may well begin committee stage in the next short while. I don't know. So don't plan on coming out all the way from Ontario to Victoria. Know, however, that there is good support around this House and that I expect it should pass without much delay, but with much support."

When I hung up the phone, I felt very, I guess, gratified knowing that all the way in Ontario there were people watching. She basically said that "on behalf of all the young people like me" — and she is in her 20s — it is so important to take this kind of leadership. We here in this chamber, as responsible adults and as community leaders, do need to lead by example.

It is important — while the temptation may have been for others to reach for that phone, and I know all of us won't be doing that — to remind our friends and our family members, the ones that we love and care so much about, whether they are other adults or the young people in our lives, how important it is to get into a habit of not using what previously had been such a convenient tool.

We've grown up in a world where we took things for granted, but we had to be reminded. I remember the days growing up when "Turn off the light…." We all remembered to conserve power, and we got used to not doing that. We're being reminded to do so again.

I also grew up in an era where seatbelts were not mandatory. That's dating me a bit, but I can remember that
[ Page 1484 ]
when I first started driving, seatbelts weren't mandatory. When they first came in, a lot of people griped about it — what an inconvenience it would be. But I had no hesitation, and now it is very much an automatic reaction. Except, as my friend from Juan de Fuca indicated, he had that one slight incident there.

It is an attitude, and it can be a learned attitude as long as we are conscious of what we do with our lives. Because it's not just our lives; it is the lives of those that we touch. If we are in an unfortunate situation, if that were to happen that we would cause harm to ourselves, we would leave a legacy of sorrow and grief to all those who care about us and who love us.

It is important that, as I say, we lead by example. We live in such a different world now, though. Those who have spoken already have talked about the modern conveniences of today, and some days I wish we were not in such a modern world where we have instant information.

[1720]

We know how quickly anything we say here…. Hansard translates it, and that's broadcast on the news. Or somebody says something, and they take a picture of you; it's on YouTube. Of course, we know how quickly Twitter and Facebook work.

It is a very different world than I grew up in, as a young person, to what young people now are being faced with and what they are growing up around. To convince them, to encourage them to heed these modern conveniences, then to take a step back and take life a little slower in that sense, just to save their lives and to live a long life and a healthy life — that is important.

I'm happy to hear so much agreement in this chamber, that we agree that this legislation is supportable, that we agree that this legislation is desirable and that we agree that this legislation is necessary — all good things. I'm sure that each and every one of us will want to continue. Even while there might be some rigorous debate at committee stage on various parts of the bill, at the end of the day we will continue to come out of this stronger as legislators but also stronger as a united group of individuals that have this very unique privilege of making and passing legislation.

My colleague from Juan de Fuca said that there are rare occasions that we do agree, and I do want to acknowledge it. It is not unusual to agree from time to time, and it is not rare. I'm glad that this is one of those rare circumstances that we all do agree.

I know others wish to speak, so I'm going to just end with my closing remarks on that. I do believe it is about making our B.C. roads safer, but I do believe more so that it's about making our lives safer, our communities safer. Most importantly, those that we love and those that love us will know that we can each arrive home safely every night.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to offer those comments and look forward to the unanimous vote that I'm sure is about to take place.

N. Macdonald: I, as well, will be speaking in favour of Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. I think that, of course, everyone that has driven or has been in a vehicle understands the need for a driver to be attentive, the need for a driver to be careful. To be fully functioning when they're behind the wheel is of critical importance. We all agree that driver safety is important. Of course, as well, those that are on the roads or near the roads are also going to be influenced by how attentive a driver is.

The ideas that are put forward here around limiting some of the distractions, in particular those that come with cell phone use, are going to be, I think, something that people are all going to agree is important. You have organizations that have been really clear — driving organizations. You have the police in support. You have the B.C. Medical Association, and I think you have strong support from the public in general for moving in this direction.

As many members have said, you have other jurisdictions that are choosing to place limitations on cell phone use as well. There have been a number of mea culpas here from members around the use of cell phones. The fact of the matter, I think, is that as politicians we tend to want to be communicating all of the time. I think to be fair — although it wasn't the previous member — that the temptation to use the hand-held devices we're provided with is often huge. I know that I've had members of the family remind me that the phone call can wait, and that you don't need to take it while you're driving.

I think what this bill does is say some important things. The fact of the matter is, as with many of the laws that we create, the challenges in enforcing this law are going to be there. It is going to be difficult to actually put in place the penalties that are laid out in this law.

I think what it does is that it sets, in a very clear way, an example of what we expect as a society is appropriate behaviour for when you're driving a vehicle. For most Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians — I think that Canadians think it's perhaps uniquely Canadian — there is that idea that we will follow the rules in a careful and polite way.

[1725]

When you set, with a piece of legislation like this, an expectation that we will limit distractions, it is going to have a large impact. I recognize that it will be difficult, and there will be challenges in enforcing it. When I say that, I realize that life is supremely ironic, and if a year from now I get a ticket for using my cell phone, I will experience the irony of this. Nevertheless, I think that you will see a change in behaviour.

Just as it became normal for us to make sure that we had our seatbelts, just as it is normal to have a helmet when you are on a bicycle or a motorcycle, just as it is normal to have our children, when they're young, in seats that are appropriate for them, I think that it will in the same way become the socially-accepted standard
[ Page 1485 ]
that we try to limit some of the distractions that are there for us.

Vehicles continue to be a place of tremendous distraction for a driver. It's not just hand-held devices. There are the CDs that we play with as we're driving and the MP3 players, the coffee, the food and everything else, but this at least makes a statement that the level of distraction has to be limited. As I say, I think that there is strong support for that.

The one part of the bill that some people have spoken to me about is the more stringent rules that are applied to young people. This is often something that — especially when you go to a school and you talk to kids — they raise: "Why more strict rules for us?" I think that for the most part, as a father and as a teacher, I am particularly okay with more stringent rules for young people if it in any way keeps them safer.

I can realize that sometimes that's a frustrating thing for them, but I think as a parent you want to instil in them the best habits that they can have. There's no question that while we feel we're addicted to these hand-held devices, we're nowhere near as competent and we're nowhere near to using and depending upon these devices as much as younger people do. As they develop their driving habits, if we can enforce any sorts of rules that will make it safer, I think that that's a positive thing.

We do know that distracted drivers are more likely to get into accidents. There is nobody in this room who has not experienced the tragedy that comes with a vehicular accident. If this is going to save some of that tragedy, it's supportable, and it will be supported.

On some of the details of the bill, I did have some individuals from the ham radio operators — I did say that I would raise this with the Solicitor General — who simply want clarity on how ham radio use will fit into it. Ham radios in vehicles in the area that I represent are often used in support of search and rescue in areas where there's no cell coverage. These are often vehicle-based. In the Cranbrook wildfire of 2003 the cell phone service actually collapsed during that period, so you had ham radio operators driving around, providing the communication support.

I'm sure that the Solicitor General has heard those concerns. I understand that within the abilities that this bill will give the Solicitor General to make rules, those sorts of concerns will be taken into consideration, and we will end up with a piece of legislation that is really very, very well-thought-through.

[1730]

The other thing I'd like to say is that there has been a period of public consultation. When you go through and you look at the exemptions that need to be there, very clearly that period of public consultation and the fact that other jurisdictions have done work on this have led to a piece of legislation that certainly seems to be very well-thought-through. In the future, for the changes that need to be made, presumably the use of regulation that will be allowed with changes to section 214.6 of the Motor Vehicle Act is going to give the Solicitor General the ability to do what's needed.

Just to finish off. The responsibility to drive safely is an immensely important one, not only for the individual involved but for anybody that is around them. Very clearly, I think everyone would agree that to drive while you're trying to text or while you're trying to phone is irresponsible. I think most here agree that at some point they found themselves where they were doing that.

This is clearly a piece of legislation that is going to change behaviour. I think it's clearly a piece of legislation that is going to save lives, and I think that's why it's a piece of legislation that you will have all lawmakers here in this building supporting today. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Hon. K. Krueger: It's a pleasure to stand, like my colleagues across the way as well as on this side of the House, and speak in support of Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009, which, for folks who might be getting ready for dinner and watching us on their televisions, will prohibit the operating or holding of hand-held cell phones or other electronic devices, including sending or reading e-mails and/or texting — for example, with a BlackBerry, PDA or cell phone.

It won't allow the operating or holding of hand-held music or portable gaming devices like MP3 players and iPods. It won't allow the manual programming or adjusting of GPS systems, whether built into the vehicle or not, while driving. Such settings need to be programmed before driving.

I've heard objections over the years as governments have begun to talk about banning the use of these devices by drivers. People have said that we already have a charge called driving without due care. I often hear people say it's driving with undue care. Of course, that would mean the opposite. The actual charge is driving without due care, but it's a difficult charge to prove and one that isn't laid all that often.

I know this because I spent over 20 years working at ICBC, mainly in accident investigation and claims settlement. The last few years of that career I was in traffic safety and loss prevention initiatives on a regional basis and wished, actually, at the time that I had spent more of my career on the ounce-of-prevention side rather than the pound of cure. It's devastating to see what happens to human beings and their families as a result of a moment's inattention or a brief moment of bad judgment by a driver.

Those consequences can often be permanent. They may be permanent in the sense of loss of life, or they may be in the sense of lasting injuries that affect a person for the rest of their lives. That is something that has touched my family and many families that I met over the years.
[ Page 1486 ]

A moment's inattention, for something as brief — and I heard these explanations from drivers — as having dropped their cigarette. Not too common now — not near as common as it used to be — for people to smoke in cars. It's illegal if children are in the cars, of course. But that used to happen quite a bit; they'd drop a cigarette.

And then, there have been many cases where they were changing their CD on the audio player, or they're changing a cassette or just making a simple change of the radio station. They look away for a moment. People don't realize how much ground a car covers, especially if you're driving at Coquihalla speeds, but even at 50 kilometres an hour it covers quite a distance in a second or two when you're looking away from the road.

Terrible things can happen. Often when people make a move like that they pull the steering wheel one way or the other. They're heading for disaster before they know it, and they often experience a disaster.

On July 2, 2003, the day that British Columbia found out that we won the Olympic bid, my wife and I were in Victoria with many of our colleagues, and we celebrated. It was a wonderful day. We came over here feeling on top of the world.

[1735]

A couple of blocks from the place I live, a young woman driving a delivery truck, her first day on the job — and I still don't know why I've never met her — came through a stop sign without touching the brakes and T-boned our car. My wife has traumatic brain injuries as a result. I don't know if a hand-held device was involved there, but I have experience, and my wife much more so than me, of the way it affects a family's life, and certainly an individual's life, when somebody, for reasons unknown often, isn't paying attention and doesn't do what you're depending on the other drivers to do, which is to follow the rules of the road.

My wife is a school teacher. She's managed to get back to teaching full time, and she's very good at it. It's something that I believe she was born to do. Her teaching has not been damaged the way many of the other things she used to enjoy have been. But she'll come home with a new revelation every now and then. One day she said: "I realize today that I'm just like the children I teach who have ADHD, because I just can't make myself pay attention at the beginning of a conversation."

She had asked her principal a question, and she really needed to know the answer. It was a long answer, and right at the end she realized she hadn't listened to him. She was distracted by the children passing by, the things that they were saying and so on. That never used to be the case. She was the sharpest card player in our family, and she isn't anymore. Those are small things compared to a lot of other things in her life, and other people's who have been injured by someone else's momentary inattention.

These devices, of course, have become very much a part of our lives. They're intuitive. They're tremendously helpful. They save me a lot of time. I carry two BlackBerrys and a cell phone, and I get teased a lot for that. I think they help me get a whole lot more done for my constituents, for the government, for the province and for the people of British Columbia. I find them very helpful.

But I've seen many times — and I drive a lot — people who clearly are dramatically affected by the fact that they're using these devices while driving. I've always had an eye out for impaired drivers. I was schooled in that. I started working for ICBC when I was 21 years old. Having seen the awful consequences of driving while impaired, it's something that really gets my hackles up.

Nowadays when you see a vehicle wandering around in its lane or crossing lines that it shouldn't be crossing…. Very often it's also driving slower than the posted speed limit and creating an obstacle to other drivers. When you draw alongside, you see that the driver hasn't even noticed you, because they're working a BlackBerry or they've got a cell phone to their ear and they're just not paying attention the way they should be.

Contrary to what some folks have expressed an opinion on in the debate today about whether it will be tough for police officers to charge people with this offence, it won't be tough at all. People are so oblivious when they're using these devices that they don't even see that other drivers are annoyed with them. They don't even notice who's passing them by.

While it's always been tough, or often been tough, to achieve a conviction on the charge of driving without due care, I think it will be very obvious to police officers. And of course, their testimony will stand up in court.

It's important that we make this move, and I've been glad to hear the unanimity in the House. These devices are tremendously dangerous if they're used at the wrong time, and the wrong time is when you're supposed to have your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel. Probably even those of us who have never had an accident or come close to one while using a phone can think of times when we've missed an exit that we intended to take, when we've taken a wrong exit. It is just that extra degree of distraction that can cause you to make certainly that type of mistake and has caused a lot of people to make much more serious mistakes than that.

I believe that we are our brothers' keepers, and even if we've never made a slip for these reasons, by not using devices in that way, in a way that's distracting, we often have opportunity to avoid a collision or mishap that would've occurred if we weren't alert when someone else made a mistake.

In the years since the advent of cell phones, I have become so dependent upon them, I'm nearly always on the phone. I have used for many years one of the devices that goes over your head, and I don't really like sticking things in my ear, so there's the little talking device and the one that enables you to hear. An RCMP officer that came to talk to me — not because of an infraction but
[ Page 1487 ]
because he was with somebody I knew — grinned at me one day and said you look like Britney Spears with that thing on. I thought perhaps he needed an eye test.

[1740]

That's on the record, and it's the truth. An RCMP officer told me that, and he was a guy.

But there was a time when my daughter was very little, just over two years old…. I recommend everybody have a daughter if you possibly can. It's a wonderful relationship to have. Right from when she was tiny, she wanted to be with me all the time.

One day I went out to turn our truck and camper around in the driveway, and I had a hunch she would try to follow me out of the house, so I explained to her: "Katie, you've got to stay in the house because Daddy is moving the truck and it could be dangerous. I'll be right back."

I went out and hopped in the truck and closed the door behind me, and I had no idea she had gotten out and followed me. So I had to back the truck out of the driveway, and you can't see very well behind them when you're backing them up and you have a truck camper on.

If this was any time in the last 15 years, I probably would have been talking to somebody on the phone, just as the member from Columbia River–Revelstoke said. We're always communicating with people. When you have these devices, even if they are hands-free, they're distracting you. You're just not as alert as you would be otherwise.

So I started the truck, and I put it in reverse — an automatic transmission. Cautious by nature because of the way my dad raised me and, then, by what I've learned over those many years of accident investigation, I tend to not only have the window down but often the door of the truck open so I can hear anything.

I heard two pebbles move. I know it was two. It was a gravel driveway, and I heard one, two, and I thought, "Well, that's really odd, but sometimes gravel does that," and I almost gave it the gas, and I thought: "I better not do that. I better go check what that was."

So I put it back in gear, got out and walked to the back, and my little girl was huddled up against the rear bumper of the truck, hiding right up against the door of the camper. I was horrified because I would have backed over her. You hear of how that changes people's lives, and you think of the devastation of losing a child. I said: "Katie, what are you doing?" And she started to cry and said: "I just wanted to be with you, Daddy."

If I had been talking on my cell phone, hands-free or not, I wouldn't have heard that, and our lives would have been very different. I'm always so thankful that we didn't have that accident.

I have been waiting, Madam Speaker, for the committee to report out. I don't know if that's imminent or not, but I think I've forgotten that my colleague needs to do his wrap-up remarks. I obviously have.

So noting the time…. Oh, we've got one more speaker to follow. I didn't know that either, and I apologize to the member if I've been cutting in on his time. Obviously, I'm very much in favour of the House supporting this bill, and I'm very pleased and congratulate the members for their expressions of support.

S. Simpson: I'll be very brief here because I want to join with all the other members, I believe, in this House in supporting Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, a piece of legislation, as previous speakers have said, the purpose of which is to bring an end to the use of hand-held devices in vehicles because of the clear distraction that they have and the risks that they provide to drivers and to pedestrians.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is an important piece of legislation. It is important to change people's behaviours. I'm certainly one of those people who has to have their behaviour changed, as I'm certainly a culprit of using hand-held devices quite frequently. I know better, and I'm glad the law is going to change and that I'm going to have to do better.

The distraction is real, and the risk is real. We know that. One of the points of debate in the legislation, I think — and I know the minister has looked at this — is the question of whether you go to the hands-free option or you go to a total ban while driving.

It is my view that the decision of the minister at this point is the correct one, to look at going to the hands-free option. What my hope would be, and we'll get to discuss this in committee, is that ICBC or the appropriate officials be directed over the next period of time to assess whether it's accomplishing the objective. If it isn't accomplishing the objective, then I would hope the minister would bring back a more stringent piece of legislation that would just end the use of phones, if that's what it takes, depending on what the evidence shows us over time.

I believe that the approach with new drivers, graduated licences, is the right approach to take. As my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke said, there's a lot involved in becoming a new driver, and we want those young — not all, but primarily young — people to be paying attention to the road.

[1745]

As we limit their privileges in a car in a number of other ways, I think it makes sense to limit their ability to use a phone, and to take that approach. I'm pleased with that.

Obviously, the right to have emergency personnel be exempted from this in order to do their job on our behalf is the appropriate thing to do.

I'm happy at this point. I'm not entirely sure whether the fine amounts are enough or whether they need to be a little higher, but I'm happy to go with the minister's judgment on this. We'll see how that all occurs and how that works.

It is good legislation. It does need our support. I'm very pleased that everybody in the House certainly appears to
[ Page 1488 ]
be supporting this. It's the right thing to do at this time, and I'm glad I see, from the nodding of the minister, that he's also aware that we need to watch this over the next period of time after it's implemented to make sure it's as effective as I'm sure the minister wants it to be. We'll determine that over time, whether we need to take another approach.

With that, I'll take my place.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General closes debate.

Hon. K. Heed: I just want to take this opportunity to thank all members in the House. They're very passionate with respect to the reasons why we need legislation of this nature to deal with a very significant issue on our streets. We all feel that we need this. I'm looking forward to having the 100 percent commitment of the entire House as we move to the next stage.

I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Heed: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
AND LABOUR MARKET DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,130,713,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. Before we start, I'd just like to recognize that we have in the gallery a number of teachers from around the province. They're here with the B.C. teachers parliamentary institute, and they're going to be observing the committee.

S. Hammell: I would like to focus just a little bit of time on south of the Fraser and the Surrey region in particular. As the member mentioned prior to adjourning for lunch, we have particular challenges in the region south of the Fraser.

Just to give you some context, it was in the '80s that the city of Surrey, the school board of Surrey as well as the school board of Delta and a grassroots organization — and I can't recall the exact name, but it was something like south of the Fraser university society — got together and made a very powerful case that the access to post-secondary south of the Fraser was in a shocking state, that the students south of the Fraser did not have the same opportunities to attend post-secondary as they did in other regions in the province.

The situation 30 years later has not improved that radically. We certainly have a university — in fact, we have now two universities in the city of Surrey — but what we need is more seats. We need more construction. We need the expansion of, in particular, Simon Fraser University.

In the '90s, when originally the Tech University was put in place as an urban university to be centred in the centre of the city, that has worked well. That university morphed into the current SFU. But the problem continues in terms of access and the capacity to meet the need of the post-secondary students in south of the Fraser.

Surrey is Canada's 12th-largest city. It's one of the big cities in terms of this country and will eventually surpass Vancouver in terms of population. South of the Fraser has 19 percent of British Columbia's population. By 2016, one-third of the grade 12 graduates out of all the Lower Mainland will come from secondary schools in the South Fraser region.

[1445]

I know that I'm saying the same thing again and again and again, and it seems to me that I've had this mantra since I came to this place. But the access to post-secondary is not adequate south of the Fraser, and we have particular problems around Simon Fraser University.

I listened carefully to you explain the number of additions to universities and to post-secondary institutions at the beginning of your discussion, and Simon Fraser is
[ Page 1489 ]
where the need is greatest. So I would ask the minister what their immediate plans are to improve access, particularly at SFU, for students south of the Fraser.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Certainly, there's no disputing the rapid growth of the young, post-secondary-education-aged population, 18 to 29. As your fellow member has highlighted, there are adult needs, too, that are growing everywhere. I certainly am aware of that. I've visited the campus, and in fact, I have worked in that area.

The needs actually have been great throughout the province. In fact, in the last eight years, as you may be aware, we have added over 35,000 seats throughout the province. I think many regions are profiting from that in terms of increasing accessibility and the Closer to Home initiative, which we do recognize. By building post-secondary institutions and having seats in communities, including regional-remote, it makes education more accessible and, of course, more affordable.

Specifically to the Fraser Valley, the University of the Fraser Valley has seen a 39 percent growth in number of seats since 2001-2002. More specifically, with relation to the campus your most targeted interest is in, the Simon Fraser Surrey campus, the targeted growth last year was 520 seats. Simon Fraser University — which, of course, is responsible for allocating where their new seats will go — has indicated to us that the bulk of the 641 seats that they've received this year will go into the Fraser Valley, to the Simon Fraser University at Surrey.

S. Hammell: Minister, I just want to signal to you very loud and clear that this is considered an extremely important issue with the MLAs south of the Fraser. The accessibility….

Let me just give you a few figures. This is a presentation by Jeff Dean to the 2010 committee just recently. In Capilano the accessibility per 1,000 population is 20.9. In Fraser Valley the accessibility is 22.8. In the Kwantlen region and the SFU region, the Surrey region, the access is 12.8.

[1450]

It is significantly lower in our region. We understand that there is a commitment to continue to increase that over a period of time up until 2015, but what I'm signalling to the minister is that the need is now. We need the expansion in that region now.

We have currently the largest school district in the province. In our area we have more children per capita than anywhere else in the province. If you're going to invest in education, particularly post-secondary education, you need to get ahead of the curve, and you need to be investing in Surrey where the population is booming.

So what I'm asking in particular is…. There are plans for a science expansion, a building at SFU that ties in with the Surrey centre, the whole notion of an urban campus. When can you tell me that that building will be funded?

The Chair: Member, if I can remind the member to address everything through the Chair.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Hon. Chair, through you to the member, first, the number specifically that you alluded to…. I'm not sure that I know exactly those numbers.

You know, the premise that we're talking about…. We all agree that this is a rapidly growing area and a rapidly growing young population who will be, hopefully, seeking post-secondary education. Of course, we want to make sure they get the best education possible so they can participate fully in not just economic life but the quality of life that education brings.

It is a game of catch-up because of the rapid growth, and I think that with respect to Simon Fraser Surrey…. As you know, the knowledge infrastructure program has allocated funds for expansion at the Podium 2 site, including the creation of classrooms, offices and wet labs.

As well, as you know, they've got the targeted growth for 2,500 seats as the first phase of expansion into Surrey by SFU. The number 2,500 will be met this year.

The Chair: If I might also remind the minister: through the Chair.

S. Hammell: Through the Chair to the minister, there are two pieces in terms of the capital expansion at the Surrey site. One of them is the expansion of the science building into a major science facility on land that is already secured by the university. So there is one expansion there that is needed.

It was hoped, and I think that there was great hope, that that money would be funded by the federal budget's knowledge infrastructure fund. My understanding is that fund has been spent out and that the SFU Surrey campus did not succeed in getting the science building funded through that project. If the minister has other news for me, I'd certainly be delighted to hear it.

The second piece is the issue around the Podium and the space that SFU owns in the tower that exists right now. My understanding is that there was some attempt to have the space sold in lieu of re-leasing at the Podium. Could the minister tell me where that situation lies right now?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Madam Chair, through you to the member, with respect to the knowledge infrastructure program, there were two calls for projects, as you know, phase 1 and phase 2. As I said, in the second round SFU Surrey did get the money for expansion into Podium 2 for classrooms, offices and labs.

[1455]
[ Page 1490 ]

With respect to other knowledge infrastructure funding that Simon Fraser got, including — well, in total $49.4 million — $25 million from this ministry, it's Simon Fraser University that chose their priorities for what they felt were the top priorities for that infrastructure funding, notwithstanding their goal of very much continuing to grow into the Fraser Valley.

S. Hammell: Could you please explain to me what has happened around the podium — whether the money was spent to buy additional space in the Podium or whether the office floors were sold to assist in buying the Podium?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Those discussions are currently ongoing.

S. Hammell: Okay, Minister. I've heard you say that Simon Fraser's priorities were different, that they spent money from the infrastructure on some projects other than the ones in Surrey. I appreciate that, because that's not the understanding I had. I will go back in terms of my understanding around this issue, because I understand the $25 million got fairly far along the line for the science building before it appeared to fall sideways — fall off the train, wherever it was going.

However, what I need to say is that this is a very high priority for a number of us south of the Fraser. We've been struggling with this file for 30 years, and we're still struggling with the same file. We need to provide access for kids south of the Fraser that is equitable in terms of the rest of the province, and it is clearly not right now. It's an issue that we want to see attended to and focused on by the minister.

We have an amazing potential in the new city centre, anchored by an amazing institution like SFU, to bring dynamic learning and an absolutely creative urban university in the heart of a city. The city is on board, the school board is on board, business is on board, and we need the ministry to get on board and support SFU in Surrey.

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, I appreciate your statement. There wasn't a question, but I will just rise to say that certainly we appreciate and have experienced the value of Surrey both as a dynamic, growing city and as the impact and significance of its growth.

Now more than ever, students from all over the province are going back to school, and of course, we see increased demands for enrolment everywhere. We are keen to make sure that students from all over British Columbia have access to the education they want and deserve.

Just briefly, I'll say — although I am sure you're aware — that the universities are autonomous, and they have boards and governance structure whereby they manage their affairs in the best way they see fit. Certainly, it's not unusual in rounds of capital funding for a variety of priorities to come forward.

I think that we're on the same page. We appreciate the issues, and we're anxious to help Simon Fraser, the University of the Fraser Valley and some of the other regional colleges that students from your region do attend — like Kwantlen and Douglas — depending on the programs that they seek.

S. Hammell: I will just finish with this. I am sure you appreciate that I have heard how the need is throughout the province for a long, long time, but there is no need in this province greater than the need south of the Fraser. At a certain point it doesn't really matter what the need is around the province when it's so significant — the need in my and my colleagues' backyard.

[1500]

Having said that, the only thing I would ask the minister, having just said that the university is autonomous, is whether the university is responsible for all the planning around the city and engaging with the business community and doing any planning with the city. Or does the ministry have any role at all in that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: In fact, it is Simon Fraser University's role to have those discussions.

M. Mungall: We know that college-based and university campus–based and private bursary grant funds equate to about tens of millions of dollars that are available to students. The concern is, of course, that these may no longer be available because of the economic downturn. I'm wondering if the ministry has gathered any information at all about the level of private grants to students in the province, and of course…. Well, we'll leave it at that. If you've done any information, we can follow up.

Hon. M. Stilwell: If I understand the question right, the answer is that the post-secondary institutions have managed their funds through the downturn and are honouring their scholarships and bursaries.

D. Black: We spent a couple of hours at this, this morning, and we've got a few more hours today. I want to go back on the issue of student loans that we were discussing earlier this morning, just for a little bit.

The average debt load for a B.C. student is $27,000. That's the average. We know there are a lot of students who carry a much higher debt load than that. But even this average of $27,000 is $3,000 higher than the national average in Canada. So the concerns that we articulated this morning to the minister around the cuts to student aid raise a number of concerns.

We raised a lot of those concerns this morning. But one other issue that I think relates to the student aid
[ Page 1491 ]
packages — and the lack thereof, actually — is that people will often move to other provinces or even to other jurisdictions south of the border that offer more affordable programs to avoid coming out of university or a post-secondary education with a large debt load. The concern around that is that it's often….

The minister spoke earlier about the Premier's Award and that it was a niche award to a small select group of people — that 16 people in British Columbia would receive that award. However, in some respects, it was B.C.'s brightest that applied for those awards. They are the types of students that would get a good chance at big awards in other jurisdictions.

[1505]

We know that 96 percent of the people who are educated in B.C. and train in B.C. stay here in British Columbia and continue their jobs and their research in whatever field they're trained in. They stay in British Columbia after they complete their education. We also know that we're looking at labour shortages down the road. That's in the ministry's own estimates and projections.

I just want to ask the minister if they've given consideration to the potential loss of students — how that, because of lack of help, may impact our labour shortages, which have been outlined in their February and September service plans and in the ministry's own 2008 Higher Learning and the Labour Market in the Changing World — and if they've looked at the cuts in view of the potential of losing some of our brightest students to other jurisdictions.

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, just on a personal basis — if I could hook into the remark of people finding something more affordable in the U.S. — as the mother of three post-secondary-education students, if there's something of high quality that's cheaper than a Canadian university, please let me know.

In terms of student loans in general, I think that the rate of return on a post-secondary education is indisputable. We've talked about the lifetime-learning increase of $600,000. Even if every student were to take out a $27,000 loan, you can't get that rate of return anywhere.

The second thing is that for vulnerable students…. Last year, for example, 37 percent of the loans were converted to non-repayable loans for students who could not pay back their loans, so I think there is a recognition that not every student comes out with the same earning power or potential.

With respect to the Premier's Excellence Awards that you alluded to, obviously it's regrettable. We all want to reward merit, but there was a choice, and I think it's a reasonable choice to want to keep the money with the most vulnerable students.

I am, certainly, extremely aware of the human capital deficit that we're facing in the future. However, at this moment in time there are record enrolments and record demand for spaces, and it does not appear that that's going to wane in the near future, even though, as I think your fellow member pointed out, there are regions in the province that are seeing a decline in their grade 12 populations.

We think that this system is going to need more and more students and that more and more students will be getting a post-secondary education and staying and thriving here in British Columbia.

D. Black: I never meant to infer that education was less expensive in the U.S., certainly. What I was referring to were the pots of awards and grants that are accessible to the very brightest of students. My concern was that without that carrot here, we may lose some of the brightest, and then they don't come back. That was the concern, Minister.

In 2008 your predecessor in this portfolio said that there was a review underway into the possibility of a grace period on interest for student loans. I wanted to ask the minister if that review has happened. If so, what was the result of that review? If it hasn't happened yet, will it be happening?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The grace period is six months post leaving post-secondary school.

D. Black: I take from that response that the review that your predecessor spoke of on this issue has not taken place. Has it fallen by the wayside? Will it happen?

[1510]

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding is that there was a review without a report. At that time, it was reviewed by my predecessor, and the decision was made to keep the grace period at six months.

M. Mungall: I'm going to be moving over to HST. We know that this is going to have quite a large impact on the institutions.

My question to the minister is: did the minister consult with post-secondary education institutions about the HST increases onto their budgets before the July 23 announcement?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I will refer your queries with respect to the HST to the Minister of Finance.

M. Mungall: All right. I guess I see that the minister is not going to be responding to questions about consulting with people who are stakeholders in her own ministry around this very important issue. Has the ministry done any analysis on the HST's possible impacts on post-secondary institutions? Again, the stakeholders involved with this ministry. Has the ministry done
[ Page 1492 ]
any analysis of how the HST will impact post-secondary institutions' budgets?

Hon. M. Stilwell: My staff certainly has been and works collaboratively with the staff in the Ministry of Finance, but those questions should be referred to my colleague.

The Chair: Member for Nelson-Creston.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member for New Westminster.

D. Black: Thank you. Sorry for a little bit of confusion here. We're playing a tag-team kind of operation.

Again on the impact of the HST. The minister knows that in my opening remarks this morning I highlighted that we would have questions around the implications of the HST on post-secondary education in this province and on the institutions. I hope that she and her officials will give us some response on how that's going to play out.

I know that B.C.'s universities have commissioned a review of the HST and its impact on their bottom line. This review estimates that the HST implementation will cost the universities more than $40 million. That's a lot of money, and that's a big impact on their budget — $40 million.

I want to ask what steps the ministry is taking to quantify these costs. Is the minister confident that there will be some sort of remediation that will be tabled in the next provincial budget to assist post-secondary education institutes around this issue?

Just the same way as with the rest of the population, this came as a shock to post-secondary educational institutions after they'd done much of their financial planning. Are there any plans to quantify these costs, and will there be some form of remediation in the next provincial budget?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm sure that the report you described has been forwarded to the Minister of Finance. As you know, the HST will not become effective until July 2010. As the Minister of Finance has said, there are discussions with groups who may be especially impacted and discussions ongoing about what mitigation, if any, will happen. Other than that, I have to refer you to the Minister of Finance.

The Chair: Member for New Westminster, I remind you that we are talking about Vote 12, and the minister has indicated that many of these questions do need to be referred to the Minister of Finance.

D. Black: Yes, I appreciate that.

[1515]

I would just, then, ask the minister whether or not she's had an opportunity or taken the initiative to discuss with the Minister of Finance the implication of the HST on the post-secondary education institutions across the province that fall within her jurisdiction.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Of course, there are ongoing and continuing discussions with the Minister of Finance — not just about that but about the state of the economy and its impact on the budget in the outgoing years.

D. Black: Then in those discussions, has the Minister of Finance brought the Minister of Education's attention to the study that was commissioned by B.C.'s universities that show HST will cost B.C.'s universities more than $40 million?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that I am aware of the report as well as other financial documents and surveys with respect to this, and I am in ongoing discussions.

M. Mungall: We know that each ministry brings their budget to the Treasury Board and, of course, argues for the budget items in their budget. We know that a study has been done identifying $40 million of extra costs to post-secondary education. My question to the minister is: will she be bringing this forward to the Treasury Board and projecting it into future budgets?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Obviously, it will be part of ongoing discussions which we have about future budgets.

Interjections.

M. Mungall: This is what happens when two women are working together. "Oh no, you do it." "No, you." We're sharing the workload.

My question to the minister, then, is…. We've heard from a lot of post-secondary institutions as we've been talking to them about the impact, the anticipated $40 million impact, of the HST on their budgets and, of course, adding future budget pressures. One of the questions that they have specifically is if the ministry or this government will be making them exempt from having to pay for the HST.

That question would, therefore, also further answer the question around protecting the ministry's budget to cover the losses that universities are going to have when she goes to Treasury Board.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I don't have a lot more to add other than to say that there are discussions ongoing, as the Minister of Finance has said, between now and implementation about what mitigation, if any, will be applied to specific groups. Of course, the HST, as well as the other information that one would take into account, is under discussion as we go forward into budget talks.
[ Page 1493 ]

D. Black: I thank the minister for that response. I guess that we would say, on behalf of post-secondary education institutes, that we hope the minister is successful in getting mitigation for her institutions. We wish her well in that effort.

One of the other issues in the last budget that has been a surprise to post-secondary institutions, of course, is the increase in medical services premiums. I want to ask the minister: has there been any analysis of the impact of the increase of MSP payments and premiums on the cost of post-secondary educational institutions?

[1520]

Hon. M. Stilwell: That particular issue, in fact, has not been raised with me by any post-secondary institutions. Of course, they are each autonomous and are managing their own budgets and affairs individually.

D. Black: I am sure that the minister does understand that that will be an increased burden on the budgets of post-secondary education institutions. Is that right?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I do understand that it's a factor that they will have to take into account.

D. Black: I have some questions now around the whole issue of medical education in British Columbia, and I'm sure that the minister has some firsthand knowledge she would like to share with us today on this issue.

My community of New Westminster is part of the Fraser Health region. It's one of the largest health regions, actually, in Canada, and its population is 1½ million people. It's over one-third of B.C.'s population.

It's also the fastest-growing health region in B.C., and it's expected to continue that growth pattern. Fraser Health has 81 doctors per 100,000 population right now, which is far below the OECD average, and it's below the Vancouver average as well.

When we look at the B.C. health authorities, they're reporting — not just Fraser Health — that there's a critical shortage of all medical professionals, including physicians, and that that in itself is having a significant impact on the cost of health care delivery in our province.

More importantly, that lack of trained physicians in B.C. is forcing more patients into expensive treatment at overcrowded and sometimes understaffed emergency wards. Currently B.C. trains and retains fewer physicians per 100,000 population than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

So my question to the minister is this: what is the ministry's strategy in working with the Ministry of Health? I understand that this would be joint jurisdiction. What is the ministry's strategy to alleviate this critical issue, which is impacting the sustainability of our public health care system?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Certainly, this is something that I have knowledge of through my own personal experience and also, obviously, through my new role. The Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development is committed to helping to alleviate this problem, although I think we have to realize that it's a worldwide problem. There's no quick fix.

I think it's important, from my own experience, to emphasize that medical education requires more than opening of seats. It actually takes time to create a teaching culture in hospitals, and you need clinical spaces and physical resources more than just classroom seats. It is a complex learning structure and takes substantial investment of time and money.

As you know, we have doubled the number of first-year medical education spaces in British Columbia, with a new partnership at UBC and UNBC and UVic. A new medical program, of course, is also planning its first intake at UBC Okanagan. Your point about people practising where they train is relevant not just in Fraser Valley but, obviously, all over British Columbia and probably more acutely in the more rural and remote areas, where medical practice can be much more challenging.

These programs are expected to graduate 288 MDs every year by 2014-15, more than double what we started with in 2001-02. As well, as you know, we have created 25 new nursing programs. I have had the pleasure of seeing most of them, and I'm delighted with the progress they are making, including increasing the choices that potential nursing students have by developing three-year accelerated degrees — allowing for the choice of that and the more conventional four-year degree.

[1525]

This allows the students who wish to, to enter into the workforce faster. That is one of the programs at the University of the Fraser Valley.

We've created over 4,000 new nursing spaces since 2001, resulting in more than 15,000 new credentials since 2001, so on the whole, I think we are making headway. It's not to say that this isn't a substantial issue. We know it is.

D. Black: I'm certainly pleased to hear the minister acknowledge that it's a substantive issue, because I know that Fraser Health, in my district, needs an additional 150 physicians. It's a staggering amount.

When we look at how doctors are trained in Canada, it's worth noting that the Canadian average on training doctors is 6.2 per 100,000. That's the Canadian average. In British Columbia, sadly, we're at 2.8, and we've got a long way to go even to get up and meet the Canadian average.

Newfoundland. It's a smaller province. I understand that, but it's 11.5. Quebec is 8.8; Manitoba, 7.3; Alberta, next door, 6.9; and Nova Scotia, 10.8. Actually, we have the lowest in Canada — not something to be particularly pleased with in B.C.
[ Page 1494 ]

I want to move on now to B.C.'s share of the knowledge infrastructure fund. I know that virtually all of the $2 billion announced in the last federal budget for investments in knowledge infrastructure has been allocated. I do understand that and that B.C. has received a significant portion of this funding, but there's been some debate about whether the province has actually received its entire fair share of that.

My question to the minister is: is the ministry monitoring the investments in the knowledge infrastructure fund, and is it confident that the investments in B.C. are reflective of our total population and in line with the investments in Ontario, Quebec and particularly those of neighbouring Alberta?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think that I can answer unequivocally that we are delighted that (a) we got our fair share and (b) we got the money and that the projects are slated and or in the ground and will be completed on time. We're actually delighted with the whole program. We were the first in Canada to get our money for the knowledge infrastructure program.

D. Black: What I'm hearing the minister say is that there's no discrepancy by population with the funding that went from this program to other provinces, particularly Alberta in comparison to British Columbia.

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding of how the money was allotted is…. I do not believe that it was population-based. I believe it was regional. I don't actually have that information, but I'm happy to try and get it for you.

D. Black: I appreciate that, and I'll look forward to receiving that from the minister.

There's another issue, I think, around the graduate student enrolment in B.C. All universities, including B.C.'s universities, are in kind of a worldwide competition now for students, most particularly for graduate students. All of this is important, as the minister said earlier, around pursuing a knowledge-based, knowledge-driven economy and looking ahead to the future.

Currently B.C. continues to experience low levels of graduate-level education, which is actually compromising the ability of B.C. to build its economic base into research and development. I know that right across Canada, research and development is a huge issue — that we're far behind other countries in what we do on a per-capita basis around research and development.

[1530]

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

My question to the minister is: what is the ministry's strategy for increasing significantly our ability to attract and retrain graduate-level students, particularly in this kind of global economy, particularly international students from the Asia-Pacific, who are really in demand everywhere?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'll give you some numbers just to put some context on it globally and then speak more specifically. In 2008-09 the total number of students enrolled in graduate programs at the four research-intensive universities, for example, was 13,000 full-time-equivalent student spaces, which was an increase of 50 percent since 2000.

The government is funding, as part of its strategy to increase graduate spaces, a total of 2,500 new graduate spaces over four years to increase opportunities for students. That expansion began in '07-08 and continues through '10-11 with 625 new spaces per year to the four research-intensive universities.

That expansion and allocation of the seats was through a competitive process. The universities basically applied to or competed to get spots based on a couple of factors — the main one being leveraging the strength of their existing programs. There was also consideration of their ability to target aboriginal students.

Just with respect to the international students. Obviously, we agree that graduate studies are national and international in scope, more so than ever today. We do have an active and avid interest in attracting the best and the brightest within B.C.

International students do represent a significant portion of the current graduate student body. It tends to be…. The desire is always to have a pure meritocracy, not to select purely on residency. On that basis, about 20 percent of graduate student spaces are filled by international students in B.C.

D. Black: I appreciate the information that she shared with us and would be happy to receive more if she wants to do that later. Basically, I guess my question would be, then: does the minister think we're doing well enough, then, in British Columbia in attracting graduate students?

Does the minister feel that we have the numbers that we need in British Columbia to address what she said in her opening statements around labour market development, about addressing the new knowledge-based economy? Figures that I've looked at show that we are under-represented in B.C. with graduate students.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Certainly, the importance of graduate students and having as many of the best and brightest as we can, getting the best education possible in British Columbia, obviously, is a common interest.

I think you yourself know, having more experience in government, that excellence is not a finish line. We're always moving toward it. We are keenly aware of the human-capital deficit and the impact that's going to have on our labour market. I think everyone is aware
[ Page 1495 ]
that the net growth of the labour market after 2011 will be due to immigration.

The answer is that I feel very comfortable saying that I am proud of the budget that this ministry is getting. I think the fact that it is a record amount of $1.9 billion — it's a lift; it's been increased every year for eight years — does speak to the commitment of this government towards post-secondary education and an understanding of its value to society.

B. Simpson: I have a series of questions around aboriginal post-secondary education, for the minister's information. The minister's last comment is quite interesting and a nice segue into what I want to talk about. We don't have to depend solely on immigration for our labour market, because first nations, of course, are a growth population and have huge potential for us if we get the education component of that correct, both at the K-to-12 level and post-secondary.

[1535]

My questions revolve around the April 24, 2007, aboriginal post-secondary strategy. My first question: is there some place I can go to that gives a two-year status report on that so that I can actually understand what happened with that plan? I'll get into it. There were a whole bunch of envelopes where money was assigned, and I'd like to go to one place and get an update on how we're tracking on all the various envelopes that were in that plan.

Hon. M. Stilwell: There's not one place because the funding is captured through a variety of programs. If you give me a list, we're happy to get you the information on specifics.

Just while I'm standing, I will say that I do acknowledge heartily your opening statement. It is the desire of the government to ensure that both the participation and achievement gap of aboriginal students is closed and that our programs are aimed very much at helping aboriginal students to start, stay and succeed in post-secondary education. I am aware that there is a baby boom in the province — that is, among first nations. Their participation will be essential to British Columbia's success in the future.

B. Simpson: Closing the gap is a catchphrase that the government has under both the so-called new relationship and the transformative change accord, of which B.C. is a signatory. The aboriginal post-secondary strategy is a derivative of the transformative change accord.

One of the questions I have then, before I get into some of the specifics, is: of the $65 million that was assigned to that — it's not clear from what I'm able to look at — how much was federal money and how much was provincial money? It would be nice to know what the breakdown is there as well.

Hon. M. Stilwell: That envelope of funding is entirely provincial money.

B. Simpson: That money was broken down at $10.3 million for scholarships, $14.9 million for the aboriginal service plans, $12.1 million for culturally appropriate programs and language programs, $12.8 million transitioned from high school and $15 million from gathering places.

In working with first nations communities, like ourselves in the opposition, they would like to know where we're at on these programs. This government has a propensity to do this — make a big announceable, set big targets and talk about big money. And then, when you actually try and track the money, it's a very difficult and onerous process. You find out that half the time the stuff wasn't even done.

It will be in Hansard, the list I just gave, but it's from the ministry's own documentation. So as the opposition Aboriginal Relations critic and my fellow colleagues here, we'd like an actual breakdown — how many gathering places, how many scholarships have been given, how many programs have been developed, etc.

That should be part of normal government accounting when they make an announcement of this nature, in particular the importance of this strategy both with respect to addressing first nations social gap and labour market means that we have. I think it's important we get a public accounting of that. So that's one thing I would like.

A specific question is on the aboriginal service plans. Those were three-year plans. My understanding is that there were 11 institutions that had approved plans. There's a question out there about whether or not the funding for those plans is going to continue, particularly into year 3. So is there a commitment to make sure that those plans that were approved for all 11 institutions are actually going to get year 2 and year 3 funding on the aboriginal service plans?

[1540]

Hon. M. Stilwell: There was a lot in that, so I might not get it all on the first cut. With respect to the general statement about how we're doing in governance, we do have an MOU partners table, which includes the leadership council, the university presidents and colleges, MARR and the federal government. There are ongoing discussions on a regular, ongoing basis about this issue.

With respect to the aboriginal post-secondary strategy — first, the three-year plan that you were referring to — the third year is funded. The strategy status — I can read you a list of some of the things you asked about.

The aboriginal service plans, as you mentioned. Eleven post-secondary institutions have developed and are implementing, and the third year is funded; 37 aboriginal special projects were funded in '08-09, total-
[ Page 1496 ]
ling $2.98 million; $700,000 was spent on aboriginal transitions research in '07, and '08-09 was $900,000; 200 new public post-secondary seats were specifically targeted. These seats are ongoing base-funded.

We are working to reduce financial barriers, which can be substantial in terms of access, through scholarships and financial awards including, as you probably know about, the $10 million endowment for the Irving K. Barber Scholarship Society. An additional half-million was invested to allow for disbursements in '09-10 and '10-11. I'm just trying to skip down to some of the things you asked.

We have committed, as you mentioned, $15 million to build culturally welcoming gathering places, and to date over $13 million has been issued or committed to 18 public post-secondary institutions. I can tell you that on my tour, I saw many of them.

We have a new program. This alludes back to your question: is there a single list? The answer is no, because some of the money comes through the labour market agreement with the federal government, which relates to one of your questions. We have a new six-year labour market agreement under which we will receive approximately $66 million per year for six years.

Out of that, the aboriginal training for employment program will be funded. In July we issued the first request for proposals. This will fund aboriginal organizations for job-related training and support services, and that is aimed at aboriginal labour market participation and helping to build capacity at that level.

B. Simpson: I thank the minister for her answer. My point remains, though. I know the MOU group exists, and there have been some symposiums and conferences. But even if I look at the conference documentation, there is no clear articulation.

This was a definitive strategy with definitive targets, objectives, etc. It just makes more sense to report out as a definitive strategy. It just makes it easier for everybody to understand what's going on. I do appreciate the minister's response, but that's my suggestion. It would make life easier for lots of people if the strategy was actually reported on as a discrete strategy because it has discrete outcomes.

With respect to the three-year funding for the aboriginal service plans — and I'll take the minister at her word that it continues — there's some confusion out there, so the minister may wish to communicate to that effect.

I know the health authorities, the school districts, the institutions are all starting to wonder what they're going to do with, again, one-year, two-year, three-year, five-year initiatives. They often get left holding the bag because it builds expectations. If you have employees in place, programs in place and so on, at the end of the three years the expectations still remain.

Will there be discussions with the institutions about what year 4 looks like for this — if there's an intent to continue the program, if there's an intent to continue to try and achieve the objectives of the aboriginal plan under those aboriginal service plans? So is there going to be discussion about year 4, 5, 6, etc.?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I do appreciate the issue of one-year, two-year, three-year funding, having worked in health for 32 years under all governments. This is always an issue — that it's hard to plan. At the same time, I think it's important, and one of my goals is to make sure that the important pieces you alluded to — namely, implementation — are followed up with a really rigorous analysis of what's working and what isn't.

[1545]

Of course, those are discussions with the institutions, because we want to make sure that the money that is spent is being spent in the highest and best ways, not just on behalf of the taxpayers but on behalf of helping the people and achieving what it's really meant to.

This is something I am keenly interested in. I think it's important. Your point is well taken that there needs to be a balance, that sometimes you have to stand there and build things and nurture them for more than one, two or three years. At the same time, you have to have the flexibility to stop what doesn't work or, as you learn better practices, to have money to put into those. But I do take your point.

M. Mungall: Having been a member, or still being a member, of the Finance Committee, I've had the opportunity to speak with many students throughout the province. I particularly want to touch on the students from North Island College.

They presented to the Finance Committee that the aboriginal coordinator position at their school was cut due to funding and budget pressures. But it seems that the aboriginal coordinator, especially the way they describe this position, is one that really facilitates a lot of aboriginal students to get into the classroom and remain in the classroom and see their program through.

That position was tremendously helpful, and it seems to fall in line and be quite consistent with objective 1.2 in the service plan where it says…. It's about removing barriers to post-secondary education.

With all of that in mind, the question to the minister, is if the ministry will provide targeted funding to reinstate the aboriginal coordinator at North Island College.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I do appreciate some of the issues that were raised — that often students who, as we talked about before the break, don't have a background or family members who can support them and help them through the process of post-secondary education need more support so that they could start, stay and succeed.
[ Page 1497 ]
That is the role and goal of some of the funding that is included in block funding.

My information is that the institution-based funding includes support for the coordinator positions, and we're not eliminating that funding. That would have been a decision made at the level of the institution.

M. Mungall: My understanding is that there has been a 2 percent wage increase for university and college staff. Of course, this is going to be impacting the provincial budget. Well, it will be impacting the university and college budgets. That's for sure. We're wondering: what is the impact of that remaining 2 percent, and has the government accounted for this cost pressure in this budget?

Hon. M. Stilwell: This funding was included in last year's budget in the negotiating framework and is being carried forward.

M. Mungall: That may be the case. However, the budget is $68 million smaller than it was in February, in the original budget prior to the election. So how are the wage pressures supposed to be absorbed, considering that we're looking at $68 million less in the budget?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Operating grants got an 8.8 percent lift this year.

[1550]

M. Mungall: The minister did say that the budget for operating has gone up, yet we do see that when it comes to wages, we're looking at $68 million less than the February budget in this budget. It might have gone up previous to last year, but we're looking at February. It seems to me that it's $68 million less than in February. That's what we're comparing.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm not sure which number you're referring to by the $68 million, but it's not wages.

M. Mungall: The entire budget is $68 million less, so we're looking at a very global thing. If we're working with less money than we were in February, how are we going to address this budget pressure, the 2 percent increase, without any cuts?

Just to finish up that question. If there won't be any cuts…. Will there be cuts? Is there a plan? We're hoping that there aren't going to be any cuts. But will there be cuts? Where are they going to be? Getting more specific into the details here.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes, in fact, there is still a $68 million lift on this year's budget. It is less than the lift of February, but the total budget is elevated by $68 million. The operating grant funding for each institution was elevated by 8.8 percent. Wages are in the operating grant. It was lifted by 8.8 percent.

M. Mungall: The minister has said that operating has gone up for all institutions by 8.8 percent. We know that they're facing various budget pressures, such as the 2 percent in wages. We spoke earlier about HST and MSP. There are also various other increased costs.

The question is: is the 8.8 percent going to meet the needs of post-secondary institutions when they face increased costs, or will they be forced to make cuts?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I can't answer specifically for each institution because each of them obviously manages their budgets independently. They have lots of reporting functions, but basically, other than not going into a deficit, they each manage their budgets individually.

M. Mungall: I understand that if the provincial government is not meeting the increased budget pressures on the universities with the current increase of 8.8 percent, it is very likely that they will have to make cuts to programs for students.

[1555]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, I can't attest to what each institution is going to do to manage their budget. Substantially, they received an 8.8 percent lift, which is much above the CPI index. Obviously, each institution is going to decide how to manage their operating grants.

M. Mungall: Surely, it's clear that the minister can't go and tell all the post-secondary institutions what they are to be doing with the block funding that they're going to be getting, the operational funding that they're going to be getting. They do have some autonomy.

However, to ensure that cuts aren't going to be made to programs that impact students, has the minister consulted at all with universities, colleges and other post-secondary institutions on whether or not the particular increase they're getting — yes, it's above the consumer price index — is sufficient to meet their needs?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I guess the answer is that of course, there are ongoing discussions with the post-secondary institutions on a regular basis about all facets of their role, within the context and understanding that they are autonomous. As I said, they all got a substantial lift. Once they get that operating grant, then obviously the administrations and boards will manage their affairs in the way that they see best.

M. Mungall: But the key question here is whether or not institutions will be able to manage their budgets without making cuts to students. That is of direct importance
[ Page 1498 ]
to future labour market development, which, of course, is under the mandate of this ministry.

We want to make sure that this ministry is doing all it can to prepare for the future labour market, do its due diligence in developing that labour market and making sure that universities, colleges and other post-secondary institutions are not going to have to make cuts that will directly impact students — which, as we know, directly impacts our labour market.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Each post-secondary institution, obviously, as I said, manages its affairs in the way it sees as best for that institution. They make program decisions based on a number of factors — for example, the number of students requesting a program, the number of students utilizing a program.

That kind of what I would call day-to-day management of the institution they do independently. Certainly, we look at the number of credentials that are being provided every year, which is escalating, and the number of students registering, which is escalating — 350 new degrees created.

We are satisfied that on the whole, we are travelling in the right direction with the percentages of growth we talked about at different campuses and the fact that they got a lift — against the worst recession in 80 years — that's the envy of other jurisdictions. I'm satisfied that the institutions will manage the money in the way that they see as best aligned with the interests of the institution and their students.

[1600]

M. Mungall: What I'm hearing from the minister is that while she might be in ongoing consultations, she has not actually consulted with post-secondary institutions such as UBC, SFU, B.C. Colleges and many, many other post-secondary institutions throughout the province about this 8.8 percent — if it is sufficient, if it is going to ensure that these institutions, who are also facing other budget pressures already mentioned, like the 2 percent increase in staff wages, the HST, the MSP and the day-to-day interest that incurs as inflation happens, as well as other pressures such as construction and infrastructure development, increasing programs, shifting programs….

These are all increased costs that post-secondary institutions are facing. I know that's exactly what they've been telling me and my colleague here, the MLA for New Westminster. That's what they've been telling us as we speak with them.

What I'm hearing from the minister — and I would appreciate her clarification — is that she has not indeed consulted with them whether or not this 8.8 percent increase is sufficient to meet their demands in this budget.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I want to correct any misconception. I have regular ongoing discussions — with presidents of the institutions, with their board chairs, with their boards, with the communities they're seated in — about the needs now and into the future. Out of those discussions, which…. By the way, they have fed back to me only delight with their budgets. An 8.8 percent lift in the worst recession of 80 years is good news and something to be proud of.

The Chair: Member, as we've spent some time in the committee on this line of questioning, just a gentle suggestion that it might be more fruitful to look at another line of questioning.

M. Mungall: Thank you, Chair. Yes, we're wrapping up. You weren't here earlier, but my colleague pointed out that I'm deputy critic, she's critic, and we're tag-teaming on this. I don't want to get up and start asking questions without having her direct input. That's why we're taking some breaks here.

The Chair: That's fine.

M. Mungall: Okay. To just wrap up this line of questioning. We do want to move on. We do have, I see, quite a bit of time left, and we do have quite a lot to bring up.

But just to wrap this up, again, we've been hearing from several post-secondary institutions that they do appreciate the stable funding, but they do have concerns that it's not going to meet their budgetary pressures, especially with the introduction of the HST, the increase in MSP premiums and various other pressures that they are facing.

[1605]

They do have the concern that they may have to be cutting programs to students, and they have been sharing that with us. I just want to reiterate to the minister that this needs to be highlighted. This needs to be considered in her budget — whether or not the increase, the 8.8 percent lift that she is speaking about, is meeting the financial demands of our post-secondary institutions.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I will also round up this session by saying that I think that we started out talking about tuition. I would like to emphasize that the Stats Canada survey this week was good news. It showed again this year that the average undergraduate tuition in British Columbia is affordable and ranks fifth and that the tuition caps of 2 percent that we've had in place since 2005 are almost half the national average of 3.6 percent.

The second part of that piece is that, as you know, students pay one-third of the total cost and that the average FTE funding in this province for post-secondary education students is $9,910. When I talk to presidents of
[ Page 1499 ]
post-secondary education institutions from other provinces, this is something they envy.

So on whole, against the current economic background and against the government's significant commitment to post-secondary education, I think that this year's budget is something to be proud of, and it does put a stake in the ground for education and the future of British Columbia.

D. Black: Madam Chair, welcome to our estimates on post-secondary education.

I'd like to move now onto another topic, and that is the whole issue of private post-secondary education institutes in British Columbia. We saw, I think it was just a few weeks ago, a school in Vancouver, VTC Language School — which was touted as one of the largest private language institutions in North America, I believe — close its doors.

It slammed the doors the day after students had paid as much as $100,000 in tuition. Lots of students were left without access to the training some of them came to Canada to receive, came to British Columbia to receive.

Not only were the students affected — there are hundreds of students there — there was also a large faculty involved at VTC Language School. In fact, some of my colleagues from other parts of the Lower Mainland have met with those teachers. They're left without any protection, left owing a considerable amount of money from that school in particular.

I want to ask the minister if she's had a chance to look at that particular situation at VTC Language School. I'm sure that she must have received representation, as we on this side of the House have, from the affected students and the affected teachers who've been left not receiving their pay and the students who have been left hung out to dry in terms of the huge tuition fees they paid.

So my question is: has she had an opportunity to meet with any of those teachers? And has she had an opportunity, also, to hear from the students who were shut out of that school?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I am aware of that particular incident, and I want to say that it is always of concern to us when a student has a disappointing education experience here in British Columbia. Our goal is to be a destination of choice for international education.

[1610]

As you may be aware, private English-as-a-second-language schools are not regulated here in British Columbia and are not required to register with us on that basis. They can register with the Private Career Training Institution Agency on a voluntary basis, and certainly, we encourage them to do so. The fact that they are not regulated is consistent with the rest of Canada, and Washington and Oregon states, and the government does not intend to regulate them in a way that would be different from regulation in those jurisdictions that I have talked about.

However, as I said, we do recognize the value of our reputation for quality post-secondary education in B.C. and continue to put in place measures to enhance education quality and protection of students and to strengthen accountability. I will also just say for clarification that schools that provide ESL and career training do have to register with the Private Career Training Institution Agency, which the member may be aware of.

D. Black: I would have to say, Minister, that it's a heck of a lot more than a "disappointing experience" to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition and have the door slammed on the students that were going there. And it's much more than a disappointing experience for the teachers who were employed there and have been left with cheques that bounced for their paycheques — a lot of pain and suffering going on for those teachers.

The minister made reference to not wanting to regulate. I hope that's not a hard-and-fast position, because we've seen more and more of these private education, particularly language-training, schools take advantage, quite frankly, of people in British Columbia and charge them high tuition. Many of the students, sometimes even for some of these private education institutes, even access student loans and then are left with not only no school to go to but a big debt to repay to the B.C. student loan program.

The minister also mentioned that she felt that in North America there weren't regulations around private post-secondary education institutes. Well, the minister might want to look further afield, because this is quite a competitive market, and we're trying, I believe, in British Columbia to attract people from other parts of the world to come to British Columbia to get education and to, in fact, enter these private institutions.

If you look at what's happened in Australia, where they actually have a very highly regulated post-secondary education component in the private sector — heavily regulated — Australia is winning the race. Australia is attracting more and more students from other parts of the world, particularly Asia-Pacific and other areas, and we're losing out in B.C. on attracting those students. Part of the reason we're losing out on them is….

Well, we've actually seen the consulates, I believe, of India, China, Korea make very damaging statements about the situation here in British Columbia. They've said their students from those countries are in danger of being "ripped off" and losing their money.

Not only has this experience impacted students who come here and attend these, not only has it impacted the teachers who work in those facilities and have lost their wages; it's also impacted on Canada's reputation in the international community and, in particular, British Columbia's reputation in the international community. I
[ Page 1500 ]
believe we're losing out on a potential source of students, of income to the province and an increase in our labour market development, which the minister talked about a bit earlier.

I'll move, then, to around the issue of regulation, because the minister raised it. About a year or two ago this government, your government, hired one of the people who'd worked in post-secondary, in the ministry, to do a study of finding ways of improving post-secondary education in British Columbia.

[1615]

He came up with a report, the Watson report, and he came up with, I believe, 13 recommendations to improve private career training in British Columbia. I want to ask the minister: what steps has your ministry taken, if any, on any of the 13 recommendations that were in that report?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I just want to start by clarifying a couple of things. Private ESL schools, as I said, are not regulated. Students who attend those are not eligible for student loans. To qualify for student loans, it has to be an institution that is registered. If it's private, with the private….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Exactly. That's an important distinction.

I want to backtrack a little. As I say, it is of concern to me when students are disappointed in their experience here, and I do take seriously British Columbia having a good reputation for international education. I think it's important to protect that brand.

I think that international education is a significant source of revenue for the province and, as we've both agreed, a source of new Canadians and new British Columbians who will come and make their lives here, so it is not a small topic.

I take exception to characterizing them all the same. The fact is that there are many private career training institutions in this province that have been in business…. Sprott-Shaw has been in business for over 100 years. I think it's unfair to characterize everyone. You know, sometimes one bad apple does not spoil the bunch, and I think this is a case for that.

I think, with relation to PCTIA, we have strengthened the measures within that agency to enhance quality and increase accountability for that sector. I think that we are moving in the right direction on that.

With respect, I want to go back to the issue of protecting the B.C. brand for international education, which I think is important, and how to give the prospective students a way to recognize the quality institutions in British Columbia so that they will be able to make informed choices as consumers.

We will be introducing the educational quality assurance designation in British Columbia, which will be a brand for both public and private institutions. That trademark will promote high-quality B.C. institutions — allowing students, again, to have a recognizable sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of approval for schools that meet established quality assurance standards.

While the implementation of this has taken time to achieve, the stronger we can make this commitment, the better it will be in protecting students. It will be administered by the B.C. Council for International Education, which is an independent international education society, and that will be launched in November. I am hopeful — more than hopeful, actually. I think this will go a long way to addressing some of the issues you've raised.

D. Black: While I appreciate the minister's response, she didn't address my question at all. I would submit that there has been more than one bad apple. There have been a number, a litany, of language schools that have gone under, leaving students and teachers high and dry. So it's not a case of picking out one example, like the school that I just spoke about, the VTC Language School in Vancouver. There have been many of them.

I recognize that there are good schools too, and Sprott-Shaw is among one of the best. In fact, I believe that Sprott-Shaw picked up some of the students who were so badly abused by the VTC Language School and is offering them some of that education now. So that is a good thing.

But the fact is that it was the minister's own government that commissioned a study because the government had identified a problem within the system of private post-secondary education. In that report that the government commissioned, they were given 13 recommendations to make improvements to private career training.

[1620]

I want to ask the minister once again: how many of those 13 recommendations have been implemented, which the government commissioned and asked for? How many are left to be implemented?

Hon. M. Stilwell: With respect to Mr. Watson's report, which I am assuming is what you're referring to, on January 31, 2008, initial actions relating to the recommendations were announced, including moving to an outcome-based accreditation process, enhancing accountability of PCTIA and restructuring fees.

Of the 16 formal recommendations the report made, approximately half of them have been implemented either in whole or in part. Some of the recommendations are longer items and will take further time to analyze and consider. Five of the recommendations made are not being considered at this time, and they include re-regulating of private ESL schools.
[ Page 1501 ]

D. Black: Well, I sense that there's this sort of intransigence here, almost like regulation is some kind of evil, The minister is repeating that they will not regulate.

In the meantime, I pointed out the example of Australia, which has a heavily regulated private post-secondary education system — heavily regulated. It's winning in the international community in attracting students to Australia because of that. British Columbia has already been cited by diplomats from foreign countries as "not the place to go for this kind of training."

In fact, at the community college level some community colleges feel that their drop in ESL students might have happened because of the bad press, if you like, that was generated because there is no regulation around this.

Again, to the minister, I want to ask what steps has her ministry taken to offer international and local students more protection? She mentioned some kind of program. I think it was a quality assurance program that she mentioned. It sounded a bit, quite frankly, like VQA on wine.

Was there any teeth to what she proposed? Was there any way of monitoring or ensuring that students would not be abused and would receive the education they paid for from these private institutions? Is there any teeth to the kind of program that she alluded to in her last response?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I am not congenitally opposed to regulation as a basic plank. Coming from, I would say, both a highly regulated profession and a profession that has made outstanding, I think, progress on quality assurance over the years and having watched regulation versus the voluntary quality assurance…. Based on my experience, more than ideological commitment, I actually have a lot of confidence and optimism around the EQA program.

I do think that it will achieve things. When you compare it to the VQA, actually, I think you're wrong. I think the VQA was an outstanding success. It took the B.C. wine industry from one that was ranked very poorly, even by some of us desperate consumers who were 16 years old and would drink anything, to something that's outstanding and is a meaningful brand and stamp of approval.

[1625]

Actually, I think the EQA program will be a success. "E" — education quality assurance. It will give students, no matter where they're looking — in other words, international students who are coming from far away, finding courses and providers on line — a recognizable brand that they can feel assured and will spread by word of mouth as a way that they can make sure that they're going to be happy with their international experience here.

I am looking forward to the launch and am going to be working to make sure it's a success.

D. Black: Well, I thank the minister for her clarification that it's EQA, education quality assurance. I just have to respond to the comment about the wine, because I wouldn't know about drinking at age 16.

The minister didn't respond to the issue of teeth, or any way of assuring that this new program that she spoke about, EQA, would actually offer international students more protection or ensure that the institutions themselves are made accountable to the students so that we wouldn't have the case like we did with the VTC Language School last month, where a student had just paid $100,000 or more — tens of thousands of dollars students had paid. Then the doors were slammed, and they're out of luck.

Again, my question to the minister is: what kind of assurance will she give under her ministry, where these private language schools fall, for protecting students who pay the fees and have no way of being protected when one of the schools closes their doors?

Hon. M. Stilwell: At this point I think it would be helpful, for the purpose of time, to be a bit adamant that we're not planning to re-regulate ESL schools. However, I want to point out a couple of things. ESL schools can voluntarily register with PCTIA, and if they do that, they pay into the student completion fund, which offers students….

Again, to me, that takes it back to how students need to know how to be informed consumers, because if they knew there was that, then they would understand that it's a question they should ask. To me, having a recognizable brand that establishes that the establishments meet quality standards will be a helpful way for students to ensure that they are choosing an institution that's providing what they want.

D. Black: I appreciate what she's saying. There are good schools, and we both recognize that and even named some of the schools where there have not been problems. But the fact is that we're talking mainly about people who come here from another country who don't easily have the ability to understand the processes that are in place.

Many of these schools are rather predatory in the way that they advertise overseas and give all kinds of incentives or guarantees — grandiose kinds of things. There is really very little opportunity for these students to have the kind of knowledge and experience to understand what PCTIA is or isn't or which school might be registered and which one might not.

I guess we're just going to come to the conclusion that we're going to disagree on this. Again, when I look at the situation in Australia and I look at the situation for private post-secondary students in British Columbia prior to 2004 when your government deregulated, there were protections in place. I think it's a really sad commentary
[ Page 1502 ]
on the situation here in British Columbia. Actually, I find it quite embarrassing to have consulates and diplomats singling out British Columbia as a dangerous destination for their national citizens to come to for ESL.

I guess my last point on this would be that I would encourage the minister to keep an open mind about regulation, to perhaps look at the model in Australia that is succeeding so well and actually attracting far more students from other countries than we are in British Columbia. Will the minister do that?

[1630]

Hon. M. Stilwell: It's obvious that this is a topic that engages us both, and at the risk of haranguing to the boredom of the others around us, I'll just say that I still think the points you made actually are in support of having an easily recognized brand, because your point is well taken.

Many of these students, first of all, don't speak English. So to find a school and to recognize even regulation and boards and agencies is not comprehensible, but the visual recognition of a brand, in fact, could be very important.

The second thing is, just by the by, that I am aware that Australia and New Zealand have been highly successful in the past, although they may be having some issues that we can learn from now. But we are looking at all the things that make Australia and New Zealand a success. As you know or could guess, there are actually multiple factors that help them have a cohesive and highly successful program. So we're certainly interested in learning from the success of others.

I'll just wind up, again, to put in a little plug for the new EQA program, which I am very excited about. We have been undergoing discussions with the Education Council of the People's Republic of China, for example, to make them aware of these new processes that we put in place. They have indicated that they're very pleased and that they're going to recognize it and help us to propagate that. I think it's a step in the right direction, and as I say, I'm optimistic and think it's the right way to go.

K. Corrigan: I was going to ask some questions about something else, but I've been very interested coming into the line of questions that were being asked right now. I happened to have met with many of the ex-teachers of the VTC that were referred to by the previous member speaking a few weeks ago.

Their lives and the lives of the students have been, in some cases, devastated. We're talking about, for the students who have come here, thousands and thousands of dollars that have been lost, that they had invested in what they thought was going to be a good education here in this country.

For the teachers, we've had teachers who have not been paid for months and months of work. They were held on for a good deal of time, continuing to work. You know, some of those teachers continued to work on a volunteer basis because they felt so badly about the image that our country and our province — our province particularly — were gaining and which apparently, according to these teachers, was being spread back to their countries.

Of course, these were young people that we met with. These teachers were very well qualified, well educated, but they were young people, and their livelihood had stopped. The doors of the college had closed, and while this in some ways may be of a contractual nature, in some ways I guess the suggestion is that it is buyers beware.

I think that is a very good demonstration of why we need to have regulation in our educational institutions, because without regulation you do have operations that go down, and the reputation of our province, in terms of its educational quality and its educational integrity, is badly hurt. I think it's very unfortunate, because we are a province that has had an outstanding reputation internationally, both in our K-to-12 system and in our post-secondary system.

I'm not sure if the minister has had a chance to meet with any of the students or any of the teachers from that institution, but I'm wondering. If the minister has, I'd love to hear about it. And if not, would she be willing to meet with those people in order to talk about some of their concerns?

[1635]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Sorry, I'm not sure when the member came in. I sort of feel like we covered this, except to say that I am aware of the situation. I certainly am empathetic to the students and teachers. I am keenly interested in British Columbia's reputation internationally, as an experience — not just limited to international education. Obviously, in my role, that's of special concern to me and, I think, has a very big and worthwhile future for us to pursue. So I am keenly aware of it.

I do believe that the introduction of the education quality assurance program will help give students internationally an easily recognized stamp of approval that will allow them to choose the best-of-the-best experience here, and I think that that will be a help in the future.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to just ask a few questions about enrolment projections. I do also understand that there have been some questions about enrolment projections. I wanted to point to a Vancouver Sun article of a few weeks ago in which Ian Lindsay of the Vancouver Sun said that enrolment in universities and colleges throughout the province were up significantly. I'm sure we have gone over some of this ground, but I just wanted to ask a couple of questions.
[ Page 1503 ]

UBC saw an increase of 5 percent over the last year in its total student body — 7,400 new first-year undergraduate students at its Vancouver and Kelowna campuses. The Kelowna campus is up 14 percent over last year, and the campus was going to welcome 408 upper-year transfer students. The total undergraduate student enrolment is 5,609, a growth of 11 percent; graduate student enrolment of 406, a growth of 39 percent.

Simon Fraser University — the largest undergraduate group in the university's history, with an increase of 7 percent over last year's record enrolment, and so on and so on. We know that in times of economic downturn, enrolment goes up.

The reason why I'm asking this is that I'm just taking a look at the projections as late as the September update of the budget. The projections by the ministry were that enrolment would not go up significantly over the next few years. For 2008-2009 it was 195 and then a small increase for 2009-2010, and then no increase in 2010-2011 and a very small increase in 2011-2012.

Every student comes with a price tag, because fees do not cover the whole of the cost of a student. So I'm wondering whose numbers are right — whether the projections that the ministry has had for enrolment are correct or whether they're going to be revised up and whether there needs to be any revision to the budget at the same time.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm not sure which numbers you're using. We’re just getting this year's numbers in. Certainly, there has been an increased demand for spaces now more than ever, as you know. Post-secondary education is counter-cyclical, so indeed, the downward turn in the global economy did change our projections, which were originally based on demographics and the fact that, as you know, in most places — Fraser Valley probably notwithstanding — the number of people coming out of grade 12 is going down, and the number of children entering grade 1 is substantially fewer than in grade 12.

So the original projections, I think, in the past were reasonably based on demographics. Of course, we will be revising our projections ongoing, in light of this counter-cyclical overlay.

Having said that, we have built a lot of capacity into the program. We have created 35,500 spaces since 2001. I think we can all appreciate that that is a very substantial number of new spaces. As I said, perhaps before the member opposite came, the operational grants were lifted by 8.8 percent, so that's some built-in room there.

[1640]

K. Corrigan: I wasn't talking about new spaces, however; I was talking about the ministry service plan projections as of September 2009 on page 8, which are the most recent projections. I would have assumed that the enrolment projections of a month ago would have reflected some amount of change due to the acknowledged understanding that enrolment will change when we enter tough economic times. It didn't appear to have done that and didn't appear to reflect a great increase for either this year or next year.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Before I start…. Perhaps it would be reasonable to have a five-minute break after this just so everyone can regroup, as they wish.

Those numbers were put together before September, before the school year started, and the budget is based on that. Obviously, as this year's actuals come in, then there will be a revision going forward.

K. Corrigan: I have slightly different questions along the same line, so I'm not sure whether the request was for a break at this point, which would be fine, or I'll continue. It's up….

The Chair: Why don't we just have a five-minute break right now, and then we can continue. We'll recess.

The committee recessed from 4:43 p.m. to 4:49 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a few questions now about student aid and the cuts to the funding for student aid. I know some of this ground has been covered already, but I do want to mention a few things, tie it to something else and ask a couple of questions.

The February budget froze student assistance over the next three years, and then the September update cut student assistance. Despite the Campus 2020 goal to reduce the debt burden of students, $16 million has been cut from the student aid budget, bringing it down to less than $100 million, yet the government does expect the number of students receiving student aid "to increase by 20 percent to 30 percent, from 53,000 in 2008 to 75,000 this year."

[1650]

The Premier's Excellence Awards scholarships, worth a total of $240,000, have been ended. That was $15,000 a student. I was a former school trustee in the district of Burnaby, the board of education, and I know that there were some excellent students who we thought were going to be rewarded with those scholarships, and they were gone.

It was a program that was highly touted by the Premier and this government. They're now gone, so the best and brightest are no longer being rewarded to the same extent.

The nurses education bursary — reduced by over 60 percent, from $2.66 million for 630 nursing students to a million dollars. Health care bursary — cut. The debt forgiveness program that funded 400 students who were unable to make monthly payments on their student loans has ended. That was a $1.4 million program.
[ Page 1504 ]

The loan reduction pilot program for students filling high-demand occupations, including residential care aides and home support workers, $4.7 million — axed. And 350 students with permanent disabilities will no longer be eligible for loan forgiveness because that program was ended. Instead, in its place is $1.7 million for 2,000 disabled students to get upfront funding of $1,000.

All those cuts are one piece, and at the same time, tuition fees are increasing substantially over time. The third piece is that students have been far less able to get summer jobs so that they can fund their university education.

With the combination of almost a perfect storm of bad news for our post-secondary students in this province, my question for the minister is: has the ministry undertaken any analysis of the combined impact of these three factors that are punishing students in this province?

Point of Order

Hon. M. Stilwell: Hon. Chair, I just would like to raise a point of order. I have answered all these…. I'm happy to answer the question, but we did go through this extensively. I would be happy to review it again outside the room. I'm not sure if that's how we want to do it.

K. Corrigan: I will make note of that, so I will not go over….

This is a fairly short question. Perhaps, because there's a follow-up question that may not have been asked…. I do apologize. I was doing some other work this afternoon. Would the minister mind answering that question?

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm happy to answer any question. It's just a matter of how you want to spend the time.

The short answer is that there is a Council of Ministers of Education of Canada who are looking at the issues around affordability of post-secondary education. They have not made a report yet. We are a member of that council.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering, in the analysis, whether or not the issue of high-income versus low-income students and the disproportionate impact or the relative impact that there is upon different-income-level students is being looked at in this work that is being done.

Hon. M. Stilwell: As I'm new to this council, I'm not sure entirely of the details of the terms of reference and so on or the scope of the work, but my understanding is that indeed it is part of what's being done. You probably know that there has been work done in that area in the past as well.

[1655]

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that this work is being done now, and I would appreciate finding out, if we could find out at some point, about whether or not the relative impacts on different-income-level students is being considered. It's a very serious issue for students. It's a very serious issue of equity.

My belief has always been, in the field of education, that we need to even the playing field. And if in no other way in our society, that is absolutely imperative that we even the playing field — that the field of public education, both K-to-12 and post-secondary, is the one place where we need to make it fair. I think that is absolutely critical work.

To be honest, I appreciate that the council is doing this work now, but the reality is that the impacts are already here. The cuts have already been made, the downloading onto the students, essentially, and their families has already been done. So it seems to me a little bit late to say that we're doing this kind of work now.

Whether or not the council is doing it, if the ministry and this government were making the decision to cut student aid, to increase tuition fees substantially and then have on top of it something which only partially is controlled by government — the number of student jobs…. You know, there are some things that can be done about that as well. But the fact is that all these things have been happening for years now. So I would have assumed that good analyses would be in place. I won't ask another question on that.

My next question is…. My understanding was that this government made a commitment in the past that tuition fees would not go up faster than inflation. My first question is: is that still a policy of this government?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The current policy — and procedure, in fact — since 2005 is that tuition is capped at 2 percent, which as you may know, based on the StatsCan survey published this week, is almost half the national rate, which was 3.6 percent this year.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Minister. You're absolutely right. It was not capped at inflation. It was capped at 2 percent. So have the fees gone up faster than inflation?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Sorry, I was thinking, and I can't listen and think at the same time. Do you mind repeating it?

K. Corrigan: Apparently, I was too. You were right about what it is. The minister was correct. It was 2 percent. My question was: with that 2 percent cap, are fees…? Over the last year would they have gone up faster than inflation?
[ Page 1505 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The tuition is set based on the CPI index in January, and it was 2.2 percent. So next January it will be looked at again.

K. Corrigan: Is that an annualized CPI? Is that year over year? Because my understanding was that the inflation rate is substantially lower than 2.1 percent.

Hon. M. Stilwell: It's an annual average that we use.

[1700]

D. Black: I want to go back to the program that the minister talked about a bit earlier around private education facilities in British Columbia.

We had been talking about the lack of protection for students and for teachers in that area, and she talked about a new program called EQA. My questions to the minister are around that program now. I would ask the minister: how much will this program cost?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I just want to clarify. Are you talking cost to the government or cost to schools to participate?

D. Black: I'm curious about how it will be funded. Will it be funded by government, and will it be funded by a fee to the private institutions? How much will that be?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is we have allotted up to $500,000 for implementation. It will cost schools $1,500 a year to participate, with the plan that that will create a cost recovery model.

D. Black: So the program itself will cost government, the ministry, $500,000. And each school will pay, I guess, a certificate charge — I don't know what it's going to be called; perhaps the minister can tell us what it'll be called — of $1,500. Will it be mandatory?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The program will be administered, as I said, through the B.C. Council for International Education, which is a non-profit society. It will be voluntary.

D. Black: So it's going to be a voluntary program. From what I understood the minister to say earlier, her hope, the ministry's hope, is that this stamp of approval, if you like, will alleviate many of the problems that we've seen, particularly in these private language schools.

But I have real reservations about that. I don't know. When we discussed earlier…. People who are coming to British Columbia from other parts of the world are really very vulnerable in the sense of knowing what rights they may or may not have, knowing how our systems work.

I want to ask the minister: how will this voluntary program be enforced, and what specific protections would it provide to students who pay fees to attend these private institutions?

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The logo of EQA has been trademarked to protect us from institutions being able to use it unless they have met quality assurance standards. Institutions that are not in compliance with the quality assurance standards will no longer be able to be members. In the same fashion that we have tuition protection for registration of PCTIA, we are working on a tuition protection methodology within that EQA.

[1705]

D. Black: I think I'm getting a little better understanding about the new program that the minister has talked about. I want to clarify this with the minister. It seems to me it still leaves the field clear for schools that operate in the same manner that VTC Language School, ESL school, operated. It still leaves the potential for private schools to operate in the province of British Columbia, to advertise overseas, to attract students to come to their institutions. But they will not have any protection attending those other schools that don't participate in this new program called EQA. Am I correct in that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: It is our belief that the trademark will promote high-quality B.C. institutions by allowing students to see an easily recognized brand that establishes the quality assurance standards.

As I alluded to, with respect to discussions with representatives of the People's Republic of China, the fact that they are delighted to have a recognizable brand that they can then refer to as well will help students be not just buyer beware but be aware that that brand has a meaning, so that they can choose a consumer experience that's going to be meaningful.

D. Black: Well, I appreciate the response from the minister, but I just must say that to rely on a logo to protect these vulnerable students and really rely on a logo to protect even teachers who work in this sector leaves me extremely concerned.

We've had a record in British Columbia, and a very dark record in British Columbia, in this area. I would have hoped that the minister and the government would have looked to their own report that they commissioned, the Watson report, and instituted the kinds of recommendations that that report called for that would have ensured more protection, a real protection, for vulnerable students.

I think I'll finish on this area unless the minister responds in a way that leaves me open to respond again.
[ Page 1506 ]
I would ask the minister to review again the Watson report. I think that it's very well documented. It had support from the B.C. Progress Board and other institutions in British Columbia that recommended these changes too.

I would just ask the minister to reflect upon what the Watson report actually said, the support it had from other bodies in British Columbia, and to leave the door open at least today that she may go further than she said today around the quality assurance standards. Will the minister do that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think it's important to stress that it's not just a logo. There are a set of quality assurance standards associated with the logo. I think that's the important piece of that.

[1710]

M. Mungall: Now I'm going to have to beg the minister's indulgence here. I'm a new MLA. Unfortunately, I don't have five staff sitting behind me and, of course, a crew of staff in the gallery here. I have maybe ⅛ of a staff person to help me out in preparing for this.

In doing so, I have a question, and it's just simply about the actual numbers that are in the estimates booklet on pages 34 and 37. I see two different sets of numbers for what I'm interpreting as the same thing, so maybe the minister can explain why these two different sets of numbers exist.

Specifically, on page 34, under "Operating expenses" — "Core business." We have educational institutions and organizations grossing, in this year's estimate, $1,886,749 billion. "StudentAid B.C." at $99.274 million. "Labour market and immigration" at $161.294 million. "Public sector employers council secretariat" at $16.938 million. "Executive and support services" at $16.437 million.

Then I turn to page 37, where there's a little bit more detail in terms of what each of these budget line items means, and we see some different numbers. The numbers in the "Educational institutions and organizations" and the "StudentAid B.C." are different but not by much. However, we see a larger difference when we look at "Labour market and immigration," which is $111.904 million — which, of course, when we look back at page 34, it was 161 million. So we're looking at what I'm interpreting as around a $50 million difference.

Then, of course, in "Public sector employers council secretariat" on page 37, again, quite different than on page 34, where we're looking at $16.868 million — where this was $16.437 million.

If the minister can just explain to me, being a new MLA with very few resources being on the opposition, why there's this difference.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I want to clarify, first of all, that these people don't work for me. They work for the people of British Columbia, and they do a wonderful job, so I'll just put that on record. Also, I have another, more immediate issue, and that is that we have pages 36 through 39. So the first thing we need to do is make sure we're all on the same page, so to speak.

M. Mungall: Do you want clarification of where…?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Sure, or we can even get the Chair to show us the pages, maybe.

M. Mungall: Okay. Just to clarify what page I am on….

Interjection.

M. Mungall: You've got it? Super.

Hon. M. Stilwell: As a rookie MLA, I'm having some challenges around the numbers some days too, but it's an interesting and worthwhile learning experience. So the explanation is that you are comparing gross numbers to net, and there is a small difference because of recoveries.

M. Mungall: I was wondering that myself. Thank you to the minister for answering that question, as in our documentation there's no statement that it is net. Three little letters would have saved the day there, so thank you to the minister.

I'm going to move on to questions based on some of the conversations, again, that I've had with representatives from schools and institutions throughout the province and kind of going back to what I was discussing earlier around the increase in operating, the lift that the minister discussed of 8.8 percent, and noting that there are increased budget pressures.

What I've been hearing from some of the institutions is that they are freezing new hires and paying large severances as people take early retirement. In institutions they can no longer afford this staff, essentially. They are cutting. They're cutting staffing.

[1715]

Earlier I was asking questions about cutting student programs and direct services to students. But here we have that they are looking to reduce the amount of staff to meet some of the budget pressures and what they feel has been, although it's a more stable funding, still funding under what their general needs are. They are cutting staff.

I'm just wondering if the minister and the ministry has done any research on the impact that cutting staff is going to have on programs for students.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Each institution makes program decisions based on demand and utilization — that within the 8.8 percent operating block grant lift this year.
[ Page 1507 ]

I will say that I have been to every institution. I have to say that against the background of extraordinarily difficult economic times, the feedback that I'm getting from presidents of the universities and boards — and also in the face of a huge capital expansion — is generally positive.

There's no question that enrolment is counter-cyclical and presents some pressures, but my understanding is that on the whole, we have an outstanding group of people running these institutions, and they are making appropriate decisions.

The other thing is that at each institution I went to there are some programs that are not utilized fully, and there are some that are oversubscribed. It's simply the nature of the beast of student demand and perception of what the best future is. So on whole, I think that the institutions make the best decisions for the students and the programs that they have. I think that the 8.8 percent lift in their operating grant is no small accomplishment.

I would also like to put that against the fact that although the ministry has the title of Advanced Education, as you well know, it includes everyone after grade 12. So decisions had to be made, also, to preserve money for illiterate adults, low-skills adults, immigrant settlement and integration, and trades training. These are all people who deserve an opportunity to participate in the economy. They were tough decisions. On whole, I believe that the decisions that were made were to keep the funding at the level of the most vulnerable and to preserve the strong programs that we have.

Although not directly related, circling back, I do think that it's important, also, to talk about the $1.8 billion expansion. If you've been to the institutions, you have seen the result of this. Renewing and expanding not just the big universities but the regional and community colleges and universities makes education more accessible and contributes to affordability. So on whole, I think we should all be quite happy with the current funding of the ministry.

M. Mungall: There's no doubt that I agree with pretty much everything that the minister is saying. People who are running our post-secondary institutions and any type of adult education are doing a stellar job, especially in this time of economic downturn. They are looking at the budget pressures that they face and making their decisions based on that, and that's why they've had to make some of the decisions that they've made around staffing. These are tough decisions for them, and it's a concern that they bring up.

They've said this to both myself and my colleague from New Westminster. They are glad to see that they have an increase in the operating, that they have some stability that they can work with. Nonetheless — and this is what is really key — they are facing budget pressures, and they do have concerns on how this is going to impact programs for students.

[1720]

They do say to us that the funding that they are receiving, while they welcome it and are pleased with it, at some point — and that point has actually come to a head quite recently…. The amount of funding they are getting is not going to match, and for many institutions it's not matching at this point, the demand, the pressures, that they have on their budget.

So they're faced with either the government increasing funding or going to students for increased tuition, which they can only do to a certain extent under the legislation — and they are happy with that legislation; they're not asking to have tuition deregulated, of course — or they're going to have to cut programs, cut staffing and negatively impact students. It's my job to bring that concern to the minister.

Part of my question, then, was if any research — and that was my specific question — has been done by this ministry on the impact that staffing decreases are going to have on students. What I'm taking from the minister, based on her previous answer, is: no, the ministry hasn't done this research.

Perhaps she can just clearly…. Am I correct in interpreting her answer as a no?

The Chair: Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Thank you and, through you to the Chair. I mean, through you to the member. Sorry. We're all getting hypoglycemic.

The answer is that individual institutions may have decreased their staffing levels. There is no evidence that that is an across-the-board trend in the post-secondary institutions.

D. Black: Just a short question to the minister. We have been told by people who work in the field that, even though there is a cap on wage increases in the sector, presidents of the new universities were given a $25,000-a-year increase in their wages — just of the new universities.

I just want to ask the minister if she's aware of that. Is this correct? Did this happen? How does that fit with the 2 percent cap, I believe, on wage increases or the rounds of public sector bargaining that she's going to be entering into soon?

Hon. M. Stilwell: To the member: I'm sorry. I might have missed the second part, but I'll answer the first part, and you can come back if necessary.

In November 2008 an increase was approved to the maximum total compensation for the five new teaching universities — that is, the University of the Fraser Valley, Kwantlen Polytechnic, Vancouver Island University, Capilano University and Emily Carr University of
[ Page 1508 ]
Art and Design — from $200,000 to $225,000. That was because of the change from colleges to universities and was consistent with other small teaching-focused universities, to recognize the change in mandate, recruitment, retention and competition pressures for those universities. It was a one-time recognition of that transition to one of the new generation of universities.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to touch very briefly on trades training. The ITA service plan indicates that from 2008….

I see somebody has been really bored — finally. I'll just wait for a second.

[1725]

From 2008-2009 to 2009-2010, there was a $6 million cut from $100.5 million to $94.4 million or so. This really concerns me, because we've had some good economic times when it would have been a great time for our trades training to thrive and to be very well supported. Instead, what we've had is a fair amount of chaos with the transformation from the ITAC model for trades training to the ITA and the industrial training organizations.

What has happened as a result of this transition from ITAC to this new competency-based system is, in fact, that the apprenticeship completion rates have gone down significantly, by 35 percent. The Auditor General said in a report last November…. He pointed out huge failings in the new system and that there was a lack of consultation, that there was no plan B, that there was a lack of staff — no understanding of the role of colleges. I'm paraphrasing, but he pointed out some real shortcomings.

At the same time as employment, from 2001 to 2008, in the trades went from 80,000 to 140,000 people, as I said earlier, the apprenticeship completion rate decreased by 35 percent.

My question for the minister is: as a new minister, is the minister considering relooking at the industrial training model, revisiting it and taking some of the recommendations from people in the field, as well as from the Auditor General, and revising the model that is obviously not working well?

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, it's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Kevin Evans, who is the CEO of the Industry Training Authority, who's going to help me through with some of this.

You mentioned a competency-based model. I think that relates to our previous discussions the other day about labour mobility, whereas the ITA, I think, would be better described as an industry-led system, just for the record.

I'll start with budget, and if I don't get to the answer you'll come back. With respect to the 2009-2010 budget for the Industry Training Authority, I think you referred to a 10 percent increase in the budget. But in fact what happened was that the reduction was offset by $8.25 million in the money from the labour market development agreement. The impact, basically, on the net reduction to the ITA's budget was approximately 1.9 percent and had zero impact on student spaces, so that was deliberate.

With respect to your comments around the Industry Training Authority itself and the Office of the Auditor General's report, which was released in November 2008. Since the audit work was originally undertaken, the ministry, along with the ITA, has acted and implemented new processes which address many of the Auditor General's recommendations. This new audit management response outlines the progress to date in implementations of the recommendations, and there will be a comprehensive action plan to address the report recommendations. Actually, it was published in March '09 and is available on the Auditor General's website.

I will finish by saying that by March 20, the ministry and the ITA will be required to complete a follow-up self-assessment to report on progress. Once the OAG adds commentary to the assessment, it will be published on the website.

[1730]

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to seek confirmation from the minister that the further development of the ITOs, the industry training organizations, has been put on hold. If that's the case, has that got to do with budget cuts?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The industry training organizations, or ITOs, are not on hold. They have received lifts to their budget every year. What is on hold for this year is new program development.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that, Minister. That is what I was talking about. There are many new trades that are not covered by the ITOs that have been waiting for new ITOs to be developed and many, many trades which are not covered. So essentially, I think they're caught in this kind of limbo, as the previous framework was dismantled and this new framework is now put on hold in terms of development of new ITOs.

I think it's absolutely critical that we support trades training and we support it in a way that works for the system. Clearly, it hasn't been working for the system. I think that it's been referred to by some people as "six lost years in trade training."

I absolutely agree with the minister that we're not talking about the present programs being put on hold but simply whether new programs…. Would the minister confirm whether there are other trades seeking to be included in new ITOs and whether there are any applications that are pending?
[ Page 1509 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Some 97 percent of trades are covered by the ITOs — actually, a small fraction of the ITOs, of course. There are no applications for new ITOs at the moment. Program development is now being done under labour market partnerships, which is money administered by the ITA.

K. Corrigan: I just want to seek confirmation on this number — the 97 percent. Is the minister saying that 97 percent of tradesworkers in this province are now covered by ITOs?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm advised that there are 141 trades-training programs in the province and that 97 percent of them are covered by seven ITOs.

K. Corrigan: Would it be possible for the minister, because I'm not quite sure what's being said there…. Maybe a yes or a no as to whether 97 percent of the tradesworkers in this province are now covered by ITOs?

[1735]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I want to try to say this right — third time lucky. There are 141 trades-training programs; 97 percent of those trades-training programs are covered by seven ITOs. We're talking about apprentices, not workers. The majority of apprentices are covered by those ITOs, and the remainder are covered by the ITA. So the workers, per se, would not be part of this equation. I don't know if that provides any clarity.

K. Corrigan: Yes, it does, thank you.

The Chair: Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, noting the hour.

K. Corrigan: Yes, thank you. Last question, then.

When I asked a question earlier about whether the minister was reviewing and reconsidering the whole model, the answer was along the line that work was being done on the shortcomings of the present system. I guess I would just end by appealing to the minister to widen the inquiry and the consultation on this issue and revisit the structure.

We had what was considered to be a very effective ITAC system in the past. The present system is deficient, from many people's perspective, and I would hope that the minister would consider revisiting the whole structure of the program.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Certainly, I'm always interested in hearing viewpoints about how the training system can be improved. I'm particularly interested in how to get more women into the trades, for obvious reasons.

I will highlight, though, that as of March 31, 2009, there were over 44,000 registered participants. That's including not just apprentices but youth and foundation participants in B.C. — up 200 percent since 2004; with 10,884 employer sponsors offering placements to apprentices, which is also a huge improvement — up 61 percent from 6,740 in 2004.

Obviously, as I say, excellence is not a finish line per se. I think we're always travelling to an improved system, but I think that on the whole, the current system is creating more available spots for people who want to get trades training.

D. Black: I note the hour, Madam Chair, as we've been asked to note. I just want to thank the minister and her staff for their time here today. It's been extensive, and we appreciate it. We look forward to coming back again next year and going through this process again.

[1740]

I have one comment to make around the program she talked about earlier, and that's EQA. Something occurred to me later that I would ask the minister to keep in mind, and that is in terms of the logo and the program that is being initiated for private education facilities, which she called EQA.

It seems to me that in the comments that the minister made earlier, the ministry is going to be relying on trademark law to preserve this logo and to assure students that come to Canada that these schools are accredited in some way. But knowing what happens overseas where we've already been subjected to fraudulent operators in this field, I can envision these kinds of operators using this trademark or this logo inappropriately in attracting students in that manner.

I just want the minister to consider that that does happen, and probably will happen in this instance, and to think about if there is any way for her ministry to deal with that potential, a very real potential, of abuse.

With that, Madam Chair, thank you.

Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,130,713,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:42 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175