2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 20, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number 7

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two sets of guests in the gallery today. The first are three constituents who've come to visit and watch question period — June Hannah, Evelyn Carmichael and Reg Bennett. Would the House please make them welcome.

We also have with us here in the gallery today members of the black history society board from Victoria. We have Wauneta Marshall; Valin Marshall; Ron Nicholson; Karen Hoshal; and the president of the board, who also happens to be volunteer extraordinaire and my mother, Mavis DeGirolamo. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Rustad: It's a pleasure today to introduce to the House Jim and Eve Macdonald from Victoria. They're the grandparents of a speed skater, Jamie Macdonald, from up in Fort St. James, who I'll be speaking about a little later. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

D. Donaldson: Joining us in the precinct and, I believe, in the gallery today are the mayor of Hazelton, Alice Maitland, the longest-serving mayor in B.C. history and my former boss at municipal council; Gail Lowry, newly elected mayor of New Hazelton; Mr. Donny van Dyk, who is CAO of New Hazelton and was also recently elected president of the B.C. Liberal Party provincial council. We won't say anything about the advice that he's giving to his council. Tom Madden is accompanying the other three people I mentioned.

They're here to talk about financing for a desperately needed new ice hockey rink in the Hazeltons. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I know there are very specific rules about the use of technology in the Legislature, but I'm very thankful — very thankful — for technology today, because not quite four hours ago we were very, very thrilled to welcome our second grandchild into the world.

It was amazing, because even though I'm very much regretting not being at home, I had pictures within four minutes of an absolutely beautiful baby boy. His name is Cooper. He is 8 pounds 3 ounces. Our daughter-in-law Christina looks wonderful and is doing fantastically well. Our son Chris is very proud, but the most excited person probably, other than grandma and grandpa, is Cooper's older brother Caleb. I ask the House to welcome a very special delivery just about four hours ago.

H. Bains: In the gallery today we have Grinder Sidhu. He is a social studies teacher at Princess Margaret. He is part of a delegation of teachers trying to educate us about the education needs of Surrey and elsewhere. Please help me welcome Grinder.

Hon. P. Bell: February 20 to 24 is Chamber Week in British Columbia, celebrating chambers of commerce throughout this province. I know we have many delegates here from all over the province, representing different chambers, and I'd ask that the House please make them all very, very welcome.

S. Hammell: There is a teacher named Anne McNamee in the gallery today. Anne is a teacher-librarian from Surrey teaching at Prince Charles and Lena Shaw. Both of these schools are inner-city schools. The librarians are so critically needed there, and she does a superb job. She is here with the Surrey teachers delegation, and she's met with not only our caucus but also the Liberal caucus. Would the House please make her welcome.

V. Huntington: I'd like to have the House welcome a constituent of mine visiting from Delta South, Mr. Simon Isbister, who is first vice-president of the Delta Teachers Association. Will the House make him feel welcome.

G. Gentner: In the gallery today is Mr. Paul Steer. Paul is president of the Delta Teachers Association. He is also an executive member at large of the BCTF, a good friend of mine and a constituent of mine. Could the House please make him welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a dedicated educator, a teacher from the school district that I represent, school district 43. She's a member of the Coquitlam Teachers Association. Would the House please make her most welcome.

D. Hayer: We have a very special guest visiting from India. His name is Jatinderpal Singh Khurana, a businessman from the city of Jalandhar in Punjab, India. Would the House please make him very welcome and welcome him to British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I would just like to make a comment on that wonderful news from the Justice Minister on birthing. It's ironic, because here we are, supposedly the party of labour. [Laughter.] I apologize. Congratulations to the minister and her family.

[1340]

I am lucky to have two different school districts that I represent in Alberni–Pacific Rim. From district 70, Ken
[ Page 9272 ]
Zydyk, Local 701 president of Alberni District Teachers Union, is visiting us today; as well, district 69, Debbie Morran, president of the Mount Arrowsmith Teachers Association.

Would the House please forgive me and also please make them feel very welcome.

D. Black: Today it's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Stacey Robinsmith and Mr. Eric Young. Both are public school teachers in my constituency, in New Westminster. Stacey teaches math and science to the very fine young minds at New Westminster Secondary School, and Eric teaches a class of a very bright grade 6 students at Lord Kelvin Elementary School.

I'd like to thank them for coming today and for their time spent with both sides of the House on educating us all on the very important job that public school teachers do in this province. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

NORTH SHORE HOSPICE

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, there's a reasonable chance that most of us are going to die someday, so it's reassuring to know that facilities like the North Shore Hospice are available for end-of-life care. What's a hospice? Ours, only a year old, offers a warm, home-like setting to help individuals and families prepare for the inevitable and to live with the loss.

It was built with $8 million of funding from Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Lions Gate Hospital Foundation, Family Services of the North Shore and Lions Gate Hospice Society, which contributed half a million in memory of Werner Zimmerman.

It looks much like just another house off 14th Street in North Vancouver. Residents stay in large bedrooms with entertainment systems and facilities for visiting families. There are landscaped gardens, common rooms with high ceilings and plenty of light. A dining room serves home-cooked meals. Pets and children are welcome.

The hospice is asking for gifts in kind, which might range from inexpensive toys and spa supplies to floor lamps to state-of-the-art mattresses for pain relief. Donors will receive a tax receipt. Volunteers are greatly encouraged and appreciated. Thank you to all who have made this place of compassion and comfort possible.

ROUNDUP CONFERENCE AND AIRSTRIP
MAINTENANCE IN NORTHWEST B.C.

D. Donaldson: Last month I was fortunate to attend the full four days of Roundup, the annual mineral exploration conference organized by the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. It was the biggest Roundup ever, with over 8,200 participants. Congratulations to the AMEBC president Gavin Dirom and staff for another great networking and knowledge-building event.

There were many highlights, from the company meetings I had to taking shifts in the booth shared by the Smithers Exploration Group and Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining. But a big highlight for me was a meeting with a group concerned about an essential part of the rural infrastructure in the northwest — the small airstrips in Atlin, Telegraph Creek, Dease Lake and Bob Quinn.

Three of the four are run by non-profit societies. Basically, you have a group of dedicated volunteers trying to keep these provincial assets patched up and functioning with little support while depending on trading and bartering and relationships they have established over the years to get things done — stories like spending days picking rocks on the gravel runways because the big ones are starting to emerge from the compact surface or fixing runway and guidance lights with a tool in one hand and a manual in the other, if you can find the manual.

These airstrips were built in decades past by the province, using taxpayer dollars. They need some attention before our mutual investment is lost all together. The volunteers are eager. A good starting point would be a designated contact person within the provincial government regionally.

These airstrips are important for workers' safety, for air ambulance flights, for attracting professionals to the remote communities and, of course, to the mining sector in the northwest set to generate billions of dollars in revenue provincially.

In return, I don't think it's unreasonable for a group of volunteers and other community members to see a little reinvestment in these public airstrips. I look forward to working with them to achieve results that will be beneficial to all.

[1345]

JAMIE MACDONALD

J. Rustad: I'd like to recognize Jamie Macdonald of Fort St. James as an inspirational athlete and talented young woman. Jamie is a 17-year-old speed skater with great potential. She is currently training at the Calgary Oval training centre with some of the top skaters in Canada, and she hopes to make next year's national junior team and skate on the World Cup circuit. She already has one of the fastest starts in Canada, and she's only getting faster.

Jamie will be assisting former U.S.A. coach Sue Ellis at skating camps this summer and has trained with four-time Olympic gold medallist Meng Wang of China. Both women have only praise and admiration for Jamie's hard work and potential.
[ Page 9273 ]

Even with her busy training schedule, she still plays competitive soccer and maintains a strong sense of family, and somehow she still makes time for school. In grade 11 Jamie won the UNBC scholarship as the top academic student for Fort St. James Secondary. This was despite missing over half her classes due to practices and competitions.

Jamie is an excellent representative of B.C.'s talented athletes and students, and we could all use a little of her spirit and dedication in pursuing our passions. On behalf of my constituents and our government, I'd like to congratulate Jamie on her hard work and incredible accomplishments so far, and we wish her good luck in the future. If her past success is any indication, she is sure to achieve great things.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH
AND BLACK HISTORY HERITAGE DAY

C. James: February 25 is B.C.'s Black History Heritage Day, and February is Black History Month, and what an amazing history it is. The first group of black settlers arrived in the colony of Vancouver Island at the start of the gold rush in 1858. They travelled north from San Francisco, fleeing racially oppressive conditions in California and seeking a better life that they found here.

On Vancouver Island blacks were allowed to vote. They were allowed to sit on a jury and, after seven years, become full citizens. They could buy land at the market price of $5 an acre.

Among those early immigrants was a man named Mifflin Gibbs, a Philadelphia-born son of a preacher and laundress who came north after learning of gold fields on the Fraser River. He outfitted prospectors from a general store that he built with his own hands here in Victoria. He made enough money to buy a lot in James Bay, and he built a house at the corner of Michigan and Menzies streets.

In 1867 Gibbs was acclaimed to Victoria city council and served as a member of the Yale conference that framed the terms of B.C.'s entry into Confederation.

Gibbs led the way for others to follow, including Rosemary Brown and Emery Barnes, elected in 1972 to serve in this Legislature. Yet most British Columbians have never heard of Mifflin Gibbs or even realized the extent of the influence that black pioneers had on the course of this province's development. Many of their remarkable stories are being celebrated this month as part of Black History Month activities.

Leading the way is the B.C. Black History Awareness Society with events including cemetery tours at the Ross Bay Cemetery, where many of Victoria's black pioneers are buried. To mark Black History Heritage Day on the 25th of February, the society is showing the new National Film Board documentary film Mighty Jerome: The Greatest Comeback Ever, which follows the life of Harry Jerome, one of Canada's greatest athletes.

Stories of inspiration, pride and achievement — that's what Black History Month is all about, and I thank all the volunteers who've worked so hard to make it a success.

HERITAGE WEEK AND
MULTICULTURALISM IN B.C.

R. Lee: Since 1973 Canadians have taken every third Monday in February to celebrate our rich and unique history. National Heritage Day highlights our extraordinary past without forgetting the diversity that exemplifies our country today.

In British Columbia we have gone a step further and recognized February 20 to 26 as Heritage Week in B.C. this year. In British Columbia we are lucky to be part of a province where we find countless languages, cultural backgrounds and traditions. Aboriginal, English, Scottish, French, South Asian, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Japanese, Ukrainian, Croatian, German, Italian, Latin American, African and many others all contribute to the distinct mosaic of British Columbia's heritage.

It's important to not only recognize but to remember and learn about the diverse groups in our province, as we do this month during black heritage month.

[1350]

Because of our cultural complexity, celebrating British Columbia's past means celebrating each individual family. Families make up the fabric of our society and our history, and they will forever continue to be vital to the progress of the province. That's why, starting next year, we'll honour the importance of families with family day, a new statutory holiday in British Columbia.

This year's Heritage Week theme is "Energy in B.C.: A powerful past, a sustainable future." I encourage all British Columbians to take part in the various events around their communities and local heritage sites. This is a great opportunity to learn about our past and share ideas on how to make a better future.

COLQUITZ RIVER OIL SPILL

R. Fleming: Today I would like to recognize a hidden gem of nature located in the Saanich half of my constituency, Colquitz River Park. While it flows more like a mighty creek than a river, the Colquitz wends its way down from Elk and Beaver lakes and flows into Portage Inlet just under the new Admirals Street bridge. This important waterway and linear park and trail give unparalleled opportunities to explore tree canopies, fish spawning grounds and wildlife right in the middle of busy Victoria suburbs that might otherwise remain hidden.

The Colquitz is enhanced by trailways. The trailhead actually begins, surprisingly, at one of the most densely urban of places, the Tillicum shopping mall, before pass-
[ Page 9274 ]
ing under the Island Highway through housing developments, agricultural wetlands, urban parks and remnants of forest.

The Colquitz and its estuary are an important transitioning area for plants, fish and birds because of the mixing of fresh and salt waters that ebb and flow here with the tides and rains. Wildlife includes herons, mergansers, wood ducks, teals and widgeons. All of them gather in this rich feeding area, and because the Colquitz is a fish-bearing stream, rich in coho salmon which spawn upriver, federal regulations prohibit any disturbances of the waters or the shoreline.

It's for this reason that so many admirers of the Colquitz were heartbroken last November when a thousand litres of home heating oil spilled from an underground tank into the Colquitz, killing some of the migrating salmon and polluting part of the Saanich waterway.

Defending B.C.'s waterways and coastlines from ecologically destructive development, like the potential introduction of bulk oil tanker traffic within the tanker exclusion zone, is under active discussion today in British Columbia. It's the big-picture discussion that citizens are having about sustainable economic development.

While that continues on the front door of my constituency, I would like to thank the large group of volunteers, Saanich employees, and wildlife and fishery organizations that are working to make sure that the Colquitz waterway continues to be both beautiful and prosperous for generations to come.

Oral Questions

ELECTRICITY RATES AND
B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Energy today. On April 1 ratepayers will be hit with another 7 percent increase on their electricity bills in British Columbia, the fifth successive increase in electricity prices attributable to the government's systematic mismanagement of B.C. Hydro. Will the Minister of Energy finally allow B.C. Hydro to prepare a proper energy plan and allow the BCUC to approve it?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said on Friday…. I say it again today that we're disappointed that the B.C. Utilities Commission has decided to provide a higher increase than we asked for, for hydro. We think that we're on the right financial plan there in regards to the increase. I know the members opposite are happy to celebrate that they can charge families and seniors more for hydro starting April 1.

We're actually going to stand up for British Columbians. We're going to continue with the process. We're going to continue to provide the information to the B.C. Utilities Commission and try and get that rate down for British Columbians.

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

A. Dix: Well, the Minister of Energy…. I mean, so much to say and so little time. Mismanagement is using deferral accounts, in the words of the Auditor General, to create the appearance of profitability where none actually exists. Mismanagement is creating the B.C. Transmission Corporation and then taking it back at a cost in the hundreds of millions.

[1355]

Mismanagement is buying energy at three or four times the market price and making ratepayers pay for it. That's mismanagement. Mismanagement is exempting the smart meter program from BCUC approval. That's mismanagement.

They are doing the opposite of standing up for people in British Columbia. Why doesn't the minister create a plan and allow the BCUC to approve it? Why doesn't he go down that road after ten years of mismanagement?

Hon. R. Coleman: The members opposite have nowhere to speak with regards to B.C. Hydro or its future or its business, because we're the people that have actually done the work with B.C. Hydro to put their costs in place, to make the right decisions for it, to build the infrastructure for British Columbia for the future.

We are not the party that gave away $300 million to try and buy votes in 2001 and took it right out of B.C. Hydro's back pocket so you could send out cheques to everybody and buy votes, and we're not the party that the only infrastructure investment you made was in Raiwind somewhere in Pakistan. I wonder how you were going to get that into the grid from across the ocean.

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

A. Dix: We've gone from one deferral account to 27. The minister talks about speaking up for the public interest. How does that speak up for the public interest? How does it speak up for the public interest at all, hon. Speaker, to buy electricity, buy energy at three or four times the market price and then make residential customers pay the price for their incompetence?

This is a record of shame, and the way ahead is to do the opposite of what this government has done. Have B.C. Hydro prepare a plan and have the BCUC approve it. Why won't the minister take — finally, after 11 years of incompetence — the proper approach?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, you froze rates. You didn't make any infrastructure investments. Today we're going
[ Page 9275 ]
to do the John Hart dam up by Campbell River. I don't know if the member opposite from that area, representing that riding, is opposed to that investment that will actually fix a dam that has seismic issues — $1.2 billion of investment by B.C. Hydro in that community. I don't know whether they're opposed to actually fixing the Ruskin dam because it, too, needs a seismic upgrade that is going to cost about $800 million.

I do know they are opposed to actually having a smart grid. People in rural British Columbia, when their power goes out, still have to get to a telephone to tell us when the power is out, rather than have a smart grid with smart meters so we can actually get to the right place with the right equipment to restore power for people in rural British Columbia and across B.C. in a timely manner.

That's the plan for B.C. Hydro. It's a progressive company looking forward, doing what's good. They will be the first integrated power grid in North America, which will benefit British Columbians for generations to come.

BUDGET PROCESS AND
FINANCIAL REPORTING BY B.C. HYDRO

B. Ralston: In a report released last fall the Auditor General clearly pointed out that B.C. Hydro, under Liberal government direction, is misusing deferral accounts. In fact, the Auditor General said that this practice creates the illusion of profitability where none in fact exists.

The impact of the deferrals, the cumulative impact, has been to increase B.C. Hydro's net reported income dramatically. That has an impact on the provincial budget, because the Crown, the B.C. Hydro Crown corporation, has traditionally paid a dividend which is used in planning the budget.

So will the Energy Minister commit today that he will not permit the use of phony profits from B.C. Hydro to pad the revenue of the budget that's going to be tabled tomorrow?

Hon. R. Coleman: I get the uncomfortable place that the opposition are in on this. Their friends in the union wanted a 9.2 percent increase, so I can only assume that they're supporting a 9.2 percent increase of power costs on the backs of families in British Columbia.

[1400]

You know, the NDP policy here on this is to hurt families. They froze rates in the '90s. They don't like deferral accounts, because that helps to shape rates to keep them down for families and average them across so there's no spike in power and unfortunate circumstances with regards to people paying more. That's what deferral accounts are for.

They're also an investment in the future as we try and actually upgrade a system that was left dying in the 1990s. In actual fact, the reality is that we are going to continue to fight to keep rates as low as possible for families in British Columbia, while the NDP would rather tax and raise costs to families every opportunity it gets.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the investment that the B.C. Liberals have made in the future is to project $5 billion in deferral accounts — expenses that have been made but not paid, to weigh down future ratepayers for the foreseeable future, up until 2020.

The way in which those deferral accounts are created is really backwards by any ordinary accounting procedure. B.C. Hydro targets what it needs in terms of revenue and then creates an account to defer real expenses into the future in order to show a net income. That net income is then fed into the B.C. budget.

How can the taxpayers of British Columbia have any confidence in the truth and accuracy of a B.C. budget when these padded B.C. Hydro revenues are included as part of it?

Hon. R. Coleman: I get your policy is to hurt families. I get your policy is to raise costs for families in British Columbia. I get the fact that you probably cheered on Friday when the B.C. Utilities Commission didn't recognize the cuts and the reorganization and savings we found in the operation of Hydro so we could bring the rates down to 3.9 percent.

But we're going to continue to build that case. This is an interim rate increase. We're not giving up. We're going to go back and try and protect, as much as we can, the rates for British Columbians. I know that over there they would rather have their union be successful and have a 9.2 percent increase in rates.

ELECTRICITY RATES AND
B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT

J. Horgan: Well, I'll just tell the minister a couple of things he might want to put in his speaking points there. In the 1990s we repatriated the downstream benefits from the Columbia River treaty, and we invested in the Kootenays. We built three dams and put that money back in the pockets of people in the Kootenays….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: But more importantly, what we did in the 1990s is that we sold power and made money. We made money. We didn't buy it at a loss and sell it on the open market.

Let's just recap. You've got B.C. Liberal mismanagement that divided B.C. Hydro at the start of the decade and slammed it back together again at the end. You've got a policy of only buying power from your friends at
[ Page 9276 ]
three times the market rate, so that we have to buy it at $120 and sell it at $40.

Can the minister possibly stand up without blushing and say how you're going to fix the systemic mismanagement in your Crown corporation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, just for the member opposite's information, we've already made about $200 million at Powerex this year. I know the member opposite is actually opposed to a lot of things, but sometimes he says something one way and he says something another way with his thoughts around power, which is his choice.

But the reality is that this company is a very good company. This company does very hard work every day for British Columbia. It is actually looking at itself and its procurement and its outcomes as a result of a review we did last year, because every once in a while you should do that for a corporation. They are at the B.C. Utilities Commission with all that information and all that research, saying we only need 3.9 percent.

I know the member opposite wants 7 percent or 9.2 percent, like the union, for British Columbians. I know they want to raise every single possible cost they can for British Columbia, whether it be taxes or rates or whatever the case. In our case, we're going to stand up for British Columbians.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, 36 percent rate increases over the past five years, double the cost of living: that's the B.C. Liberal record on ratepayers. The challenge we have is that the three deputy ministers that the minister sent in don't know anything about B.C. Hydro. What do they do at the Utilities Commission? They spend all their time thinking about B.C. Hydro.

What this government should do — and I'm giving you free advice, Minister, so write quickly — is go to the Utilities Commission, have B.C. Hydro create an integrated resource plan and a long-term acquisition plan — so we know what our supply-and-demand needs are now and into the future, so that British Columbians can have some confidence that you're not just writing it on the end of an envelope. That's what we've been doing for ten years. It's time to stop. Make the bad man stop, hon. Speaker.

Hon. R. Coleman: In this particular case, this advice is worth less than the amount that the member is prepared to charge me for it.

I get it that they're opposed to green energy. They're opposed to actually having a company try and find the ways that they can have the rates beneficial for the homeowners of British Columbia. They'd rather charge a whole bunch more, because every family under the NDP will see everything go up — taxes and dues and all the rest of it.

In addition to that, there are two questions that I never had answered. Why did you give away $200 million when you couldn't afford it — you didn't invest in infrastructure in the 1990s — just to buy votes in 2001? And how were you, Member, going to connect the Raiwind power plant to the grid in British Columbia across an ocean?

CARBON OFFSET COSTS TO SUCH SECTOR

R. Fleming: B.C.'s carbon-neutral government has become a ridiculed program that pays the province's biggest polluters with scarce tax dollars instead of funding health care, education and social services. A prominent adviser to government on B.C.'s climate action plan, Mark Jaccard, has said that the B.C. Liberals' mandatory carbon offsets are economically inefficient and unfair. The Minister of Environment has announced that in addition to the more than 50 reviews going on of failed B.C. Liberal policies right now, the Pacific Carbon Trust has also faced reviews.

On the eve of the B.C. budget, will the minister assure B.C. taxpayers that scarce health and education public resources won't be diverted to B.C.'s biggest polluters in the coming fiscal year?

Hon. T. Lake: This government is proud of its action on the climate change agenda. Nice to hear that the opposition members have finally decided, in fact, that to put a price on carbon is good public policy. That's what this government stands for.

We want to be leaders, and being carbon-neutral in our government activities is showing leadership. Twenty million people go into our public sector organization buildings every year. They know that British Columbia as a government is a leader, and we will help everyone understand the importance of putting a price on carbon, reducing emissions and reducing the cost to the public service in the energy savings that accrue from looking at our greenhouse gas emissions across the public sector.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Last year this government's Pacific Carbon Trust resulted in nearly $1.1 million being collected from the Chilliwack area and handed over to big polluters — from Fraser Health Authority and cash-strapped schools. How is that climate leadership?

This money could have funded a much-needed dialysis unit in Chilliwack. It could have got rid of energy-inefficient school portables that are overcrowded. Instead, the B.C. Liberals continue to mismanage scarce resources.

[1410]

To the minister: does he really need another review to tell us that taking $1.1 million from schools and hospitals and giving it to big polluters is a bad idea, or will he
[ Page 9277 ]
finally listen to advice from school leaders, from health care managers, even from his own climate action advisers, and get rid of it?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member well knows, when you are leading on a file, there are some times when you bump up into circumstances that you understand create some concerns. We understand the concern of school boards and hospital authorities, which is why the climate action secretariat and the Pacific Carbon Trust have been engaged with these important stakeholders. The member well knows that.

We will be adjusting certain requirements in terms of Pacific Carbon Trust. We will be working with our stakeholders to ensure that we can continue to lead North America on climate action in a way that is responsible.

While I have great respect for Mark Jaccard, there are many people with views out there. I can talk about Andrew Weaver, one of the leading climate change scientists in the province, who says that we need leadership by example from our public sector. Carbon-neutral government provides "an incentive for the public sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," and that's exactly what we've done.

B. Simpson: Contrary to the Minister of Education's characterization of this, these are not hypothetical dollars going to hypothetical projects. These are real dollars from operating budgets within the public sector that could go to other things — to classrooms, to surgeries, to seniors care.

The government has had a long time to look at this. The Minister of Education is indicating that the firewall has to be built. My question to the Minister of Environment is: will school districts and public authorities have to contribute to the Pacific Carbon Trust at $25 a tonne this year — yes or no?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, as I mentioned, we have been engaging school boards, health authorities, public sector organizations. We've had some very good meetings. As we move through, as a leader on this file, we expect to improve our policies as we move forward. We intend to continue to improve all of our policies, and this is one that we will see, I think, an improved result moving forward.

We've spent more money on education every single year since we've been government, but we'll continue to make sure the education sector is well supported as they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Well, last year EnCana and other natural gas processing and producing companies got money from the public sector under this scheme in the Pacific Carbon Trust. That sector will become the major contributor to new, additional GHGs in this province under the government's job strategy.

While health authorities are double-taxed — they are taxed at the pump, and they are taxed through their emissions — EnCana and other gas producers and processers are not taxed — zero, nada, no tax on their production emissions.

So will the minister answer this question, since he didn't answer the last one. When is this government going to follow through on its climate action strategy and tax the non-captured emissions? When are those industrial processing emissions finally going to get taxed in this province?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, that's pretty rich, coming from a member who wanted to axe the carbon tax not more than a couple of years ago. It's a surprising turnaround. The fact is that the companies like EnCana, the oil and gas industry, the mining industry, all kinds of private industries that produce wealth in this province, support health care and education every single day through the taxes and royalties that they pay through to government.

Let me say this to the member opposite: $75 million in funding went to public sector organizations to allow them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, reduce their energy costs. In fact, school boards and health authorities around this province are saving hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on energy bills thanks to this government.

[1415]

RATE CHANGES FOR
SENIORS IN RESIDENTIAL CARE

K. Conroy: In 2009 when the former Minister of Health introduced a new fee structure for residential care facilities, he promised "every dollar raised will go back towards providing increased staffing and increased care." The Ombudsperson, in her scathing assessment of the Liberal record on senior care in B.C., plainly showed that this just didn't happen.

Would the current Health Minister please explain why his government failed this commitment to seniors in this province.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question.

Two things immediately come to mind. First of all, an opportunity to, again, thank the Ombudsperson for the work she has undertaken in her second volume of an exhaustive report, which I and the government find very helpful. I hope, secondly, that the member will have also taken time to review thoroughly the action plan that the government has tabled in response to those recommendations.

I want to say this to the member on this specific issue.
[ Page 9278 ]
Rates were adjusted, and the commitment was made to take the additional revenues that those rates would generate and ensure that they went right back into providing improved care to seniors in seniors facilities. That is precisely what has taken place and precisely what will continue to take place.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Well, when you speak to the people who actually provide the care in those facilities, they wouldn't necessarily agree with the minister, so I think that he needs to re-read his reports.

The former Minister of Health, who is now the Finance Minister, started taking millions of dollars out of the pockets of frail elderly seniors. In 2011 the figure was $54 million — $54 million that came from some of the most vulnerable people in this province. The minister claimed it would result in better care and increased staffing levels. But we know from the Ombudsperson's report that that just didn't happen.

When will seniors start to see the services that the Liberals have promised them and they desperately need and that the Liberals have just failed to deliver?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I disagree profoundly with the hon. member. The revenues that have been collected…. In the context of a more than doubling of the health care budget, doubling from $8 billion to over $16 billion, in the context of the dramatic increases that have taken place in the funding — the creation of additional beds, facilities and the funding that has flowed to those facilities — to suggest that that represents a cut or reduction defies logic.

This government will continue to work as hard as we possibly can to balance our desire to provide the best possible care to seniors, dignified care to seniors as they move through life, and to balance that against the ability the taxpayers have to support what everyone in this province believes should be the top possible level of care for seniors and their families in British Columbia.

SENIORS CARE CASE
IN NANAIMO HOSPITAL

M. Farnworth: The minister talks about dignified care. Well, perhaps he can explain to this House and the public how spending 505 days in an acute care bed in a hospital in Nanaimo for a senior is dignified care, because she can't get the services that she needs. There's a woman in Nanaimo — 505 days, at a cost of $1,500 a day. She's there because the services that she needs aren't there.

Can the minister explain how that is good health care for that patient and how that's good fiscal management for the province of British Columbia?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: No, I won't try to explain it away. It is unsatisfactory to spend that length of time. I'm always hesitant to talk about specific cases, but I will to this extent. There is only one thing that I would find more repugnant than having someone spend 500 days in a hospital, and that is to discharge them to a facility that is not equipped to provide them with the care they require.

That, in their zeal to score political points, is what the opposition seems to be suggesting should occur. That is not what the health authority or this government would advocate. I'm happy to report to the House, based on the most recent report I've received, that the patient I believe the member is referring to is due to be placed within the next seven to ten days in an alternate facility.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: What's disturbing is the government doesn't recognize that this is a problem not confined to just one individual and speaks out to the lack of services that seniors demand in the province of British Columbia. There are estimated to be another 29 individuals. At what point does the government start recognizing there's a problem — after 100 days, 200 days, 300 days? Is there no plan to be notified of cases like this?

There are an estimated 30 other cases at a cost of $1,500 a day. If that doesn't cry out for providing the level of services that's required, I don't know what does. Perhaps the minister can explain to this House at what point they take the issue seriously. What plans are going to be in place for those other 29 cases? Because this case of 500 was only dealt with when someone blew a whistle.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, that's just not true. By making that suggestion, he renders a real disservice to the professionals across this province, and in Nanaimo in particular, who devote themselves to trying to provide appropriate care to people.

I'm advised that there are, across this province, 21 individuals whose circumstances and health complications are so unique that it is difficult to find an appropriate housing facility for them. Now, they could be discharged under those circumstances and told to fend for themselves. That, in my view and the view of the health authorities, would be totally inappropriate.

If the member wants to stand up here and say on behalf of his colleagues how many hundreds of millions of dollars the NDP is prepared to spend to create tailor-made facilities for every conceivable condition, I'm all ears. But in the meantime, we are going to work with the health authorities to ensure that people receive the care they require in appropriate facilities and ensure that we work with them and their families to ensure that they receive that care.

[End of question period.]
[ Page 9279 ]

Reports from Committees

R. Howard: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fourth session of the 39th parliament respecting the review of the budgets of the independent legislative offices.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

R. Howard: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

R. Howard: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

This report summarizes the 11th annual review conducted by the committee of the budget proposals, annual reports and service plans submitted by our eight statutory officers.

[1425]

To the eight statutory officers, I want to acknowledge the good work that you do on behalf of all British Columbians. I want to thank you for your understanding of the challenging economic times we find ourselves in and know that we appreciate either your flatline budget proposals or your understanding of our decision, in all but one instance, to hold to last year's budget limits.

It has been a pleasure serving as Chair of this committee, and I'm especially thankful to the committee members who gave of their time to contribute to this important process and the production of this report.

D. Donaldson: As Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I would like to add a few comments to the tabling of the report today.

First of all, I'd like to thank the committee members for their hard work in coming to conclusions on the review of the budgets of the eight statutory officers that we reviewed in the fall. I would also like to point out that we had our disagreements, and we managed to work through most of them, but that's the healthy part of a democracy where independent officers' budgets come to a parliamentary committee composed of both sides — the way it should work when we have these kinds of reviews.

I also would like to commend all the eight statutory officers on their reports and especially take note of the Ombudsperson's report, the hard work she's done on seniors care that was released last week, and of course the Auditor General, who released a very hard-thought-through report on forest health and inventory issues last week. So I'd especially like to thank those two officers along with the others.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Richmond Centre closes debate.

R. Howard: Just to close, I would reflect that when you're coming out of one of the worst recessions in recent memories, you just have to tighten your belt. We are no different than the average family. We have to live within our means. We have asked the statutory officers to do that, and for that we thank them.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member move the report?

R. Howard: Report is so moved.

Motion approved.

Ministerial Statements

HERITAGE WEEK AND ENERGY IN B.C.

Hon. S. Thomson: I rise to make a short statement. As we've just heard proclaimed in the House, this week is Heritage Week in British Columbia. The theme this year is "Energy in B.C.: a powerful past, a sustainable future."

Our province was built on a remarkable ability to pioneer and produce energy, from water mills to hydroelectric dams and transformer buildings. It is this heritage that we celebrate throughout the province at events such as Turn on the Juice at the Stave Falls visitor centre in Mission. This week families can tour the Stave Falls generator floor and learn about the early development of power in British Columbia.

Our heritage is not just about looking to the past; it's about keeping those values alive and vibrant in our communities. As the minister responsible for heritage, I'm proud of the work this government has done to promote and support energy efficiency in the heritage sector, because we know that preserving our past helps build a sustainable future.

We're looking to that future. Only a few weeks ago this government launched its natural gas strategy, fuelling B.C.'s economy with four priorities: greater emphasis on market diversification; supporting job creation together with industry, educators and communities; continued strong leadership on clean energy and climate change; and a focus on the province's self-sufficiency policy.

Through this strategy we will diversify our natural gas
[ Page 9280 ]
sector, strengthen job prospects for British Columbians and create new opportunities in the province so that we can continue to have a strong and powerful British Columbia.

I encourage everyone to discover the power of our community heritage this week and participate in the many events in their communities throughout the province.

N. Macdonald: You can clap. [Applause.]

I'd like to thank the minister for his statement. As he stated, the theme for this year's Heritage Week in British Columbia is "Energy in B.C." There's no question that British Columbia has been blessed with an abundance of energy resources. Coal played an important role in our history on Vancouver Island and the Kootenays as well as the northeast. [Applause.] You can clap.

You know, our social and political heritage is really tied to those developments. Coal is currently an incredibly important part of our current economy, with mines in the southeast. We also have natural gas that has and will bring us wealth. In my area it's our hydro development, and that development, I think we have to be honest, placed both a burden on the area as well as a benefit for us in the Kootenays as well as the whole province.

[1430]

That history is deeply embedded in Kootenay communities such as Revelstoke, Nakusp and Castlegar.

Part of our energy heritage is how people in the province deal with energy development. In the 1990s I was witness to the development of the Columbia Basin Trust, which was born out of our energy history but is now valued and celebrated for the social and economic value it brings to the Kootenays. It sits as a model for other areas of the province where energy is extracted.

Now, the minister finished with an advert for the latest rendition of the natural gas strategy, but my statement comes to you commercial-free. I'll leave you with that. By the way, if you value commercial-free statements, just like PBS, your contributions are more than welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon we will continue with second reading of Bill 18, intituled Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. Should we complete that, we will then move to second reading of Bill 15, intituled Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act. Subsequent to that, if we're successful on that today, we would then move to committee stage on Bill 4, intituled Offence Amendment Act, 2011.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — ADVANCED EDUCATION
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

(continued)

C. James: I'm speaking to Bill 18. As we talked about at the close of our debate on Thursday, there are a number of sections in the bill that we support and that come forward with good rationale and good reason — things like the Architects Act. There are pieces within this bill that make perfect sense. But there are also sections of the bill that come forward without any logic, without any reason and without any rationale.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I'd like to focus my remarks on sections 19 and 20, and 49 and 50, on the amendments to the College and Institute Act, which focus on allowing two-thirds of the board of governors, the appointed members of the board of governors, to remove the one-third of the elected members on that board of governors.

Just for the public and for others, let's take a look for a moment at who the elected members are on college and university boards, because I think it's important for people to realize the impact that these amendments will have.

The elected members on the college and university boards are members from the faculty associations, members from the staff association and members from the students association. Those individual associations elect their members. They then sit on the board of governors to bring their knowledge and expertise along, along with the two-thirds of the board who are appointed by government.

I think the public, in taking a look at these amendments, will be asking themselves why. Why would government bring forward these changes? Why would the minister and government decide that this was an area that was important, that they wanted to look at? If you take a look at the amendments, the amendments remove the democratic right of these associations to actually determine their elected members.

These amendments give the ability for appointed members on the board to remove the elected members who are chosen by their associations. So I think when the public takes a look at this, they'll be asking themselves why the B.C. Liberals wouldn't want elected members around the board of governors. Why would they want to give the ability to their appointed people to remove those elected members?

Some might take a look at that and say that it might be a move by the B.C. Liberals to silence some voices around the table. That might be a reasonable conclusion for people to draw, if they take a look at these amendments.
[ Page 9281 ]

Some might say that the government is only interested in controlling the discussion, that they want to make sure that the appointed members, appointed by government, are carrying their message and perhaps some of those elected members I talked about earlier — the faculty associations, the student associations, the staff associations — might be bringing forward things the government might not be comfortable with.

[1435]

They might be bringing up issues like reduction in funding; they might be bringing up issues like affordability of post-secondary education; they might be bringing up things like quality of education — all critical issues that should be discussed as part of a board of governors. But perhaps the B.C. Liberals might not be as comfortable with that kind of discussion as they would be with their appointed members perhaps carrying a message that came from the government.

Some might say that the B.C. Liberals aren't interested in working with everyone to improve B.C.'s education system. That's what people might imagine if they took a look at this bill and took a look at these sections and the amendments in these sections — that the government wasn't keen on some voices being around that table working to improve the education system. Some might actually say that this is a government, the B.C. Liberals, that doesn't actually believe in democracy, because that's really what's at the heart of these amendments. It's to take democracy away.

Now, the only argument that I heard from the minister when she brought this bill forward and when she talked about the amendments was that this was all about conflict of interest. I think we've heard the members on the other side raise that that was why these amendments were brought forward, that that's why they were important. It was all about conflict of interest, and you couldn't have someone sitting on a board that had a conflict of interest.

Well, the existing board of governors already has conflict rules. They're already in place. Those rules are already written. If there is a conflict, an individual can excuse themselves, just as they do at school boards. I sat on a school board. If you're in a conflict, you can remove yourself from the discussion. Well, board of directors, similar kind of approach. They have already in place conflict rules that give the ability for the elected members, if they're in conflict, to remove themselves from the discussion.

So again, if the rules already exist for conflict, that takes away the government's argument. It raises the question that I started with and that I've heard members on this side of the House raising, which is: why? Why would the government bring forward these amendments? They weren't asked for, they seem to have no rationale to them, and they take away democracy.

The other thing these amendments do is create two classes of board members. They create the people appointed by government, who have no worries about being removed because there is no clause in the legislation and in the amendments that talks about removing appointed board members. There's no ability for the elected members to remove the appointed board members if there's a conflict. So that's one class of board members, then: people who are appointed by government, who have no worries and no concerns about removal.

But if you're elected by your members, if you're democratically elected by the student association, the faculty association or the staff association, under these amendments and this legislation, watch out. Be careful what you say, because you could be removed under these amendments. Two classes of board members. Again, this comes back to basic democracy.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise to those of us on this side of the House and to the public out there that this government's record on democracy isn't so good over the last 11 years. We've seen a few issues, like contracts being ripped up and the B.C. Liberals having to be taken to the Supreme Court to say: "What you did was not democratic. What you did was not legal. It was not right. Those are democratically elected and negotiated contracts, voted on by the members, and you tore them up."

That's the record of this government when it comes to democracy, when it comes to having groups and organizations take them to court to prove that this government is wrong and going in the wrong direction, and I fear that that's what we're going to see again. We will see these amendments…. Because they have no rationale, because they have no argument to them, because they create two kinds of board members, we'll see that this could be challenged in court.

That's not how I prefer to see tax dollars used for the post-secondary system. I prefer to see the government actually work with people around the table and improve our education system. Surely that should be our focus, not wasting our time and energy in bringing forward amendments that have no rationale to them, that could be challenged in court and that use time and resources and energy in that regard instead of actually getting down to work.

[1440]

What a way to run things. What a way to run a bring something in, bring amendments in, and don't discuss them with people. Even after they tell you there are concerns and these could be challenged, you still ignore that discussion and you bring them forward anyway.

These amendments, I suppose, really are an example of the approach of the B.C. Liberals over the last number of years. No cooperation; a lack of respect for those who know best — those in the field.

This legislation sees elected members as a problem, not a partner. Well, I would hope that in the post-secondary system, faculty and staff and students are partners in the education system, not problems. I would hope that
[ Page 9282 ]
they're seen as a resource to any government who's in power — to recognize the value of working with those individuals around the table, to recognize the strength they bring.

But according to these amendments and this legislation that we're debating right now, this government, the B.C. Liberals, are saying: "So much for partnership." They are saying: "So much for working together. So much for improving our colleges and our universities by working with all the partners."

I think it's pretty sad that that's an attitude of a government when what could be more important in our society than improving our education system, whether it's early childhood, whether it's K-to-12, whether it's post-secondary, colleges and universities. The foundation of a healthy society is a strong education system. Yet here we have the B.C. Liberals picking a fight with people who are working towards improving the system, voices that are critical — people who are receiving the education, people who are giving the education. Those voices should be listened to.

I certainly know from days I've gone to visit universities — whether it's club days and you head up to talk to students or whether you spend some time meeting with the board of governors, whether you spend some time talking to staff themselves — that I've never come away from those meetings without some good knowledge, without some good understanding of the system from the people directly in the system.

Yet this bill and these sections of the bill that I talked about earlier fly in the face of that. They basically say to those voices: "We don't value you in the same kind of way we do the people who are actually appointed by us, by government, around that table."

Well, I don't think that's the kind of system that the public wants. I think the system is looking for leadership to be able to include people around that table.

Just to review the argument as I close, right now we have in this bill amendments that are not needed. You already have conflict-of-interest rules applying, so they're already there. It's not a positive direction. It cuts out critical voices — staff, faculty, students. It removes those voices. It makes those voices nervous about whether they're going to be the ones who are going to be removed around that board. It tries to stifle that kind of debate. And it's brought forward with no specific examples from the minister on why these amendments are needed, other than the conflict discussion.

I think it's clear that these amendments should not go forward, that they are unnecessary and that they cause conflict at a time when you would think all of us in this Legislature would be working towards improving our colleges and universities, not trying to pick a fight and taking them apart.

C. Trevena: I, too, am addressing Bill 18, Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act. Like my colleague who just spoke before me, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I find the amendment part of this bill — not all of the bill, but part of the bill — is really unnecessary.

[1445]

It speaks, I think, to almost a pettiness from this Liberal government — that it's just trying to interfere with what is in many cases a very good working relationship.

I had the pleasure, when the House rose at the end of last session last November, to go and sit with the board of governors of North Island College, which has a very large area. In fact, I have a big constituency, and North Island College covers many constituencies — my colleague's for Alberni–Pacific Rim, part of my colleague's on the North Coast, the Minister of Agriculture's riding and, obviously, my own.

It works on behalf of and serves the education needs for a large number of people on Vancouver Island, on the northern Gulf Islands and up the central coast. They do an extraordinary job with really very little support.

We were talking about this bill, but during the discussion of the bill one of the things we were talking about was: "Well, we have risen, the bill hasn't gone forward, and it's very possible that the government will fix it, that they will realize that there are suggestions that are in this bill…."

Particularly, what concerns this side of the House is the part which says that the elected faculty and staff who are involved in their unions or staff associations are not allowed to serve on boards and, secondly, that elected board members can be removed by a two-thirds vote of the rest of the board. These are the areas that concern us. But there was a feeling that this could be fixed. It didn't have to go ahead.

I'm frankly very disappointed. It has come again in the same format it was when we rose back at the end of last year. The Minister of Advanced Education hasn't taken this opportunity, hasn't taken the chance, where there were two-and-a-half months, to have a serious look at the legislation, be aware of the concerns — I know that the minister has had many letters of objection from a huge cross-section of people who work in and are involved with post-secondary education — and to actually take these seriously and say: "This isn't going down well. We are obviously doing something wrong. What is it that we're doing wrong? How can we fix it?"

I think a very simple fix — and maybe it will come when it comes to the committee stage — is that the minister would table an amendment which removes these two sections. I might cite sections 19 and 20 and also sections 49 and 50 of the bill. These are our concerns, and it would be very easy for the minister just to table an amendment and have these removed.

I think it was a wasted opportunity that we went into the break over Christmas, back able to do further work —
[ Page 9283 ]
both in our constituencies, as I think we all did, but also on specifics — and the minister didn't.

One of the concerns we have is that this is simply unnecessary. The removal and the conflict-of-interest sections of this are already there. A board member can be removed, and a board member who has a conflict of interest recuses themselves when they see something coming up that will impact, because of what they are doing either outside the board or their base is in conflict. It works, as in local government, on school boards and others, that if you have a conflict of interest you recuse yourself. So that is completely unnecessary.

The second part, saying elected faculty and staff representatives involved in their unions can't serve on boards. There are two very serious concerns here.

One is that it undermines democracy. It's saying that if you are rightly elected to be part of a union or a staff association, you have no right to be on a board of governors. So it limits the association's ability to work, or the union's ability to work. Unfortunately, the other thing that I think the minister was most likely missing when she allowed this to go through is it damages the board of governors.

[1450]

It damages it because the people who are involved in their unions or involved in their staff associations are involved because they care, and they're involved because they have knowledge, and they're involved because they have a passion and they have a level of expertise. By saying that these members cannot serve on the boards, you're losing a vast number of people who actually have a great deal of expertise and a great number of skills that they could bring to that board.

In two respects it is, I think, very troubling that the government just says: "You're a member of the union. Sorry, that's it. You're off the board of directors, but we'll appoint other board members." This bill does allow board members to be appointed.

I mentioned North Island College. I would hope that I have a good working relationship across the North Island College with faculty, with staff representatives, with the administration and with students. What I hear from all of them are concerns and problems that are not related to this.

I have, and I would like to actually quote, a letter, which I received back in the autumn when this was first tabled, from the president of the faculty association, Shirley Ackland. I'd like to read part of it into the record, because I think it actually states some of the concerns from the grass-roots level. It says:

"We believe that these provisions are antidemocratic and will undermine the long-established collegial governance that has been the model at our institution and others across this province."

Collegial governance, working together — union, administration, students and faculty members across the board working together for the best interests of their institution and, because they are a public institution of higher education, for their communities.

For North Island College, that's for my community in Campbell River; for Port Hardy; for Gold River; for all the outlying communities that are served by that; for the minister's riding in Courtenay-Comox, where the North Island College's biggest campus is; for Port Alberni — right across the board. These communities will be affected by an antidemocratic approach like this, because North Island College will be the poorer with a board that is restricted.

I'd like to carry on quoting:

"We recognize that your government wants to limit potential conflicts of interest for elected boards of governors in B.C.'s public colleges and universities, but the provisions of Bill 18 are over the top of what might be necessary to achieve this. We believe that Bill 18 will effectively polarize relations on campus, relations that have developed over the years to serve our college communities very effectively.

"Excluding leaders of faculty and staff associations from serving on boards of governors is a clear violation of democratic principles and practice. We urge you to amend this legislation and encourage you to enter into the discussions with the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators to agree on constructive ways to minimize conflicts of interest without infringing on the democratic principles embedded within our post-secondary institutions."

I think this letter from Ms. Ackland, the president of the North Island College Faculty Association, says it all. It explains that they have been working in a collegial and democratic way for the betterment of the college and the communities, and this is a hammer to deal with a nonexistent problem. It is coming down hard on something that really doesn't exist, and it is going to have a real impact on the way that the college works.

As I say, I haven't talked across the board on this, but I also have the North Island Students Union representative. Her description is "extremely narrowing." I'll just quote what she says: "I think that it is obscene not to let a member, staff or student be involved on the board." She realizes the impact. This is a woman who is working her way through North Island College, has a lot of ambition, is spending time on and is dedicated to improving college life by being the student representative on board and is really concerned that her belief in democracy is being undermined.

[1455]

This could have been resolved, as Ms. Ackland says. We could have found constructive ways to minimize conflict. We could have found a new way of doing things. The minister could have taken this back when we weren't sitting and said: "Let's fix it." Instead, we are, dare I say, wasting our time on a couple of amendments.

What North Island College really would like to hear about — the administration, the faculty and the students — is not about this antidemocratic approach to governance. They would like to have a collegial approach, an ongoing collegial approach that has worked so effectively.

What the people that I speak to at North Island College would like to see are very simple things. They would like to see a concentration by this government, by the Liberal
[ Page 9284 ]
government that has failed for the last 11 years, on post-secondary education. Not on governance and appointing Liberal friends to the boards of governors. Not taking away the rights of union members from sitting on boards or of federation members from sitting on boards. People at North Island College — administration, students, faculty — want a serious discussion about post-secondary education.

This government has ignored post-secondary education for the last 11 years. We now have the most unaffordable post-secondary education for students. We have no access for expanding courses where they are needed. We have faculty who are completely overwrought because they don't have the opportunities to teach as they would like to teach.

We should, in this chamber, instead of dissecting an antidemocratic piece of legislation…. Yes, we should be questioning how the government can even think about removing this democratic level, but we should be looking at affordability of post-secondary education for our students. This side of the House is willing to address that. We want to make sure that students can go to post-secondary institutions, can get the education that they really deserve and that we as a province need if we are serious about developing our economy, developing our infrastructure and having a future.

We need to be talking about affordability. We need to be talking about what post-secondary institutions can offer and how they are funded. Tomorrow we have the budget. Everybody is very aware that we live in very constrained fiscal times. We're aware that there is a limited amount of money, but year after year around budget time, I sit down — as do my colleagues, both the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim — individually, with North Island College, to talk about what the needs of the college are.

What we discussed…. We don't discuss these sorts of things. We're not talking about the makeup of the board of governors. What we're talking about is that year after year…. I've been a member for almost seven years now, and for almost seven years I have had an organized meeting with the president of North Island College around budget time. Every time, the conversation revolves around lack of funding for rural post-secondary institutions.

That is what we should be talking about in this Legislature today. We shouldn't be talking about who can and can't sit on a board of governors or why the Minister of Advanced Education hasn't tried to fix this during the time when she had the opportunity to fix it.

We have institutions across this province. As I say, North Island College is an excellent institution, and I would use this as an example of institutions around this province that should be providing a range of options for people in our communities. They should be able to provide very good apprenticeship programs in conjunction with business and industry. They should be providing comprehensive upgrading. They should be providing basic skills training, basic trades training and the transfer to university. North Island College does all of those, but it does it on a shoestring.

[1500]

It has a fantastic reputation, and I know many young people who are very eager to go to North Island College before coming to UVic or UBC. They like that. They like having the community college. They like having the access there. But year after year after year the problem of a lack of funding and disproportionate funding for rural post-secondary institutions, compared to urban post-secondary institutions, is huge.

North Island College has great dreams. There are lots of different ways it could be expanding in specific areas to benefit both the north Island economy and the province. Yet each time, it is stymied by lack of funding. If it wants to put on a course, it has to deal a bit like….

I want to say that I'm the critic for Children and Families, and I deal with the social service sector and hear the frustration all the time — that year after year after year this Liberal government, instead of giving comprehensive, three-year, ongoing funding to programs…. It is now small, grant-based, application-based, "spending your time chasing the money" sort of funding.

That is what is happening to our post-secondary institutions too. That is what we should be speaking about in this Legislature. That's what this government should be addressing: how we're going to ensure that we have good funding for our post-secondary institutions. We all know, on both sides of this House, that there is going to be a huge skills shortage in the years to come, a huge gap in trained tradespeople. What's the government doing?

The government is fiddling around with the makeup of boards of governors rather than addressing the real needs of post-secondary institutions, rather than saying that we have these institutions around our province who can provide that great foundation, can provide training right on the ground, can provide training in communities to people who need them and people who can't travel, who can't up stakes and move away for work or anything. Yet it's not there.

Obviously, I have no magic ball. I don't know what's going to be in the budget tomorrow. But I fear that one of the things that isn't going to be in the budget is increased funding to post-secondary institutions, increased funding to North Island College, which really does need it.

While we have the trades gap and the skills gap, we also have in the north Island a large First Nations population, many of whom don't want to travel away from their home to have training. So an institution such as North Island College, which is in the communities and wants to get back into the communities…. It's already had to contract to a few central places. It wants to get back into communities. It needs to have the solid funding that isn't
[ Page 9285 ]
there at the moment, which isn't being discussed in this bill but does really need to happen.

The other area I touched on, which we should be discussing in this Legislature and, sadly, gets ignored far too many times, is the cost of post-secondary education. We have, as I mentioned, student representatives on the board of governors at the moment. I have huge admiration for these young people who are there trying to get a post-secondary education, working to pay for their post-secondary education and committing themselves to the governance of their post-secondary institution.

It is quite an extraordinary commitment to their future and to their community. But you talk to any student, and what they'll say is that the cost of education is beyond a burden. The cost of education is prohibitive. I know that this government has allowed that cost to skyrocket, has allowed B.C. to become the most expensive place for post-secondary education in Canada.

I mean, the representative says "obscene" on the issue of boards and who can't be on the boards as written in this bill. I think it's obscene — the cost of post-secondary education. That's why I'm very glad that our side of the House has proposed a way of dealing with this and having funded a way of dealing with this. It's a small step.

[1505]

I tell people — and they are incredulous — that when I went to university when I was in England in the '80s, I didn't have to pay a penny. It was public education in the truest sense of the word. You could go, and you didn't have to get a loan; you didn't have to go into debt. You were paid to go. Your tuition was paid for, you borrowed your books from the library, and you didn't have to pay. You paid your accommodation, yes. You got a grant.

I mean, I know I was privileged. My generation in Britain knows we were privileged. But it was a commitment from a philosophy — Britain at that time, the Scandinavian countries — that believed in education, a philosophy that believes you invest in people for your own good, a philosophy that it doesn't matter where you come from or how much money you've got or how much money your parents have got. You have the right. If you have the academic ability — or the skills ability, if you're going into trades — you have the right to a post-secondary education, because it is good for your community, for your province, for your country. Investing in post-secondary education is investing in the future.

That is really one of the tragedies. It really is a tragedy that after 11 years, this government still doesn't get it. It doesn't get that putting money into community colleges, putting money in to allow people to get that education, to go and do the apprenticeships, to get the upgrading, is going to benefit everybody. Ensuring that people can afford it is going to benefit everybody.

Instead of having this, we have a bill which…. Yeah, it's got a couple of good things, but it's focusing on the trivial. It's focusing on antidemocratic moves of boards of governors. It's not focusing on what we really need to do. I think it is so very disappointing that the minister, who had an opportunity…. She knew there was criticism coming. She knew that across the board — whether it's unions, university faculty associations, the post-secondary educators, the B.C. Government Employees Union or CUPE B.C.— there was opposition to this.

She didn't have to go through with this. She could have taken a brave stand and said: "I know that my government…." Her government is allegedly caring about jobs, has some nice little packages going around which are saying that they care about jobs, care about families — which we still need to see, you know…. Show us the money on this one.

If she was serious to show that her government had any intent…. This is what a courageous minister does. A courageous minister would stand up and say: "It is my ministry that can make a difference. It is my ministry that can change people's lives. It can change the economy. It can change the future for British Columbia."

To say that advanced education needs support, not tinkering; that students need support, need to be able to afford to get post-secondary education, need to be able to go to college or university without getting mountains of debt; that institutions themselves need the support so they can provide the quality of education that people in B.C. deserve and that we in B.C. as an economy need would have been brave. But instead we get a bill where…. You know, there is no other way of describing it but antidemocratic.

We all talk to people in our communities. One of the saddest conversations I had quite recently was with a woman who…. She and her husband — married a few years.

[1510]

I said the usual thing — we heard from the Attorney General earlier today that she's got grandchildren: "Thinking about having children?" You know what that young woman said, Madam Speaker? I say this. For me it was really, really tragic. No, they are not going to have kids. They may never have kids because they are still paying off their student loan, and they've worked it out. They won't be finished paying off their student loans until they are well into their late 40s.

What sort of place are we creating that we have young people who are saying: "We are not going to have kids because we are still paying off our student loans"? Those are the things we should be addressing in this Legislature — affordability, accessibility and quality of our education, not the makeup and appointment of boards. Not saying: "Oh, you are a bad person; you're a union person. You are not allowed to be on a board of governors. You're going to hurt our community." Not: "You're in an association. Uh-oh, you're going to have a conflict of interest. You're not going to be on a board of governors."

It should recognize the value and the wealth of diverse
[ Page 9286 ]
boards of governors. It should recognize that this is good for a post-secondary institution. It should also recognize — the government should recognize; it's had 11 years to recognize and still hasn't learned the lesson — that the best investment in this province is investing in post-secondary education. It's investing in students to go to post-secondary education, ensuring it is affordable and accessible. It's investing in the institutions themselves so they can offer — without having to worry about: will there be funding next year? — the continuity of programs, it can do the research, and they can invest in their own communities by offering that foundation.

I will conclude my remarks, just to reiterate the points that have been provided to me from people at North Island College, that it's antidemocratic, a violation — as I quoted before from Shirley Ackland — of democratic principles and practice. Or as the federation representative, Savannah, said to me, it is obscene.

I'll take it further. It is obscene because it is such a wasted opportunity. It is such a wasted opportunity, Madam Speaker. We could be investing, really, in the future of B.C., investing in post-secondary education, investing in our students.

Instead, we are squandering it. Once again, this Liberal government is squandering it by squashing democracy and saying that it's their way. It's their friends. Forget about what is really needed, forget about what our communities need, and forget about what our young people need. We're going to stick with our friends.

I'm very disappointed in this and will hope the minister takes it under advisement and, when she comes to the committee stage, puts amendments that will address this, and thinks seriously about her responsibility as a minister for one of the most important ministries that this government should have but just continues to neglect.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise in debate on this bill today for a number of reasons. Firstly, growing up in the small community I did, the prospect of going off to a college or university was sort of the ultimate you could hope for in life. That was your…. I won't call it your ticket out, to suggest that living in Coombs was anything other than wonderful. But there was no question that certainly for my generation and I suspect for most Canadians in the heyday of public education and low tuition fees in post-secondary educational institutions, the concept of going on to university was first and foremost.

People with an education were to be admired, notwithstanding that the Social Credit government of the day had a certain element in that party that was somewhat anti-intellectual, and not to be entirely critical of them because it was, after all, under their term of office that Simon Fraser University was actually constructed — unlike this government, which has chosen to create universities by simply redesignating colleges as universities and therefore avoiding the cost of construction, which Social Credit was actually quite happy to put forward in front of the people. Spend the money and talk about a sincere effort to elevate the availability of post-secondary education in our province.

[1515]

So the provisions of this bill, in particular, that relate to….

Interjection.

L. Krog: You know, hon. Speaker, I wish the member for Chilliwack, who is so interested in this debate, would take his own opportunity to rise if he hasn't already, but certainly to allow me my small opportunity as the rules of this wonderful hallowed hall of legislative wisdom allow.

In any event, the member mentions Malaspina. As a matter of fact, the member is quite right. I attended Malaspina College, as it then was, and my son attended Vancouver Island University, as it is now. He graduated, I might add, very successfully and is pursuing a career in the great smoke of Vancouver, but that is completely irrelevant to this debate today.

What is relevant is what this bill is attempting to do. All legislation should, in its essence, be proposed to solve a problem, to remedy some wrong, to create some important right or impose some obligation that is necessary and relates to something that is actually real. That's where my problem with this bill arises.

Now, I get letters in my office about housing problems. I get constituents coming in about problems with social assistance. I get the odd parent who is not happy with the way their child is being treated in the school system. I get students complaining about high tuition rates. I get people worried about public transit. I get people concerned about municipal issues and federal issues, of course, and we all understand that at our constituency offices.

But I have to tell you, hon. Speaker — and I'm in my 11th year in this place, including the term back in the '90s — I can't recall one person coming into my constituency office, sending me an e-mail, making a telephone call to me or sending an old-fashioned letter with a stamp on it, saying: "Boy, the government really has to remedy this big problem at our college and university system. There is just a plethora of problems of conflict of interest everywhere. They're pouring out of the university like rushing water down a mountain side — rivers and rivers of conflict."

But if I said that, I'd be lying. I'd be lying, and I couldn't possibly come into this clamber and lie. The truth is that we have a solution here without a problem. We have a remedy to something that isn't an issue. As my friend the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill pointed out earlier in the debate today, there are conflict-of-interest guidelines and rules in place at all our institutions.

We're not talking about institutions that sort of fell out
[ Page 9287 ]
of the cabbage patch yesterday. Universities, as we know them, have existed for hundreds and hundreds of years. The University of British Columbia has been around, I think, for close to 100 years now. Simon Fraser has been around since the mid-'60s. Victoria College, as it then was, becoming the University of Victoria — that's another 50 or close to 50 years.

So what's the problem here? What is the problem? Is there some tremendous issue that should concern the members of this Legislature? Is there some horrible gaping wound in our public education system that requires stitching up, that requires the legislative physician to come in and save the body politic of the university? What exactly is it we're doing here?

If I saw the problem, if I felt it was an issue, I'd probably stand up in this place and support what the government is trying to do. If this is about a conflict-of-interest issue, if there really is a problem…. Maybe the minister has letters piled up on her desk; maybe she got all the e-mails I didn't; maybe she got all the telephone calls I didn't. Maybe she got delegation after delegation pounding on her door, saying that this was a real issue. Maybe she heard all of that, but I didn't hear her say that. I don't think she said that.

So let's assume there is a problem. Is this the way to deal with the issue? If it is a conflict, then why doesn't it say so? Why doesn't the legislation talk about it? We're talking, in the most contentious sections of Bill 18, about changes to the University Act and to the College and Institute Act. That's what we're talking about.

[1520]

Section 17 says that the following section is added:

"Best interests of institution

"8.2 In carrying out the objects of an institution, the members of the board of the institution must act in the best interests of that institution."

Well, I would have thought that was kind of obvious. I don't want to suggest that government is gilding the lily with that, but it strikes me that that would have been patently obvious — that everyone would be acting in the best interests of that institution.

Surely, the government wouldn't be appointing any members to the board of a college or a similar institution unless they were acting in the best interests of that institution. Surely, there would be no ulterior motive in appointing perhaps partisan political people to the boards of our various colleges and institutions like them across the province.

The question then becomes for me, when it says must act in the best interests of that institution: who's going to define that? Like the University Act. You go to the appropriate statute, and what it talks about, for instance, in the University Act, is: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act." That is under section 71(1), and in (2): "Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (a) defining any expression used but not defined in this Act."

Now, I don't see any definition in the University Act about what's the best interest of the institution, so I assume that's going to, if it's necessary, be defined by regulation, because Bill 18 certainly doesn't define the best interest of that institution. I'm going to assume this is another thing that will get decided in the close confines of the cabinet chamber of the province of British Columbia — not here in the Legislature, not where we can openly debate it, but over there in the west annex. Over there in the west annex, which we know, in the last 11 years, has been a birthplace of such commitment to democratic institutions and open and honest government. We know that has been the case.

We go on. In section 9.1 it says: "The members of the board must elect a chair" from amongst them "of the board appointed under section 9 (1) (a)."

Then it goes on, in section 19, that section 11 is amended by adding the following subsection: "(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, on a resolution passed by the vote of at least a 2/3 majority of the members of the board, remove from office a member of the board elected under section 9 (1) (b), (c) or (d) if the board is satisfied that the person should be removed for cause."

Again, I don't see "cause" defined anywhere. There's another one that cabinet is going to get to define. So what's cause? Goodness, maybe cause is that the person involved is a member of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia or maybe the Communist Party or maybe the B.C. Reform Party. Maybe they are a member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, or maybe they're a member of a union, or maybe they're a member of an Anglican church.

We won't know that, because it's not here in the legislation. It's going to get defined in the cabinet chamber. What is cause? Now, hon. Speaker, I'm being a bit facetious here. Maybe cause means that they are obstreperous at board meetings. Maybe they are disrespectful to the chair. Maybe they point out problems that exist in the institution and speak publicly on those issues. Maybe they wish to dissent from the prevailing view of the other members of the board. Maybe they wish to dissent.

[1525]

I thought — in my own naive, small way — that the right to dissent, to be critical, to be seen and to be, in fact, an outsider was actually quite acceptable in a democratic institution. For me, that is what a university, in particular, and colleges, as well, should represent. They are places of learning. Through dark times in the history of western civilization, universities were the great repositories of knowledge.

Universities are where you would find intellectual life kept alive through what was referred to as the Dark Ages. Universities and the concept of learned people….
[ Page 9288 ]
Unfortunately, they were all men in those days. We might have moved along the road to civilization much faster if we had been a more egalitarian society, but we weren't. In those days those institutions preserved something important. Ideas were exchanged, arguments made, proposals made and withdrawn. People questioned one another.

Surely, that has to be the essence of what a university is. It is not just an institution to turn out doctors and lawyers and engineers and teachers and clinical psychologists and psychiatrists and all of the needed, worthy academic types who help run our society — or people with a master's in business administration. It is a place that keeps alive intellectual discourse, free from the chill, hopefully, of the rest of society — whether that be from government or business or dissenters in the street or whoever.

What's being proposed here…. You can argue, hon. Speaker, in the great stream of life that this isn't the equivalent of being marked in society, as we have marked some in our history. This isn't as awful as that. I'm reminded of the great character in one of those fine and brilliant early American novels that's probably still taught in most universities that teach courses in American literature — The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne — Hester Prynne, marked with the A, singled out in her community, singled out for adultery, singled out to be mocked and avoided.

Is this really what this is all about — that we are going to mark out the dissenters on the board? Are we going to mark them somehow, designate them as being not fit to share the office to which they were elected? That's what we're talking about doing here.

If a board on two-thirds majority removes a member elected — elected, hon. Speaker — they can't sit. Now, let's go to the University Act. Take a moment. Section 19 of the existing University Act says:

"(1) The board of a university, other than the University of British Columbia, is composed of 15 members as follows: (a) the chancellor" — not a bad idea — "(b) the president; (c) 2 faculty members elected by the faculty members; (d)" — and this is the kicker, hon. Speaker, if you want to talk about control — "8 persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, 2 of whom are to be appointed from among persons nominated by the alumni association."

Now, in some quarters that may be referring to what is seen as an old boys network, but I'm not going to take that view.

"(e) 2 students elected from students who are members of an undergraduate student society or a graduate student society; (f) one person elected by and from the employees of the university who are not faculty members."

Now, it's not exactly broad-brush democracy here, because eight of the 15 are the friends of government. Let's be blunt about that. Let's not pretend that this government has gone around appointing well-known members of the opposition party, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, to sit on the board of governors of its various universities. Let's not kid ourselves.

[1530]

Nevertheless, the statute in itself says very clearly that of those eight, you get two faculty members elected by the faculty — not illogical; a university actually having people who teach in the institution sitting on the board seems eminently logical to me — and two students, the very people who are there to be educated, who are there to carry on the institution's history, to maintain its learning, the people who are there to absorb the accumulated knowledge of generations; and one person elected from the employees who are not faculty members. So a fairly egalitarian approach.

[D. Black in the chair.]

And what's the concept? It's like appointing any good board of directors for a corporation. This is language that I know will appeal to many members in the House opposite.

You want to have array of talent. You want to have various sets of eyes to see what is happening, various sets of ears to hear what is happening so that the best decisions possible can be made, so that you don't make stupid mistakes and so that you don't exercise judgment in a way that will in fact be detrimental to the institution. That's a good thing. That is a good thing. No one would disagree with ensuring that we have a wide variety of individuals.

The few who are actually elected…. There aren't many. We've got the two faculty members, we've got those two students, and we've got one member of the employees. So we've got a third of the university, just a miserable third, who are actually elected. They'll never have a majority of the votes. They'll never be able to run the place. They'll never be able to throw a little coup d'état one day at the board meeting. It's not going to happen.

The establishment will still be in control, because you've got the eight appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, two of whom have to be from the alumni, and you've got the chancellor and the president. So control is not a problem here.

This is not like all of us, as parents, who have the honour and privilege and luck to be parents or grandparents, maybe the second time around, like the current Attorney General, who so proudly announced the birth of her second grandchild today…. We don't like to give up control. That's the reality. We always think we can give our kids a bit of advice and teach them to do something just a little bit better.

So control is not an issue here. Control is still in the hands of the eight appointees of government. Yet can this government give up a little bit of control, just a tiny little bit of control, and allow the elected members to be elected and to speak on behalf of the people who elected them? No. No, we can't do that, because it says very
[ Page 9289 ]
clearly that if you get elected under subsection 19(1)(c) — that's the faculty — or (e) — that's the two students — or (f), the person from the employees…. You want to give the power to cabinet ultimately.

If you get two-thirds of the folks…. Let's be blunt about this. Two-thirds majority is pretty clear. The numbers speak volumes. You don't have to have a degree in mathematics to do the numbers on this one. All you need are the eight government employees who, notwithstanding the legislative dictum, owe their appointments to the government and the chancellor and the president, and bingo, you've got your two-thirds.

You've got your two-thirds. So that person who is dissenting — that person who wants to be critical, who doesn't necessarily want to fit in, who represents a minority viewpoint, perhaps — can be tossed.

I come back to my point. How do they get tossed? Well, the board just has to be satisfied they should be removed for cause, which, as I've pointed out on a couple occasions during my remarks today, isn't defined. Now, perhaps it has something to do with not acting in the best interest of the university, but that's not defined here either.

[1535]

Those two important definitions will get defined in the cabinet chamber. That's where it's going to get defined — not in here, in the cabinet chamber.

So we're giving the power to the government in essence here, because the chancellor and the president certainly owe their allegiance to the government. We're giving the power to the government to toss the elected members.

You know, I can just imagine if the Senate of Canada had the power in a two-thirds vote to toss an elected member of the House of Commons. Now what would people say about that? What would they say? I'll tell you what they'd say. There would be demonstrations in the streets. There would be court challenges. There would be a public outcry such that you haven't seen for decades in this country, when a non-elected person gets to toss an elected person out of an institution.

Now, some may say: "It's just a university. It's not the House of Commons. It's not the city of Vancouver's government. It's not the town of Pouce Coupe or municipal council. It's just a university." But a university represents a part of our history and commitment to free speech that is really quite unique. Of all the institutions that we have in our society where free speech, the right to dissent and the right to be elected there democratically should be preserved — surely, that should be a university.

It's not just that aspect of this bill. We then go on to section 50, and I'm concentrating mainly on the concept of the university here. It's amended by adding the following paragraph.

Now, 23(1) is amended. This is interesting. Many of the members probably never took the time to actually look at the section. So 23(1) of the University Act says: "The following persons are not eligible to be or to remain members of the board: (a) members of the Parliament of Canada" — that's kind of interesting — "(b) members of the Executive Council" — that's cabinet, for the uninitiated — "or of the Legislative Assembly… (d) a member of the public service in the ministry" — that's a pretty obvious conflict — "(e) a member of the public service designated by the minister." But everybody else can sit on the board of a university, everybody else. It's a pretty broad spectrum.

So who can sit in the university? The rich man, the poor woman, the dog catcher, the party hack, the failed politician, the local doctor, any British Columbian who's appointed who isn't a Member of Parliament, a member of the executive council, a member of the Legislative Assembly, a member of the public service in the ministry or a member of the public service designated by the minister can sit on the board of a university.

Now that's incredibly democratic. That's the kind of institution that British Columbians want to support. That's the kind of thing that British Columbians want to support. Except section 50 of Bill 18 says:

"Section 23(1) is amended by adding the following paragraph" — so there's another person who can't sit — "(g) a person who is an employee of the university and who is a voting member of the executive body of, or an officer of, an academic or non-academic staff association of the university who has the responsibility, or joint responsibility with others, to (i) negotiate with the board, on behalf of the academic or non-academic staff association of that university, the terms and conditions of service of members of that association, or (ii) adjudicate disputes regarding members of the academic or non-academic staff association of that university."

In 2011 in British Columbia, what the government is really saying is: "If you're a union activist, if you take your participation in a union, whether it be an academic or non-academic staff association at the university, you're excluded. You're excluded."

[1540]

I come back to Hester Prynne. If you have a big U for union on your chest, if you've got it on your back, you're not allowed to sit on the board of governors even if you are democratically elected to that position — even if you're democratically elected to that position.

What is this really about? This is about attacking people who might not toe the line. That's what this is really about. Let's not pretend this is about conflict of interest. There are a myriad of ways to deal with conflicts of interest. The members in this chamber are governed by guidelines relating to conflict of interest.

The world understands conflict of interest in a very real way now. You know, we had a great big, fat, rich accounting company that was telling us that Lehman Brothers was fine, and it turned out it wasn't. We understand about conflicts. We're getting the picture. Even the average person on the street who is just trying to get by and has very little time to pay attention to much else gets the concept
[ Page 9290 ]
of conflict of interest.

I come back to the point where I started. Conflict of interest really isn't much of an issue. If the minister wanted to fill this House with her voice and give us all the many, many examples that would have to exist to drive this legislation, I would have loved to have heard it. But it doesn't exist.

What this is really about is nothing more than control, nothing more than the ability of government — and it is, essentially, government, because it's government appointees — to bully those…. In the words of the member for Surrey-Newton, I believe: the opportunity to bully, the opportunity to control. Even if you're a really easygoing and pleasant person, but you don't toe the line, you can be tossed for cause — not defined.

In 2012 in British Columbia have things become so bad, so difficult in the management of our academic institutions, our post-secondary institutions, in the management of our universities and colleges that we can't handle a little dissent? Is it so necessary to impose this big chill on people who want to speak out, who have a different point of view? Is this where we've gotten to? Is this what British Columbia under the B.C. Liberals is all about in 2012, that we want to ensure that if you're a strong union person you can't have a voice in an academic institution? Is this where we're at?

I say to the government, I say to the minister: we're only coming to the conclusion of second reading debate. It is not too late for this minister to stand up for academic freedom, to stand up for democracy, to stand up for people who may take a dissenting view in our society. Step back and withdraw the offensive sections of this bill. There is nothing stopping this minister from doing that.

I'd like her today to stand up and do the right thing, to say to those people who work at our universities: "You have the right to dissent in British Columbia."

K. Corrigan: I, too, am going to speak primarily on a few sections of Bill 18. I am talking about sections 18, 19 and 20, which are an affront to democracy. They're absolutely unnecessary. They were introduced without any kind of consultation with those that will be affected, with no notice whatsoever and with nobody asking, as far as I can tell, this government to bring in these sections. I'm going to talk about each of the three sections.

[1545]

Section 19 of Bill 18 says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that's cabinet, so we're talking about behind closed doors — "may, on a resolution passed by the vote of at least a 2/3 majority of the members of the board" — this would be a board of a college or institute or university — "remove from office a member of the board elected under section 9 (1) (b), (c) or (d) if the board is satisfied that the person should be removed for cause."

I think the important points to note about this, what this essentially says, is that somebody can be removed from a college board, if they were elected to that college board, by a two-thirds majority. It doesn't say those that are appointed by government, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It doesn't say that you can get rid of those people. But the people who are democratically elected to the board of the college or university or institution — those people can be removed. I find that highly offensive. You get the government appointees are safe, and they as a group can kick out those that are elected to be there.

What we are talking about, as my colleague pointed out, is that we have boards of 15, and eight are appointed by government. Then, as well, there are two more: the chancellor and the president. Then there are five elected board members: two students, one staff and two faculty. That's my understanding of the makeup of the boards.

So what you can have, essentially, is the eight appointees from government — who are, I'm sure, supportive of government, lined up with government — carefully chosen to toe the line that government wants for them. Those eight, plus the chancellor and the president, can as a group kick out somebody who is democratically elected to be there. I find that highly offensive, a highly offensive move.

The second section that I want to mention is section 20, and section 20 is just as, if not more, offensive than section 19. What it says is:

"A person is not eligible to be or to remain a member of the board if the person is (a) an employee of the institution, and (b) a voting member of the executive body of, or an officer of, an instructional, administrative or other staff association of the institution who has the responsibility, or joint responsibility with others, to (i) negotiate with the board, on behalf of the instructional, administrative or other staff association of that institution, the terms and conditions of service of members of that association, or (ii) adjudicate disputes regarding members of the instructional, administrative or other staff association of that institution."

What that is saying is that if you are a member of the union and you are an active member of the union and you're involved in negotiations or as an activist, you're not allowed to sit on the board at all, which it seems to me, again, is a completely antidemocratic move by this government. It bans union activists that are involved in collective bargaining or dispute resolution activities.

You know, I sat on the Burnaby board of education for nine years. What I found there and what I know is true on the various boards in post-secondary institutions across this province is that those that sit on those boards act in a professional and responsible manner. I certainly know that in my many years on the board in Burnaby, if there was somebody who had a potential conflict of interest, they acted in a responsible way and they removed themselves from any deliberations where they might be in conflict. I'm sure that has been true on the boards of universities.

To suggest that people need to be saved from themselves by banning them is just ridiculous and indicates no respect for those people who may have been union activ-
[ Page 9291 ]
ists. In fact, it's really unfortunate, because what it does is it takes a voice away from those tables, from those boards.

[1550]

It takes a voice away which may have provided a different point of view, may really have been a liaison between that organization, which has now been banned, and the board and perhaps a sane voice that would have been helpful to the board. But if you cut off that communication, then you silo people and you make it less likely that you're going to have a full discussion and robust discussions around the table that reflect all different points of view. I think it's really unfortunate that this undemocratic move will do that as well.

The third section that I am very concerned about is section 18, which provides that "the members of the board must elect a chair from among the 8 or more members of the board appointed under section 9…." In other words, again, the only person who can be chair of the board is somebody that's appointed by government. What a blatant grab for power and for control and, of all places in the world, in our post-secondary institutions, where we are supposed to be encouraging discussion and debate and consideration of ideas. To try to stifle ideas, to try to stifle debate seems to me just contrary to the very basis of what a post-secondary institution is supposed to be.

This was done, these changes were made, with absolutely no discussion with those institutions or those boards or those organizations which are being affected by it. Again, what a ridiculous way to treat the relationship that this government is supposed to have, the relationship that the minister should be having with those institutions. It creates another point of opposition and resentment, so it's not good for post-secondary education in that way as well.

Not only are these amendments highly undemocratic, but they may be unconstitutional. They are likely to contravene the union members' constitutional rights to freedom of association. That's unfortunate, because my understanding is that there may be or there may have even been started or could be a legal challenge that is going to consume not only the resources of those that are going to be mounting the legal challenge, which is an unnecessary waste of money, but it's also going to consume taxpayers' dollars because it's going to be the taxpayers of this province who are going to end up paying the legal bills, and perhaps substantial legal bills, of the fight in court as we determine whether or not the constitutional rights to freedom of association have been infringed upon.

You'd think this government would look very closely and take very seriously constitutional challenges, because the record of this government when it has been challenged constitutionally is not good.

This government has repeatedly gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to try to thwart those that are trying to assert their constitutional rights, and it has lost repeatedly. So here we go again — government again willing to infringe the constitutional rights of unions because they are absolutely determined that they're going to squash unions like a bug, to quote what they said when they came into power in 2001.

Conflict-of-interest legislation already provides very clear guidelines of conduct for members of public bodies. There is no need for this legislation, because there are very clear guidelines in place already.

[1555]

The National Union of Public and General Employees, NUPGE, said: "Union activists are no more potentially in conflict than regular unionized employees, who are both equally affected by board decisions."

I find this a waste of government resources, an inappropriate use of government resources to be putting energy into passing this bill, wasting time with people fighting with government about the inappropriateness of this, a possible potential legal challenge of this bill — and all absolutely unnecessary. Sections being brought in by this government because it wants to stifle debate. It wants to control the boards.

You know, this government has done that over and over again. Over and over again it has made moves to decrease the amount of democracy that we have in this province and to increase the flow of information, increase control of institutions that were formerly democratic. Did it with TransLink; has done it over and over again. "Let's get rid of as many democratic institutions as we can so that we can have control."

Certainly, in this case, it is actually quite astounding that government would have the gall to not only say that two-thirds of the members of a board can get rid of somebody they don't like, but very specifically, that it's only the elected people that you can get rid of. I mean, if you're going to do this, why would you discriminate against elected people?

But you know, in some ways, years from now, as this winds its way through the courts, maybe that'll be helpful to those that are challenging it, because it is absolutely and clearly discriminatory towards those that are elected — when you can get rid of the elected folks but you can't get rid of those that are appointed behind closed doors by government looking for people to sit on their boards that will toe the Liberal party line.

In Burnaby we have a couple of post-secondary institutions. We have the wonderful B.C. Institute of Technology, and we also have the Simon Fraser University — two institutions of which we are very, very proud. I just wanted to mention what the response of the Simon Fraser University Faculty Association was to Bill 18.

Well, the title of their news release, or their response, was: "Bill 18 Would Limit Faculty Role in Governance" — limitations right from the beginning. "The proposals in Bill 18 provoked immediate responses from the two
[ Page 9292 ]
organizations representing B.C.'s university and college faculty. Both the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C., CUFABC, and the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C., FPSE, immediately contacted government officials to express opposition to the proposals."

Talking about the umbrella organization, CUFA, the Confederation of University Faculty Associations, they quoted David Mirhady, who is the CUFABC president. Here's what he said when this bill was first introduced: "The legislation suggests that the government sees faculty associations as a problem. It certainly frustrates the sort of cooperative engagement that we have tried to pursue with government."

So here you have an organization representing faculty from around the province who have been trying to have a cooperative engagement and a cooperative relationship with the government, and instead, that spirit of cooperation is frustrated. Instead, what this minister and this government have intentionally done is create confrontation with post-secondary institutions.

[1600]

The SFU Faculty Association pointed out that "universities already have policies in place to deal with conflict of interest." Nevertheless, the government is going ahead. That's not a quote from them. My point is that the government is going ahead, despite the fact that we have policies in place to deal with conflict of interest. I wanted to make that very clear, because I don't want it to be suggested that I misquoted what the SFU Faculty Association said.

The Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C. went public with their concerns. They launched a Facebook page, and that collected 1,400 letters opposing the governance provisions of the legislation.

When you get 1,400 letters on a subject, you can be sure…. I think the rule of thumb we say is that if you get 1,400 letters, you can be sure that there are at least tenfold and maybe more of people who are really concerned and upset about that which government is doing, and many more who simply don't support it. So 1,400 letters is a huge number of letters, and it shows how distasteful and how wrong so many people in this province believe this piece of legislation and those particular sections of the act are.

It is quite astounding that we have yet another example. Actually, it's not; it isn't that astounding at all. I shouldn't be surprised. It's completely typical of the B.C. Liberals to try to limit democracy and stifle discussion at the board tables or wherever they can in the province that they don't like.

Well, in the fall this piece of legislation didn't pass, and it has come back now. As B.C. New Democrats we have repeatedly and loudly expressed our opposition to the amendments. But of course our opposition, the 1,400 people who wrote letters, the organizations that represent staff and support workers — CUPE workers, as well, because there is staff on these boards — the various unions, the faculty associations and many, many others…. All of those concerns about lack of democracy as well as stifling debate on the boards, discussion on the boards, has all fallen on deaf ears.

I believe what the minister has said is that the things that are important to students and important to universities, the things that are important to us as a society — getting more kids into university, making sure that students have access to post-secondary education — those things are not as important and those are not the things that this minister wants to focus on. The minister, I believe, said that looking at student aid and increasing student aid so that students didn't end up with thousands and thousands of dollars of debt when they left university — that tackling that problem is not a priority for this minister.

But it is a priority for this minister, despite huge opposition, to make sure that democracy is chipped away at on the boards of universities and colleges across this province, and I think that it's a very unfortunate move. The minister is not listening, will not make the amendments to remove those very offensive provisions and is determined to go ahead, and that's unfortunate.

With that, I am going to conclude my remarks and will take my place.

N. Macdonald: I just have a few comments on Bill 18. Basically, the bill covers a number of areas. Most would be pretty straightforward. There was a change, I think, to the Architects Act that essentially mirrors issues that came out of a court case.

[1605]

I think that most of the comments we've heard in this debate have been about the sections of the act, starting with section 18, that make changes to how colleges and institutions are governed by the board and the structure of the board.

This is a bill that, of course, was introduced in the fall. Unlike what has become practice in the House over the time that I have been here, where bills were often introduced and then without debate closure was used and the whole messy process of actually creating laws in the method that they're supposed to be made was dispensed with, it was gratifying this year that bills that were not completed were actually taken over for proper debate.

What has taken place so far has been a fairly one-sided debate, but nevertheless, we do have the opportunity to reflect what the people that send us here have to say.

This was introduced then, as I say, in the fall. It was almost immediately that I had some face-to-face feedback on it. I was with the Leader of the Opposition as well as the member for Nelson-Creston. We had travelled first to Kimberley to attend events in Kimberley, and then subsequent to that on the Monday we went to the College of the Rockies in Cranbrook.

It's a beautiful, beautiful campus. The College of the
[ Page 9293 ]
Rockies not only has a central campus where students have the opportunity to attend; we also have individual campuses in our communities. Although we always worry that we're going to lose those, over the years we've managed to keep programming in our communities, and people feel strongly that it's a college that meets our needs.

Nevertheless, when we were there talking about primarily the cost to students of attending colleges, meeting with students, faculty members also took the time to come up and speak to what is proposed here in Bill 18. They were really bothered by the provisions that other members have talked about, essentially sections 18, 19 and 20 — those sections that deal with the governance of the College of the Rockies and other institutions.

Now, the sections that were raised…. I was quite fortunate in that I was travelling with the member for Nelson-Creston. She, of course, is our post-secondary critic, so she was talking about the bill as we moved there. So even though I had just had a cursory look at the bill when it was tabled, I did have an opportunity to hear from the critic, who had spent a good deal more time looking at the bill and had already heard from people that were upset by the sections.

What struck me when she was describing some of the changes that were proposed is…. You know, I just didn't get it. I didn't understand why those sorts of changes would be made. It didn't seem to address any problem that I knew of, and as previous speakers on the NDP side have said, it did seem like a solution looking for a problem. It's a very good way of phrasing it.

The people that came to speak to us were, of course, active members of the faculty association. They also represented some of the support workers. There were other people there. And they were really, really upset and bothered by what was being put forward here.

When you actually think about it, it's really outrageous what is being suggested here. You would think that there has to be some agenda behind it, but it's not at all clear what's going on. Why would you do something like this? It actually makes very little sense at all.

So in this process what you would look for is for the government to make the case for what they intend to do. You go and you listen to what the minister responsible had to say about the urgency or the need to move forward on this, and it's a pretty small argument that is being made.

[1610]

It's just the suggestion that there may be a conflict of interest, as if this is needed to deal with something that's a fairly straightforward matter to deal with. All boards, when you go on the board, lay out the possible conflicts of interest that you need to deal with and then set out rules for how you are supposed to deal with them. It is not a challenging thing to do.

Essentially, just so that people understand what is proposed here, you have elected faculty and elected staff representatives who are members. They're elected by staff or by faculty. They're allowed to be members on the board. You also have, of course, students who are also elected to sit on the board and participate. Now, their participation is, of course, primarily to provide an opinion. The board is dominated by B.C. Liberal appointees. Therefore, the board is always going to be voting in a particular way that is consistent with the direction that the B.C. Liberal government gives it — right?

So it's not as if the balance of power is sitting with these individuals. They can, of course, be union members. I mean, faculty, support staff — they're all going to be members of the union, but what this bill does is lay out the fact that while they may be union members, they are restricted in terms of what they can do within the union. If they take a position in the union on the executive, then they are prohibited from sitting on the board.

So you would ask yourself: what's the purpose of that? What is the reason for that? If the purpose of including students and faculty association members and support staff on the board is to in some way show respect for their opinions and their experience, then when you limit it, it means the opposite of that. I mean, that's logical. If allowing full participation is respect, when you do the opposite of that you intend the opposite, which is to show disrespect for people who have been given leadership positions with student associations, student unions, with faculty associations, with support staff.

You'd ask yourself: why would you do that? Why would you take the group that is there, actually participating as students or doing the teaching or making sure that the facility runs…? Why would you intentionally show disrespect? But that is the pattern with the government. That is the pattern of behaviour to show disrespect for those people who participate in unions.

I can remember that in 2005 there was an exposé done by the B.C. Liberals on B.C. NDP candidates who were union activists, and I was surprised to see my name there — 2005. It was a "shocking allegation" that I'd been president of the teachers association in my area. Now, I'd put that on my pamphlet. I didn't think it was a shocking allegation, but it was put out by the B.C. Liberals as just examples of the unions' hold on the NDP.

My experience as president of the Golden Teachers Association was one that I took tremendous pride in, and I didn't think the community saw my participation there as anything paralleling, you know, gangster activity or anything. I did, as president of the teacher association, get elected as a councillor. I was actively participating when I was elected as mayor, and I put it on my pamphlet proudly when I was elected as an MLA. People seemed to understand that if my colleagues found that they could place their trust in me to look after their interests, that was an asset when they looked at who to put their trust in.

[1615]

What you have now is that those individuals who choose to participate actively in their union and to accept the responsibility of a leadership role are precluded, with very dubious logic, from participating on the board. That's even if, after having chosen these individuals as their presidents, they also choose to select them as representatives to the board.

So you would think, if you were making that change and you were degrading the participation of students, faculty and support staff to that degree, that you would make a compelling argument here in the Legislature. You'd stand out as the minister and really lay out why this had to be done. No doubt, there would be some facts that you picked up after you had consulted with a whole host of groups.

Now, we have tried to identify any group that was consulted with prior to this being introduced. I'm not aware of it, and the minister certainly didn't include it in her speech as to who was consulted with, who thought this was a great idea, who had the need for this sort of change. So it's back room somewhere, which is typical of how the government acts. But in the public realm there's nobody who is going to own up to pushing for this.

You would think that there would be some thought given to how you could do it better. If, after all these months, you're not able to make a compelling case, then you might want to consider people who make a compelling case for doing something completely the opposite. You have a wide range of groups representing students, faculty and support workers who have taken the time to write to the minister.

Now, I don't know what sort of communications have come. I don't know if they're form letters and the minister has decided to disregard them because they're form letters, but they're certainly numerous. When I heard my colleague from Nelson-Creston, it sounded like, in the texts of the letters that she was reading from, these were not form letters. If you have over a thousand people taking the time to make a counter-argument for what the minister is doing, you'd think, out of respect, that you would respond to those letters and make a compelling case, but it has not happened.

So what you end up with, then, is in section 20 you basically have anybody who is a student or a faculty member or a member of support staff that happens to be not only a union member but also within the executive is precluded from participating.

Now, the previous speaker from Burnaby spoke about the possibility of a court challenge. Well, that's become something we're all used to here, isn't it? B.C. Liberals make a law and then the Supreme Court of Canada fixes it. An odd way to make laws.

You'd think, as a standard for bills before the House, you'd want to put bills that aren't found to be unconstitutional at some point. You'd think that that would be a bare minimum, but we don't expect the bare minimum very often from the government anymore. So whether it's on changes to the Election Act or changes to contractual obligations that the government has with some of its teachers or this, I guess we'll just work our way through the court system, and eventually we will find out whether this is actually a bill that meets the minimum standard of being constitutional.

In section 19 there is a section which allows, with a two-thirds majority of the members of the board, removal of the office of a member of the board that has been elected. So let's just remember that the majority of the board members are B.C. Liberals that are appointed by the government. They hold the majority, and they have the ability to remove any pesky elected member of the board that may dissatisfy them in some way.

[1620]

As the member for Nanaimo very eloquently pointed out, there is really no description of exactly what the standards are for removing a member. That's, I guess, going to be decided later, or it's up to whatever ad hoc decision-making sits with the government-appointed members of these boards. But it seems a deeply flawed piece of legislation to put forward. What behaviour — from the faculty representative, from the students' representative, from the support staff representative, who cannot be a union executive member — is going to be deemed so troublesome that by two-thirds majority they can be removed, with a lack of clarity around how that whole structure is going to work?

If that sounds like a bit of a ridiculous section in a piece of legislation, I would argue that it is. I would argue that one of the reasons no B.C. Liberals are getting up to try to defend it is because it's pretty indefensible. There aren't really compelling arguments for why it would be something that would be acceptable.

So like I say, if the reason for including these group representatives on the board is respect, then doing this is showing a disrespect. After all these years it shouldn't be a surprise. It would have been nice to see if there was a powerful argument to be made.

I guess it's still within section 19 — that is, like I say, the need to define behaviour in some rational or logical way. Just in terms of what you would expect from colleges and institutions — and it's been touched on earlier — these are intended to be places of ideas and thought, where rational debate takes place. For rational debate to take place, for ideas to be shared, usually there is a safe zone that is created. One of the reasons that university professors have tenure and faculty have tenure is so that they can freely express ideas that may be challenging to the status quo. Universities at their best do challenge our ideas. They do challenge the status quo.

I think it must be very disappointing. Certainly, the faculty that I spoke to find it very disappointing that they would now be governed by a structure that is set up, basically, so that government-appointed members
[ Page 9295 ]
can have complete control and that those that dissent can easily be kicked off. I think, maybe, years from now when we look at this and maybe not a lot of people are actually kicked off, the argument might be made: "Well, they made a big fuss out of nothing. Very few actually have been kicked off of boards." Nevertheless, it's the chill — right? It's the possibility that closes down deep debate.

In my time as an opposition critic, I have met with many people who have opinions on what is happening politically or what is happening within government, but they are in a position where they fear retribution. They fear that if they say something or if they're found to have met with me, there'll be retribution from their employer, regardless of whether the opinions that they have or the information they have is in no way compromising their responsibilities.

I think all of us here know that the pattern, certainly over the time that I've been here, is one where there's a very conscious attempt to put a chill on those that would express an opinion that is other than the line that the government wants expressed. To see that starting to waft its way into our colleges and institutions is something that is really disappointing.

[1625]

Changes to the Architects Act — I think that's pretty straightforward. The extension of student numbers to private institutions is, I think, fairly non-controversial, but these sections here are needless. They are disrespectful.

The minister has heard as clearly as possible that she's moving in the wrong direction. She has not chosen to make a compelling argument. I don't know whether that means there is not one, or she simply doesn't want to express it. Under those conditions you would expect that the minister may have taken the opportunity she had, with the several months between this bill being presented and the time that it's debated for a second time, to make some fixes. But that does not seem to be the case.

I do intend to vote against the bill based on those sections, and with that, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the bill.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to speak on Bill 18 because it's a bill…. Portions of it I will happily support, but there are sections in here which to me speak to the question of why we are here as legislators. What is the kind of government we want to deliver? How do we want to represent the people in our constituencies? What kind of government should they expect, whether or not that is here in this august chamber, as they would say, with the marble and the fancy little statues looking down at you — but, of course, the history, the people's House, so to speak — or a board of governors at a university or a college and the leadership for that college, or your city council?

It speaks to the kind of society we want to live in. The society that I want to live in is a society where government is of the people, by the people, for the people. That's all the people — not just the handpicked few, not just those that the Liberal government here thinks are effective representatives, but all the people. That's the workers; that's the academics; that's the management; that's the students, the people who use the service.

After all, I think the best decisions come when we work together, when you have diverse perspectives, when you have people who have multiple different experiences in their lives that they can offer in times of challenge. Two heads are better than one, as the saying goes. I'm a twin, and I don't know that my mom would agree when she first saw my brother and me. Certainly, it was tough. But I think in the end, having more people work on an issue and discuss an issue — or grow up in a family, certainly in my case — worked out well.

My concern is with sections 19, 20, 49 and 50 — sections that go directly against the idea of government for the people, by the people, of the people; sections which unilaterally declare that if you're a union member and you're working within your workplace to improve working conditions, to support better education in this case, somehow you're thus no longer eligible to be on a board of directors. You are in fact banned from being part of that leadership at a university or at a college.

It gets dicey for me when we start going through and picking people. Oh, sorry, you can no longer apply because I have concerns about…. Maybe you used to work in real estate. Oh, sorry, you were working in real estate; you can no longer be on our board of directors. Oh, sorry, you're a union member; sorry, you're a small business owner. We've seen this kind of concern, of course, creep up in the past where people try to solve a problem that they see. In this case, I guess the government has floated an idea around conflict of interest, despite the fact that they do not have proof to show that this is the big issue, despite the fact that there are ways that people in conflict will excuse themselves from boards.

There are guidelines which I know myself, as a municipal representative, I had to observe. I know many colleagues have had to observe this. This is the same at the university and the college levels, yet the Liberal government decided: "Union member, somehow you are not allowed to be part of this decision-making process."

[1630]

Despite declaring that they wanted open government where everyone is involved, in this case, no. Only Liberal appointees need apply. So if you've got a big red L, although the Premier these days likes to claim it's a blue L, then you will get to be on the board, but if you wear a U for union — sorry, no longer allowed.

This strikes concern for many, I think, because of what this government's track record is in dealing with organized labour. They're against it. They seem to fight it whenever they get the chance. Rather than hugging it out and working within the system — realizing that these people
[ Page 9296 ]
are going to be there whether you're fighting them or working with them, so you might as well work with them — the Liberals have decided to fight them every section of the way, including in Bill 18.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why the Liberals would yet again try and deal with an issue which strikes at charter rights and freedoms. This Liberal government has been roundly criticized in the supreme courts of this country for breaking the law around education.

The Premier — when she was Education Minister, of course — was a big part of that, and was rightfully criticized by the union at the time and by the Supreme Court justice. I am concerned that this same issue — not quite the same, but a similar issue around freedom of assembly, freedom to be able to be part of a union — may crop out of this Bill 18, due to the fact that the Liberals have decided yet again that union means, "You're not part of us," and that union means division rather than that union means: "Let's work together."

Now, I wonder where this came from. I know one of the Liberal MLAs suggested that it might be because, well, somebody could be involved in crime, and thus they needed a two-thirds majority of the board to kick them out. Well, if somebody is doing such a thing, maybe you need to have appropriate procedures in place, rather than just saying: "Ban unions." Sorry. That doesn't cut it.

Using a sledgehammer to deal with one issue, which one of the Liberal MLAs weakly put out there as a potential reason for why this came out…. I guess they were just scanning headlines and desperately searching for something, because so far the minister has not, I believe, provided a convincing case. Maybe that's why they threw that idea out there.

Well, why would that be just confined to union members? I am very curious as to why the Liberals would suggest that this kind of challenge of criminality would be just attached to union members. The big red L, which the Premier is trying to turn blue just for popularity's sake, somehow disqualifies you from being involved in criminal activities.

Certainly, we've seen — through this House in the last number of years — that that is not a disqualification from being involved in criminal activities. So I think that was a rather weak suggestion of why this bill needs to come in. There are other ways to deal with the issue.

I know the other issue raised was conflict of interest. Well, as I mentioned, there are conflict-of-interest guidelines, but again, the Liberals decided that conflict of interest in this case only applies to unions, only applies to union members, so they could appoint their chief bagman, the person who raises lots of money for the Liberal Party, onto a board of directors of a college or a university.

Maybe they have an interest in a private, for-profit research firm or an education company or something else. Oh, but conflict of interest in that case doesn't matter because that's Liberal conflict of interest. That's not this other kind of conflict, which is union conflict of interest, so alleged by the government.

In this case, I wonder, and maybe the minister would explain to the House, why conflict of interest only matters when it applies to unions and why it does not, in this case, apply to businessmen and businesswomen, why it does not include Liberal friends and insiders but only applies to the union — and that includes student unions — why a student union representative elected by their peers, by more people than ever appointed a board of directors chair or appointed a board of directors member, as the minister might do, which…. How many people would that be? Well, the minister may be a Liberal insider who decided to put the name forward. "Oh, they gave us a bunch of money. This sounds like a good thing," or "Oh, they might be a candidate for us, so we should appoint them to the board so it can look like they've got community service." They could try that.

Now, I would argue that, hopefully, most ministers wouldn't act that way, but it is possible. There may be two people deciding on that appointment, whereas there are thousands of people deciding on an election of a representative for a board of governors by the students themselves or by the faculty themselves or by the workers themselves.

[1635]

They actually get involved in an election process, not just the appointment process. I understand it's easier for the ministers to just do the appointment process. But I think that as elected people, we should respect elections. We should respect democracy. We should respect these kinds of things because, after all, we are of that process.

Now, maybe the minister would try the suggestion here in the Legislature. What do you think? We could say two-thirds of the Legislature could vote to boot out some of the MLAs they don't like. I don't know. There might be a whole bunch of government MLAs going home, and that's from within their own caucus. Oh, but no. We won't go there — too sensitive, I think. But that would be how this act would work in process here.

Or maybe it's the appointment process. The Premier decides to appoint whoever she wants to be MLAs. Well, I know she's tried that with Pamela Martin. I know she's tried that with a few others. They're government staffers, but the government seems to use them in an MLA-type perspective because that's the kind of government they like to run: partisans getting paid by taxpayers to do government partisan work, it seems.

In that case, appointing those people, the elected people, the people on this side of the House…. The government would ban them because: "Oh, you're a union member; you can't run. Oh, you're banned; you're a union member. You can't run either." Oops. All of a sudden some of those members on that side would be banned from running to be MLAs as well.

I've never been a member of a union, but I do sup-
[ Page 9297 ]
port the right to collective bargaining. I believe that that cooperative voice is very important. And certainly in unionized environments where I've been involved in the past, I take that advice. I take management advice. I take business advice. I take the community advice. You put that together and you try to come up with something that works for the most people for the best of the province, the best of the city, the best of my constituency.

That's how we should be running this place, not running this place as: "You're union. You're banned from being involved in the management, in the board of governors, in the direction." That's not how we should be running government, yet that's how this government functions itself as a government. They seem to decide that those who have power, who are within the Liberal universe, who donate and who are good, friendly supporters…. They matter. Everybody else doesn't get listened to, gets ignored and so on and so forth.

Bill 18 seems to follow that practice. I had hoped, given much rhetoric about a change last year, about a new government…. I know the Premier likes to talk about the previous government before her, even though it's all the same people doing the same things. I had hoped that it would be a real change, that — given the winter break, given some time before coming into this House — the over 1,400 e-mails and letters to the minister, the impassioned pleas, the questions and so on would have had some effect. We might have seen sections 19, 20, 49 and 50 either taken out or modified.

Maybe the minister had a legitimate concern that needed to be addressed. This is not the way to do it. People have been very clear that it's not the way to do it. It'll lead to legal fights. It's not the way to do it, because it needlessly creates tension and a fight between two parties that actually have a lot of work to do together — work like increasing accessibility to university education, to college education.

I know that while the minister may say it's not what people are talking about, in my constituency it's what I hear a lot about — young people wanting to achieve their best, parents wanting their young people to achieve their best. Grandparents and people who have never even had kids are looking at the youth of today and going: "How are they going to get ahead? How are they going to be able to build the kind of society that we need for the future without education? How are they going to be able to afford it? How are they going to be able to afford to stay in our city of Vancouver when they leave university with some of the highest debt loads in the country, with some of the highest interest rates in the country?"

The minister says they're not talking about it. Well, I don't know. I've heard from people in North Van that they're talking about it. I've heard from people all over the province that they're talking about it. They want accessible education. They believe the government needs to do what it can to ensure that's achieved.

[1640]

Yet the government instead chooses to pick a fight with the student associations, with unionized workers, with faculty associations, by trying to ban them from having a vote, having a voice in creating policy for boards of governors — boards of governors which could actually increase accessibility for education, boards of governors which could help create more innovation, more jobs in our province.

So I take great concern with these sections. I hope the minister will speak to why they must be designed just like this, why there's not a better way which could deal with conflict-of-interest concerns which actually address not just unionized workers but also address the hand-picked appointees the minister has and conflict-of-interest rules, if that's the real concern. Unfortunately, in the first speech I didn't hear it. In other speakers from the Liberal side, I didn't hear it.

I thank the Chair for giving me the time and the House for listening ever so attentively to my remarks. We'll talk to you again.

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

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Thank you to the members from this side of the House who are supporting our intention to improve and strengthen the governance of our public post-secondary institutions as well as changes to expand the personal education numbers and changes to the Architects Act. I believe the members opposite also agree that the amendments to PENs and the Architects Act are warranted.

I think that both sides of the House also agree that the participation of the faculty, staff and student representatives on the board are valued. I am a former chair of Capilano College when it was a college, and I absolutely agree. The faculty, staff and students are huge contributors to board discussions.

But let's be clear. There are no amendments to the composition of the board, despite what the members opposite would have you believe. The amendments are intended to ensure the possibility of a conflict of interest on the part of all board members is reduced and provides a means for the boards to take action.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I don't think the members opposite seem to grasp the concept that a faculty member that is directly involved in negotiating the terms of their employment can actually do that with themselves. The member for Nelson-Creston showed strong opposition to the provision that will provide a mechanism for a board to remove a member with cause with a two-thirds majority. She used words like nonsensical, antidemocratic. I think those are pretty
[ Page 9298 ]
strong words.

The member for Nelson-Creston actually said that the good people from her riding, from Nelson-Creston, would be "shocked and absolutely disgusted to find out that by a two-thirds majority vote, their representative could be ousted from this House." She goes on to say, "It makes no sense, Madam Speaker, no sense at all…." She finds this completely unacceptable for this House. "Yet we are applying this to the boards of governors of public institutions."

Well, our own constitution, which governs our own behaviour as MLAs in this House, allows for the ability through legislation to remove a member. If the member for Nelson-Creston would like to look up sections 25, 27 and 34 of our own constitution, she'll see that. I actually have it right here with me. Section 27 talks about a member that has contravened section 25, and I won't go into that.

But there is a provision that if the committee reports to the Legislative Assembly that the member has contravened section 25 and the Legislative Assembly adopts the report, the member ceases to be a member and the seat of the member is vacant. There is actually also section 34 in respect to that as well.

If the member opposite thinks this is nonsensical or absolutely disgusting, in her words, she must be applying that to her own constitution as well. As the wise member for West Vancouver–Capilano said, you can't stand on both sides of the issues. The members opposite have acknowledged — some of them acknowledged — the issues do exist but are dealt with on an institution-to-institution basis through their conflict-of-interest bylaws.

[1645]

But if a board member does not step down or recuse themself, the board is powerless. I've spoken with representatives from faculty associations, board chairs and presidents of our institutions. I've heard the concern and their support for this bill and listened to their suggestions. We have an opportunity to strengthen the governance of our public post-secondary institutions and to increase the transparency and accountability for the people of British Columbia.

Having said that, I move second reading of Bill 18.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I move that Bill 18 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, 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. I. Chong: I call second reading debate on Bill 15, intituled Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

BILL 15 — ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 15, the Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, Minister.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: Bill 15, which was introduced last October, amends seven statutes — four statutes under the previous ministry of the Attorney General and three under the previous ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. All of these statutes fall under the recently created Ministry of Justice, and as the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, I retain responsibility for them. The bill also makes one consequential amendment.

First of all, I will address the statutes brought forward under the previously named Ministry of Attorney General.

The Fraudulent Conveyance Act is being amended in response to a decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal to remove wording that was found to be obsolete.

The Judicial Compensation Act is being amended to clarify the time frame for government to respond to reports received from compensation commissions. In particular, the amendments change the calculation of time from calendar days to sitting days of the Legislative Assembly.

The Judicial Compensation Act is also being amended to raise the compensation limits for senior part-time judges to the Provincial Court by up to 20 percent in certain circumstances. This change implements part of government's response to the 2010 judicial compensation commission process. It is necessary in order to permit the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court to schedule senior part-time judges to sit beyond their normally scheduled sittings in order to address urgent and unforeseen needs of the court.

Several provisions in the Jury Act require amendment in order to modernize the act to enable sheriffs to more effectively and efficiently administer the jury system in British Columbia. In addition, certain provisions of the act require clarification, while others are no longer relevant today. The act has not been reviewed through this lens for several decades, and these changes will improve the administration of the jury trial process.

Turning now to the statutes under the previous ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, a number of amendments in these statutes support the focus of the
[ Page 9299 ]
October throne speech to build stronger, safer communities for British Columbia families. The Body Armour Control Act and the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act were enacted as part of the guns and gangs initiative announced in February of 2009. The Security Services Act licenses and regulates businesses and workers in British Columbia's security services industry.

The housekeeping amendments in this bill will allow these three statutes to continue to operate effectively by removing redundant references to the Offence Act, because these statutes all provide for their own penalties. The amendments also amend the Body Armour Control Act to make it an offence not to surrender any body armour that is associated with a suspended permit.

Finally, the amendments clarify the responsibilities associated with the position of the registrar for the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act.

With those comments and outline, Madam Speaker, I would encourage and wait to hear the comments of other members of the House.

[1650]

L. Krog: I am delighted to have another opportunity to rise in the chamber again today. I pay my compliments to the Attorney General, the government generally. That's always shocking when I start speaking in here. Everyone sits up and takes notice.

But, hon. Speaker, particularly with reference to sections 1 and 2 of Bill 15, it reminds us that we face a very serious crime problem in British Columbia with respect to gangs. We know that there is a great deal of money to be made in the drug trade in British Columbia, that organized crime does very well indeed.

We have attacked it through various methods, including, quite wisely, changes now in British Columbia, made some time ago, that lawyers aren't allowed to take deposits of large amounts of cash without determining their source, for instance. Historically, there was no question that in times past, no doubt, some lawyers in British Columbia received significant amounts of cash as retainers and were paid along the way through criminal trials with money that well might have been the proceeds of crime. The fact is that by moving forward to attack the proceeds of crime, by taking steps to limit gang activity, we are taking the steps that society believes are necessary.

I'm not going to talk today about the issue of whether or not drugs should be prohibited and whether or not things should be decriminalized. That's not the issue in this bill. What the bill is doing in sections 1 and 2 is beefing up and making some corrections to an aspect of those statutes, the Body Armour Control Act and the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act, which was designed to be a tool in the war on crime.

Now, whenever I use that phrase I always have to laugh a little bit and think of the days of J. Edgar Hoover and President Nixon talking about the war on crime, etc. And perhaps hyperbole is an endemic part of our discussions around criminal justice in the province and the country generally. But the grim reality is that when you have money and you're involved in criminal activity, you do what you can to protect yourself. Average people don't.

I think I can safely say that the Attorney General and I have never had any interest in having body armour. But I think it's pretty safe to say that there are members of criminal gangs in this province who have had a great deal of interest in securing body armour. Whatever slings and arrows we may face in politics, it's not the same as bullets delivered from an unregistered firearm purchased through the proceeds of crime.

This legislation was designed to ensure that if police were able to determine that individuals in our society had purchased body armour or had armoured their vehicles or created compartments which were clearly and quite obviously being used for the transport of illicit substances, mainly drugs, this was a step forward. So what we're doing today, essentially, is taking it a little further, ensuring that the attack on organized crime in our province moves forward.

Certainly, there are certain areas of the province that are more subject to street violence — if you will, the kind of blatant criminal behaviour — than others, but it is a concern across the province of British Columbia. When you see a young mother gunned down in front of her child, presumably because of some involvement with a criminal gang, and when you see shootings on the streets of British Columbia, then you are left with the conclusion that there are issues in our criminal justice system, that certain individuals feel powerful enough and protected enough to thwart the law and to take what steps they think appropriate to protect themselves from rival gangs.

So what we've seen in British Columbia is a bit of open street warfare that has frightened many citizens, that has destroyed the sense of security in neighbourhoods, particularly in the Lower Mainland, without singling out any particular communities — destroyed the sense of security that people have.

[1655]

For if there is anything that is absolutely fundamental to the state…. As I've said before, publicly and in this chamber, long before the concept of public education and public health care, long before the expanded role of the state in our lives, the essence of the state was that it would protect the safety of its citizens. I mean, the feudal system was predicated on that concept. The lord of the land to whom you owed your allegiance and for whom you could be called upon, if you were a male, to fight was nevertheless bound equally to protect you and the security of your home. You were entitled to be safe; your family was entitled to be protected. That was the fundamental
[ Page 9300 ]
social contract of that time.

When we see, in British Columbia, that social contract threatened, as it is by gang activity, then British Columbians have a right to be concerned, and indeed they should be concerned. They have a right, through their legislators, to try and take steps to ensure that their communities are safe and that they are protected. They have the right to ensure that those who engage in that activity do not, through the power of their illicit proceeds of crime, have the power to purchase protection not available to any of us.

What an armoured vehicle does and what body armour does is provide a level of protection that isn't available to ordinary citizens. We avail ourselves of it in times of war. We don't send our troops into battle without appropriate protection. But surely in our society no one should have the right to the kind of security offered by an armoured vehicle or body armour, and certainly no one should have the opportunity to use a licensed vehicle as a mechanism of transport for illicit substances.

I'm glad to see the government taking some further steps in this area. The message has to go that for so long as we in society are going to prohibit criminal activity of this kind, largely related to drugs — almost exclusively related to drugs, in many respects — then society will continue to exercise its right to protect itself and pursue those who would choose to engage in a lifestyle that not only endangers them but endangers the lives of their fellow citizens, endangers the lives of people who have no interest in the drug trade, who only have an interest in their safety and the safety of their families.

Now, with respect to other sections of the bill — a minor change to the Coroners Act but then a change to the Expropriation Act, changing the appointment time from seven to 21 days for the appointment of an inquiry officer by the minister.

I would have thought that a government that prided itself, supposedly, on the elimination of regulation and that prides itself on being a friend of business, that prides itself on supposedly helping the economy along…. Now, hon. Speaker, I say all of this somewhat facetiously, in case the members opposite hadn't detected my tone. I know they're all listening very carefully. I see a couple of them popping up now as I've said that, and I'm delighted to see them hanging on my every word. I would have thought….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, they're awake. The kraken wakes. Or is it the kracken? I'm never sure; I didn't do enough Greek mythology.

I would have thought that the government, instead of extending the time…. Because obviously, if you are involved in expropriation — it is, generally speaking, a matter of some concern to the person being expropriated — I would have thought that instead of extending the time, they would have left it at seven days.

As I said earlier, I didn't hear the Attorney General comment on this specifically, and I'm sure because it may not be the case. I didn't hear the Attorney General in her opening remarks today say….

[1700]

As I said earlier about the previous legislation we debated, Bill 18, I didn't hear the Attorney General say: "My office is flooded with e-mails. My office is flooded with letters. My office is flooded with telephone calls from upset people saying, 'You know, you've really got to do something about protecting the government's rights here and ensure they've got 21 days to make a decision instead of seven.'"

Now if there is anything that is always a subject of criticism for government, it is the concept of delay. We hear over and over and over again how government just doesn't get things done fast enough.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Here, dealing with the Expropriation Act, which has an impact on the persons involved — a very important and significant impact — we're now going to give an extra 14 days for the government in its wisdom, the minister in particular, to appoint an inquiry officer. Don't we have a complement of people available to be inquiry officers who are ready, willing and able to be appointed at the drop of a hat? Has there been such a crisis in British Columbia that we now have to give the minister an extra 14 days?

I appreciate that the burdens placed on the members of the executive council can be tremendous from time to time. In particular, I'm looking at my friend the member opposite, the Attorney General and Justice Minister herself, who's been carrying an enormous burden in this government. But notwithstanding that, surely it is in the public interest to ensure the speedy appointment of an inquiry officer. Surely it is in the public interest not to add a further 14 days for the minister to come to a conclusion, to make a decision.

This government's record is rife with decisions that they have not taken in a timely manner. Just imagine where we'd be today if this government had decided to do its review of the courts and the criminal justice system four or five years ago, early in their term. If early in their term they'd decided that maybe there were some issues, we'd be much further ahead.

So what I'm politely suggesting to the government is: why do we want to add another 14 days to a process? Why would we want to make it more difficult, if you will, or give more latitude to government to make an appointment that's now statutorily required to be made within seven days? I come back to my point. I didn't hear — and the minister will have an opportunity to respond — any
[ Page 9301 ]
substantive allegations of problems.

Again, much like Bill 18, it appears we have another solution in search of a problem — a problem that to my knowledge has not been the subject of public debate or interest, has not been the subject of public outcry, has not been the subject of some significant lobbying. I didn't hear that from the minister.

Instead, we've just had this sort of tossed out at us, and we're to presume there's a problem. If there's anything that government shouldn't be doing, it is providing solutions or more leeway to a government that doesn't need it so that it can do something to a public that doesn't deserve it. In these circumstances, I would have expected and would have hoped that the government instead would not have brought in this kind of proposal.

Section 5. We're finally getting around to correcting something that was actually important to the public. Certainly in my experience as a lawyer, the belief is that lots of people get away with it in the province in the sense that when they get sued and there's a judgment granted against them at whatever level of court, they've secreted their assets away somewhere. They've put them in the name of their spouse, or they've put them in the name of a corporate body where their cousin holds all the shares, or they've transferred them to some legitimate third-party purchaser without notice, taken the money and claimed to have spent it all in gambling or whatever the case may be.

[1705]

But the Fraudulent Conveyance Act has been in many respects a bit of a dismal failure from the public's perspective. It is a complaint that I actually do hear about. It is a concern that is raised by members of the bar. It is a concern that is raised by creditors seeking justice in our courts.

There is nothing sadder than having to tell a client that they've got what's known in the trade as a dry judgment, where the courts declared that Bob owes George $10,000. When George goes to collect, Bob stands up and says: "Got nothing, nada, the big zero." George says: "But I've got a judgment of the court. Doesn't that mean anything to me? Doesn't that count for anything in our system of justice?" Politely, you sometimes have to explain: "Actually, no. It really doesn't. It's not terribly effective. You're not going to collect."

If there is one thing I would teach young people in the school system, when it comes to law 11 or related courses, it is that they understand that just because you get a judicial remedy doesn't mean you are going to recover anything. By amending this section to reflect the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal, what we in the Legislature are saying is: "Look, you don't have to prove something is onerous as was required or believed to have been required under the terms of the statute, because it used to say that you had to prove it was by collusion, guile, malice or fraud."

The only time any of us ever talk about collusion anymore is when you have to get someone to sign a family law claim and tell them that collusion means they didn't make it up that they separated from their spouse last year, or they didn't make it up that their spouse committed adultery or treated them with cruelty. That's about the only time you use that language.

As for guile and malice or fraud, it set a pretty high standard — a standard, frankly, that we've made it difficult to meet. But the B.C. Court of Appeal — Justice Finch in particular, as I recall — very rightly came to the correct conclusion and said quite simply that it wasn't necessary, that the words in the Fraudulent Conveyance Act were in fact meaningless. So we are taking a step forward. We are taking a step actually forward by deleting those words from the statute.

I do suggest that what the government may wish to consider are better and more easily accessible rules with respect to collection of indebtedness, because there are many British Columbians who feel somewhat cheated. There are wily and cunning British Columbians who understand that they can in large measure get away with it, that they can pull the fast one. Even if a judgment is granted, even if you can prove your claim, because of the nature of our system and the enforcement processes, you will never actually recover your money. So the innocent will be taken, and the guilty, frankly, will walk away with the proceeds. That is a matter of no small frustration for many British Columbians.

The reference to judicial compensation…. Section 6 is a fairly standard thing, but section 7, where it talks about adding an exception to the limits imposed on part-time judges' salaries to take into account where the chief judge authorizes a part-time judge to sit in excess of the scheduled sittings…. That provides an exception. In other words, we're going to give you the opportunity to pay out a little more cash to part-time judges.

I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to comment a little bit about Provincial Court judges in our province. We are 13 judges away from the complement we had in 2005. You can raise statistics about whether or not that number was too high or too low. You could argue back and forth, but the fact is that we are seeing an increasing number of judicial stays.

[1710]

We are seeing significant delays in the hearing dates given for family law cases, and we are seeing a long period of time between someone filing a claim in the small claims division of our Provincial Courts and the date they actually get a hearing or trial.

I come back to my point about one of the fundamentals of what government is expected to do when I started talking about this bill and made reference to the protection of its citizens and public safety, a fundamental role of government. One of the ways that government — the state, our Sovereign — provides for our justice system is
[ Page 9302 ]
to ensure that there are sufficient resources and individuals available to hear the claims, to deal with the cases and dispense justice in a ready and speedy fashion.

What this section essentially is, in my view, is an admission that we're not managing the system appropriately, that if the chief judge had the appropriate number of judges at his — and it is a he at the present time — disposal, then the government wouldn't have to legislate an exception to the limits imposed on part-time judges' salaries.

If there were sufficient bodies to do the work and sufficient judges of the B.C. Provincial Court to hear the cases and deal with the volume of cases, this wouldn't be a necessary section. We wouldn't have to worry about it. Now, that, I would think, should give the Attorney General and the members of this assembly concern — that we're having to see this section added to the Judicial Compensation Act.

I would read this section, at least in some measure, as an admission of failure. It is an admission that we don't have a sufficient number of Provincial Court judges. The state — if you will, Her Majesty — is failing her loyal subjects in not ensuring that the resources are there to run our court system appropriately. That is a sad and sorry state of affairs.

One would have expected that given the public outcry, the public concerns, the public discourse around this issue that has been the case for several years in this province, without putting too fine a point on it…. One would have thought that the government could have and would have moved more expeditiously to deal with it.

We're still down 13 judges from 2005 levels. We're now giving the option to the chief judge to pay more money to part-time judges because we're making demands on them that weren't expected before. In essence, we're giving them the opportunity to loosen the belt instead of tighten the belt. At the end of the day, I am not convinced that in fact the people of British Columbia will be better served by that, when the more obvious solution — certainly in the short term, as we face a real crisis, particularly on the criminal side — is to ensure that we have an adequate number of judges and courtrooms available to deal with those cases.

Now, I acknowledge that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has made criminal law more complex since its implementation. I acknowledge….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I hear the member for Peace River North muttering. I think he really doesn't like the concept of human rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that the member has a differing view on this, but the fact is that the law is and always has been both a sword and a shield. It's only when you are the victim of the system, when you've been unfairly charged, that suddenly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms becomes a pretty important aspect of your life.

[1715]

It's easy to criticize when it's used — on the face of it, in the belief of some — to allow the guilty to go free. But we certainly like it when it allows us to protect the innocent, because we recognize the great imbalance in the justice system between the state on one hand, with all its enormous resources, and the individual citizen on the other.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has tried to strike that balance to ensure that citizens are treated fairly, that their weaker position versus the state, which imposes criminal sanctions, is not so weak that justice is not only not done but not even seen to be done. So that's important. But this is an admission, as I say, essentially of failure, in my view.

Now, we're also amending the Jury Act. It amends it to specify that persons who are "convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act…for whom a pardon has not been granted under the Criminal Records Act" or are "currently charged with an offence" will be disqualified.

Now, on one hand, there's a part of me that says, you know, that seems logical. Why would we want convicted criminals on juries? They would, the assumption is, presumably be disposed to being kind to the person who has been charged, that they might take a different view. I suppose there's a certain logic to saying: "You can't serve as a juror."

On the other hand, it may be that someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence brings a certain level of understanding to the criminal justice process that many of us don't have. I think it's a very interesting philosophical question — whether this is appropriate or not — because if they're going to sit on a jury, you're entitled to a jury of your peers, as I'm always told.

That's what we were taught in law school. And surely, if I'm an accused criminal, maybe a jury of my peers should include someone who has had a criminal conviction. That might be a true jury of one's peers. But it's a very interesting proposition.

I must say I look forward to the Attorney General's comments on this issue, because there are individuals who have not chosen to seek a pardon under our system who, after some wayward activity in their youth…. And I think the statistics are fairly clear that much crime is committed by young males 18 to 24 years old.

It may be that a 55-year-old who was convicted of possession of pot when they were 19 might in fact make a very fine juror. Maybe they've gone on to become a respectable member of society, raised a family, attend church regularly, pay their taxes, obey the traffic laws, don't wear body armour, don't drive in modified vehicles, don't traffic in illicit substances. Is it appropriate to keep them away from jury duty? I'm not convinced of that.
[ Page 9303 ]

One of the most distinguished members of this very assembly, who sat in this assembly for many years and went on to become a distinguished Member of Parliament, who was the subject of a blackmail attempt, was convicted of armed robbery when he was a very young man and spent three years in jail. Is there anyone in this chamber who would say that Frank Howard shouldn't have been able to sit on a jury?

Again, hon. Speaker, I simply raise the question. I'm trying not to take a position on this one way or the other. But I think it's an interesting concept that we are making a choice to deny an accused person the opportunity to have someone who may have a criminal record, however minor, sit on the jury that will judge their guilt or innocence. Does the fact of having engaged in a criminal activity at some point in your life disqualify you? I'm not sure.

I note also, that we're going to summon jurors electronically.

Deputy Speaker: Member, shall I assume you're the designated speaker?

L. Krog: Yes. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

First come, first served, I can only say to the Attorney General, and I'm first.

[1720]

I notice we're going to be able to summon a juror electronically. What was it? What's the book title — I Heard the Owl Call My Name? Now it will be: "I Hear the Electronic Beep Summoning Me to Jury Duty."

Interjection.

L. Krog: Yes, my name was tweeted, as the member for Vancouver–West End just whispered gently in my ear here today.

It's an interesting prospect. I'm not entirely sure that I like the concept that an electronic notification is sufficient to require people to come to jury duty. You know, not everybody has a computer. I suspect — let's be blunt about this — that there may be a cost-saving aspect to this that we haven't been told about. We won't even have to spend the 59 cents plus HST — as it exists now — on the stamp. We're just going to be able to zap it electronically to you.

Now, it may come as a surprise to members of the government, but not everyone in British Columbia has a computer. Not everyone has an e-mail address. My fear is that giving this ability to send out an electronic summons may in fact encourage the practice of summoning jurors largely through that measure only.

So you may well end up with a class of British Columbians who get to sit on juries, both civil and criminal, who do not in the traditional sense represent the great variety of British Columbians, as to income and status and education, that now exists where you are simply on the voters list and if you get the summons you get the summons.

We're going to be, I suspect, on a practical level…. Even though may it not be intended, in tough circumstances, if I'm working in the ministry and I'm trying to save costs and instead of sending a body out with the jury summons or letters or whatever, taking the time with the correspondence, instead of doing something that may be more time-consuming and expensive, I'm just going to zap it out through an e-mail.

I'm not convinced that that's a good idea. I'm not convinced that it's appropriate. Indeed, it may encourage the practice of people trying to keep their e-mail addresses secret, as they probably should.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Or as the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast says, maybe we'll just friend them on Facebook. I'm the sheriff, and I want to be your friend. Tweet me back. We'll have a good time at the old courthouse this week.

Interjection.

L. Krog: My friend says that I'm mixing my social media metaphors. I'm happy to say that, given my relative primitivism when it comes to electronics, I am not likely to be summoned. As a member of the bar, I can't be summoned anyway, but it's an interesting proposition that we're going to consider summoning people electronically.

With great respect, hon. Speaker — and all the humour I'm trying to bring to this debate aside — serving on a jury is one of the most important aspects of citizenship. To be summoned to that high duty in our society, with great respect, I don't think is consistent with getting an e-mail. Every member of this chamber gets e-mail after e-mail every day, including….

Interjection.

L. Krog: The former Attorney General must have been the author of this legislation. He indicates to the House that he doesn't get e-mail. Well, I hope if he's on Facebook he has a friend at least.

To sit on a jury is something important, and I am just not sure that the substance of the summons, coming electronically speaking, is consistent with that high calling.

[1725]

As I remind the members, and I've said in the odd education debate many years ago, the present School House Gallery in Qualicum Beach — and I'm sure many of the members have had a chance to go to beautiful Qualicum Beach — is a magnificent structure. It has a wonderful facade for its time. It was built around 1912, 1914, I believe.

There's a story that there was a member of the school
[ Page 9304 ]
board, a woman. I think she was the only woman. She wasn't very well off, and it was probably a great sacrifice for her to sit on the school board, but she thought education was important.

The board was struggling when it came to the concept of constructing this building, this new school. They wanted, frankly, what one would describe as a fairly pedestrian structure, something that wasn't terribly impressive. And she argued strenuously, this female member of the school board, that it had to have an imposing facade. It should look imposing. The point she made was this. She wanted children to know that when they came to that building and they looked at that imposing facade, they knew that what took place in that structure was important, that education was important.

Hon. Speaker, those of us who've had the pleasure of either practising in the courts in this province or have visited the communities, particularly the older communities of this province — what do you find in them? You find impressive and imposing public buildings called courthouses.

You go to the beautiful city of Fernie — one of the most attractive communities, I would argue, in North America — and what do you find there? An incredible structure. What do you see when you come to the city of Nanaimo, my city, my town? A wonderful Rattenbury courthouse, an imposing structure.

No one walks into that building and thinks: "This is a Subway sandwich shop." Nobody walks into it and thinks it's a converted public building that's now a clothing store. They know that when they come into that building, this is something important and what takes place in that building is important.

And what takes place in that building? Juries sit there on important civil cases, if the plaintiffs can afford it — or the applicants, as we say now in the new rules. In civil cases, if they can afford them, they have juries, and in serious criminal cases we still enjoy the right, thank God, to be judged by a jury of our peers.

In contrast to those imposing structures, we're now being told that we're going to be summoning you to participate in that most important and ancient of processes, a jury, by electronic means.

I will be interested to hear from the Attorney General what the government's actual intention is with respect to this section. If it means that we are going to be reducing jury summoning to electronic means only, then, with great respect, I think we are doing a disservice to our justice system. We are diminishing the importance of the right to a jury, and we are saying very clearly — not even inferentially but saying very clearly — that serving as a juror is not important.

Now, I would argue that having a jury is absolutely important. It is a fundamental of our justice system. It is a fundamental right for claimants in civil cases to be able to ask a jury to determine what award of damages should be given them. It is a right that I know many lawyers in this province are concerned this government may seek to do away with. I'm not suggesting it would, but it is a concern, and it has been a fundamental of our criminal justice system for hundreds of years.

[1730]

There was a time when — I forget — I think it was two or three hundred matters for which you could be hung. Now, if you were convicted in those days, chances are, if you were lucky, you got transported. And I'm talking about Great Britain. You were transported, and so you formed the foundation of the great country we now call Australia or Tasmania — Van Diemen's Land, as it was known when my granny was young, many, many years ago.

Juries in those days were one of the few safeguards that the individual facing the enormous power of the state had to defend themselves. Juries, mercifully, on occasion, in cases that might appear to have been obvious to a practitioner of law in those days, acquitted people, thereby sending a signal to the state, to the government, that perhaps we shouldn't be hanging people for what we now regard in modern times, in 2012, as petty crimes; that we should not be placing at risk either the life or the liberty of our citizens for offences that did not seriously disrupt public order or deprive someone of their means of livelihood or destroy the state. The jury system was our defence.

Again, I'm not satisfied that summoning people electronically is consistent with the importance of the jury process or consistent with the value that it should still enjoy in our society. I'm not convinced that the message being sent to the public by this section is the right or the correct one.

There is a sense, I think, that we have to have everything quickly — whether it's switching channels on your TV or pulling up the e-mail on your computer or, arguably for some people, getting a bigger and faster car or faster jets, or whatever. The pace of life demands that everything has to go quickly.

I would argue that for the solemnity of the jury process and the selection of a jury in our criminal justice system — and in those rare cases that now hear civil juries, in our civil law system — the jury must enjoy a respect that is important. We diminish that, I suggest, by this provision.

Now, I do note with interest that there is a just fascinating section in section 11 which has the effect of repealing section 11 of the present act and substituting it. That's the section that we've been talking about, including summoning the jurors. It also says in subsection (5): "If it appears that a person empanelled to serve on a jury is dead, has moved out of the county or is disqualified, the sheriff may add an additional name to the panel."

I suppose my obvious question to the Attorney General is: if you're simply sleeping heavily, does that constitute being dead? I do note one of the members on our side
[ Page 9305 ]
of the House, during my earlier remarks, was leaning up against a pillar and appeared for all intents and purposes to be beyond the hearing of my words. I would not like to think that that person wouldn't be eligible to serve on a jury, because they clearly weren't dead. They did arise afterwards, after I'd concluded.

It is an interesting use of language, and I'm sure that persons much wiser than I have come to the conclusion that it serves the necessary legal purpose to allow the sheriff to add an additional name to the panel. But I would like to think that if you're going to be disqualified from jury duty, you are, in the words of A Christmas Carol, "dead as a doornail," as opposed to simply appearing to be dead. This is not the kind of activity where there should be any doubt. The consequences of being treated as a deceased person, as opposed to one who is simply sleeping soundly, is really quite profound and has consequences far beyond this chamber.

With that, hon. Speaker, I look forward to my other colleagues who may wish to follow me in the interesting debate on Bill 15 this afternoon, and I will take my place.

[1735]

D. Hayer: I want to say, first, thank you to our member for Nanaimo. I agree with some of the things he said. He provided a lot of information, especially about his views. I think we can all agree that we all want to make sure our justice system is improved, modernized — to make sure it's fair for everyone. I think that we can all agree on. There are some things that we could probably disagree on, maybe have our own different political view on. But it was quite interesting to listen to him, and good to see that — as did our Minister of Justice and Attorney General explain her views in starting. She will explain more in detail at the committee stage.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss pending bills before the Legislature in this session. I am particularly pleased to speak to Bill 15, the Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, put forward by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

I'm pleased because this bill improves many issues that are very important to my constituents of Surrey-Tynehead. Every day that I'm in my constituency I meet with people, and most of them tell me how important it is to improve community safety and to make our justice system more efficient, more effective and more fair for our community and the victims.

Amendments in this bill do just that. They are strong steps towards fulfilling our government's commitment towards improving the justice system made in the throne speech that began this session. In fact, not only does this bill contain legislation that will increase the number of part-time judges, this government just recently appointed nine new provincial judges — two of them in Surrey to improve the delivery of the justice system in Surrey and seven others in the regions around the province to further address the caseload pressures on B.C.'s courts and improve access to the justice system.

Four of these new judges will be appointed to the greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley region. Another two are being placed in Prince George, while three new judges will be appointed in Nanaimo, Smithers and Penticton. The new judges were assigned to these specific communities to respond to the courts' needs throughout the province, taking into accounts such matters as the caseload demands, recent transfers within the courts, retirements or judges choosing to move to a part-time program.

These appointments will help to ensure justice is done in a timely manner and further reduce the possibilities of criminals walking free because of overloaded courts. These nine new judges are in addition to the further five new judges who were appointed last July to help service courts in the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and northern B.C.

This is a costly but necessary investment by our government to ensure timely justice is done. The total cost to the government to support one Provincial Court judge is up to $1.4 million annually, which includes the judge's salary and other costs for court administration staff, sheriffs, protection services and judicial support.

Counting the latest additions, our B.C. government has now appointed 23 new Provincial Court judges in regions across the province since February 2010, and Bill 15 will further increase the support we are providing to our courts and our justice system. We are hiring more court administration staff and sheriffs, and we are committed to looking at ways of developing and implementing improvements to increase court efficiency and help avoid court delays.

As our Minister of Justice and Attorney General has said, the newest appointees are only part of the solution for a justice system in need of reform. Bill 15, the act we are discussing today, is continuing on that solution. It will amend seven statutes from the Ministry of Justice that will both advance immediate improvements and identify further efficiencies that we need.

In addition to the amendments contained within this bill, our government is already involved in significant reform initiatives, some of which I have already detailed, across the policing and justice system. Let's be clear. The action coming from this side of the House is not just throwing money at the problem and hoping the problem goes away. We are taking action. We know money is not the only solution.

We have to work at making sure our justice system works for our community, for our society. We have appointed a significant number of new judges. We are looking at pressures that are driving our justice system, and we are developing a detailed approach to the solution. We are opening a dialogue with the judiciary to determine the right course to make improvements and find efficiencies to make it the best provincial justice system
[ Page 9306 ]
in our country.

[1740]

Bill 15 isn't just about adding more judges; it is also about clamping down on crime. In my city of Surrey the crime has been reduced. The reduction of crime is very important to everybody in Surrey.

We are the second-largest city in the province, and within a decade or so we will become the largest city in British Columbia. We'll be larger than Vancouver soon. We take crime very seriously, as does everybody else in British Columbia and Canada, and we are doing a lot about it to make sure that crime goes down.

The crime rate in Surrey has fallen dramatically over the past number of years, and I credit the mayor of Surrey, Dianne Watts, and Surrey council; the Surrey RCMP assistant commissioner Fraser MacRae and his Surrey RCMP team and the volunteers they have; and the Surrey Crime Prevention Society and the volunteers they have, who have been very proactive in helping to reduce the crime in British Columbia.

We in Surrey have done a very good job. With the tools available to us in Bill 15, we can do an even better job to make our city and our communities and our neighbourhoods in our province even more safe and more livable.

Helping us to do that in Surrey and in communities across the province is our civil forfeiture program. As a matter of fact, just recently the province dispensed $5.5 million to help support local crime prevention programs. These funds were achieved through the seizure of such things as a helicopter, houses, cars and cash that were a direct result of criminal activity. This money, $5.5 million, will support projects that reduce youth involvement in gangs, prevent violence against women and children, and help communities undertake crime prevention programs.

Those funds were not the only ones that have been distributed to the local communities across B.C. In fact, year-to-date civil forfeiture has brought more than $10.8 million, more than double that it brought in 2010-11. That was $4.8 million for the year 2010-11. The new grant money is in addition to the funding provided for 35 projects last fall, which means the total amount going to groups in 2011-12 is $6.1 million.

Earlier the province announced $500,000 through the crime remediation and crime prevention grant program and $100,000 through the domestic violence prevention response fund. An example of the projects ordered through these grants include the introduction of violence prevention curriculum at six Lower Mainland schools, six projects focused on preventing domestic violence and on services for the victims of domestic violence, a workshop on the North Island for service providers focused on issues of sexual exploitation, support for a rediscovery program on the north coast that teaches Haida culture in the context of crime and violence prevention, and an awareness-raising campaign delivering an anti-gang message in Okanagan.

As we all know, the best way to make crime unattractive is to take away the profit motivation. The civil forfeiture program is a very important part of that. For example, a number of Victoria homes and cash were seized from drug dealers; $340,000 was forfeited by a self-proclaimed holistic healer; $400,000 was seized as a result of a money-laundering scheme used by a known drug trafficker; a Bell helicopter was seized from a suspected drug dealer; and $316,000 was seized at the Canadian border from an individual possessing 57 kilograms of cocaine — he was involved in drug trafficking — along with the seizure of a number of grow-ops all around the province.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General says: "With civil forfeiture, bad guys lose twice…. Not only do they see the courts taking away the tools and proceeds of unlawful activity, which cuts into their bottom line; they also see us use the proceeds to fight and remediate crime in communities."

Another act that Bill 15 reinforces is the Body Armour Control Act, which was introduced by our government in 2009. That act placed control on the possession of body armour and granted police the ability to seize it. The problem with body armour is that it provides a sense of invulnerability to the criminals, to the gangsters, and therefore it has the potential to encourage the use of firearms in public places, thus endangering innocent bystanders.

[1745]

The act requires that anyone applying to wear body armour must undergo a criminal record check and obtain permits that provide reasonable need to possess such protective gear.

The amendment contained within Bill 15 allows police to issue violation tickets in addition to seizure of the body armour and is a further support by our government to combat criminal activity. It is also another step along with the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act. It fulfils one of the seven points in British Columbia's guns and gangs strategy.

As I said earlier, Bill 15 is wide-ranging and includes a number of amendments to improve the delivery of the justice system to make our justice system more fair and more effective and more efficient for all of us.

With this bill relaxing restrictions related to part-time judges, we are amending the Judicial Compensation Act to ensure that the courts are both effective and flexible. The Compensation Act will allow judges to sit beyond their previously scheduled sittings and will ensure chief justices have the flexibility to use part-time judges to fill in for judges due to ill health, resignation or if there's a sudden influx of new cases, providing much-needed and much-improved efficiency.

The amendment contained within Bill 15 will also relax restrictions that limit service time of senior part-time judges. Under the Provincial Court Act retired judges will be reappointed on the recommendation of the
[ Page 9307 ]
Judicial Council of B.C. to provide surge capacity.

As well, Bill 15 provides amendments to the Jury Act which will update and modernize legislation to reflect and expedite the work performed by the sheriff in the administration of the jury system in B.C. I think it's been a long time since this system was changed and adjusted, and I think this will allow us to make our system better and more efficient.

Also included within Bill 15 are amendments that clarify the disqualification criteria for jurors and will remove current exemptions for certain health care professionals as long as patient care is not adversely affected. Basically, this bill improves, modernizes and makes more efficient our justice system.

In conclusion, this bill is a good one. It is needed. It is like all good housekeeping projects: it will make and ensure where we live and our communities a better place. I fully support this bill. Even though we need to do more things, I think we've got to see that our government over the last 11 years has made our judicial system very good. They've made many improvements. We will continue to make more improvements, and we will continue to consult with the community to see how we can make our justice system even better than what it is today.

K. Corrigan: I am also rising to speak on Bill 15, the Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. It's interesting, because one of the things that we're going to have to find out is whether or not the name of the bill is going to have to change now that the name of the ministry and the designations have changed. I guess we will find out whether the amendment act is going to have to be amended to have a new title that reflects the change in the configuration of what is now the Justice Ministry and was formerly the two ministries of the Attorney General and another ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. That will be something that we will have to find out as this bill moves farther along and as we get into the next stage.

Of course, it is 2011 because we didn't have a throne speech this time around. Instead, we had the Premier doing a faux throne speech, as it's been called, rather than in the Legislature, which I believe is really unfortunate because I think it shows some disrespect for the Legislature to avoid debate in the House — a very important thing like a throne speech. That is why we have a 2011 bill before us that was not dealt with and continues to move through the system.

[1750]

This is a piece of legislation that has to do with the justice system. I would have preferred to have been looking at legislation that addresses some of the real challenges that we have in the justice system — some of our challenges with hundreds of criminals getting off scot-free because their cases are being thrown out of court due to excessive delays caused by the government. That's the kind of debate I would have liked to have had, but it is not addressed except for in a very, very minor way with a small change to the Judicial Compensation Act, which I think is an acknowledgment of the failures of the justice system and the lack of funding of the justice system. I'll talk about that in just a few minutes.

Much of this act, or some of this act, is actually housekeeping, not major changes, but I will make a few comments about some of the sections in the act. It covers a whole bunch of different acts, amendments to several acts, maybe nine or ten acts, and usually just a few sections in those acts. When we get to committee stage, I will be seeking clarification of some of those provisions. We'll probably have a more complete understanding of what the sections' impacts will be and exactly how they will operate when we get to the committee stage. Nevertheless, I do have a few comments about some of the provisions that are in this general statutes amendment act.

The first section is to do with the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act. It provides that section 12(9) of the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act "is amended by striking out 'Sections 4 and 5 of the Offence Act do not apply' and substituting 'Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply'."

Section 4 of the Offence Act reads: "Unless otherwise specifically provided in an enactment, a person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both." My understanding is that the reason this section of the act is being deleted is essentially that there is provision in this enactment itself, in the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act, for specific penalties of imprisonment and fines that are actually, I think, higher than provided in the Offence Act, so it is redundant and unnecessary. It's interesting that we didn't notice that first time round, when this act came into being, but we will have an amendment on that now.

I'll have some questions about why section 5 still needs to be mentioned, that section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply, but we'll leave that for committee stage.

The next section which is dealt with is similar. It's the same provision in section 13 of the Body Armour Control Act. It's the same amendment saying that sections 4 and 5 of the Offence Act do not apply and substituting that section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply, so it is the same kind of housekeeping provision. That's not a major change.

[1755]

Similarly, the next provision that has to do with public safety is to do with the Coroners Act. This is a small change which is essentially a housekeeping provision, which allows it to be consistent with changes in the Jury Act.

I'm not going to talk about the Expropriation Act, the small change there. My colleague spoke previously about
[ Page 9308 ]
some concern about the fact that the period for the minister to appoint an inquiry officer has been increased from seven days to 21 days with this provision. I think that's been addressed already by my colleague — some concern expressed about whether or not that is appropriate or whether or not that's too long.

I will mention the Fraudulent Conveyance Act. It's an interesting change in the provision. What has happened with this provision is that the Fraudulent Conveyance Act is being amended by striking out the words "by collusion, guile, malice or fraud." This is as a result of a court decision that was made.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Essentially, what is happening is that the Fraudulent Conveyance Act is being brought into consistency with the court decision that found that the words "by collusion, guile, malice or fraud" were meaningless. That essentially means that you don't have to prove that there was collusion, guile, malice or fraud when a fraudulent conveyance is being established in a decision in a court case. That's actually good. I'm supportive of this. I think it's a good amendment, and it does make it consistent with the court decision.

The Judicial Compensation Act changes…. I'm particularly interested in the change, the amendment which essentially allows an increase in the compensation and deals with the fact that we have an increase in part-time judges. I think it is certainly a tacit acknowledgement that we are now having to rely on part-time judges, that we are in a world where we are down 15 judges from where we were just a few years ago.

There is some desperation to deal with the backlog and the number of cases, hundreds of cases, that are being thrown out and where cases are being stayed because of the fact that the justice system is not able to handle the cases that are on the docket in an amount of time which is reasonable. That means that constitutional rights are being offended. People — criminals — who in some cases even have been convicted…. Their cases are being thrown out because of the lack of resources in the judicial system. So this section is dealing with the compensation for part-time justices.

The next section is a section in the Jury Act. What it provides, essentially, is that a person convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drug and Substances Act for whom a pardon has not been granted under the Criminal Records Act or currently charged with an offence under the Criminal Code of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act of Canada cannot serve on juries — at least that's my understanding of what this provision provides.

[1800]

I echo my colleague's concerns about that. This provision prohibiting people from serving on juries if they've, essentially, got a record and have not received a pardon — I wonder whether or not that is constitutional.

I think my colleague was very eloquent in talking about the fact that some people perhaps might be good additions to juries — those that maybe in their long past have a criminal record and have been rehabilitated and have become good, contributing members of society. Some of those people might be good candidates for a jury. But as I said, I'm wondering whether there's a possible constitutional challenge, and I guess we can ask some questions about that when we get to the committee stage in the next round here.

I'm not going to make many comments about using an electronic summoning of jurors. I hope this is not seen to replace mailing to jurors, or changing the selection process, changing the pooling process. I think it's fundamentally important to our judicial system that there is truly a somewhat widespread pool. There has to be a widespread pool of people who become jurors, and you don't want to end up limiting those that become jurors — the peers, the 12 people who are sitting on a jury. They should be from all walks of life, from all economic backgrounds, from a variety of backgrounds and, therefore, perspectives.

While it certainly says that we can have notice mailed — that that continues on — I do think it's worth just mentioning, raising the issue, the possibility, that if there is a greater reliance on electronic gathering of the jury pool, that would leave out a whole bunch of people. It would leave out a lot of people at this point — some greater proportion of people who are seniors. While many, many have electronic addresses, there is a greater proportion of seniors who do not have electronic addresses.

It also would definitely omit a greater proportion of people who are lower income, because it's not really cheap to have a computer and to have Internet service. If that was the main way of getting jurors, it could eliminate those people from a jury pool, and it is important that we have a good cross-section of people on our juries. So I will be asking some questions on that.

Also, certainly when we get to committee stage, I'm going to be asking about section 24 of the Jury Act. I printed out a copy of section 24 of the Jury Act because it looks to me that section 24 of the Jury Act right now says that a person sitting as a juror at a trial is entitled to be paid an allowance and a prescribed fee and so on.

But section (2), which is the one that is being repealed, says: "A person serving on a jury panel but not selected to sit as a juror is entitled to receive (a) an allowance for necessary and reasonable expenses, and (b) a prescribed fee for each day that the person is required to attend…."

[1805]

Well, what section 13 of this act that we are talking about today says is that subsection 24(2) is repealed. So to me, that means there will be only one subsection in section 24. When you add subsection (3), which is what this does — and I won't read it out — it seems to me that
[ Page 9309 ]
if you're taking subsection (2) out and adding subsection (3), all you're going to end up with is subsection (1) and subsection (3) but no subsection (2). That's the numbering, and it's a small thing, but it might be something that the minister might be interested in.

The next section that I want to talk about for just a second is changes to the Security Services Act. This section broadens the registrar's authority to cover, to regulate not only the Security Services Act, as is presently the case…. My understanding is that the registrar already regulates the Security Services Act and the Body Armour Control Act, but that this amendment will allow the registrar to regulate the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act.

I just took a little look at the act, and the Security Services Act provides for a registrar to oversee various areas of security services and businesses. For example, what we're talking about here are armoured car guard service, locksmiths a private investigator, a security alarm service, a security consultant, a security guard service and a body armour vendor. It was interesting, actually, just reading and finding out what the regulatory framework is for security services, what the registrar does and what the penalties imposed are and so on.

The ability of that registrar to regulate is going to be extended to say not just the Security Services Act and the Body Armour Control Act, but now it will also cover the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act or any other act which might be appropriate. It's interesting because what that means, I suppose, is that previously when we were talking about, for example, the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act, there was not the ability to regulate via the registrar and have the tools that the registrar has in order to administer that act.

Actually, it looks to me like it makes sense to have the registrar also be the regulator for the After-Market Compartment Control Act, and my understanding is that previously what would happen would be that if there was an issue under the Armoured Vehicle and After-Market Compartment Control Act, it would go to the police. Now it looks like the registrar will have jurisdiction. So I don't have a problem with that. It looks like it makes sense. I don't have a concern with that one, and I'm supportive of it.

I think that covers most of the pieces of legislation that are being amended via this act. I certainly will, as I said earlier, have some more specific questions about some of the provisions of this act as well as how they fit into the various acts that they are amending and what the impacts are, probably at the committee stage.

But for the time being, as I said when I opened, this act is not an act with a huge number of really substantial pieces in it. It is instead in some cases housekeeping, in some cases small changes, in one case a change in order to make the legislation consistent — in the case of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act — with what the law is and take out something that is essentially irrelevant and redundant.

[1810]

But there are a couple of areas where we'll have more questions and more discussion when we get to the committee stage. There are a couple of areas where I have some concern, but I think that overall we will be supporting this piece of legislation, although we have some questions about some of the pieces.

As I said, these provisions are for the most part supportable, but again, in closing, I would love to be seeing legislation or actions that were addressing the shambles that our justice system is in. Those are the kinds of bills and the kinds of actions that we would like to see this government moving forward — not as opposed to this, but in addition to these largely housekeeping provisions in this act.

With that, I will take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Bond: It's always an interesting afternoon when we get to have a conversation about law and order in British Columbia. I want to begin by putting one of the member opposite's concerns to rest. The title is okay. It does not need to be changed. We want to get that one off our list before we come back to committee, so the bill can remain with the same name that it has today.

I want to make just a couple of comments in response to, as you can imagine, some of the comments that have been made. I always appreciate the member for Nanaimo's commentary in the Legislature. I'm particularly pleased that he pointed out the clause in section 11 where: "If it appears that a person empanelled to serve on a jury is dead…." I think that is a very important clarification that we need to look at.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want you to know that one of my colleagues in the House said that if the member opposite continued to speak in the same tone, we'd be able to test that principle right here in the Legislature. I won't tell you which member said that.

Hon. M. de Jong: He won't send you an e-mail about it, either.

Hon. S. Bond: He certainly won't.

I think it's really important, and I'm quite looking forward to committee stage. As you've heard from the members, there is a great deal of agreement on the amendments. Many of them are housekeeping in nature. For example, one of the things that we'll discuss, I'm sure,
[ Page 9310 ]
in committee is the whole option that we've talked about in this bill to look at electronic summonses for jury duty.

You know, I think what is critical is that things change and we can't continue to do things the same way forever. I want to assure the member opposite that it will not happen overnight, that it's not something we're intending to take place tomorrow afternoon. It's an option that allows that to occur in the future. I think all of us recognize that it needs to be done appropriately. I'm certain we'll have an interesting discussion about that.

I also feel absolutely compelled to comment on the part-time judges section. I know this will certainly garner continued debate. This section is intended to give the chief judge an opportunity to have an additional tool. It's not about replacing a full-time judge; it's about in unforeseen or exceptional circumstances it would allow for that kind of flexibility. We think that's actually innovative, and looking at a system that does is in need of reform.

While I certainly respect the comments made on the other side of the House, we continue to hear that the number of judges needs to be increased. There's just one thing that doesn't get included in the conversation by the members opposite, and that's the fact that the number of cases in British Columbia has dropped dramatically. We're having fewer cases in courtrooms.

I think it's incumbent upon us, when we're looking at the costs associated with additional judges — and we're going to continue to find ways to add them where appropriate and when possible — that we actually have to look at the whole equation — the fact that the number of cases has dropped, that the length of cases is virtually the same in terms of how long it takes and that the crime rate is the lowest it's been for three decades in British Columbia. We're simply saying that it's time for us to ask some prudent questions about that.

[1815]

I'm very much looking forward to a significant discussion about these issues in committee stage, but again, I think it's important. These are significant amendments. When we looked at some of the pieces related to body armour, for example, we needed to make some additional changes. I think it's important when government recognizes that while we've done a good thing, we actually from time to time need to make amendments or look at additional ways to increase the efficiency of those particular items.

One last thing, if I might be permitted, to talk about. I think it is important because both members opposite spoke quite significantly about the whole issue of disqualification provisions that we're going to be discussing in section 8. I think what's important to note is that there is already an existing disqualification provision in the act, and so we're not adding a new exemption or a new disqualification.

What we are trying to do is clarify the wording. Currently in the act it's imprecise. It's very difficult to actually define, so in fact what we want to do is clarify that. We want to make sure that if anyone actually has a look at this particular section, it's clearly able to be interpreted appropriately. I think it is important to note that we're not adding a new disqualification provision related to the selection of jurors. We're simply saying that we need to clarify the language to make it easier for people to understand.

Some of the items, as I've mentioned, are housekeeping in nature; others have a more significant opportunity for discussion. I'm very pleased to see the support that we're experiencing in the House this afternoon, and I think we'll be able to see that continue through to committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 15 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 15, Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, 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. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:18 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada