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)

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: I am pleased to introduce in the House today some special guests of mine from the Langley Chamber of Commerce. They've come to Victoria to meet with a number of my ministerial colleagues. Joining us in the gallery today: President Denni Bonetti, First Vice-President Angie Quaale, Secretary-Treasurer Kristine Simpson, Community Director Michelle Chandra, Director Linda Harkinson, Director Sharon Newbery, Director Mary Reeves and Director Scott Waddle. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Mungall: Well, it was a surprise for me. I was just outside getting off a motorbike and had a really great time touring around with the driver, Bill. As I got off the bike, a young man that I know — his name is Ryan Clayton — said: "Hey, Michelle. Fancy meeting you here." Of course, he is a self-described political junkie and wanted to come and watch question period, so he is in the gallery doing just that. May the House please make him welcome.

[1335]

M. Dalton: Visiting us in the gallery today are members of the Armenian National Committee of Canada, Western Region. A constituent of mine, Vahe Vic Andonian from Maple Ridge, and there are also Vahi Steve Agopian, Jack Deragopian and the permanent representative of Nagorno-Karabakh to the United States and Canada, Mr. Robert Avetisyan.

They've been having a number of meetings with members on both sides of the House. I know that the Armenian community has been very pleased with the bipartisan position that we've taken in the Legislature in recognition of the Armenian genocide nearly a hundred years ago. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

N. Simons: It's a pleasure to welcome a constituent, a master's student from the Sunshine Coast who's attending Royal Roads in communication. Will the House please make Austin Vanderzee welcome.

L. Reid: It's a pleasure to welcome, and I'd ask you to join with me in welcoming to British Columbia a brand-new citizen. He is the son of my former ministerial assistant Jennifer Lawrence and her husband, Devon. His name is Markus Allan Lawrence, weighing in at 8 pounds 11 ounces. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

C. Trevena: I hope the House will make welcome a number of guests in the gallery. One of them has just walked from Port Hardy down to Victoria. It took a month but Janine Annett — who is 15 years old, lives on Quadra Island and goes to school in Campbell River — is in the gallery along with her parents, Rory and Joanna, and family supporters and friends — who are Ann Cooper, Lorraine Annett, Tony Clayton, Katrina Annett, Dick Annett, Jacqueline Clayton, Hugh Fraser, Sue Fraser, John and Mary Marlow, Jordan Alger, Alysha Wall, Savannah Perry, Arissa Partridge and Leah Windrim. I hope that the House will make them all very welcome.

P. Pimm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some very important people to not only northeast B.C. but in fact all of British Columbia today. I'm very pleased to introduce Doug Bloom, the Canadian president of Spectra Energy; Don Camera, vice-president of environmental health, safety and risk management with Spectra Energy; Dwayne Ray, vice-president, field services; Gary Weilinger, vice-president, external affairs and business development; Al Ritchie, vice-president, operations; and Sarah McCullough, director of government relations. Would the House please help me welcome these great folks from Spectra Energy.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to welcome Adele Tompkins, the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists, who I will be meeting with after this. We've got all sorts of issues to talk about, and I want to thank her for raising the concerns of motorcyclists. I look forward to sharing some issues around noisy pipes in my community of Vancouver–West End and talking about how we can work together on that issue amongst others. Please make her welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd also like to join my colleague, on the opposite side, from North Island in recognizing Janine Annett's great accomplishment. Her one million steps to raise awareness about child poverty are an inspiration to all British Columbians. On behalf of my government colleagues, I would like to also congratulate Janine Annett on her successful completion of A Walk for a Wish.

G. Gentner: I'd like to welcome to the precinct today Mr. Steve Ashton. Steve is the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation — interesting there, that they use I before T — the minister responsible for emergency measures and the minister charged with administration of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.

He has survived nine election victories. He was elected way back in 1981. Can you imagine — compare that to the turmoil and the whirlwind in this province — having
[ Page 11492 ]
served since 1981? In fact, that doubles the time members such as the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and the member for Port Coquitlam have served in this House.

Could the members please make Steve Ashton welcome.

[1340]

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure again today to introduce 21 grade 7 students and 23 grade 5 students visiting from one of the best schools in Canada, the Ellendale Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They're here to learn about how our government works.

Joining them are their teachers Mr. Michael Ewen and Mrs. Melody McGillivray, as well as 30 volunteer parents who have taken time out of their busy schedules to join them.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Statements

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

Hon. P. Bell: Today is perhaps one of the most important days on the calendar, at least for many of us in this room, because today is World Press Freedom Day. On this absolutely critical day, I would encourage all of our press gallery to feel absolutely free to write something nice about all of us. Would the members please make them very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has to respond.

Tributes

JIM MARKER

J. Horgan: Regrettably, I'm going to pass on that one and instead invite members to acknowledge the passing of Jim Marker, the creator of Cheezies — the Hawkins Cheezies, which is an iconic Canadian snack food. Mr. Marker passed away at age 90 in Belleville, Ontario. I think we should all rip a bag of Hawkins later on today in honour of Mr. Marker's passing.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: It is truly very difficult to follow an impassioned and tragic moment like that with a straightforward welcome. I have a friend and constituent in the gallery today, Councillor Chad Eliason of the city of Salmon Arm. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd just like to extend a welcome to a surprise visitor I had today in my office, my younger brother Colin and his wife, Sarah, and their three boys, Olin, Evan and Gavin. I'm not sure they made it into question period because the three boys are under three years old and they were starting to act up a little bit. So I don't think they got into question period, but they….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Thomson: Exactly. They would have been right at home.

Anyway, I'd just like to acknowledge their presence in the precincts today and have everybody make them welcome. It was a very nice visit.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012. In September 2010, with the support of this House, we introduced new sanctions for impaired driving. We set a goal to reduce impaired driving fatalities by 35 percent by the end of 2013, in part to honour the memory of Alexa Middelaer, a victim of an impaired driver.

After just one year we saw a 40 percent drop in alcohol-related deaths on British Columbia's highways, and 45 people are alive today because this House was bold in the attempt to change the way we tackle drinking and driving. As we expected, there were legal challenges, and in November 2011 the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of these administrative sanctions. The decision upheld the constitutionality of the warn range sanctions and sanctions for drivers who refuse or fail to provide a sample.

However, for drivers in the fail range, the court held that there must be an ability to directly challenge the accuracy and reliability of the results provided by the roadside screening device to make the grounds of an appeal more meaningful. The court gave us until the end of June to amend our process.

We have reviewed that decision very carefully and now respond with these amendments. Our goal is to protect this important law that has shown great success in deterring
[ Page 11493 ]
drinking and driving and in saving lives in our province. The amendments in this bill meet and exceed concerns expressed by the court in the Sivia case. They provide greater protection for drivers, making it mandatory for police to advise a driver of their right to have a second test, on a different screening device, should they blow in the warn or fail range.

[1345]

The amendments also require that the results of the lower of the two tests will be used for the purposes of assessing possible impairment. We want drivers, police and the public at large to have the utmost confidence in the reliability of roadside procedures and the fairness of reviews for those who dispute the results.

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

Bill 46, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 45 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce the Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012. The act amends the Income Tax Act to implement two personal income tax measures for individuals and families. These include a new B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit and the B.C. first-time new-home buyers bonus.

The B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit is a refundable income tax credit of up to $1,000 per year to assist with the cost of permanent home renovations that provide individuals aged 65 and over with increased independence, allowing them the flexibility to stay in their homes longer.

The B.C. first-time new-home buyers bonus is a refundable income tax credit of up to $10,000 for families and individuals who are first-time buyers and who are purchasing a newly built home. The measure will also assist the residential construction industry by encouraging purchases of newly constructed homes.

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

Bill 45, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

FUNDRAISING WALK BY JANINE ANNETT
AND CHILD POVERTY AWARENESS

C. Trevena: From May 1 through May 7 communities across B.C. are celebrating young people. It's B.C. Youth Week, and for the last 15 years it has provided the opportunity to recognize their contributions.

It's perhaps appropriate that it's during this week that a remarkable young person completed her more-than-500-kilometre trek down Vancouver Island. At the start of her walk a month ago, I told the House about Janine Annett's plans to walk the lengthy Island to raise awareness about child poverty at home and abroad and to encourage other young people to get involved themselves.

She set off from Port Hardy Secondary School and spoke at schools along the way. The grade 9 Ecole Phoenix Middle School student engaged and challenged her peers to take on the problem of poverty, and they did so.

While the sun shone on her as she completed her walk at Mile Zero, the last day was one of her hardest. Yesterday she found, as she was walking, a traffic accident happening just metres in front of her. Earlier in the walk she faced many mountains and foul weather and kept a solid step, approximately 20 kilometres every day. Today she made the lap back to come to the Legislature.

Janine has not long turned 15 but has never lost sight of the importance of her Walk for a Wish — not just the fundraising aspect but the message she gave, both in presentations and in the walk itself, that people can do something to end the disgrace that is child poverty.

She set out with three pairs of shoes and a smile on her face. She has completed it with an even bigger smile, worn shoes and a wish almost fulfilled. Janine knows she has done something very concrete in the ongoing and unrelenting fight against child poverty. It's something of which she has every right to be proud and something which should earn our deep respect. With her example, perhaps we will act to combat child poverty.

SERPENTINE ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY

D. Hayer: I rise today to speak of the wonderful work a community-minded society is doing in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead to educate, to improve our environment and to develop lifelong appreciation of the value of salmon by Surrey children. This group of dedicated volunteers, called the Serpentine Enhancement Society, operates at Tynehead Hatchery, raising salmon to release
[ Page 11494 ]
into the Serpentine River, which winds its way from the headwaters of Fraser Heights all the way through Surrey to meet the ocean just north of White Rock.

[1350]

In addition to raising salmon, society members also engage elementary students from schools throughout Surrey to participate by teaching them all about salmon and to actually have them raise this iconic indigenous species.

Through this educational program, Surrey children are also taught the value of protecting and enhancing their environment. Next week — on Saturday, May 12, from 11 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. — please join the Serpentine Enhancement Society when they open up the doors of the Tynehead Hatchery to the entire community. People will be able to learn about fish, learn how to fish and even release some salmon into the river.

The society is under the guidance of the society president, Glenn Wright, and the directors: Ebb and Julie Budgell, Laura Hagar-Gaube, Carol Wright, Bruce Easton, Chris Hamming, Dave Woods, Frank Marshalok and Carol Kyle — along with many volunteers, more than 48.

I also want to recognize, among those volunteers, Al Nyberg, Don Trakaol, Frank Wilkie, Gordon Kendrick, Esther Johnson and Richard Gaube.

Please join me in thanking everyone for the exceptional work to preserve and protect our environment and the valuable species that live within it.

FUNDRAISING FOR HEALTH CARE
FACILITY ON GABRIOLA ISLAND

D. Routley: Roll up your sleeves, and get it done. That is clearly the spirit of Gabriola Islanders. Gabriola, like every Gulf Island, lives with serene and peaceful beauty but also separation and seclusion. For Gabriolians requiring medical services, emergency transport was dependent upon the nighttime activation of the ferry. Someone suffering a stroke or another critical emergency faced a prolonged trip for help.

In 2002 the island lost the nighttime ferry option, resulting in some patients being evacuated by open Zodiac boat. Gabriolians responded to the challenge. When no money was forthcoming from the province for the building of a needed clinic, residents founded the Gabriola Health Care Society.

The proposed Gabriola health care facility will house up to three physicians as well as other health care workers. The facility will also provide space that is equipped for acute emergencies, a small lab and, potentially, emergency X-ray facilities linked to the hospital in Nanaimo. There could also be one or more nurses and/or nurse practitioners, depending on VIHA and other funding. The proposed facility will have space for visiting public health nurses and mental health workers, and a baby immunization clinic.

Land for the health care facility was donated by retired veterinarian Bob Rooks. Local residents have donated over $1 million, and with other grants and fundraisers, the society has collected donations of over $1.4 million. Every year they host the Tour de Gabriola, a fundraising cycling event around the whole island.

My partner, Leanne Finlayson, and I have participated in the ride for the past two years. One couple, Barbara Williamson and Mike Kew, donated $500 each to my ride. That is just one measure of the depth of generosity and commitment by Gabriolians to their health care facility.

Well, the wait is over. This summer the facility will celebrate its grand opening. Congratulations, Gabriola Health Care Society. Well done, Gabriola.

BLOOD DONATION

C. Hansen: Tomorrow at four o'clock I have an appointment. It's an appointment I made 56 days ago, and while I am there tomorrow, I'm going to make another appointment for 56 days later to come back to the same place. Tomorrow at four o'clock I'm going to be donating the 85th unit of blood to the Canadian health care system.

That is not remarkable, because there are many, many Canadians who go far beyond that and literally donate into the hundreds of times. But 52 percent of Canadians either have had to receive blood in their lifetime or a member of their family had to receive blood. It is essential for surgeries, for treating people in car accidents, for cancer treatments. The whole range of care that we provide in our health care system is often dependent on the availability of blood in the blood banks.

Yet what is sad is that only 3.5 percent of Canadians who are eligible to give blood actually take the time to do that. In British Columbia that percentage is even lower. Canada is actually a net importer of blood products. I would like to urge all members of this assembly that if they are able to give blood, to take the time to do it.

[1355]

When we say we haven't got time, it's not a good enough excuse. It should be something that we do as a matter of civic obligation, just as we have a civic obligation to get out and vote on election days in British Columbia and in Canada.

I urge all members of this chamber to take the time to do it and to urge their constituents to do it as well. We need blood for the blood system in Canada and for our health care system. Remember, it's in you to give.

Dancing with the Octopus MEDIA
PROJECT ON WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT

S. Hammell: Recent research shows that one out of every two human beings is a woman. So in a perfect world one out of every two politicians would be a woman. Unfortunately, most nations fall deplorably short of perfection.
[ Page 11495 ]

Here in Canada we're 1 woman in 4; 75 percent of the House of Commons seats are held by men and 25 percent by women. This ties us with Australia at 39th in the world, just behind Mexico, Iraq and Sudan.

Dancing with the Octopus is an eight-tentacled media project that takes a non-partisan look at the hows and whys of getting more women into politics, asking what needs to change and how we change it. Dancing with the Octopus held an international video contest and asked people to imagine how the world would be different if 75 percent of the seats were held by women and 25 percent by men.

The winner was 13-year-old Rebecca Hansen from Victoria. With 75 percent of the politicians women, her imagination saw a world with longer maternity leaves, universal daycare, more sex education programs, funding for women's outreach programs, tougher advertising regulations, better gender ratio laws, more style, more culture, more hugs. Politics would be more engaging, more uniting and, as she puts it, "more me." She concludes: "We will do everything." Wow. I say bring it on.

I believe our future will be closer to perfection with young people like Rebecca in it. To see this award-winning video, complete with musical and visuals, go to www.dancingwiththeoctopus.com.

INNOVATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

M. Stilwell: One of the toughest challenges we face today is ensuring the sustainability of our health care system. As our population grows and ages, resources will be needed to provide the care that citizens know and expect.

How do we find a balance between providing the services patients need and the ability of taxpayers to fund them? Of course, the answer is innovation. Innovative programs such as healthy families B.C. focus on enhancing patient care and preventing chronic illness. Patient-focused funding has led to improved wait times and access to care while finding efficiencies in everyday hospital processes.

Healthy families B.C. also aims to help families make healthier choices. In its first three months more than 63,000 smokers sought help through the program's smoking cessation services. The program provides families with help in designing healthy, nutritious meal plans. By helping families lead active, healthy lifestyles we can prevent chronic illnesses like diabetes, heart disease and even some cancers.

Innovative technologies like telehealth are changing the way health care providers deliver services to patients. Telehealth uses video conferencing and other technology for clinical consultation, health care management and continuing professional education when participants are in separate locations. Tele–home care allows patients to better manage their chronic diseases while at home by transmitting vital signs and health information to a hospital where the patient's condition is monitored. This technology helps patients receive care in the comfort of their home and frees up hospital space for other patients.

The key to health care sustainability ultimately rests in our ability to adapt. By combining prevention with a change in the way we deliver services, we can ensure a healthy future for our citizens and our health care system.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT
SUPPORT TO INDIVIDUAL
REQUIRING MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTS

M. Karagianis: Yesterday here in the House I was proud to talk about how my community had stepped up to help a woman who had been denied supplements by this government.

[1400]

The Esquimalt Legion poppy fund stepped forward to buy the supplements that Jolayne Gammon needs in order to get healthy enough to have a double mastectomy, but today the ministry contacted Jolayne and wanted to inform her that she cannot take outside financial help without it being clawed back from her disability benefits. They've asked her to apply once more for assistance, for the seventh time. Further, the ministry is contacting the Legion because the ministry wants to take control of the assistance that they want to provide.

I think the government has a lot of gall to step into this situation. First they would not supply the supplements that Jolayne Gammon needs in order to have her surgery, and now they want to step in and interfere in the community's efforts to come forward and assist her.

I would ask the minister: if the government is not prepared to help her, can they just get out of the way and leave her alone so the community can help her?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Once again, although the member opposite doesn't seem to understand this, I cannot comment on an individual's situation in the House. I am, as I said yesterday, looking into this to make sure that the individual is receiving the supports she can from the ministry.

Staff rely on information provided by an individual and their doctor to make decisions regarding the additional supplements that may be able to be provided. I encourage anyone who is unsatisfied with the decision made by the ministry to apply for a reconsideration or, if their health status has changed, to reapply with their new status.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I think that the minister's response
[ Page 11496 ]
here, and the government's behaviour, is absolutely appalling. I have written to the minister. I have talked about this in the House. This individual has applied six times for supplements.

The government said her blood condition that was destroying her spleen was not enough of a motivation to supply supplements. Her spleen was not considered a vital organ. They said she could lose it without dying, so it wasn't enough of a motivation. She needs a double mastectomy for breast cancer, and still the government says this is not enough motivation for them to give her supplements.

Now the community has stepped forward, in the form of the Esquimalt Legion, yet the government continues to want to interfere and disrupt this woman's life while she is very ill. I think this is the most callous and cruel position that this government is demonstrating.

Once again to the minister: if she is not prepared to step in and help this woman, then please stay away and let the community come in and help her. Really, what she needs in the end is help, not hindrance by this government.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The ministry takes all cases presented to us very seriously. The health supplement program is by no means difficult. Actually, more than 23,000 people received supports with our diet supplements last year, and over 8,000 receive a monthly nutritional supplement. This was an increase from last year.

All cases that come before us are very difficult, and staff know that the decisions they make affect people's lives. Therefore, they take those decisions very, very seriously, and we will continue to do that.

C. James: The minister says she needs information, that it will take time. Well, the ministry, when they found out that the community was going to give support to Jolayne, moved instantly. I would say that the minister has enough information to provide support today to Jolayne.

This is someone who is seriously ill, who has applied already six times. The minister now says…. One more time: why won't the minister act today to support Jolayne to get healthy once again?

[1405]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Quite honestly, I'm not sure what the other side of the House does not understand about the fact that I am indeed looking into this case but that I cannot comment in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I find it extraordinary that the B.C. Liberals would think saying to an individual that losing their spleen isn't enough to be able to get support was good government policy.

Since the minister won't speak about a specific case, I would like to ask the minister: when her ministry refuses support and the community steps up to the plate, does the minister believe it's right for her to interfere with that community support?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, we understand that individuals who are approaching the ministry for assistance because of chronic health conditions are doing so in a very difficult time. I can appreciate that the language that may be used in some of the responses from the ministry may leave something to be desired. In fact, I've asked my staff to look into this issue to ensure that all correspondence has the appropriate tone, content and information required for the individual receiving the information to have a full understanding of the situation.

I will say, in response, that we applaud community groups for their support of community members.

J. Horgan: The case that was brought before the minister earlier this week is a tragic case, and the enthusiasm with which our community and the capital regional district responded was overwhelming and brought tears to the eyes of many people on our side of the House.

My question to the minister is: if you won't agree to help, would you at least agree to get out of the way so the community can help Jolayne get through her health difficulties and live an effective and full life in this community with the help of her neighbours and all those around her? Would you just get out of the way?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I've stated before, I cannot comment on the individual cases. The members opposite know that, and the member opposite who has brought this to my attention has received a response from my office.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, the response from the minister's office was that if the Royal Canadian Legion in Esquimalt wanted to help, they had to do so through her ministry. Now, the individual in question has been to the minister's office six times and been rejected six times. Now that the community has stepped forward, let's not go through the indignation of No. 7. Let's just agree to disagree. The Liberals don't want to help, and the community does. Stay out of the way, and let the community do its job. Close the file, Minister. We beg you.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, I applaud community groups that are willing to step in to support other members of the community. In fact, I myself have belonged to many of those types of community groups in the past.

As the members opposite know, I cannot comment on individual cases in this House, and I will not.
[ Page 11497 ]

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO FUEL LEAKS
IN COASTAL WATERS NEAR HARTLEY BAY

R. Fleming: Two days ago the Gitga'at First Nations reported finding a bunker fuel slick over a wide area inside Grenville Channel near Hartley Bay. The slick emerged from the long-identified sunken wreck of the Zalinski, which has been leaking oil for over ten years. This isn't the only shipwreck leaking oil near the community of Hartley Bay. The sunken B.C. Ferries vessel Queen of the North continues to leak fuel, leaving the local community at risk of having their shellfish beds contaminated.

Ten years ago the federal government promised to clean up the Zalinski, just like the Liberal government has promised to clean up the Queen of the North, and neither has delivered on these promises.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Does he understand why the people of Hartley Bay reject the idea of oil supertankers from the Enbridge northern gateway plying these very same waters when it's clear they can't even depend on their government or the federal government to properly respond to existing oil spills?

[1410]

Hon. T. Lake: Once again the member opposite bases all of his conclusions on speculation rather than information. This is a vessel that went down in 1946. A plane flying over the area detected a sheen. The Canadian Coast Guard did a flyover and estimated that the amount of fuel on the surface of the water, despite the fact that it was very wide, was also very thin — a bit like the NDP fiscal policy, by the way.

The estimated total of that fuel is under one litre. No one knows at this point if it is coming from that sunken vessel or was a small spill by a passing vessel. We are following up with the Canadian Coast Guard. We will base our response on information, not speculation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Once again, the Minister of Environment is caught off guard, unaware, when the federal government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: When the federal government cancels the oil spill response centre on the Pacific coast, he doesn't even know about it. When the Coast Guard sends divers to the site today and issues a warning, a risk that the amount of fuel leaking right now is increasing, he has no idea that that's happening either.

Referring to the Enbridge project, Arnold Clifton, who is the Gitga'at's chief councillor, says: "They have got to clean up this mess before anyone thinks of sending anything else through our traditional territory." The federal government and the Coast Guard…. The entire oil spill preparedness and response program has been independently audited and found to be in complete disarray, under-resourced and lacking capacity and coordination. Recent federal budget cuts are making the situation worse.

When is the Minister of Environment and this government going to stop cheerleading the Enbridge northern gateway project and start cleaning up existing oil spills like the ones that are affecting Hartley Bay?

Hon. T. Lake: I will again remind the member opposite that we base our positions on evidence. We have not taken a position on the Enbridge gateway pipeline simply because the process is in the very early stages. But what we have said is that we will protect the interests of British Columbia. We will ensure that any proposal that comes to our shores comes with the world-class protection of our marine environment that people in British Columbia expect.

While I'm standing up, I would like to point out that the member yesterday misquoted the Premier when he was talking about support for the Northern gateway pipeline. The member has yet to stand up and correct the record — that the Premier was talking about the northern gateway transportation strategy. But again, let's not let the facts get in the way of an NDP story. That's the way that they make their decisions — based on speculation, not information.

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON
ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

R. Austin: Sport fishing is a huge economic driver in the northwest. People come from all over the world to fish the Skeena and its tributaries. Jeremy Crosby, chairman of the Skeena Angling Guides Association and owner of Pioneer Fishing Lodge, said this about the Enbridge northern gateway: "The northern gateway project involves huge environmental risks with minimal economic benefit."

[1415]

Mr. Crosby's business depends on a clean environment and living fish. He knows that even a single spill would devastate his industry. Will the Liberals listen to concerned northwest businesses, drop their support of the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline and join with the official opposition in standing up for the interests of British Columbians?

Hon. T. Lake: The question is: will we listen to the fishermen, the sport fishers in the northwest? Absolutely. We intend to listen to all British Columbians. We intend
[ Page 11498 ]
to follow and participate in this process in a thorough, knowledgable and robust fashion.

But that's not the way that the members opposite would like to do things. The Leader of the Opposition in Kamloops today, when commenting on a mine application, said: "I think the problem is, you know, they applied about two years ago, and the government hasn't taken a position on this."

In other words, the government is supposed to go out and take a position on every application before it goes through a robust, comprehensive, top-quality environmental assessment process. On the other side they just decide ahead of time what should go forward and what should not go forward.

Over here we base our decisions on evidence, and that's the way that we will continue to do it on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: I represent a region which has long played host to industrial development. As Kitsumkalum Chief Councillor Don Roberts told the joint review panel assessing the Enbridge northern gateway: "We are not saying no to industry; we are saying no to Enbridge crude oil."

We all know that B.C. will be carrying most of the risk from the Enbridge northern gateway with thousands of jobs in the sport-fishing, commercial-fishing and tourism industries being put on the line. Why are the B.C. Liberals supporting the Enbridge northern gateway when B.C. businesses, First Nations and communities are asking them to speak out to protect their interests?

Hon. T. Lake: I'd like to quote the Leader of the Opposition in Kamloops again today when he said: "I think people expect you to look at the evidence."

Now, I know that on the other side of the House, represented by the NDP, or the No Development Party, they make up their minds about any kind of proposal ahead of time.

Well, on this side of the House we look at the evidence. We wait for the process to be finished. We take part in the process in an informed, thorough way, and then we come to a position that will represent the true interests of all British Columbians. We'll continue to do that.

CHANGES TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION
ON FISH HABITAT PROTECTION

M. Sather: The Minister of Environment hasn't even bothered to visit a mine that's right on the outskirts of Kamloops. What's this talk about science-based and actually doing their homework? They're not.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The federal government has made it abundantly clear that in their view, the Fisheries Act is a regulatory irritant rather than the key part of conserving our fisheries resources and protecting our environment.

New fisheries legislation introduced in Ottawa is such a threat that Justice Cohen has called on participants to report to him the concerns they have about what effect that legislation will have on our ability to manage salmon in this province. Will this government and this minister acknowledge the danger of this legislation, and will they oppose this legislation vigorously?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite asks if we will oppose this legislation when it comes out. Well, we'd actually like to see the legislation before we make up a position on it.

Changes to the Fisheries Act….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second.

[1420]

Continue, Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: You know, many local governments and many people in the agriculture sector have expressed concern with the Fisheries Act. They have made those concerns known, I'm sure, to many members opposite and to the member for Saanich South, where irrigation ditches are considered habitat for fish.

The changes, we understand, are meant to be commonsense changes to ensure that habitat is still protected, as it always will be here in British Columbia. But some changes need to be made to make sure that we're protecting vital waterways, not drainage ditches and man-made ponds.

Those kinds of changes make sense. We look forward to seeing the legislation. But one thing we know: we will protect critical habitat for fish in this province into the future.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: The legislation is called the Budget Implementation Act. The minister can look it up on the federal government's website if he wishes to.

But let's be clear. This government has done nothing except collude with the federal government to cover up and deny the issues that we have and the risks to our salmon. Instead of being a bystander, will this minister finally stand up and say something, do something — anything — to protect our salmon? Will he tell the federal government that gutting protections for our salmon is not on?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite apparently considers drainage ditches and irrigation channels as critical habitat for salmon. This is legislation that hasn't been
[ Page 11499 ]
modernized in 140 years. Now, we know that the members opposite don't like change, but it probably is about due for some commonsense changes to the Fisheries Act.

I have spoken to my counterpart, the Minister of the Environment federally. We have made it clear that any changes must not have a negative impact on critical salmon or other fisheries habitat here in the province of British Columbia.

BUY B.C. PROGRAM

L. Popham: The Buy B.C. program was launched in 1993, and it's widely recognized as the most successful food and beverage advertising program ever jointly undertaken by the provincial government and private industry. When speaking with stakeholders across the province, the message is clear. They want to see this program brought back.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the Liberals listen to B.C. farmers and food producers and return government support to the Buy B.C. program?

Hon. D. McRae: The Buy B.C. program was fine in the 1990s. I'm fine with that. The reality is that if it was such a good program, how come as soon as government subsidies for this amazingly successful program…? As soon as they went away, so did the whole program. It failed. Private business wasn't there to support it.

The reality is that we continue to support British Columbia agriculture. We support it through ways that, I think, are phenomenal: through farmers markets, through fairs and expositions, through basic supports for agriculture.

Let me tell the members opposite: I do agree that we need to support agriculture, and buying local is absolutely essential. That's why my ministry staff is engaged with B.C. Agriculture Council, a great organization that represents 14,000 farmers across this province, and we're working on a program that will be coming out in the near future and that will benefit all of British Columbia agriculture.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Well, the minister thinks he's moving forward in a modern way, and there's a huge concern by the B.C. agriculture industry that this so-called modern vision is ineffective. Awareness of Buy B.C. reached an astonishing 76 percent of B.C. consumers in just seven years under the NDP.

[1425]

In contrast, the minister launched a Facebook page called "Foods B.C.," stating that B.C. Liberals are using social media to more effectively promote buying local. Since its launch months ago a grand total of 132 people support Foods B.C., one of them being me.

The Buy B.C. program was effective. It was effective because it reached out to consumers wanting to support local agriculture and offered them a clear choice. Meanwhile, the Liberal program hasn't got much beyond the staff in the Agriculture Minister's office.

My question is: in light of the overwhelming failure of the Liberal social media campaign and the industry support for Buy B.C., will the minister bring Buy B.C. back?

Hon. D. McRae: Well, I must say I hope we don't get a charge for the free plug for the Facebook page that we haven't really started promoting yet, but thank you for bringing it up. Every time you complain about it, it just gets us a couple more hits to it. I'll see if I can get my daughter on it tomorrow.

Like I said or alluded to earlier, we're working with BCAC, because we actually have a plan that's going to be coming out in the near future. But it also gives me an opportunity to jump on board some other opportunities that we have actually done in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: I must say thank you to my colleague the Minister of Health as well. I joined him out in Abbotsford the other day, and we actually made an announcement. We added $1 million more to the school fruit and veggie program.

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: You know what? I hate to say this, but I just heard the Minister of Finance ask: "What is the program?" Thank you.

The reality is that 450,000 students will receive B.C. product, fruit and vegetables, every second week. We have legions of elementary, junior high and secondary students who are actually getting B.C. product, whether it is fruit from the Okanagan or vegetables from the Fraser Valley. They actually are getting not only the health benefit, but like the recycling program, they'll help share the story of B.C. agriculture.

But there's more.

Mr. Speaker: Not now.

Hon. D. McRae: I'll wait, Mr. Speaker. I will come back, I hope.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.
[ Page 11500 ]

B.C. RAIL PURCHASE OF
FARMLAND IN DELTA

G. Gentner: Perhaps if the Minister of Agriculture wants to learn anything about social media, he should check out the member for Delta North's website and learn about radio.

B.C. Rail has bought up parcels of land in Delta that are in the agricultural land reserve. Last week in budget estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure I asked the minister about a specific property in Delta, B.C. Rail's purchase on 28 Avenue, and the minister said: "I think it's prudent business to have land and acquire it, whether you use it immediately or in the future. That would include the piece of property you've asked about."

We know B.C. Rail is underway in selling off 150 parcels of land, and yet this government is still steadfast in acquiring land for B.C. Rail in Delta. The minister of land banking, which I think is what he's going to be called now, has admitted that B.C. Rail has purchased agricultural land for future route uses.

The specific property I asked about in estimates sticks out like a sore thumb. It's not on the railway corridor, but conveniently, it fits quite nicely with the development strategy of Deltaport and the work of speculators such as Mr. Emerson and others, who are assembling, by optioning, huge tracts of agricultural land adjacent to B.C. Rail lands.

Knowing the sordid history of the Liberal government's affair with B.C. Rail…

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, Member.

G. Gentner: …and its lacklustre history of protecting farmland, the people of this province…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

[1430]

G. Gentner: …want to know what's happening to the land.

Can the minister come clean? What are the B.C. Liberals planning to do with this agricultural land? And don't tell me it's all about producing food, because we know…. What is the minister doing with agricultural land in Delta?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's interesting. You're correct. We did address this last week, and it's interesting that you're asking the same question again, but you will get the same answer.

B.C. Rail does have land, and they utilize it, whether it is for future developments that the rail may need…. It is extremely prudent to maintain the land bank that they have if they think, in the future, they may need it. Also, they will dispose of land if they don't need it, Member.

It's the same answer today as it was last week, and that's what I'm leaving you with again.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. McIntyre: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, Review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act.

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

Motion approved.

J. McIntyre: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. McIntyre: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I wish to make some brief comments.

This report summarizes the committee's review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, which began last September. This was the first time that the act had been reviewed since it was passed in 2006, when the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth was first created.

During the course of our review the committee held a public consultation and met with key stakeholders, including the representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond; and the Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development, Stephen Brown. We also heard from the hon. Ted Hughes, whose 2006 review of the child welfare system laid the foundation for both the establishment of the representative's office and this committee.

Our report today contains seven recommendations for enhancing the legislation — all of which, I am pleased to say, were unanimously agreed to by all committee members.

Our recommendations include expanding the mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth to include advocacy services for vulnerable young adults in transition to adulthood, reviewing the need for continued external oversight of the Ministry of Children and Family Development in three years, facilitating information-sharing between the representative's office and public bodies, strengthening the provisions for appointing an acting representative and providing for future periodic reviews of the legislation.

In conclusion, as Chair, I would like to thank everyone involved in the review, including the Deputy Chair, the member for North Island, along with all of the committee members from both sides of the House. I'm pleased to report that we worked very well together.

I'd also like to specifically thank Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and Stephen Brown and their staff as well as Ted Hughes for providing their valuable input and advice during our review.
[ Page 11501 ]

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge everyone who made a written submission to the committee as well as staff from the Office of the Clerk of Committees, in particular Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Byron Plant, who were key in this process.

Thank you. It's a privilege to serve as the Chair of this select standing committee.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to support the Chair in the remarks about the report. She has covered most things, I think, very, very succinctly. I think it's a symbol of how well this committee works. It has been a pleasure to work on it. It has been very hard work.

I'd like to add our thanks, as the Chair said, to Kate Ryan-Lloyd, the Clerk of Committees; Byron Plant, researcher for the committee, who actually pulled together a lot of different submissions and made it very coherent for all members; and our thanks to the representative's office, to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, to the hon. Ted Hughes and to all the many individuals and organizations who presented some very thoughtful submissions that were examined in our review.

I think that the work of this committee…. As the Chair said, it was unanimous. Each recommendation was unanimous. I think it was really an example of what a legislative committee can achieve when working collaboratively and collegially. I hope that other legislative committees can work in this way, and we can use this as an example.

With that, I move that the report be accepted.

Motion approved.

[1435]

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make another introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I rise in this House to recognize a great man who is leaving government caucus communications to continue his graphic design career in the always evolving land of social media. It is my pleasure to introduce to this House Roop Jawl, a longtime valued employee of our caucus communication team. Roop is a graphic designer and has been an asset to government caucus communications for the past three years.

I know I speak for all the caucus when I say we couldn't be more grateful for his exemplary service throughout the years. This very talented young man was born and raised in Victoria to his proud parents Joginder and Surjit Jawl.

Mr. Speaker, I would personally like to think Roop for all the work he has done. His work was very essential. Without his work and his talent, we would not be able to do a good job as MLAs. He worked very hard, and he will greatly be missed by all members of this side of the House. I would like to wish good luck to Roop in his future endeavours.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will start second reading of Bill 40, intituled Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012; followed by Bill 41, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. In Section A, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Education. On the off chance — very off chance — that that should possibly be completed today, we would be moving to the Ministry of Finance.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — LEGAL PROFESSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 40, the Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012, be read a second time.

This legislation reflects a modernization of the Legal Profession Act, and in fact it responds directly to a request from the Law Society of British Columbia. The purpose of the bill is to modernize and improve the tools that the Law Society has to regulate lawyers in British Columbia in the public interest. The objective of the Legal Profession Act is to ensure that the Law Society can protect the public and ensure that they are provided with high-quality legal services while at the same time ensuring that lawyers are treated in a manner that is fair and just.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There are a number of key amendments that will be of benefit to the public. The amendments will expand the ability of the Law Society to suspend or disbar a lawyer convicted of a serious criminal offence. They will also enable the Law Society to make rules authorizing the imposition of a suspension or condition of practice during an investigation, where necessary, to protect the public.

They will increase the maximum fine from $20,000 to $50,000 and permit orders for fines and costs arising from the Law Society disciplinary hearings to be filed and enforced as court orders. They will require lawyers who are subject to an investigation, disciplinary proceeding or practice review to obtain approval to resign from the Law Society. They will enable the Law Society to make rules that ensure the security of private electronic records to ensure that they are protected during an investigation.

They will also ensure that anyone involved in a Law Society proceeding may be represented by counsel. They
[ Page 11502 ]
will clarify the process for compelling witnesses or records in a disciplinary hearing and allow the Law Society to establish a review board made up of lawyers and non-lawyers to replace the panel of benchers, who are elected lawyers, that currently review decisions of disciplinary or credentials hearing panels. They will also clarify the obligation of the Law Society to protect privileged and confidential information received in accordance with current interpretation of the law.

This act makes a number of amendments to the existing statute, and therefore the benefits I have mentioned are merely some of the important changes made by this legislation. Madam Speaker, I await the comments of other members of the House.

L. Krog: I must say it's always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House, particularly when there's a general sense of agreement in the chamber — not always common. But the truth is, hon. Speaker, in reality much of what goes on here is often by consensus and agreement. Certainly, what the minister, the Attorney General, has presented today, the amendments to the Legal Profession Act, are just exactly in that category.

[1440]

The bill, as the Attorney General has announced, makes a number of changes, all positive, all done in fairly lengthy consultation over a long period of time with the Law Society of British Columbia and with a fair bit of input.

I think the fact that since its introduction I haven't received any criticism, comments or concerns from any members of the public to date tells me that, in fact, those people who are paying attention to what goes on in this chamber and have an interest in this legislation are, by their silence, signifying their consent and agreement with it.

Some of the changes may appear somewhat subtle, but they are in fact important. One of the things that I would mention is the existing legislation, the existing Legal Profession Act, with respect to the object and duty of the society.

In the existing section 3, it says:

"It is the object and duty of the society

"(a) to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by (i) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons, (ii) ensuring the independence, integrity and honour of its members, and (iii) establishing standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its members and applicants for membership, and

"(b) subject to paragraph (a), (i) to regulate the practice of law, and (ii) to uphold and protect the interests of its members."

It is worth reading out the new and proposed section 3, which I think clarifies, quite appropriately for the Law Society…. This is at their request — at the request of the lawyers of British Columbia — and I want to emphasize that. Section 3, as proposed, will read:

"It is the object and duty of the society to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by

"(a) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons,

"(b) ensuring the independence, integrity, honour and competence of lawyers,

"(c) establishing standards and programs for the education, professional responsibility and competence of lawyers and of applicants for call and admission,

"(d) regulating the practice of law, and

"(e) supporting and assisting lawyers, articled students and lawyers of other jurisdictions who are permitted to practise law in British Columbia in fulfilling their duties in the practice of law."

I go back to the section where it starts: "It is the object and duty of the society to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice…." That's what this bill does. It emphasizes, very clearly, the responsibility that has been given to the Law Society by legislation and makes it absolutely clear, crystal-clear, to the public that there is not some conflicting duty to protect, to regulate the practice of law and to uphold and protect the interests of its members. There is not some conflict there. The paramount object and duty of the society, the clear object and duty of the society, is to "protect the public interest in the administration of justice."

Lawyers, like doctors, like engineers, are self-governing professions. It is an honour and a privilege to have the right to call yourself a lawyer in this province. It is an honour and a privilege to be able to uphold the high standards of professionalism associated with the profession.

I appreciate that there are some British Columbians who have not been happy with the conduct of their particular counsel in a particular case, and that's the nature of the beast. It has ever been thus. You can't make everyone happy. But when you contrast the high standards of conduct in this province expected of lawyers — which are generally delivered, as indeed with most of the self-governing professions in this province; indeed all, probably — you have to express some gratitude that you live in the province of British Columbia, in Canada, as opposed to many other jurisdictions in the world.

It is a source of great pride for me personally. The Attorney General, when she's feeling kind, refers to me as a member of the bar in a gentle way, and when she's trying to be somewhat sarcastic in question period, refers to me as a member of the bar with a somewhat different tone in her voice. But I'm always honoured to hear the words. It gives me no small thrill.

I say with a certain amount of pride…. A father can take that once in a while. Our second-born, our dear son Parker Krog — I think I'm entitled to use his name in the chamber — is going to be called to the bar at the end of this month and intends to carry on in this interesting profession, notwithstanding that his mother and his father, both lawyers, never encouraged him to take up the bar, appreciating that along with the honour and the privilege come a great deal of demand and pressure. We didn't feel it was appropriate to encourage him.

[1445]

But I am flattered, no less, to say that in this cham-
[ Page 11503 ]
ber, because it is a noble profession. It is a profession that in…. Every society where lawyers have the ability to practise freely is the kind of society in which all of us would want to live.

I have said it before. I can't remember which Shakespearean play it is. It's Henry III or IV. Maybe one of the other members in the chamber will assist me here — those more erudite than me. There's that oft-quoted line: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Of course, what's never quoted is the full line, in which essentially Shakespeare is saying: "Yes, let's kill all the lawyers, because if we get rid of all the lawyers then we can really establish tyranny."

That's really what lawyers do, and it is why it is such a privilege. I think it's important that this act, in section 3(a), says very clearly — and I think these are words that need to resonate with the public and British Columbians — that in pursuing the object to "uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice," it is by "(a) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons."

The rights and freedoms of all persons — that includes the freedom to discourse, the freedom to speak in this chamber in every corner regardless of how loud it might be and how much it might interfere with those who actually have the floor. It refers to the right to protest in public streets. It refers to the right to petition government. It refers to the right to protest and to criticize and to express, sometimes, on occasion, even the most abhorrent views.

That is what the legislation does, in very clear language — remind us that lawyers have that special duty. It is that special expectation.

It is not by design or accident, but it is a natural phenomenon that many politicians are lawyers. I think the number in the House of Commons ranges between 20 and 25 percent — not as many in the Legislature of British Columbia, but maybe the next election will improve the numbers. Although with great respect, maybe the next election might reduce the numbers. It all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting. I know other members of the House on the opposite side are going to wish to speak to this.

It is because lawyers by nature are drawn to the law. The law is made not just in this chamber. It is made in courtrooms. It is made through protest, though public desire, through aspiration to the great freedoms to which most societies aspire.

We only need to look around the world to recognize societies where the ability of lawyers to practise law is prohibited or restricted, where governments — generally dictatorial; some with the guise of democracy — take steps to ensure that…. Unlike in British Columbia, where we are here in this House going to codify the duty of lawyers to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of all persons, those states do everything they can to restrict the ability of lawyers to pursue those noble goals.

This legislation deals with a number of issues. I think it is important to mention quite specifically a number of those things, because the public needs to understand how important this is.

As I've indicated, it makes the public interest paramount. It makes that absolutely clear. As much as the Law Society, notwithstanding the existing legislation, worked on the premise that the great duty was to protect the public interest, nevertheless, the language itself, I think, presented some difficulty for some people with respect to the duty of the Law Society and its obligation.

It also expands the Law Society's ability to suspend or disbar lawyers guilty of serious criminal offences — including those committed outside of Canada — without, necessarily, a full hearing. It adds investigatory powers and, when required by the public interest, allows benchers to make rules for suspensions during investigation for the medical examination of a lawyer or articled student. It gives the Law Society the ability to require persons to answer questions and produce records in the course of an investigation into a lawyer's conduct.

[1450]

It increases the maximum fines for misconduct from $20,000 to $50,000. Keep in mind that a fine is one thing, but the ultimate sanction of the Law Society is the ability of the society, after a hearing, to withdraw from a member their ability to practise law. As I've said many times, it's an honour and a privilege to be in this chamber. It's an honour and a privilege to practise law. The power to withdraw that still exists. I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that we're simply upping fines here and that that's the only sanction a lawyer is going to face.

It also clarifies that lawyers have the right to legal counsel for disciplinary hearings. It makes decisions of Law Society hearing panels subject to review by a board which will exclude people who are not lawyers. It extends, importantly, the Law Society's reach into multiple areas: accounting practises, supervision of articling students, provisions respecting the breach of duty to law firms as well as to individual lawyers, and that runs throughout the bill.

This is important. Lawyers quite often practise in partnerships. Now, I think the reality is, and I think the member for Kootenay East may be able to assist me in this, that the vast majority of lawyers in British Columbia are actually solo practitioners. But a number of lawyers actually practise in firms, generally smaller firms, three to four lawyers, some in them in much larger firms. Regulating the practise, if you will, of a lawyer only, as if they are somehow an entirely separate entity from their partners, frankly presents some significant difficulties for the Law Society. What this bill does is attempt to remedy that and ensures that the Law Society has the authority to deal with firms as well as individual lawyers.

Now, the next one. This may be the place where I have
[ Page 11504 ]
a slight difficulty with the bill. When I say "slight difficulty," it's not that I'm going to vote against it. But it does give the Law Society's elected board of governors — not all the lawyers — the power to set the annual fees to be paid to fund the Law Society. Now, I suspect for some members of the bar, the prospect that they won't be able to vote on their annual fees may present some difficulty. Once you have had the authority to set your own level of taxation, if you will, it's a pretty appealing practice. I suspect there may be lawyers across the province of British Columbia who will take umbrage at the prospect that elected benchers of the Law Society will now get to set the annual fee without the individual lawyers being able to vote on that.

But it's a practical approach. It's a practical approach. We in this chamber, the 85 of us, subject to the particular position the Speaker occupies in this chamber and only with respect to difficult votes…. The reality is that 84 British Columbians arguably get to make the decision on what taxation is paid by the other four-plus million British Columbians. We expect and acknowledge that that is part of a democratic process. It's a practical approach to things.

The concept that every time you wanted to change taxation in this province you had to literally seek a vote of every British Columbian may have an appeal to those who don't like the concept of government and taxation, but it would present a practical difficulty that is almost difficult to describe or imagine. Indeed, we know in some jurisdictions in the United States, where taxation levels…. Particularly, I'm thinking of California. Property tax and Proposition 13, as I recall, have led to enormous difficulties for the state of California, which means that in some respects — there has been some suggestion, recently — California is coming close to bankruptcy.

Without wishing to be too cheeky about this, I guess as an individual lawyer I'm prepared to believe…. I suppose I should state my conflict here, for purposes of the conflict commissioner. I'm prepared to concede that as a lawyer affected by this legislation, giving up the power to set annual fees from individual lawyers by vote to the Law Society's governors is, in fact, the appropriate thing to do.

[1455]

The legislation also replaces the victim's special compensation fund with trust protection insurance, a professional liability insurance program. Now, it's not exactly a happy occasion. The name of Martin Wirick is well known to legal circles in British Columbia — a lawyer who, as we say in the profession, went bad, resulted in the loss of tens of millions of dollars, potentially, to a number of institutions and individuals. Unlike some other bodies and some other jurisdictions and some other places, the Law Society, in fulfilment of its mandate…. The lawyers of British Columbia stepped up to the plate, and nobody lost a nickel.

It is something to take a certain amount of pride in as a professional, and it's something that British Columbians should take pride in, in terms of the lawyers of British Columbia, representing the common sense and honesty and decency of British Columbia's citizens, did their duty, met their responsibility and in fact compensated the victims of Mr. Wirick's nefarious behaviour.

The victims' special compensation money is now going to be replaced with trust protection insurance, but that will again guarantee that if ever there is an occasion where a lawyer doesn't meet the high standards of the bar, British Columbians, their clients — whoever — are not going to suffer as a result of that.

It also adds a review board and replaces benchers with review boards for the purpose of reviews on the record of assessments of cost. It allows the Law Society to appeal a decision of a panel review to the Court of Appeal. Finally, it allows the Law Foundation to retain outside lawyers.

I think it was an old Socred saying about legislation being more good news. Well, I think one can say that, in fairness and to drag up an historical expression, Bill 40, the Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012, represents more good news, not necessarily from this government but just more good news for British Columbians. It brings the legal profession and the Legal Profession Act, I think, up to date in a way that has been sought for a very long time.

There is no question that this represents a great deal of work. I want to recognize the contribution of the Law Society of British Columbia, its executive director and others who have, for a number of years, worked with government — and, frankly, worked with the opposition — seeking support, who have consulted broadly to ensure that the legal profession was included and to ensure that the bill that came forward represented progress, brought the profession up to date and gave the ability to the Law Society to function in the effective way that it needs to in order to ensure the objects and duties of the existing legislation, which, as I read out earlier, reflect a number of important things, but also by modernizing it and codifying once again the high standards that are expected of being a lawyer in British Columbia.

I know there are other members of the chamber, apparently, who wish to speak to this today, so I don't wish to belabour the point. But I want to thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for bringing this forward.

I want to, again, extend my thanks to members of the Law Society who've worked on this, to extend my congratulations to those who have brought forward another example of how in British Columbia some of what we do in this chamber is actually just good common sense. It asserts the public interest. This legislation puts the public interest first. It makes it absolutely clear that the public interest is the number one priority. Indeed, it is the only priority, and it is the only object and duty of the Law Society of British Columbia.

I would hesitate to contemplate a day when we would
[ Page 11505 ]
want to have self-governing professions like the Law Society abolished and government take over the management of our professions. I think it is an important aspect of freedom, most particularly for lawyers in a democratic society, that they be a self-governing profession. You can think of all of the great social activists, all of the great defenders of democracy around the world, in this province, in this country, who have enjoyed the high calling of the legal profession, who have enjoyed the honour and privilege it is to practise. They are great names, and they have made great progress.

[1500]

As a matter of fact, next week in my community there's going to be a very interesting conference on the Douglas treaties, which are important in British Columbia. The keynote speaker on Thursday night will in fact be a former Supreme Court Justice, Thomas Rodney Berger, QC, I think one of British Columbia's most amazing lawyers and, like the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and myself, another good fellow Scandinavian, a person whose fame and repute and honour and integrity are well known.

That's the kind of leaders that come out of the legal profession. They are to be honoured. This bill, certainly for me, represents all that is good about the profession. Again, my thanks to the Attorney General.

I know others wish to speak.

B. Bennett: It's a pleasure to follow my friend from Nanaimo. I'm going to say many of the same things, perhaps, and hopefully in a different way. But I do agree with what he had to say.

It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and say a few words about the positive changes being made to the Legal Profession Act. The act is the legislation that empowers the Law Society of B.C. to regulate the 10,000-plus lawyers that work in the province today. The Law Society was created by statute in 1869.

The Law Society, as the former speaker said, is a self-governing body that ensures that B.C. lawyers act with independence, integrity and honour. As a self-regulating body, it's essential to public confidence in the legal profession that the Law Society of B.C. be viewed by the public as the regulator and not as an advocate for the interests of lawyers.

The organization here in British Columbia that does advance the interests of lawyers, which in my view is a very progressive organization — it focuses heavily on legal education — is the Canadian Bar Association. There is an important distinction between the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of B.C., and I think one of the easiest ways to make the point about the distinction is to compare the College of Physicians with the B.C. Medical Association. The College of Physicians obviously is more the regulator and the B.C. Medical Association, more advocating for the interests of physicians. The same distinction is true of the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society.

I'm dividing my remarks today into five different sections. They're very, very short. I want to make some introductory comments about the act. I want to comment on the mandate of the Law Society, which is changed by these amendments; the Law Society's powers of investigation, their powers of discipline and their use of hearings and appeals.

I'm going to conclude with some positive comments about lawyers, as my friend did — just so that members are forewarned.

The act hasn't been substantially updated since 1988. It really does need to be modernized in order to make sure that the Law Society can regulate in the public interest. I should say, along with what the former speaker said about more good news, that this actually is more good news in terms of the government's record of justice system reform led so ably by the Minister of Justice.

Amendments to the Legal Profession Act add to the initiatives already completed, such as the Family Law Act, which I think everyone supported here and was a big step forward; the new Limitation Act; and also the ongoing reform initiative led by Geoffrey Cowper, QC.

As the minister has so adeptly done in her tenure, she is presiding over these positive changes that go to the quality of the justice system and the accountability of the justice system to the public, without indiscriminately throwing large amounts of public money at it. That's saying something, hon. Speaker. That's not easy to do, and that needs to be said.

The Law Society wants the public to have confidence in lawyers, in the legal profession, and to their credit, the Law Society regularly measures the public's confidence in lawyers. In recent years they've done some work to determine whether the public has confidence in lawyers and in the Law Society.

[1505]

Just recently they did a study and determined that 66 percent of the public, in fact, believe that the Law Society does a pretty good job of handling complaints; 63 percent of the public believe that the Law Society has the ability to and does a good job of disciplining lawyers who are in violation of the standards; and 72 percent of the public are confident or very confident that the Law Society is able to ensure that lawyers operate with ethical standards. So there is already, I think, good confidence in the public about lawyers and the Law Society.

Despite that positive trend, once again, to the credit of the Law Society of B.C. and to the minister, the amendments that we're discussing will improve the legislation in ways that will lead to even more public confidence in lawyers and in the Law Society.

Let me just say a few words about the mandate of the Law Society. If the act is passed, the mandate of the Law Society of B.C. will be changed to more strongly and
[ Page 11506 ]
clearly reflect the Law Society's primary role as the regulator. The object and duty of the Law Society will continue to be to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice. But it will include an objective of supporting and assisting lawyers in fulfilling their duties rather than advancing the interests of lawyers, thereby clarifying the distinction that I talked about between the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of B.C.

It is an important change to the existing language, and it will make clear to the public that the Law Society is focused entirely on the regulation of lawyers and the protection of the public interest.

Investigations. These amendments will expand the powers of investigation. They will allow the Law Society to regulate law firms as opposed to just regulating individual lawyers. My friend from Nanaimo made this point. I think it's an important point to make. I think it's inconvenient and quite cumbersome, currently, for the Law Society to try to regulate law firms by regulating individual lawyers. This will help with that.

I think there are some new rules that will allow the Law Society to require lawyers and others that work for the law firms to answer questions and to produce records. The Law Society will now be, if these amendments are passed, allowed to send an officer or an employee of the Law Society to a lawyer's place of business. That sounds pretty ordinary, but currently they can't do that.

Lawyers will be required to disclose information where the information is subject to confidentiality and privilege. We probably all are aware, I'm sure, and have had occasion to retain a lawyer at one point or another in our lives, and we know about solicitor-client privilege.

In fact, when the Law Society is faced with an investigation, at times that solicitor-client privilege gets in the way of a proper investigation. I don't know this for a fact, but thinking about this, probably that solicitor-client privilege also gets in the way, in some cases, of lawyers defending themselves against complaints. So the Law Society will now be able to obtain that confidential information. But of course, the Law Society will then stand in the shoes of the lawyer, and they will owe a duty to the client so that the information is still kept confidential.

When it is necessary to protect the public interest, under these new amendments the Law Society will have the authority to suspend a lawyer who is under investigation before the investigation is complete and a hearing is held. That's new. The Law Society will be able to place conditions on the lawyer's practice pending outcome of an investigation. You can imagine how that might apply.

The Law Society will be able to require a lawyer to submit to a medical examination before a citation is issued against that lawyer so that medical problems can be dealt with outside of the disciplinary hearing context, which is important both to the Law Society and to the public interest, but also to the lawyer who is subject to the investigation.

Finally, the Law Society will be able to prevent a lawyer from resigning from the Law Society of B.C. when they are under investigation. Again, it's pretty easy to imagine that if you can resign from an organization, you could take the position that it no longer has the authority to investigate you.

Discipline. Maximum fines will be increased from $20,000 to $50,000 for lawyers and from $2,000 to $5,000 for students. The Law Society will be able to collect fines and costs by filing the order in Supreme Court. They'll actually be able to collect these fines in situations that require a court action. They can't do that today.

[1510]

Benchers will be able to suspend or disbar lawyers who are convicted of serious crimes, and that will include lawyers who have been convicted of serious crimes outside of the country.

Hearings and appeals. I wanted to just very briefly mention that there is what I'm calling a new appeal mechanism within the amendments. Decisions of the Law Society's disciplinary panels will be reviewable by a review board, which will include non-lawyers. That always, I think, is an important thing — to make sure it exists in any sort of process like the one we're discussing today. Hearing panels will be able to suspend a lawyer who has committed a discipline violation for an indefinite period to enforce compliance with conditions or other requirements.

In conclusion, these improvements to the Legal Profession Act will improve public confidence in B.C. lawyers and will enable stronger oversight by the Law Society of British Columbia. But it is important for me as a lawyer to say that generally lawyers serve their clients very effectively and with very few complaints from the public, as my friend from Nanaimo said.

Of the 1,200 complaints received by the Law Society each year in British Columbia, 80 percent have no legal merit, 13 percent are referred to a disciplinary panel and only 2 percent actually result in the review of a lawyer's competence. In case anyone thinks that 1,200 complaints in a year is a lot, I would ask you to think about the fact that we have 10,000-plus lawyers practising in the province. Figure out how many files they open in a year, and we're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of files. So 1,200 complaints — particularly when you end up with only 2 percent that actually result in a review of the lawyer's competence — is a pretty good record for the profession, hon. Speaker.

I practised law for ten years. For the last 11 years I've been an MLA. Prior to being a lawyer, I ran fly-in fishing and hunting lodges in northern Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and one on Hudson Bay. I've done the entrepreneurial thing from start to finish. I had occasion to hire lawyers a lot when I was in business. I know that we don't hear this often, and I was actually pleased to hear the member for Nanaimo say this. My experience
[ Page 11507 ]
with the lawyers that I've worked with on all of my files — and I worked with lawyers from across the country — was very positive. I found that the lawyers I dealt with were, for the most part, of good character. They were reliable, and they were honest.

I know that if I received a legal undertaking…. Members may not be aware of what a legal undertaking is. Perhaps they are; perhaps they aren't. If you receive an undertaking from a lawyer, you can absolutely expect that undertaking to be achieved by the lawyer who's made it. I knew that I could rely on that undertaking without question.

I have heard all the lawyer jokes. I've even told a few. As an English graduate, I do know the reference that the member for Nanaimo made to Shakespeare, and there's no way that I'm going to quote Shakespeare on this one here today. Somebody else can do that if they want to, but I'm not going to do that.

There was a very interesting study done quite a few years ago by the American Bar Association, and I'll never forget it. They asked several thousand people in the United States what they thought of lawyers, and a great many people didn't think very highly of lawyers. I know that's a terrible surprise, hon. Speaker, to you personally, but that was what came back.

But there was an interesting exception. There was one kind of lawyer that, actually, most people really liked. They really thought highly of one kind of lawyer, and that one kind of lawyer was their own lawyer. It was the lawyer that acted for them. They liked that lawyer, but they generally didn't like lawyers.

If there's a message there — and I think there is — I think that the very best test of the profession is whether the clients that a lawyer serves are happy with the service they get and the job that's done by the lawyer. And generally speaking, people are.

Again, congratulations to the minister for bringing the amendments forward. This will strengthen the Law Society's capacity to look out for the public interest and, I think, strengthen the credibility of the profession that I'm a member of in our province.

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

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: I know there's a lot of work to be done in the chamber, so I won't make additional comments — just perhaps a brief reflection. I want to thank the member for Nanaimo and the member for Kootenay East, first of all, for their very generous comments about the work that's been done. Again, I think it's an example of how when the House works well and works together, we can recognize some of the important bills that need to move through the House in order to improve, in this case, the work that the Law Society does.

I want to thank the president of the Law Society, benchers and others who worked very hard to ensure that the bill was prepared and worked very closely with our team. I can assure the members opposite that I appreciate the comments that have been made.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I look forward to the opportunity to finalize the bill as we go through committee stage. But again, this is about making sure that we are protecting the public interest, and I think the Law Society has done an excellent job. I appreciate the comments of both the member for Nanaimo and the member for Kootenay East this afternoon.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 40.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 40 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 40, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012, 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 now call second reading of Bill 41, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012.

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2012, now be read a second time.

We have just gone through the second reading of Bill 40, and it was a collaborative sense that we need to address this issue together. I am absolutely positive that we will have a far more vigorous debate this afternoon, as we go through second reading on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Obviously, as the Attorney General I have the pleasure of bringing forward the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. As I noted in introduction, there are a large number of statutes, a long list of them, that will be amended with this particular statutes amendment act. I'm going to work my way through and make some comments on each of those sections, and then I know we're going to have a very interesting response from a number of members in the Legislature.
[ Page 11508 ]

Bill 41 amends a number of statutes, as I've said. Firstly, amendments to the Election Act provisions respecting election advertising spending limits for third parties. I'm sure this will generate, as we would expect and would hope, a fairly lengthy discussion about why this is important from the government's perspective.

These amendments will re-enact spending limits on paid advertising that apply to third parties during the pre-campaign period — that is, the period immediately before the 28-day campaign period — for regularly scheduled provincial general elections under the provincial Constitution Act. For by-elections and for unscheduled general elections, spending limits will continue to apply to the campaign period only.

This bill will create a campaign period that would be a maximum of 40 days. The amendments further provide that the pre-campaign period cannot begin until at least 21 days past any sitting of this House. So the pre-campaign period during which spending limits would apply would begin either 40 days before the start of the campaign period or 21 days following the last sitting of the House, whichever time period is shorter.

The rationale, from our perspective, for having spending limits is simple. They prevent the wealthy from dominating the political discourse by flooding media with paid advertising. In addition, spending limits on third parties help to maintain the integrity of spending limits on political parties, because they prevent political parties from skirting their own limits by engaging in unlimited advertising using proxy groups.

To be clear, these spending limits are limits on paid advertising. Other forms of political speech are not subject to limits, including commentaries such as interviews, editorials, debates, communications with an organization and the expression of views on a non-commercial basis on the Internet or by telephone or text messaging.

[1520]

The previous limits on third-party spending were subject to a court challenge. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal struck down the previous law, primarily because it would have applied to a time period when the Legislature was potentially sitting and before the budget had passed. The court held that there was a public interest in allowing third parties to advertise during this period.

We have carefully reviewed the Court of Appeal ruling. Although it did not uphold the pre-campaign period spending limits as they were passed in 2008, it provided helpful guidance to us on how to balance the right to free speech against the legitimate wish to prevent the wealthy from dominating political discourse. That is why these amendments provide for a shorter pre-campaign period and include a clear 21-day period following the adjournment of the Legislature before spending limits will apply.

To accommodate this time frame, we are making a related amendment to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The act currently requires the main estimates to be presented in this House on the third Tuesday in February. The amendment would change that requirement to "on or before the third Tuesday in February." This change provides a degree of flexibility to the Minister of Finance. It will ensure that the budget can be introduced and that in a scheduled election year, the House can adjourn in time to have a pre-campaign period.

To be clear, under these changes the budget could not be introduced any later than it is now. In practice, because budget preparation is a complex process and it is important to use the most up-to-date economic forecasts, it is not expected that budget day will occur much earlier than it does now.

Madam Speaker, as I said, we have introduced these amendments following the recent ruling from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. I wish to advise the House that should these amendments be passed, government intends to refer them back to the Court of Appeal for a ruling on whether they meet the concerns of the court. In deference to the court, government does not intend to bring amendments into force until the reference is done. I am confident that the reference can conclude in sufficient time for the matter to be settled prior to the next scheduled general election in May 2013.

Amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act will enable the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia to admit qualified professionals trained outside of British Columbia to practise engineering and geoscience in B.C. The amendments also provide additional disciplinary tools, such as practice reviews and conduct reviews, and make minor changes to the association's governance to improve fairness and efficiency.

There are two proposed amendments to the Forest Act. The first enables flexibility in the minister's authority to delegate an authority under the act to officials in the ministry. The amendment was previously approved but contained a minor typographical error that needs to be corrected. The second reinstates the requirement for a deposit to be made at the time of application for forest tenure to prevent speculative bidding.

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act — I wonder how many members in the House knew there was one — amendments will enable the Tsawwassen First Nation to become a member of the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district. Membership in the district will enable them to secure long-term and cost-effective waste management services and to proceed with the development of Tsawwassen First Nation land in accordance with the treaty.

Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act will provide new tools that will strengthen B.C.'s leadership in the adoption of renewable and low-carbon fuels and in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The
[ Page 11509 ]
amendments are based on recommendations from consultation with over 39 fuel providers.

One of the main recommendations is to change the way carbon credits are earned. Prior to this amendment, companies with more diesel would earn more low-carbon credits, as it was a lower-carbon fuel. By creating two fuel classes, gasoline and diesel, all fuel suppliers are starting from the same point.

Another amendment will make B.C. the first in North America to allow fuel providers to earn additional low-carbon fuel credits for projects that reduce emissions from transportation fuels, helping accelerate consumer adoption of low-carbon fuel.

The bill also includes minor amendments to the Health Professions Act and the Labour Mobility Act. Nurse practitioners are a critical component of our government's integrated primary and community care strategy, particularly with respect to the delivery of care in specific underserved populations such as rural or aboriginal communities, seniors, and those suffering from mental health and addictions issues.

[1525]

This amendment assures that all nurse practitioners wishing to enter practice in British Columbia in the future have passed the same rigorous clinical practice exam before being permitted to practise autonomously and to the full extent of the nurse practitioner scope of practice under B.C. legislation.

Amendments to the Land Title Act will ensure that party wall agreements transfer with the sale of property. Currently obligations in a party wall agreement, such as the requirement to repair and maintain the shared wall, do not transfer to a new owner. These amendments ensure that they will. This amendment enables property owners to more easily register their interests in party walls and encourages future construction of row housing by removing risks for municipalities.

Changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act will allow caterers to offer inclusive food and beverage service and will also permit existing establishments such as restaurants, hotels and conference centres to be able to cater off site. The change will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces, support job creation and allow the tourism and hospitality sector to compete more effectively as a destination location for conferences, conventions and special events.

Currently in British Columbia, people serving liquor at an event in an unlicensed venue have to get a special occasion licence, take the Serving it Right course, purchase and transport the liquor, and accept the liability for liquor service at the event. Catering companies cannot handle these responsibilities on behalf of their clients.

Amendments to the Local Government Act clarify government's authority to incorporate a mountain resort municipality, whether or not there are residents in the area at the time of the incorporation. The legislation is consistent with existing government policy in the area of mountain resort development, and it will ensure that all forms of governance are available for consideration.

Proposed amendments to the Police Act will help strengthen provincial standards for cooperation and intelligence-sharing among police agencies in complex, multi-jurisdictional cases. The changes will ensure that the provincial director of police services will be able to set these standards, in turn ensuring that police adopt common approaches that help to speed identification and apprehension of dangerous repeat criminals.

As well, after consultation with the new civilian director of B.C.'s independent investigations office — he was appointed in December — that discussion has led to the amendments that will enhance police cooperation with that office's investigations.

Proposed amendments to the Public Sector Pension Plans Act will streamline the act by removing provisions no longer necessary and clarifying language to simplify it and reduce regulatory requirements. It will also create a separate joint trust agreement for the college pension plan that will create consistency with similar public sector pension plans such as the public service pension plan. Orders-in-council will no longer be required for each change made to the plan rules or joint trust arrangements.

The Statute Revision Act. Validation of corrections made to statutes permits certain errors in the statutes, including errors arising from the 1996 Statute Revision Act, to be corrected by regulation. Examples of errors that may be corrected under this power would include typographical errors, cross-referencing errors, formatting errors, punctuation errors, duplicated numbering and minor grammatical errors such as repeated words, missing articles and misplaced conjunctions.

This correction power would not be used to change the intended policy or legal effect of a statute. Corrections are made by regulation. To continue to have legal effect, the corrections made by regulation must be confirmed by the Legislature within the next session of the Legislative Assembly.

Finally, proposed changes to the Wildfire Act will protect government employees, temporary hires and fire specialists from other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia from civil litigation, who act in good faith when exercising powers and duties under the act.

[1530]

As I noted in my beginning comments, there is a long list of amendments on a variety of topics, and I am sure that our House will be engaged in very active discussion about many of the amendments proposed. Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker.

L. Krog: Never truer words were spoken than the concluding remarks of the Attorney General when she said that there was much to consider in this bill. It is a substantial piece of legislation. We have numerous sections,
[ Page 11510 ]
some of them fairly substantive in nature — running to 96 sections, 41 pages. Tabled on May 1, and here we are on May 3 in second reading debate already, with many members not having, I think, the opportunity to actually review the legislation the way it deserves.

I'm hesitant to quote the Vancouver Sun, of course, never wishing to give more importance to the media than they deserve or wish to have. But you can't help but resist when one portion of this bill — the changes around the Election Act — has inspired the Vancouver Sun editorial today to use this language: "Obstinate, ill-advised, hypocritical, pointless, antidemocratic and shortsighted, to name just a few."

That's in reference to the previous paragraph in the editorial that says: "There are so many appropriate words to describe the provincial government's decision to try once again to bring in an election gag law that will stand up in court. It's hard to know where to start, but we'll take a stab at it." Hence, all that wonderful list of adjectives: "Obstinate, ill-advised, hypocritical, pointless, antidemocratic and shortsighted, to name just a few."

Governments have tried this before. The courts were fairly clear many years ago on this issue. When you try to control free speech outside of an election period, you are going to run into trouble. Very clear. I understand, and I am sympathetic to the concept that we want to try and keep our democratic process free of undue influence by big money or organizations with purposes that are entirely selfish, that aren't speaking to the public interest or concerned about the public interest.

I understand and accept all of that, but we live in a democratic society. The provisions of Bill 41, in particular those that relate to changes to the Election Act, are nothing more than a doomed attempt, I suspect, to try and go back and revisit what Wally Oppal couldn't accomplish four years ago.

You may recall, hon. Speaker, as do members of this House, that the government took a stab at this once before. They tried to restrict free speech for a period of 120 days leading up to an election. The hue and cry then was horrendous. It was horrendous.

The government heard in no small way from British Columbians across the province, criticizing the government for doing this, for attempting to do it. The government was warned over and over again that it would face constitutional challenge, and it most certainly did. So the government actually, in fairness, stepped back a little bit — not a lot; a little bit. Brought forward an amendment themselves to change it to 60 days.

Again warned that changing the clothing on the Trojan Horse, so to speak, wasn't going to make any difference to the fact that there was still a Trojan Horse in there somewhere — the Trojan Horse was not a welcome visitor in a democratic society — the inevitable happened.

[1535]

A court challenge. Courts struck it down again, so here we are today, back at it once more with a government that couldn't seem to figure out that the courts, in pretty clear terms, said it wasn't going to work.

Labour groups brought on a court challenge. It was known as Bill 42 then. That included the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the British Columbia Teachers Federation. I have enormous respect that they chose to put their money where their mouth was on this issue, used their members' money to make the appropriate challenge.

B.C. Supreme Court in 2009 found that the 60-day limit was unconstitutional. Not a surprise, except perhaps to this government, which stubbornly insisted in believing that it could get away with it. Last October the B.C. Court of Appeal, highest court in the province, said: "You know what? The trial judge in this issue was right. Can't do this. Infringes free speech." Here we are, May 2012. The government is giving it another kick.

Now, I don't wish to emphasize that my party, my former government — although I wasn't part of the government — was taken to the woodshed once on the issue of trying to restrict freedom of speech. We got taken to the woodshed. Now we, unlike the B.C. Liberals, are smart. You only had to take us there once before we learned the lesson. Only had to do it once, hon. Speaker. Only once.

The B.C. Liberals, on the other hand, have been taken there once, had the lesson, but nope. There's a stubbornness. There's a certain stubbornness there. I won't say arrogance, but a certain stubbornness perhaps. They just want to take that path down to the woodshed one more time and have the courts whack them again.

Hon. Speaker, you have to ask yourself: why would they want to do that? When you're sinking in the polls, why would you bring forth Bill 41? At the very time that your own friends, Mr. Hochstein and his friends, have been running a vicious, nasty personal attack campaign, why would you want to bring forward a bill that would restrict the opportunity of your friends to attack the NDP?

Well, that's really because the Liberals are more afraid of other groups attacking them for fear that maybe some of their failings and their weaknesses and the mistakes they've made in 11 years in power will actually get pointed out in no uncertain terms by other groups in the province.

I just don't get it. But the Vancouver Sun maybe got it. They understand it. Again, part of the editorial: "Now the government is trying again with amendments that aren't even being given the profile of their own act but are being slipped through as part of a housekeeping bill that deals with half a dozen other issues at the same time."

It's not like we have the courage to say we've got the election act amendment act. No, no, no. We're going to just slide this one in, in a nice, big, fat Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. The Vancouver Sun goes on to say: "In the 2005 election, after which the Liberals decided to act, unions supporting the NDP outspent Liberal
[ Page 11511 ]
allies by a ratio of 3 to 1 in a losing effort. So much for buying the election."

So we've got the historical evidence. Why would you want to restrict free speech? You know, I can rely on no stronger, more respected a source in the B.C. Liberal Party to comment on the gag law than the former Premier of the province of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell himself. In 1995 he said: "We, like many others, believe that the provisions for a gag order on third-party interests are simply wrong. This government, unfortunately, has a record of restricting freedom of speech, and this is simply another example of that record."

[1540]

Now, it wasn't just Gordon Campbell who felt this way about what's being proposed here today. When that legislation was overturned in 2000 by the B.C. Supreme Court, then Liberal MLA Geoff Plant — who went on to have the distinguished position of being the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia, and the only one censured by both the Law Society and the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch — said, when he heard the decision: "A great day for democracy and a bad day for the New Democratic Party."

So we get it. We got it. We figured it out. What is it with this government that they can't figure it out? British Columbians — speaking through the courts, speaking through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, upholding the law recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the famous case Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) — have told the B.C. Liberals that they don't want gag laws.

Indeed, Justice Bastarache, in the decision — making reference to the comments of the Chief Justice and Justice Major — when he was talking about the restrictions, based partly on the fact they don't apply outside of the official election period, said:

"The Chief Justice and Major J. assert that short of spending well over $150,000 nationally and $3,000 in a given electoral district, citizens cannot effectively communicate their views on election issues to their fellow citizens. Respectfully, this ignores the fact that third-party advertising is not restricted prior to the commencement of the election period. Outside this time, the limits on third-party intervention in political life do not exist. Any group or individual may freely spend money or advertise to make its views known or to persuade others. In fact, many of these groups are not formed for the purpose of an election but are already organized and have a continued presence, mandate and political view which they promote."

The court recognized that it's appropriate to restrict spending during election campaigns. That's what the Supreme Court of Canada said. Now, we don't go to the Privy Council anymore. It may come as a surprise to some of those opposite, but we don't go to the Privy Council anymore. That's the Supreme Court of Canada. That's the final voice on law in this country and on interpreting law.

The B.C. Supreme Court, in accordance with the principles laid down in Harper v. Canada, struck down the B.C. law back in 2000, struck down the B.C. Liberals' Bill 42 in 2009, confirmed by the Court of Appeal the other year. Now we're back here again, trying it on for size one more time.

Now, when there is so much to be done in this Legislature, why doesn't the government take the advice of the Vancouver Sun? It says in the concluding remarks of the editorial in today's paper: "This proposed gag law is pointless and undemocratic. It should be abandoned."

"It should be abandoned." Wise words, hon. Speaker. Believe me, I don't always agree with the Vancouver Sun or the Province or even the Nanaimo Daily News, my hometown paper, or the Nanaimo News Bulletin or the Harbour City Star, but sometimes you have to agree with what the newspaper says, and sometimes what they say in the newspaper is in fact the truth. The truth is pretty clear here. This proposed gag law is pointless and undemocratic.

If Bill 41 had provisions around the Election Act that had to do with banning corporate and union donations — something that would really take money out of politics, arguably — then, perhaps, the opposition might be persuaded that this was a good thing. But that's not in here. Now, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I know, in this very chamber in the past has introduced a private member's bill respecting banning corporate union donations, has proposed other bills to modernize and ensure that conflict-of-interest guidelines were appropriate for people seeking elected office and for ex-officials of government — all sorts of good legislation.

[1545]

Here was an opportunity, in this bill, for the government to say: "We understand that money may be an issue, that people who give money to political parties may expect a louder voice, perhaps, and we're prepared to do something about it."

But that's not what we're doing here. We're saying: "We want the money to come into a political party that can use it the way they want, in order to get their view out, but we don't want the money to be spent by citizens, organizations or groups to say the things that they want." This government, this party, only wants the money to come into their political backrooms and get divvied up and spent the way they think it's appropriate.

They don't want the BCTF or CUPE or other groups or organizations — environmental organizations, citizens advocacy groups, social justice groups, economic justice groups, human rights organizations, small town organizations, community organizations — to have the opportunity to put forward a point of view. That's what this legislation is intending to do. They don't want to hear those voices. They don't want to give the opportunity to citizens of British Columbia to speak.

It's just bad public policy. It is much like attempts around censorship. Generally speaking, they fail. People don't like it. They may hate the words they hear from others. It may upset them to no end, but most British
[ Page 11512 ]
Columbians are prepared to have the right of free speech protected and respected. What this legislation is attempting to do is to restrict that right.

You know, it is abhorrent to me — the things that have been said about my leader in some of the recent advertising. I think it is disgusting. I think it is the worst kind of politics. It demeans politics in general and my leader in particular. But I'm not prepared to stand in this House and support legislation that would stifle the right or, indeed, the ability of the people who've said that to say what they want to say, abhorrent as it may be.

Those of us on this side of the chamber recognize the value of free speech. We honour and respect it. It is this government that consistently chooses to protect its big-money backers by refusing to ban corporate and union donations to political parties. You know, Jean Chrétien is not a person who ever led my party, and I don't want to speak too highly of a federal Liberal. There are a few of them left, rare species as they may be. Maybe they require protection under an endangered species act.

But dear old Jean Chrétien recognized what the power of money meant in politics. One of his parting acts was to put restrictions on donations to political parties — maybe something that 50, 60, 100 years from now people will look back on and say: "You know what? That Jean Chrétien was an okay guy. He did the right thing."

Instead of following the lead of some of their cousins in Ottawa…. Because the B.C. Liberals, as we well know, aren't really the B.C. Liberals. They're a coalition. The free enterprise coalition, I think, is what the Premier refers to it as now, this strange wedding of Conservatives and Liberals that produces the B.C. Liberals, at least in name. Some of their cousins maybe should be listened to. They brought in an election financing law. They brought in restrictions on donations. They passed it.

Even the Tories haven't played with that. Those are the other kissing cousins of the B.C. Liberals. Maybe they should listen to some of their Tory cousins in Ottawa who haven't decided to allow corporate and union donations to flow freely into political parties. But they're not listening, and there's no better evidence that they're not listening than Bill 41.

[1550]

What Bill 41 does is attempt to restrict people from expressing their views on all kinds of issues. Why would you want to stop someone from expressing views on climate change? Why would you want to stop someone expressing views on poverty? Child care? Reforestation? Protection of our natural resources and our wild places? Why would you want to place restrictions on that, hon. Speaker? Because that's what this is all about.

When we come to part 7 of Bill 41 called "Justice Amendments" — there's a bit of a misnomer if there ever was one…. When we come to that section, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about restricting for 40 days prior to a campaign, less if the Leg. is sitting. We're talking about restricting for 40 days the rights of people to free speech.

Now, this isn't an emergency situation — the 40 days prior to an election. I guess — what was it? — 42 years ago, the War Measures Act brought in to…. I mean it existed, but it was implemented by then Prime Minister Trudeau with the issues in Quebec. I disagreed with that decision of Mr. Trudeau. I thought it was the wrong thing then. When you look back, history now has shown that really although what happened in Quebec was awful — the murder of Pierre Laporte, the kidnapping of James Cross — it didn't warrant the cessation of the liberties and rights of all Canadians or the imprisoning of hundreds of citizens of the province of Quebec on grounds that turned out to be absolutely baseless.

So we're not in an emergency situation for 40 days before an election in this province, and surely the fundamental right to free speech isn't something that should be suspended for 40 days. We're not facing a biblical flood here You know, 40 days and 40 nights when the words of various groups are going to rain down upon us and drown our intelligence somehow or sweep away our common sense or see us disappear beneath the waves forever, never to emerge again to cast a vote. It just doesn't work like that.

What possible reason could there be, what possible justification, what possible basis in good public policy is there for 40 days prior to an election to say to British Columbians: "Not a peep out of you, not a peep. We don't want to hear it"?

Now, if the bill contained a provision that said that government wasn't allowed to advertise to protect its own interests and to promote itself, that is something I think the opposition could support. But that's not what the bill says. It doesn't say: "There shall be no government advertising of any type, shape, form, size or whatever for 40 days prior." No, no, no. We would never think of doing that. But boy, if some friends of the opposition or some people who disagree with government policy wish to express their views, that's a different situation. We want to restrict that, because gosh knows, the people of British Columbia aren't intelligent enough. If they have 40 days of advertising prior to the campaign, they aren't smart enough to figure out when they're being sold a bill of goods.

Back to the Vancouver Sun. "The latest attempt at a gag law is not only offensive to the principle of free speech — as were all of the others — it is also a classic example of a solution for which there is no problem. There is simply no need for a limit on third-party advertising. No one is harmed by it."

[1555]

I understand the concerns the government may have and some citizens may have: big money and politics, American-style advertising — you know. The last thing I want to see is that kind of vicious campaigning that goes
[ Page 11513 ]
on in U.S. elections. You turn on an American TV station even just during the primaries, for heaven's sake, when they haven't even selected the presidential candidates. It's awful. You turn it on during the actual election campaign. It's repugnant.

But repugnant as it may be, it is not worth sacrificing the right to free speech to attempt to prohibit that stuff. Repugnant as it may be. Here in — again, one of the most oddly named sections — the "Justice Amendments" section, part 7 of Bill 41, that's really what we're trying to do. We're trying to restrict the ability of legitimate organizations to put forth their viewpoint on issues of the day.

Now, hon. Speaker, this very chamber is designed for debate. Your role in this chamber is to ensure that debate is carried out. We are protected in this chamber. We have the Sergeant-at-Arms. This is the holy place of democracy, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.

I can remember, during more difficult times in the '90s, when some individuals who felt their rights were superior to the rights of democracy broke down those very doors that the Speaker looks at day in and day out. That was a very ugly moment in this province's history.

What we do in here is protected: the very right to debate, to exchange views, to argue, to put forth a different vision for British Columbia. So why, when we go to great lengths in the traditions of this chamber, of this assembly, to ensure free speech, to ensure democracy is carried out in an orderly and acceptable way, in a civilized way…? Why, when we go to great lengths to do that, would we attempt to restrict the rights of others to express their views?

Advertising is just part of the debate. That's really what we're talking about. It's just part of the process of debate. It's part of the argument. It's part of the democratic discourse.

You know, there have been some pretty nasty things used in elections in this province from time to time. We know that. Some ugly pamphlets were published that may have influenced voters, and there were appropriate provisions to deal with that, because there are rules.

There are rules by which we conduct ourselves. It has to be open and transparent. People who are putting forth political advertising have to be responsible for it. That's why we have a system of official agents. That's why we have to do accounting for the money that's spent in campaigns. There are lots of rules to ensure that it's a fair and open process, that the debate is fair and open.

That's because we respect the right to free speech and freedom of choice when it comes to making electoral decisions. We respect that. So how is it that the government — not withstanding, as I mentioned earlier, a trip to the woodshed — has chosen to come back once again with amendments to the Election Act?

It makes no sense. It makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to British Columbians. The proposed changes in the Election Act are not going to enhance public debate. They will indeed have the opposite effect. They will be stifling the debate.

As I mentioned earlier, Harper v. Canada. You know, the courts ruled on this. The campaign — it's different. Prior to the campaign — no, it's not appropriate. B.C. Supreme Court, B.C. Court of Appeal — they've made it pretty clear: you don't get to do this.

[1600]

The Premier's view on this, of course, is different. The Premier said: "The court said it didn't like the law by my predecessor." We can never mention Mr. Campbell by name. That is the forbidden language of the Liberal party now. We never mention Gordon Campbell. We may talk about "the predecessor" or "the previous occupant of the office" or "the former Premier," but oh no, we're never going to mention the name Gordon Campbell. You know, hon. Speaker, it's like some….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

L. Krog: I'm the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Continue.

L. Krog: It's like Halloween. You don't want to mention the boogeyman too often to the small children, for fear they'll be afraid to go out and pick up the candy.

"The court said it didn't like the law by my predecessor, so what we have done is we have brought in a revised law which responds to the court's concerns, which I think were legitimate."

I don't know how this works. It's kind of like a bottle of whisky, to me. If whisky is bad for you and drinking the whole bottle is bad for you, does that mean that if you cut it down by a third and you only drink two-thirds of the bottle, whisky is suddenly good for you?

R. Hawes: Tequila.

L. Krog: One of those members over there mutters: "Tequila." Perhaps he has experience with that. I'm not overly experienced myself, but I prefer to mention whisky because whisky is made here in good old Canada, and I think Canadian rye whisky is a good enough example for this chamber, not Mexican tequila.

Having said that, if it's bad for you, does adjusting the consumption make a big difference? Is it really going to suddenly make this law acceptable — which in principle is bad, which is bad public policy — and going to legitimately change it? So if we drop it from 60 to 40 days, it'll be okay?

That's really what I think the Premier was trying to say when she talked about it, saying what she thought was legitimate. What the Premier is saying is: "60 days, bad; 40 days, good." That's really the argument here. That's really what it is — 60 days, bad; 40 days, good. Well,
[ Page 11514 ]
maybe not good, hon. Speaker, but maybe acceptable. "Maybe it'll just sort of slide through the courts this time if we can keep it down to 40 days, and it'll be all right."

[D. Black in the chair.]

You know, I can't imagine that the wise people who get the privilege of sitting in the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the B.C. Court of Appeal are going to be flattered by the concept that if we, to use the famous language, put some lipstick on the pig, they will think somehow they're getting a date instead of a pig delivered to them. I don't think those esteemed ladies and gentlemen who sit in B.C. Supreme Court or the B.C. Court of Appeal will be persuaded by the concept that a reduction from 60 to 40 days makes this legislation fundamentally different from the legislation they struck down previously. I don't think they're going to be persuaded by it.

The opposition is not. The Vancouver Sun isn't. Most of the editorialists in the province aren't exactly jumping up and down and saying this is good legislation. So why are we going out of our way to try and insult the courts of this province, or the voters? That's really what this is; arguably, it's an insult. It is a suggestion that playing around with the form of this somehow alters the substance.

As I said, it's like if the whisky is bad for you, drinking two-thirds of it may give you a headache that's somewhat less awful the morning you wake up than if you'd drunk the whole bottle, but the effect is still the same. It isn't a good thing, it's not overly appealing, and your mother told you, you shouldn't do it. And the mother courts of this province have said in no uncertain language to the B.C. Liberals: "Don't do this."

[1605]

I mean, I notice that Gordon Campbell after the 2009 election, when he was re-elected Premier — notwithstanding the concerns he may have had or his government then may have had about spending in the period leading up to the election — didn't try to bring this one back.

Now, he had opportunity. Maybe he was absorbed with his issues around the HST, and it slipped his mind or it wasn't high on the agenda. But it took a new Liberal leader, a new Premier, to take another run at it. If the new Premier had been living outside the province or living in a bubble somewhere and hadn't heard about what had happened before, it might be forgiven, or if the present Attorney General hadn't been here for a while and hadn't heard about what had happened before, they might have a tiny excuse for attempting to do this again. But that's not the case.

The present Attorney General has been in this House for a long time — 11 years. The current Premier — well, she sat in this very House from 1996 to 2005. She knows how this place operates. She knows about the court decisions. She didn't disappear. She went on to a fine, public career in radio, well known, all these issues raised on her radio talk show, I'm sure, from time to time. Ignorance isn't an excuse.

So what is the excuse? What is it that compels the B.C. Liberals, the present Premier and her cabinet — most of whom have been here a very long time — to try this on for size, to give it one more shot?

I don't think it's a psychological thing that the Liberals like being abused. I don't believe that. I don't think they want to be abused. I certainly hope not, and if they do feel that way, there's counselling available for that sort of thing. But as I said earlier, when you're low in the polls, and you're not popular, why would you try and do this?

Why would you try and inflame British Columbians? Why would you try to generate more opposition to your government? Why would you try to inspire people who may have comfortably gone to sleep around the issue of politics for a little while? Why would you have given them a poke? Why would you razz them? Why would you try and wake them up and get them mad again?

It isn't like this law is going to apply only to the people who take a differing view of the world than the B.C. Liberals. It's going to apply to their friends. It's going to apply to the people who are happily spending money supporting them. It just doesn't make any sense, and if there's one thing that should govern what we do in this place, surely it is common sense. One would like to think, on occasion, that you can set aside zealotry or passion on an issue and your strongly held feelings or ideological beliefs and say: "What makes sense?"

The previous bill, Bill 40 — the Attorney General brought it in. Happy to speak to it, happy to support it — good commonsense legislation, updating the Legal Profession Act. It will get no opposition on this side of the House, not a peep from British Columbians — those who pay attention to that legislation and its importance. They understand it's acceptable, sensible, common sense.

But the Election Act amendments don't meet that test. British Columbians didn't like it when it's been tried the other times. The courts didn't like it. As I said earlier: "Gosh, when it came in, in the '90s, the Liberals didn't like it."

[1610]

The man who the Premier will only refer to now as her predecessor was ecstatic when it was struck down, was vociferous in his opposition and supported by the Premier herself, who was then just another member of the opposition, happily waiting, praying that they would have their opportunity to come into power and repeal the legislation. But they didn't have to. It was struck down.

So why is it now that they have suddenly become supportive of the very thing they used to abhor? Is this some epiphany on the road to Damascus again for the government? Did they wake up one morning and suddenly say: "Oh my goodness. This will really be good for British Columbia. This will help us get re-elected. This is con-
[ Page 11515 ]
sistent with democratic values, the right to free speech."

What happened? I mean, I would have loved to have heard from the Attorney General earlier today if she could have stood in this place and explained to me the rationale for this. It wasn't convincing in 2008 when Wally Oppal tried it. It's certainly not convincing in 2012. It's certainly not going to win any friends for this government at a time when their circle of friends is a somewhat diminishing group.

What did the Premier say? "There are all kinds of third-party groups all across the spectrum that spend a whole bunch of money outside the campaign period and for us, for all British Columbians, people understand why it's important to have spending limits for political parties," she said, citing big spending in American campaigns.

The Premier is opposed to people spending a whole bunch of money outside the campaign period. I take it from that, given the amount of money that the B.C. Liberals raised and spent during the campaign, that it's okay then. Then the power of big money really gets to talk because that's the legal campaign period. That's the period in which British Columbians are paying attention.

We don't want to place any limits on that. We don't want to restrict campaign donations from corporations or unions. No, we want all of that money. We just don't want our enemies — as they see them — to spend money outside of the campaign period. That is just not on. That isn't fair. That's not kosher. That's not right. No, we want to ensure that the money flows into the Liberal coffers, and they get to decide how to spend it.

The opposition is not going to support this legislation. You really have to ask this question at the end of the day, given the government's own statements around this — and I haven't referred to it yet in the debate. The government has said very clearly that once passed, they're going to send it to the courts on a referral and let the courts look at it.

Let's get this straight. We've had a significant number of bills in this House in the last few days. We are still awaiting what will be a significant piece of legislation around the HST. We have three weeks of sitting left, and as I recall, the Government House Leader indicated they wouldn't be using closure, which has become the Liberals' fairly common way of closing a session of the B.C. Legislature — so why are we spending time debating this legislation now?

Why not refer it to the courts now? If the courts come back and say, "Forget it," we won't have wasted our time in this chamber. Now, that would be a really logical and — to come back to my earlier comments — a really commonsense thing to do. Indeed, the government itself has said that's what they're going to do.

If they're going to do that, why not just do it now? Why not just send it there before we spend our time in this chamber, when clearly there are a lot of other things to do? If this was so important, why didn't they do it last year after it was struck down? Why didn't they just prepare another draft with the rather silly change from 60 to 40 days and ship it off to the courts?

[1615]

We might have even had a decision by now. If the courts in British Columbia said it was okay, I still might have been critical. That's my right and privilege when I represent my constituents. But at least we would know the view of the courts. We would know how they felt about this legislation.

What possible excuse? What possible reason is there for the government to not do the smart thing and send it off for consideration by the courts now? They've done it before — the issue of polygamy. You know, it's not unheard of. Governments do it. The provisions are there. It makes sense.

The government has said that if it passes, it's going to be referred to the B.C. Court of Appeal. That's exactly what they said. So why wouldn't we do that?

They're not going to be brought into force. I assume the government wants the benefit of this legislation for the next campaign. Why not get it over and done with now? Why not just give it to the courts and let them decide? It would make eminent sense.

Now, there are lots of other issues raised in this bill. Most of them fall outside of my critic area. There are some things that require public comment though — in particular, the changes to the Local Government Act, section 14.

I was making a little joke earlier about the fact that lawyers now in British Columbia will have their practising fees set by the Law Society, which is composed of mostly elected and some appointed members. That's democratic. We set the rates of taxation here in this chamber.

But with section 14 amendments to the Local Government Act, they're repealing section (2.1) and replacing it with this section:

"Despite section 8, in the case of an area that is not a mountain resort improvement district, the minister may recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council…of a new mountain resort municipality for the area, whether or not there are residents in the area at the time of the recommendation, if the minister is satisfied that a person has entered into an agreement with the government with respect to developing…" etc.

Okay? So the government can incorporate it.

Then it goes on to say: "On the recommendation of the minister under subsection (2.1), and whether or not there are residents in the area at the time of incorporation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by letters patent, incorporate a new mountain resort municipality for the area, consisting of the members of the municipal council and the residents of the area, if any."

You don't have to have actual people. We may be extending democracy to the grizzly and the squirrel with this legislation.

But that's not actually fair. What it actually says in a further amendment is that you can "appoint or provide
[ Page 11516 ]
for the appointment of a mayor from among the appointed members of the municipal council…of the municipality."

So you get to create a municipality even if it doesn't have residents, and you get to appoint the people…. Not for a moment would I suggest that it would be the friends or insiders of the government in power on any given day in this province. I would never suggest that. You get to appoint them, and then presumably, if it's part of a regional district, those folks, representatives from that municipality, get to go and sit on a body otherwise composed of elected people who actually went out and sought the voters' support and have the right to vote.

Then the more intriguing one is…. It's not like this is a little temporary measure. It's not like this is just something to fill in for a couple of months. Sub (3.1) is added, and this, for those who are paying attention, is section 14(f): "despite section 36, provide that the minister may set the general voting day for the first election of…the municipal council for any date the minister considers appropriate, including a date that is 3 or more years after the incorporation of the mountain resort municipality."

[1620]

You get to create the community, you get to create its council, and then they don't have to face a general voting day, including a date that is three or more years after the incorporation of the mountain resort municipality.

Now, I know it's kind of an annoying thing for some folks that they actually, in municipal government, have to go and face the voters every three years. I understand it can be an annoying process, this democracy thing — kind of a difficult imposition. It interferes with the orderly acting of government, I suppose. But at least out there in the real world, not the unreal world created by this legislation, the voters, every three years, get to decide who gets to represent them.

This legislation says that in this unique circumstance we, the B.C. Liberals, get to create a municipality; we get to pick its council and its mayor; and then, regardless of whether or not a squirrel moves into the neighbourhood or a grizzly bear or perhaps 500 live, eligible voting British Columbians, they don't get to have any choice for a period exceeding even three years about who is going to be their governing structure. I mean, it's quite remarkable.

It's one thing to bend over backwards to assist their corporate friends. We in the opposition have become used to that — a proposition whereby you set up a request for proposal when you're selling off a government asset that's going to be narrowed down so much that clearly the people who are helped by your friends and insiders are the most likely ones to win the bid. We sort of understand that. But so blatant that you're going to postpone democratic rights for any date the minister considers appropriate, including a date that is three or more years after the incorporation of the mountain resort municipality?

That takes a little bit of gall, hon. Speaker. You got to admire that kind of hutzpah. Like our corporate friend, whoever they may be, who gets this resort municipality…. Guess what. This little friendly council that the government gets to appoint can sit there for as long as the minister considers appropriate and way past the three-year deadline that every other locally elected politician in British Columbia has to face, and quite appropriately. That's what democracy is all about.

You can't honestly step back and say that this is good legislation, because clearly, it's designed for one thing. It's to enable a developer to spend as much time as they need or want for their personal benefit to create whatever resort they want to over what period of time they wish, notwithstanding that in any other community in the province of British Columbia the elected representatives would have to face the people. It's a very remarkable thing.

I'll leave it up to wiser folks than myself to comment further on this, but my simple reading of this is that it's pretty antidemocratic. The government may say that perhaps it's a practical way to deal with the creation of a resort municipality. But there's always a justification for something that's wrong. There's always a justification. There's always an excuse brought forward. Perhaps I should say excuse, not justification. It's an alleged justification. I would call it an excuse. It's a pretty poor excuse for breaching democratic rights just because you've got a resort municipality.

Hon. Speaker, the opposition, I think you've detected, is not entirely impressed with Bill 41. There are a lot of other things in here that won't be the subject of much debate, I'm sure. I'm happy to see sections relating to party wall agreements. It's a good thing. It will assist people.

[1625]

As we all cleave close to one another in our suburban homes or places from time to time, it's good to have party wall agreements and effective legislation for the implementation of those agreements.

But on the big issues that are buried in this bill: on the removal of rights for people to elect a municipal council every three years — non-starter; and on the imposition of a new election gag law — absolutely non-starter. This is the kind of thing that should be left on the order paper, not finished in this session.

This is the kind of proposal that should be passed to the courts now. Let the courts look at it. Then if the government wishes to come back, if they get a favourable ruling, take a step. Otherwise, it doesn't work, doesn't make sense, isn't the appropriate thing to do, doesn't have public support, doesn't meet the commonsense test, isn't the right thing to do. It goes against our belief in free speech, goes against the beliefs of British Columbians.

After listening to the opposition and paying attention to editorial writers, including the Vancouver Sun, I would hope that the government might reconsider its position.
[ Page 11517 ]
When they tried this once before, they at least had the common sense to reduce the period from 120 to 60 days. It didn't work last time. Reducing it from 60 to 40 isn't going to work this time. So maybe, just maybe, they should take advantage of the opportunity that's afforded them.

Let this die on the order paper. Leave it there. Go to the courts now. Don't waste the time of this Legislature, which has so many things to debate. Just exercise some common sense.

I ask the government to do that. It's not an unreasonable request. It's the kind of commonsense approach that I think would appeal to British Columbians, because no one wants to see restrictions on free speech. Why the government would want to do it is beyond me.

I look forward to hearing from the members on the government side who may have some explanation, some excuse, some rationale for this. I suspect that we're not going to hear a lot. The B.C. Liberals a little while ago, including the man that the present Premier refers to as her predecessor, spoke out strongly against this type of legislation.

So I look forward to being told what has changed. If it was bad before, what makes it good today? I look forward to that. I suspect we might hear a few, but I don't think we're actually going to hear one that is a true justification for Bill 41.

B. Routley: You know, it is jiggery-pokery time. When you look at this bill…. It's one of these grab-bags. The government has been sitting around backrooms thinking: "Well, what can we tinker with now?" They've gone to work throwing everything but the kitchen sink into this one, it seems like. There's some good stuff in here that, actually, we can support.

But the kind of things that the member for Nanaimo has already been talking about — the issues of the gag law and so many others, some of the forest issues that I'm familiar with that I can't wait to talk about — are just absolutely stunning, amazing. It is jiggery-pokery of the worst kind to have legislation that comes in with some notionally good legislation and then throw in a whole bunch of stuff that just should be torpedoed and sunk to the bottom immediately.

[1630]

I want to go through this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. I note that we're already on No. 2 — Bill 41.

The Engineers and Geoscientists Act is one example of a part of this that makes some sense. This is an example of where some work was actually done in consulting and sitting down with the engineers and geoscientists to talk about collaboration on what improvements could be made. There's a variety of changes in here that I'm sure will be beneficial.

But you don't have to go very far…. You turn to the Local Government Act. Now, here's one. I know when I came in as a new MLA, I found it strange that we talked for half an hour and then asked questions later. In the next section we get to ask questions about what they might mean in the legislation.

The Local Government Act seems to have an indication that they can amend the Local Government Act to allow for authority to incorporate a mountain resort where there are not any residents in the area at the time of incorporation. So we're going to make communities out of nothing. You do have to wonder: is this a sneaky way of trying to amend the legislation to bring in the Jumbo Glacier development? Is that what this is all about?

If that's what it is, why don't they just say so? Why don't they put something in the language that illustrates what it is that they're up to? But, no, it's hidden. It's left for us to do the questioning at some point and get to the bottom of what they're really up to.

The Public Sector Pension Plans Act. I'm not going to go through each and every section, but I do want to breeze through and talk about some of the sections that are relevant and important, certainly to the folks in the Cowichan Valley. The Public Sector Pension Plans Act, unfortunately, isn't going to do the kind of work that would be important for people like the employees of Catalyst.

You know, I had a group of employees come, and actually a lot of them were management. There's a management plan, and there's a separate plan for the employees. The management group that had already left the industry feel somehow left in the lurch by the current legislation and, of course, at what could happen if there was a bankruptcy in the case of Catalyst.

This legislation, as I understand it, in reading for the brief time that we've been given…. We've only been given since yesterday. This document comes through the system, and here we are with very little time to go through a matter that has a whole host of provisions and a variety of different pieces of legislation that we're tinkering with.

Under the pension plans act there are ideas and suggestions from those who would see improvements. There don't seem to be any public comments found regarding this section. Again, what remains to be seen is the purpose of these amendments and whether or not they'll be beneficial for the public at large. We will find out in due course.

Under part 5, here are the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations amendments. There are two proposed amendments under the Forest Act. The government suggests that the first enables flexibility in the minister's authority to delegate an authority under the act to officials in the ministry. You know, that's fascinating to me, because I remember in this House, when I first read the legislation, how we had district managers, we had the chief forester, and we had all kinds of officials who were designated by the previous legislation.

All of that was eliminated. And what was put in its
[ Page 11518 ]
place was the minister — "the minister shall" this; "the minister shall" that. I remember saying at the time that the minister had better put on his roller-skates to be able to keep up with all of the things that he's going to have to do, based on the language.

It's always been clear and understood that these things can allow the minister to designate, and really that's kind of the lawyer's way. You know, you put the minister there, and he can designate who…. So I do find it interesting that now we've got to have clarifying language on how to delegate this authority, and I look forward to more understanding on what that is all about.

[1635]

The amendment was previously approved but contained a minor typographical error, apparently, that has to be corrected. That's one good-housekeeping kind of measure that may make sense at the end of the day.

The second reinstates the requirement for a deposit to be made at the time of application for a forest tenure, to prevent speculative bidding. Again, this is an interesting matter. I look forward to a discussion on what this means. But I'm surprised that we didn't have the foresight in the first place to require some kind of deposit if you're actually bidding on the right to forest tenure in the province of British Columbia. The idea that people could speculate at this juncture and without this amendment is indeed very puzzling.

Section 66 "replaces references to officials with a reference to the minister." Section 67 "clarifies that regulations may be made under this section respecting deposits payable by applicants for agreements." Section 151(11) of the act "is amended by striking out 'to be provided by the holder of' and substituting 'to be provided by the applicant…or the holder of.'" Again, some of these look like general housekeeping items.

Then there comes the section regarding the Wildfire Act. It says in the government's press release that "the proposed changes are going to protect government employees and officials from civil litigation, who act in good faith when exercising their powers."

Now, this one I want to camp on for a minute, to just reflect on what's actually happened in the province of British Columbia. We all recall the horrific fire in Kelowna back in 2003. As a result of those devastating wildfires, there was a report that was called for, and the Filmon report came out. The Filmon team made a total of 40 recommendations.

Some of those recommendations included the need to add value to small-diameter trees that contribute the most to the hazardous-fuel problems facing communities. There's one of the recommendations. We're talking of casting our minds back to 2003, and you would think: "My, my, there must be amazing progress made since then."

The answer to the question is that the government has not initiated any specific program at this point. That's what our researchers have ferreted out. At this juncture there are no specific programs that would increase the value of this material and, therefore, lower the cost of fuel treatment in the province of British Columbia — another dramatic failure. We've got legislation that does a partial job but doesn't complete in any way, shape or form the kind of work that's necessary in the province of British Columbia.

Here's one that's even more startling. It's absolutely stunning to think that this is what our researchers have come up with. The Association of B.C. Forest Professionals' status report on community wildfire protection plans, prescriptions and fuel treatment suggests that from 2009 to 2010 the area treated had increased by 21 percent, but from 2010 to 2011 the area treated increased by only 4 percent.

At this rate you would ask yourself — the public of British Columbia would have a right to ask you — how long it would take to make a first pass through all of these areas that are considered at risk. Now, this is frightening. At this rate it will take 640 years to make a first pass to deal with the fire problems threatening communities all over British Columbia — if you can imagine that.

We've got communities all over British Columbia left at risk by a government that has focused on all kinds of corporate tax cuts for their big corporate pals. They have no problem giving the HST, and they seem to be: "Oh, it was so difficult."

[1640]

We had this legislation in for the PST since 1948. And now: "Oh well, it's so difficult to fix that up." But when it comes to wildfire and this legislation, they don't even have a half-baked plan to fix some of the crisis that's going on in the forests of British Columbia.

You go on and look at…. The Filmon report also said that the Ministry of Forests should have reduction treatments by tenure holders and marginal and uneconomic tree stands within the wildland urban interface.

Again, the question the people of British Columbia would want answered is: what's the status since this report in 2003? Well, the province hasn't made any reductions to the AAC in terms of these requirements dealing with fire hazard. In fact, in one case the district manager stated that any resolution to the interface hazard must not negatively impact the AAC in the province of British Columbia.

So there's the bottom line. You get down to it, have no interest in affecting the folks in the forest industry…. But at the end of the day, this is putting communities at risk.

Again, in a recent Association of B.C. Forest Professionals status report dated February 5, 2012, they were looking at the status of community wildfire protection plans. They say that 44,321 hectares have been treated out of 1.7 million.

The province is likely to go with the lesser statistic of 685,000 hectares of high-hazard area, as it makes it look
[ Page 11519 ]
like they've treated a larger area. But you look at the original money that they've put into it, and it's a fraction of the work that needs to be done in the province of British Columbia to help communities that are at risk.

So we have this Wildfire Act that has some statutory immunity for employees. Let's not lose sight of what this amendment is all about. It seems to be focused on protecting people. Now, it may or may not have anything to do with the fact that we have such a tragic state of affairs in the province of British Columbia that the work that the Filmon report identified needed to be done has been abandoned as a priority for the province. What we've got instead is an act that's going to protect those who act in good faith.

It says that "no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against a protected person because of anything done or omitted." Now, isn't that against the backdrop of what I just said about the lack of action on what was reported to be the needs in British Columbia to protect our communities?

We know that wildfires have taken homes in British Columbia. We know that it's important to act, to deal with these matters. But, no, no, this government is happier giving tax breaks to their big corporate friends instead of dealing with the matters that have potentially catastrophic consequences to people here in British Columbia.

Then I want to get to my favourite one, the real jiggery-pokery one. This is just amazing. You know, if you've ever heard bafflegab from government, this is it. It's bafflegab. It's jiggery-pokery. It's unbelievable. That somebody could actually sit in a back room and craft such words is just absolutely amazing. You actually have to give them some kind of a gold star for effort for coming up with the best jiggery-pokery language that I've seen in a while. Stick with me. This is a real good one. It's juicy.

[1645]

You know, when I read this I said: "Oh, goody." I said: "Oh, goody. I can hardly wait." Finally, a reason to talk once again about the jiggery-pokery that sometimes goes on in this place from time to time. Some of them seem to enjoy it too. They have fun with the jiggery-pokery.

The Forest Act section 73 validates things done under section 151(11) of the Forest Act. So here we have this amendment, and this is just wild. This is called a "Validation Provision" — okay? So this "validates things done under section 151 (11) of the Forest Act since December 9, 2008."

Wow, wouldn't that be nice — if we could just wipe out any mistakes we ever made since 2008? Heaven knows, they must have somewhere in the closet some understanding of the kind of mistakes that they've made.

Now we have an act that's going to correct all that, and I look forward to the details on how that's going to work. But this carries on. It says: "All things done during the validation period that would have been validly done had section 151 (11) of the Forest Act, as amended by this Bill, been in force on the day they were done are conclusively deemed to have been validly done."

Isn't that wonderful? I think we almost need to read it again, because it's just so amazing what's going on here. "This section is retroactive to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions and must not be construed as lacking retroactive effect in relation to any matter because it makes no specific reference to that matter." My, my. There's jiggery-pokery if I've ever seen it.

I've just got to read this. This is so much fun. I have to read it one more time just to really let it sink in. Again, we've just had this since yesterday. I mean, this is just amazing. "All things done during the validation period that would have been validly done had section 151 (11) of the Forest Act, as amended by this Bill, been in force on the day they were done are conclusively deemed to have been validly done."

Boy, can you just see the lawyers working on this? For the public at home, can you imagine? You think about it. There are these lawyers squirreled away, working hard and saying: "How can we come up with some kind of jiggery-pokery language so that we can whistle this one by the good people of B.C.? Maybe they won't notice. We'll pile a whole bunch of other junk in the bill" — some of it not so bad — "and it will all be good."

Somehow the good people of British Columbia can be dazzled, absolutely bedazzled, with this wonderful notion that we're going to be able to retroactively be forgiven. So you know, because it doesn't tell us any information, one can only imagine. You can only imagine. Half the mountain comes down into the valley, and — oh, whoops — we're all forgiven. We might have made a little mistake there. We might have forgotten to put a culvert in or, oh, maybe a bridge or two, but….

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I remind you, please, to direct your remarks to the Chair and not to the gallery.

B. Routley: To the Chair — absolutely — and I'm delighted. Such a fine Chair you are too, I might add. We are delighted to have such fine Chairs.

I used to refer to them as brother and sister Chairs, and now I can't do that anymore. I've been reminded that I can't go there, so I'll be careful not to talk about brother and sister Chairs, although wouldn't it be nice? It would be more healthy. We could feel more, you know, brotherly and sisterly. In any case, wouldn't that be grand, eh? After all, we do fight like brother and sister from time to time, and it's all good fun.

At the end of the day, though, when you look at these changes, and you turn the page from this jiggery-pokery section, and then what do we have? We've got the Election Act. And we've already had, in the province of British Columbia, the government and even the NDP….

[1650]

You know, we can acknowledge that there may have
[ Page 11520 ]
been some flags that we ran up the pole that didn't work so good either. We got shot through the surrender flag. Here we are, though, with this government. This government got rejected on their last gag law.

It's true that this government has hockey socks full of money from their big corporate pals to spend on negative advertisement to try to poke the people of British Columbia with the bad news, their sad stories. They've got all kinds of sad stories that they want to tell, and they have hockey socks full of money.

Then, it's not good enough that…. You know, if you had two pails of cash and you were walking down the street, the Liberals would be weighed down with theirs, and the NDP would have their bag full of money — wouldn't be anywhere close to an equal fight. Thank goodness the people of British Columbia, though…. It's not about money; it's about democracy. It's about freedom of speech. It's about the right of people to communicate ideas with one another.

This government now comes in with a gag law, once again, to try and stifle free speech. One of the basic concepts of liberty in a positive and free society is to have the right to free speech, the right to have assembly, to education, to free movement, to the press. One of the basic freedoms of speech is at the heart of democracy and the ability to express one's belief. They're essential to the human rights of our character.

It is found not only in the media but also throughout culture, through intellectual inquiry. Freedom of speech is not only communicated through radio and television, but it's also presented in novels and poems and films and through drama. In practice, the right to free speech can be subject to limitations. The Election Act is one of those attempts to try to limit freedom of speech in some way.

"Censorship can be described metaphorically as the removal of an individual's or group's voice. The discussion of the existence of free speech in contemporary life is certainly debatable. While some say that free speech is still equally practised and represented in the media, others argue that it is through government regulation and censorship that freedom of expression is no longer free in the media. Some people argue that."

When we come to consider whether free speech should be restricted, we should take into account four factors. Number 1 is the content of the expression. I'm glad that one can stand in the Legislature and be innovative in talking about jiggery-pokery and from time to time be forgiven for colouring outside the lines. But we should have the right to that freedom of expression. I'm delighted that I live in a country and in a province where we can express those freedoms.

The second point is the manner of the expression. One of the factors that was looked at is the manner. The intentions of the speaker. What's the intention? Is it just to communicate some idea or intellectual thought? The circumstances. The defenders of free speech recognize that we should have some limits to freedoms required. For example, we can't have total freedom of speech, which would allow people to slander one another in any way that would lead to someone being falsely accused or treated with misleading advertising — those kinds of things.

The media holds more responsibility than others in telling us the news. To some extent, it is the media through their communications that help to shape our lives and certainly shape ideas.

[1655]

This Election Act, in sections 80 and 87, they say, is an attempt to address the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the earlier trial court's decision permitting third parties to spend unlimited sums of money on elections outside of the designated 28-day campaign period.

The amendment would shorten the pre-campaign period from 60 days to a maximum of 40 days, during which spending limits would apply. They would also ensure that the spending limits do not apply when the House is in session or for at least three weeks after it adjourns.

In any case, this is a gag law. You've seen the article by the editor in the Vancouver Sun, and there are others — the Globe and Mail — who have come down on this and talk about the limits to the freedom of speech and the very notion that somehow it's responsible or even permitted.

Limits on speech were incorporated into the Criminal Code in relation to treason, for example, or defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, any kind of hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, indecency and other forms of defamatory statements. Libel was another one.

So there are reasons to limit them under the laws in Canada and, certainly, in British Columbia, but what's going on here with the idea that there should be some censorship on groups or organizations or people is clearly against the free and democratic principles by which we live in Canada. I think that would be truly outrageous — to permit a government to move in this direction.

I know that it's been tried before. I think that it's the wrong way for the province of British Columbia to be going. I think we ought to be above that.

As I've mentioned, the government of the day has plenty of money to spend, and they don't mind spending it, but to try to come up with a law to try to twist the public's arms, or a group's arm, behind their back, to deny them the freedom of speech at election time, is totally inappropriate and must be resisted in the strongest possible way. It's absolutely unacceptable.

The final point that I would want to make is that it's interesting…. Under the consequential amendments they talk about the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Unfortunately, we've seen anything but the accountability. Here we are this far through the legislative session, and we have still yet to see government act on the com-
[ Page 11521 ]
mitment that they made to the voters of British Columbia when they voted out the HST and wanted to see the PST brought back.

The government committed to acting on behalf of the democratic principles of the people of B.C. They need to get on with that job, and I would urge them to do it immediately.

With that, I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to speak on this important matter.

C. Trevena: I take my place in debate on Bill 41. I look across at the government's side and am once again very saddened that we have the words "second reading debate" but once again we're not hearing from the government, apart from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, who introduced the second reading of the bill.

Sadly, despite boisterous comments from some members of the government side and engagement, clearly, in what this side of the House is saying, we're not actually hearing what the government members' views are on what is a significant bill.

[1700]

It's a miscellaneous bill, as previous speakers on this side of the House have alluded to. It covers a broad range of subjects and has impacts on a broad range of areas — whether it is on, as one of my colleagues said, undermining the democratic system with setting up a new form under the new resorts municipality act, how that's going to undermine the democratic process, whether it's going to impact budgets or it's going to impact forestry.

We've been talking about a huge area where this bill is going to have some impact, and it's very unfortunate that the government side, whether it's ministers or backbenchers, don't feel that it's important to address these concerns which are going to have an effect on their own constituents and on the people of B.C., whom we are all here to represent.

I'm going to be looking at one area of the bill, but just before I get into specific remarks about that area of the bill, I'd also like to note that this is one of eight bills that have been introduced this week.

Here we are. We have 12 days left of this session, 12 sitting days in this House, and this is one of eight bills which were introduced just this week. In all, so far, the government has introduced 28 bills, pieces of legislation, in this session, 20 of them up until this week and now eight when we just have 12 days left. So almost a third of the legislation this government has brought in has just been brought in now.

The reason I raise this is that it doesn't allow time…. Bill 41 — there is not the time to have a full debate on the many, many areas that are in this bill. We're talking about changes to the Labour Mobility Act; to the Election Act; to Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations, the Forest Act. We have the issue about the party wall agreement. It's broad, and that's just this bill alone. There a number of other bills.

I have to say that I think it's hugely unfortunate that we are left with so little time and quite a lot of legislation. We need to have a full debate and a full understanding of what these bills are. Our critic for the Attorney General, my colleague from Nanaimo, gave a very thoughtful response in debate. This is where we are able to have discussion. If anybody from the government side ever bothered to stand up, we could maybe have a thoughtful discussion about this. Unfortunately, we can't do that.

This is our opportunity to discuss this, debate it, debate many pieces of legislation, but with very little time. The reason this is particularly relevant in this act, the reason this is particularly important, is that I feel that we've got Groundhog Day.

On May 27, 2008, I was in this Legislature, standing up as the member for North Island, discussing Bill 42. Now, Bill 42 brought in what came known as the gag act, the election gag act. It was overturned by the courts of British Columbia. Yet here we are in Bill 41, a one-number difference, a few weeks earlier. I mean, now we're on May 5 rather than the at end of May.

Bill 41 has the amendment to the Election Act. The amendment to the Election Act brings in restrictions on third-party advertising. Bill 42 brought in restrictions on third-party advertising. In fact, it was amending them.

We initially had the concept then of 120 days of a ban on pre-election advertising. That was brought down. We were discussing…. I read through my notes. I don't want to read them in…. I don't want to print them out and reread them. I could have done that. Then we were talking about amending that to 60 days. But 60 days was too much, so the courts threw out 60 days. Now we've got 40 days. Maybe the courts will throw out 40 days.

What are they going to come back with next time — 20 days, ten days? I feel like we're in some sort of weird, weird antidemocratic auction. It is really absolutely inappropriate that we are talking once again about the possibility of restricting freedom of speech, restricting the ability to advertise in this pre-election period, when this was already thrown out by the courts four years ago.

[1705]

I have to say that bill also…. The reason it's relevant to talk about the number of bills we have in front of us is that for Bill 42 — where we had the original gag order — like Bill 41, we didn't actually end up being able to vote on it. It was closure. This government decided, as it has done many, many times in its complete contempt of democracy, to close it. So I'm hoping that we actually do get to be able to vote on this bill, because it is important.

This government has faced a challenge when it brought in, in previous times, an attempt to restrict third-party advertising. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice, on the bill…. What I have been discussing…. If the Attorney General could really pay attention to the debate, she'd notice that I've been talking about the bill.
[ Page 11522 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Please confine your remarks to the bill. It's Bill 41.

C. Trevena: I will continue to confine my remarks to the bill and put it in the context of legislation in B.C.

In this bill we have the government now deciding that since it was not allowed to have 60 days to have a ban on third-party advertising, it's now going to bring in 40 days. So 40 days of a ban on pre-election advertising.

Now, I'm not going to go into the philosophy of whether election advertising is or isn't a good thing. This is something that is a debate within political parties and within the greater conversation that needs to be had, I think, because we can see how it evolves into the American system, where it has become just offensive. It has become truly offensive.

But we can have that debate without having this restriction on the freedom of speech as brought in by Bill 41 and as was attempted by Bill 42 four years ago. Four years on, we have a different Premier. Four years ago, as my colleague the member for Nanaimo mentioned, we had Gordon Campbell as the Premier. That was brought in.

Now we have a new Premier who says this week, on the court challenge on the previous one: "The court said it didn't like the law by my predecessor" — Gordon Campbell — "so what we've done is brought in a revised law which responds to the court's concerns." So the Premier has now cut down the number of days where you're not allowed to advertise before an election, to bring it down to 40 days.

I have a number of real, serious concerns with this. One is the very fact they are doing this. But going back to the way it's brought in, one is that it was brought in as a miscellaneous act, a bill where there are amendments to many bills, without saying: "We're going to address the Elections Act. We have concerns about the way elections are funded. We have concerns about the way political parties are funded. We have concerns about this."

No, what we get is, on page 35 of Bill 41, the amendment to the Election Act — part of a bill that has amendments to a range of acts. It's not even a stand-alone. "This is something that we're proud of. This is something we can stand up and defend." It's just: "Let's tuck it in there."

I think it really doesn't serve us well that we are dealing with serious legislation in this way. As I mentioned, this was just brought in a couple of days ago when we have a number of bills to debate. I think that the government has really shown once again its contempt for this House and its contempt for the democratic process.

What we're talking about in this specific amendment to the Election Act in Bill 41 — similar to the one that was brought in four years ago — is what effectively is a restriction on freedom of speech, restriction through prohibiting advertising by third parties 40 days before an election.

Now, we've seen third-party advertising. We've seen some very nasty third-party advertising in recent weeks and months from, I would posit, supporters of the B.C. Liberal government who have had very nasty attacks on our leader, the official opposition leader. They've been very, very brutal.

[1710]

Those were brought in by third-party advertisers. It's not good. That isn't good. It's not healthy for the democratic process.

I would stand and defend the right of somebody to say something, up to a point — until you get to the level, as my colleague from the Cowichan Valley said, when you start talking about libel and hate speech. We've got laws to protect that. But on this we are talking about third-party advertisers, to talk about their issues.

Last time — and, I'm sure, this time — one of the concerns is that the teachers were wanting to advertise. This would stop teachers advertising. It would stop unions advertising. It would stop environmentalists standing up and saying: "We're concerned about climate change" or "We're concerned about independent power projects" or "We think that a green energy system is fantastic."

I mean, it does cut across party lines, both party lines. It cuts across the supporters of the government, and it cuts across supporters of opposition. Basically, what it does is disallows third parties, individuals who are not tied to either political party, from getting their message, their concerns, across to the people of B.C.

Now, we know that paid advertising is not the only way that people get their message across — particularly now when we all talk about social media. There are lots of different ways that people will be getting their message out. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of people, a lot of organizations, who aren't going to be using the traditional media and paid advertising.

But it is traditional. It is a way that many will still be getting the message out. I mean, we know that the government is going to be getting its message out — not through the B.C. Liberal Party's advertising, although they will be doing that when it comes close to the election, but through government advertising. I mean, we have seen this many, many times.

You come up close to the election and the ramping up about what good projects are happening across B.C., and we have all of these pictures of the wonderful province we live in — which we all love and are all working to defend — but with the government logo. So it comes off, essentially, as promoting B.C. Reading between the lines, it's quite partisan, but that will occur.

What won't occur under this is the right of…. I will use the teachers as an example because teachers have done so in the past, but so have nurses. The right of nurses, the right of LPNs, the right of social workers, the right of child care workers and the right, as I say, of environmentalists, of miners, to have their message heard, to try to influence debate, as they do, through paid advertising…. This will stop that.
[ Page 11523 ]

As I say, there is a role for a debate on whether or not there should be unpaid advertising totally in the election sphere. I think that it's one of these…. The genie is out of the bag, and it's too hard to put it away. There are other areas.

I grew up in England, and we didn't see the third-party advertising. There were very strict restrictions on advertising in election laws there at the time I was growing up. I've got to say that I don't know how lax they have become. But it is part of the process, part of our democratic process, and it is part of the free speech given to organizations.

I think it is of huge concern that the government — having been overruled once by the courts, four years ago, after Bill 42, which is to say why it's like Groundhog Day — has the audacity to say: "Oh well, okay, so that was then. This is now. That was that Premier. I'm a new Premier. I'm going to try again."

I mean, it really is shocking to throw it in right towards the end of the legislative session, in a miscellaneous bill, in a week where we've had eight bills. Again, I'd say it really shows a contempt of this House and a contempt towards the people of B.C.

[1715]

If the government really cared about democratic process and cared about freedom of speech and ensuring that we've got a really adequate debate, without third-party influence, as is posited in this amendment that is hidden in Bill 41 — if the government really cared about that — they would do something about election financing. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has twice now, I believe, tabled bills on amending election financing, and I think that would be such a healthy approach to reinvigorating and re-engaging people in the electoral process.

We keep talking about how people are not engaged in the electoral process, how people are disengaged, how we're not getting young people involved. "How come we get so few people turning out to the polls? What can we do to get people to engage?"

I would say that instead of saying, "You can't advertise; you can't do this" — as in Bill 41, as we've had in the past, as will likely be challenged — if the government had the courage to say, "We're going to look at the way that political parties are financed, all political parties…."

If they had the courage to say, "You know, there's a bill on the order paper. We're going to have a look at that. We have heard concerns. We don't like what we're hearing. We're going to look at this. Let's prohibit union donations, and let's prohibit corporate donations for all political parties," then we on this side of the House would be standing up with that side of the House applauding them and saying: "Good on you. This is the way forward."

This is how to engage people in democracy. This is how to show respect for the institution of democracy. It's not to put forward another bill which says you can't advertise.

I think that really it's incredibly troubling that we've seen this ignored time and time again. We've seen, once again, the government coming in and saying: "You can," and "You can't." We have very strong laws when it comes to hate speech, when it comes to other areas where we know that people really shouldn't be talking, shouldn't be promoting activities, ideas, that are going to cause detriment to any one individual or any group of individuals.

But we're talking, as I say, about the political process, about the voice in the political process, about how to get your voice heard. For many organizations, many groups, the only way in the election period to get their voice heard is by advertising. This is going to silence many groups that feel that they want to participate in the debate in the election period.

I always come back to the fact that we're extraordinarily lucky to live in Canada, to live in B.C., to be part of the parliamentary process and have a Westminster-style parliamentary system here. Too often I think we forget how lucky we are to have the democracy in which we live and how fragile that democracy is.

We see people working in places where there have been first elections. I've mentioned this in the past, and I know that other members of this Legislature have also seen first elections and witnessed the sheer pleasure and sheer pride of going to vote, and the honest and real attempt to keep their election free from any form of influence, free from corruption, and that the rules for the election are sacrosanct, but also weighing that up against free speech.

When you're talking about an election, new elections in emerging democracies, when you're talking about new elections in places that have seen conflict, trying to get that balance between freedom of speech and the sanctity and security of elections, it's so hard, Madam Speaker. It's not to be done with a blunt: "Forty days — that's it. Sorry, guys." It has got to be nuanced, and once again, as in 2008, this is not nuanced.

[1720]

This is just saying: "We're not going to allow it." This is just saying: "We know best. We don't like having people who might sway the debate right at the end coming in and advertising." Really, as I said before, I think it shows contempt of our processes and contempt of the system in which we're working. We should be cherishing it, working it and nurturing it, not just using a blunt instrument.

There are many other areas within this bill that are going to be debated and discussed in the limited time we have left. I know that many of my colleagues want to talk about different areas. I did want to voice my concern that four years after having stood in this House to oppose a ban on political advertising, I find myself having to do exactly the same thing.

With that, I take my place in the debate.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I seek leave to table a report.

Leave granted.
[ Page 11524 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm sorry to surprise you, but I'm not going to be in the debate. I have the honour to present the report of the Labour Relations Board, the annual report of 2011.

Debate Continued

K. Corrigan: I'm very pleased to rise and speak on Bill 41, which is Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2) of 2012.

My remarks are going to be a little bit scattered today because, unfortunately, in this very important bill — there are many important sections and pieces to it — I haven't had the time that I would have liked to have had in order to fully consider the sections. So I admit from the outset that my remarks today are not going to be as informed as I would have liked them to be.

I think we all, in this House, feel a real responsibility that when we consider legislation, when we speak about legislation, we have a very important trust that we are keeping, both with our constituents and with the people of British Columbia. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us, when we stand up to speak, to speak well, to be informed and to contribute to the debate.

So I do want to speak, but I am not going to be able to speak on as many sections of the bill as I would have liked to. Frankly, when the bill is 42 pages long and consists of close to a hundred sections, many of which are quite lengthy and have very significant implications in reach…. I just have not had the time to look as closely at the bill as I would have liked to.

Yet we on this side of the House want to continue debate on this, feel that we need to, so I'm going to stand up now and make a few comments. I'm going to trust that my colleagues — or perhaps the members from the other side of the House, among us all — are going to be able to cover most of the sections of this legislation. But it is difficult under the circumstances.

The one section I'm going to start talking about, first of all, is the section that essentially brings back what has been called the election gag law. It was called that.

[1725]

Bringing this back in a different form, inserted into this miscellaneous act, bringing back a law that was challenged, which was seen as undemocratic and unconstitutional, bringing it back again…. Don't take my words. Take the words of the Vancouver Sun, which said that it was "obstinate, ill-advised, hypocritical, pointless," among other things. Really, it is an attempt, I think, to control free speech outside of an election period.

The original legislation restricted free speech for…. Originally, it was going to be 120 days before an election. Then that so outraged the public in British Columbia that it was changed to 60 days. That was the legislation that was brought in, and it essentially said that you had very severe limits on what you could spend in that pre-election period of 60 days.

Frankly, those that ended up challenging the law, the constitutionality of what was then Bill 42, were some unions that took it on. They felt that it was an undue infringement on free speech. In fact, it turned out that they were right. When that constitutional challenge was successful, Irene Lanzinger, then of the BCTF and now of the B.C. Fed, said: "We feel very strongly that the Liberals were attempting to restrict our right to free speech before the election." That's why they challenged it.

They were successful in that challenge. That challenge was successful in the B.C. Supreme Court. There was an appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal, and the B.C. Court of Appeal determined that in fact this was an infringement of the constitutional right to free speech.

I don't understand, frankly, what it is that's different, and I'm looking forward to committee stage to getting and hearing an explanation from the minister about what it is that is constitutional about this new version of the gag law, which restricts the election spending in the 40 days prior — as opposed to the 60 or the 120 days, which was what the Liberals really wanted to do.

I'm not sure why it is that the government thinks that they're going to be successful this time. Maybe it's just their stubbornness, their unwillingness, even if it's going to cost, again, lots of money in the courts. It's perhaps an unwillingness to lose this particular case, an absolute determination to violate the free speech of the people of British Columbia, to infringe on it.

I'm not sure what the reason is. Part of it's, perhaps, fear that the government is in a free fall in the polls, and they'll do anything in order to try to tip the balance in their favour.

So we'll wait and see what the challenge is. I'm very much looking forward to the minister commenting, first of all, on why it is that they brought this back and, secondly, on why it is that they think they would not be again challenged in court. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they don't care whether or not they are.

But it does take our time and energy away from the positive things we should be doing, like some of the changes that are in the rest of Bill 41. There are positive things, positive changes that I think most of us on this side of the House could have supported. Unfortunately, discussion of the positive things that are in Bill 41 is going to be sidelined, I think, to a certain extent, by the fact that we have this provision in Bill 41 that once again tries to control the free speech of the people of this province.

I guess what we could call this…. We had the election gag law before, and now we have the election gag law–lite — or the election gag law–liter. I think it's very unfortunate that government is trying to do that.

[1730]

We're going to have many people from this side of the
[ Page 11525 ]
House, certainly, talking about these sections of the act. I'm sure that we'll have much discussion over the next several days or however many days we're allowed to talk about this. Those are my comments. I think it's very unfortunate that government has done this.

But I do want to reference a couple of other sections of the act for just a minute. I'm also concerned about section 14 of the act. This is the act which will essentially allow government to…. I think the purpose of it is to designate Jumbo as a resort municipality.

I find it interesting that essentially what can happen as a result of this designation is that the resort municipality can be created, whether or not there are any people there. In order to shape the future of that new resort municipality, the minister, then, will be able — I believe under the existing legislation — to essentially appoint the municipal council for the resort municipality.

Once again, what a coincidence. We have an antidemocratic provision which decides that, really, we don't need to have elected people representing areas of this province. I know that there are real concerns in greater Vancouver right now about the fact that there is another section of our province, out at UBC, that doesn't have democratic representation.

I think we have to really be careful about creating these kinds of situations — where people appointed by this government, whoever they may be, will certainly have a vision and have aims for an area that are obviously consistent with this government as opposed to what future residents may want. We can have a situation where government appoints, essentially, a council. So that certainly concerns me.

In the early sections of the act, the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, I think those changes are positive. The amendments will allow the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia to admit qualified professionals trained outside of B.C. to practise engineering and geosciences in British Columbia.

I think this is certainly a positive move. I know it is something that the APEGBC has been looking for. I do think that this provides a further opportunity to have trained people practising in British Columbia. I am certainly supportive of those particular changes, and I'm happy to see them.

The other section that I wanted to talk about briefly was on the changes regarding the Police Act. Some of these changes, at least, come from the fact that we are soon going to be having the opening of the independent investigations office. I have been watching this development closely. We were certainly supportive of the independent investigations office being established.

The independent investigations office will provide civilian oversight with a civilian director who will investigate cases where there has been death or very serious wrongdoing, allegedly, by a police officer in British Columbia. I know that this had been called for, for a long time. I'm happy to have that.

What the Police Act changes will do is give, essentially, the new civilian director of the B.C. independent investigations office powers that are needed under the act. For example, the chief civilian director, who I met with recently and had a good chat and discussion about the operation of the office and some of the challenges there are going to be in establishing that office….

[1735]

He may appoint as an independent investigations office investigator any person who has investigative experience, so long as they're not "currently a member of a police or law enforcement agency outside of British Columbia," not currently a member of the RCMP and not a member of the police force within British Columbia within the last five years.

So that section, basically, is bringing to life that which was promised. That's a good thing — a change to the Police Act to make it consistent with the establishment of the office.

Section 90 "imposes an obligation on officers to cooperate fully with the chief civilian director and IIO investigators in investigations by the independent investigations office." It's interesting. An interesting part of the establishment of the office is getting it right. I know this as well from speaking to the director. It's going to be very difficult to get that right, and there are going to be challenging circumstances.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

For example, how do you sequester an officer that perhaps has been involved in a shooting by the officer of somebody? How do you preserve the evidence? How do you meet the challenges, for example, of the fact that we have such a large province, so much of which is rural? How do you preserve evidence and have that evidence independently investigated when investigators have to travel hours or even days sometimes in order to get to the scene. It's a real challenge.

This section essentially lays the groundwork to say that the first step is that everybody has to cooperate, is required to cooperate with the investigators that are appointed under this act.

Another part of these changes, is that section 91 "expands the director of police services' standard-making powers to include the power to make standards respecting the following: cooperation between the independent investigations office and other police and law enforcement agencies in relation to investigations by the independent investigations." But it also requires "cooperation and coordination among the provincial police force (RCMP), municipal police departments and designated policing units in relation to investigations that are complex or involve serious crimes."

I believe that this is being well received by the policing community, that it's a good idea. I believe that the
[ Page 11526 ]
president of the B.C. Police Association has indicated that this is a good idea. The one caveat that I'm always concerned about, the thing that I want to make sure, is that while we're looking for cooperation that there is not any hidden requirement that money necessarily go along with that.

I don't see that from what I've read so far, but I do think that we always have to be careful that if we're looking at changing the funding formula at all, in any way, or the responsibilities for policing, that it is done with complete consultation with the municipalities that are affected by it and that we make sure that we're not imposing a change in the funding formula without having full discussion with those that are affected.

I think that the idea of having standards is a good one. I always hope that there is consultation when changes like this are made. It looks, on the face of it, like it is good, but again, unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to make contact with all of those that I would have liked to about this and the other amendments that are contained in this act.

In summary, I'm very disappointed that we have, embedded in this act, a very, very significant and unfortunate return…. Through a change in the Elections Act, we have an attempted return to bringing back a gag law. Gag-lite, we have — or gag-liter. I think that's too bad.

[1740]

It's unfortunate that we have that, because I think there are some good things in this act that I would certainly like to support. I think it, unfortunately, taints the whole of the act, in a way, by the fact that we have something that's going to create a lot of controversy.

It will divert from some of the good things that are in this act, and the good things, I think, are the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, among others. Some of the changes to the Police Act seem to be positive.

I'm looking forward, absolutely, to a chance for all of us to have much more input, not only my colleagues who will be speaking after I do, but also the chance that we will have when we go to committee stage, because there is so much that we need to be able to ask questions about.

I'm absolutely clear that it is very important that we get that chance to have a full discussion in the committee stage, because I think that there are so many questions that I and so many of my colleagues will want to ask at the committee stage, since we haven't had a lot of time to prepare for this stage of the bill.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am going to close my remarks and take my seat, and I'll look forward to hearing what some of my colleagues might have to say.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012. It's a piece of legislation that, by its nature as a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, addresses a whole variety of different pieces of legislation. It's quite engaged and involved in that sense, when you look at the bill and you look at everything that's involved.

It deals with the Engineers and Geoscientists Act. Part 1 is "Advanced Education Amendments," which deals, again, with the Engineers and Geoscientists Act. Part 2, the "Community, Sport and Cultural Development Amendments," deals with, among other things, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Local Government Act, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, the Public Sector Pension Plans Act, the Forest Act, the Land Title Act, the Wildfire Act, the Forest Act, the Property Law Act, the Health Professions Act, the Labour Mobility Act, the Election Act, the Family Law Act, the Police Act — and then some other consequential amendments that we'll deal with.

This is a pretty significant piece of legislation. It deals with a variety of changes in all of these existing pieces of legislation. Some of those changes are more substantial than others. There's no doubt about that. But the reality is that it deals with a whole variety of those things.

Unfortunately, as we've seen on a number of occasions now, the government seemed to have a significant problem with the ability to manage legislation in an appropriate way, to move legislation into the House in an appropriate way. I seem to recall that when this session started back a number of weeks ago, we didn't see a lot of legislation in those first few weeks, even though this was the continuation of the existing session that had started back last year in October or so.

We didn't see a lot of this legislation appear, and then increasingly it's been coming in the last number of days. We have reason to believe there is more to come, and I'm sure that there is. We have a couple weeks left here in the session, and all of a sudden significant pieces of legislation are being brought to the fore. Significant pieces of legislation with very little time for the opposition to be able to look at those things. Bill 41 is one of those pieces of legislation that in fact is part of that problem.

[1745]

We'll see what comes next, but it's a piece of legislation where British Columbians weren't given an opportunity to look at it, where stakeholder groups weren't given adequate time to look at it, where the official opposition wasn't given adequate time to look at it. All of this now leads to trying to ram this piece through. So that's disappointing.

In terms of the legislation itself, I'm going to direct my comments to three particular sections of the legislation. The first that I want to talk about a little bit is the Election Act amendments. Now, what this is…. The changes that are made here, as a government press release said, with the release of this: "These amendments are being introduced to address the B.C. Court of Appeal's ruling that upheld the earlier trial court's decision permitting third parties to spend unlimited sums of money on election
[ Page 11527 ]
advertising outside of the designated 28-day campaign period."

What happened is that the government originally brought in this massive gag order where they essentially wanted to shut people down for five months before an election. They introduced legislation that would put in a 120-day gag order on top of the 28-day election period. So for five months before an election, people, essentially, in British Columbia had no right to comment on anything substantive around public policy as it might have in any way related to an election.

The courts quite rightly saw that for being the outrageous, undemocratic attempt by the government to gag British Columbians, and as such, they shut it down. Well, of course, then the government said: "Well, we couldn't get away with the outrageous, so let's just see if we can get away with something a little bit less outrageous. So we'll try 60 days." Of course, the courts came back and said that 60 days was just as bad as 120 days, and they threw that out as well.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now we're back for round 3 at 40 days, to see what happens at 40 days. Well, the principle doesn't really change much whether it's 40 days or 60 days. The question here about the rights of people to comment before the 28-day election period, outside the 28-day election period, is a real issue.

There is no question that once the writ drops, once we're in the 28-day period, you want to manage the ability to influence the outcome of the election and to ensure that it is as fair as it can be. I don't think anybody would disagree that you put limits around that and around spending ability there. We do that in terms of how we allow our candidates and our political parties to spend during the election period, during that writ period. It makes perfect sense that you would put limits during that 28-day period on the spending of others as well.

But once you get outside that period, there's real question there as to whether that makes sense. Now, the government says that they believe, particularly with fixed election dates, that third parties have the ability to influence elections by spending outside that period, because they know when the election date is, so they have an ability that is different from what occurs if you have an election that's essentially a call at the whim of the Premier. There's some truth to that, no doubt about that.

Then that raises the question about why the government hasn't followed the approach of the federal government and why the government hasn't done the thing that really would have addressed this issue, which is, in fact, to say, "We're going to end donations to political parties from those who want to influence as a first step, including corporations and unions," and put an end to corporate and union donations to political parties. That would be a good first step.

I don't see that in this piece of legislation. Had the government brought that forward as their Election Act change, that would have been a welcome change, but that's not the change that we see. So we need to have a real discussion about this.

The other issue here is the courts have now rejected the premise of this legislation. They rejected it, and the government is trying to say that it's really a debate about how long it is, that 40 might be okay when 60 and 120 weren't. Well, the Premier has talked about referring this matter to the courts to allow them to make a decision about appropriateness, since the court and the Appeal Court had ruled.

[1750]

Well, maybe the wise thing to do would be simply to refer this section to the courts now, before we deal with it in legislation, and let the courts give us some advice about what they believe is appropriate for the democratic process. Let them deal with that.

In fact, if the government wanted to ask, the courts would respond. The courts have already…. I mean, the government, frankly, is ignoring the courts now. They're continuing to ignore the courts. They flout the court all the time. We'll get the list, maybe, for a piece of legislation, and we'll find an opportunity to talk about all the times that the government has got in trouble with the courts.

Some opinion would be good, from somebody who is a lawyer. That would be a good thing. An opinion from an independent lawyer would be good. We could start there. A lawyer would be good. I think that that's part of the problem we have here. We have a situation where the government clearly….

Clearly, the courts — quite rightly — said that this government is abusing the democratic process with its legislation. They abused it at 120 days. Then they abused it at 60 days. Now they want to abuse it at 40. But we'll try again. Maybe the next time it'll be 30. That might be the next piece of legislation. We'll work our way down.

Interjections.

S. Simpson: Give me ten. Give me ten. Do I hear ten? Yeah.

I do have a number of other things, particularly around liquor control and licensing and the Local Government Act, that I want to speak to, but those are separate pieces. I don't want to engage those pieces, so I will reserve my right to continue debate.

S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 11528 ]

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $5,308,638,000 (continued).

R. Austin: I just have a couple more questions, and then we'll finish with BCeSIS.

[1440]

The request for information stresses a system that reflects the goals of the B.C. education plan. Can the minister comment on what difference this would entail over a standard SIS? Can the minister tell us if they anticipate that this requirement will increase the cost of the new system?

Hon. G. Abbott: No.

R. Austin: Prior to the break for lunch the minister talked about the new system, whatever it is, being able to now cope with much more information than the original BCeSIS system. He used the example of TicketMaster — getting tickets. But my understanding of the B.C. education plan is that one of the goals is to increase personalized learning. To go back to the comparison of TicketMaster. TicketMaster has a fairly simple amount of information in terms of: what concert are you going to, what's the date, and can I have your credit card to be able to make the payment depending on which seat you're buying?

Presumably, if the new system is going to be used for the B.C. education plan, and the ministry is moving towards and encouraging more forms of personalized learning, isn't it fair to assume, then, that there's going to be a much broader amount of information gathered in this new system? Therefore, that creates more challenges, because the variety of the information that's being gathered surely changes the requirements of the database. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we're clear, when I used the TicketMaster example, it was to describe the capacity that exists in systems today — computer systems today or on-line systems today — to complete a transaction successfully when there are potentially hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously trying to access that service. It was meant to illustrate the greater capacity that exists today within contemporary computer systems than would have been the case ten years ago.

[1445]

We think the same is true around personalized learning. The example I'll use here is from my long-past days as a Minister of Health and all of the work that was being done back in the day to try to put in place a health information system so that patients could go on line and look at their medical history. And more important, a physician — perhaps it's the family physician or perhaps in less happy circumstances it might be an emergency department physician treating a patient who may or may not be conscious — being able to access their history in terms of perhaps being allergic to penicillin and relevant information like that.

In the world of personalized learning, I think it will be a little bit like that. Little Johnny from Salmon Arm — who shall be our iconic figure through the balance of estimates, I'm sure — will know, through a personalized learning approach to information management: did he struggle with reading in grade 1 or grade 2? Did he evidence some challenges with numeracy, and how did we respond to those challenges in grade 1, grade 2, grade 5, grade 9?

Both for teachers, who would perhaps look at little Johnny as he came into their grade 8 class, or for parents just wanting to know how their child was progressing within the K-to-12 system, that would be the opportunity. Again, it would be our view — and I do think it's a pretty well-founded view — that the capacity of a contemporary — i.e., 2012 — information system to manage those things is hugely greater than the capacity of a comparable system a decade ago and certainly more than two decades ago.

I guess that's the point that we'd make. I think personalized learning will be very much supported — not necessarily enabled, but supported — by the successor system to BCeSIS.

R. Austin: The Gartner report recommended that the ministry replace BCeSIS with a commercial off-the-shelf system. Looking at their request for information, it's kind of vague as to the direction that the ministry is contemplating. Can the minister comment on whether they are acting on that recommendation?
[ Page 11529 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: Through the "request for expressions of interest" process, the ministry is looking for the best possible system that can serve the needs of 600,000 students and 42,000 — or 50,000, if you include principals, vice-principals, superintendents — users of a system. The request for expressions of interest doesn't assume it will be a commercial off-the-shelf product or other. It could be either.

In concert with our partners, the school districts of British Columbia, there will be an extensive, thorough, comprehensive evaluation of all of the options before any decisions are made about what direction to take with respect to the product.

R. Austin: Final question on this. It is generated by an answer that the minister made using the example of eHealth. Do you think that in the future, with a new system, then, that you are going to be giving access to parents to be able to go on line and see how their kid is doing? Because you know, clearly, if this is going to be so advanced — and we live in a very digital age, and most people are connected now — then it wouldn't be just 50,000 accessing this. It would be potentially 300,000 additional parents being able to go on line as well to look at what their kids are doing.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

[1450]

R. Austin: I'd like to move on to an area which we canvassed a little bit during the discussion on Bill 22. It goes to the recent decision by the government to, I guess — for want of a better word — abandon the quota system based on the number of kids with individual education plans in a classroom. We had a bit of a to-and-fro. My understanding, listening to the minister speak, is that it is his contention that the number of kids with an IEP who are in a class really doesn't matter, depending on the nature of those kids.

We also had a bit of a discussion around the whole notion of labelling. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we're clear off the top, it certainly does matter who is in the class — the number and what the severity of conditions may be.

The point that I was making in the Bill 22 debate was that we should not try to drive class composition on a formulaic basis. That is, somehow, if you have three designated students, that immediately creates a problematic situation whereas three or less somehow does not.

The central point is this. We need to look at each of the approximately 600,000 students in British Columbia's education system — about 520-some-thousand in the public system and another 70,000, approximately, in the private system. Each of them needs to be looked at as an individual.

There is in B.C. an outstanding English 12 student. In fact, she is arguably the top English student in the entire province, and she comes to school in a wheelchair. Yet as a teacher, I would be delighted to have that student in my class, and I'm certain that every other teacher in British Columbia would be delighted to have that student in the class. It could only be a pleasure to do so.

That having been said, there may be occasions where we have a student who, for one reason or another, has moderate to severe behavioural issues, and it may be a case where, in that situation, one is sufficient — or too many — in terms of the manageability of the class.

The whole point of this exercise is that rather than going, "We have three IEPs or three students with designations or categories" — rather than doing that — we have the teachers, the principals, vice-principals, superintendents, education assistants looking at each of those students as an individual and then working collaboratively, as some school districts are already doing, to build classes that work for the teachers who are leading them. That's, I think, the core of what we are trying to achieve here.

I have seen this approach in action in some school districts. It works very well. It gets us away from the Bill 33 model, where there is an inordinate focus on September versus year-round.

[1455]

I think class composition is something that we need to be constantly thinking about and looking at versus something that we form some conclusions on once a year and then presume that it's going to be workable for the balance of the year. That's not always going to be the case, and we want it to be a much more living and collaborative mechanism than it is currently.

R. Austin: First of all, with regards to the example of the very academic student who happens to have a physical disability and be in a wheelchair, I don't know who the student is, but I would suggest that somebody of what the minister is describing actually wouldn't be a student with an IEP. If she doesn't have a behavioural issue, a cognitive issue or any learning disability but is in fact a very normative learner, she would not have an IEP. There would be some other things that are brought in place, maybe, in the school system to assist her in terms of mobility, but she certainly wouldn't have to require any individual education plan.

I'm going back to the whole notion of kids who do have cognitive disabilities, behavioural problems or a learning disability, because in that case it does require every teacher who has a child who has been identified to modify their classroom lesson individually for that child.

Let me put the question to the minister this way. If a class, collaboratively, is designed that has five kids, let's just say, with an IEP in it, because it's determined by the principal that it's not an inappropriate class for learning — there's nobody with, say, either a severe learning dis-
[ Page 11530 ]
ability or a student with a behavioural problem — that still requires that teacher, then, for every single class each day, to go and prepare five or potentially six individual modifications for that class. Does the minister not realize or recognize the huge amount of extra effort for that teacher to be able to do that?

There's a reason why we have limited split classes. You recognize that when the teacher is teaching more than two grades in one class, that's very challenging. In that case, there was legislation to make sure that if a teacher was teaching a split class, there would be less kids in the class to enable that teacher to get to all of them and make sure that they were both learning their individual curriculums.

Again, this whole notion of being able to have more kids in a class than three and work in a collaborative process — I understand that. But does the minister not recognize that this can put a huge challenge on the teachers' inability to get to every student — at a time when the minister is talking a great deal about personalized learning and the ability for teachers to treat every child as an individual, which I would hope teachers do anyway as a matter of course — that having a class that could end up, for whatever reason, with five or six kids with an IEP may be extremely challenging for a teacher?

[1500]

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's questions. They're very important questions. I want to explore them at an appropriate depth and look forward to benefiting from the enormous teaching experience that's here with me to provide me with some advice as well. I've had the opportunity to teach for, I guess, about 15 years. Others have far more extensive experience than I in the K-to-12 system, and I can certainly learn from them.

I'll start with the first point which the opposition critic made. That is, the student in the wheelchair definitively will have an IEP. That is clear. Students can have IEPs for a great variety of reasons. Some of them may be related to neurogenetic conditions. It may be related to someone who is blind, to someone who is deaf. There are a great many reasons why a student may have an IEP.

There's some debate, I guess, across the teaching and learning sector about what predictably would be the percentage of students which will have some physical, psychological, emotional or other challenge that they bring to the classroom. Typically, the best guess…. It's going to vary somewhat by circumstance, including socioeconomic circumstance, but probably something in the 15 to 20 percent range is where many people would land in terms of expectation around the magnitude of this challenge. It's significant.

The member is absolutely right when he says classroom composition can be enormously challenging, and it can be enormously challenging particularly for a new teacher — i.e., someone in their first five years of post-BEd service — who is coming into some pretty complex classroom arrangements. That is why, again — and we acknowledge this — I think it is so important that we move away from a formulaic model to what I think has been in place, in some respect, in times past, which are school-based teams that work collaboratively to not only build the classes….

I saw a very good example of this in the Prince George school district when I was up there recently. They have started the process of teachers, educational assistants, principals, vice-principals and superintendents building their classes for September.

It's really, really important, I think, because classrooms can be challenging. Again, we can't make assumptions about who's going to be particularly challenging or not. But to use the member's example, it is possible that five students with five IEPs may result in change, but it may not. I mean, there are very many different reasons why a student may have an IEP. In some cases it may be problematic; in other cases it may not.

That is why we want all of the members of the school-based team, whether it's the superintendent, the principal, the vice-principal, teacher or education assistant, to work together on that so that they are constructed in a way that makes them manageable, that makes them a place where student learning can most effectively be accomplished.

[1505]

R. Austin: One of the things that has occurred over the last ten years, largely as a result of policy, has been a reduction in the specialized teachers who are there to give support to the classroom teacher in relation to kids who have special needs.

In many school districts this has occurred simply because of the financial restrictions. It may be that the school district had a large number of students leave for economic reasons, and therefore their amount of core funding has gone down, so they've had to find ways to balance their budget.

A way to do that — the data, I'm sure the minister would agree, shows this — is that school districts have, as a result, let go of librarian-teachers, counsellors, special ed teachers, and of course have had to maintain classroom teachers because they are the ones every day in a classroom.

Again, with the B.C. education plan and the emphasis being put on personalized learning, and the removal of this limit of the number of kids with IEPs…. If a class now is going to have more than three kids with an IEP, as they sit down to do these collaborative discussions, presumably teachers will say something like, "Well, if we're going to have this class and it's going to have five kids who've got IEPs, if I was able to get some assistance" — i.e., more educational assistants, help in the room — "or if a librarian-teacher was able to take these two students out who show that they're challenged in reading and give
[ Page 11531 ]
them some extra help…." That's what I assume the minister is thinking as being something of an ideal world.

The real world is that with many school districts having lost these specialized teachers, it's going to be very hard to have the supports in place to be able to support these new classrooms.

Could the minister please answer how he expects school districts to overcome that challenge?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to take a little bit of time here, because I suspect the direction of the next few hours will be in this area. It's important to dispel some notions — which are frequently advanced, I know, by the opposition — which regrettably do not conform to reality.

First of all, the member's suggestion that there has been a reduction in the number of special ed teachers, etc., in relation to school population is incorrect.

I've got all the figures in terms of special education teachers in relation to the school populations from 1997 through to 2011. In 1997 the special ed ratio was 154. It had dropped to 144 by 2001 and is now at 163. There has not been a big change with respect to that.

[1510]

Further, it has been offset by quite a dramatic increase in the numbers in education assistants. In 2001, 6,896 FTEs of education assistants, and today it's 9,037.

Again, there has been a big increase in the number of education assistants, notwithstanding a decline in the school population of about 55,000. There has not been a big change in the numbers around special education teachers.

The other thing that should be noted is, first of all, that there has been a big demographic shift in our society in British Columbia over a decade. This is driven not by any exodus of students from the public system to the independent and private schools.

There has been what I would characterize as a modest drift of additional students from the public system to the independent and private system. It has not been a large change. It certainly does not account for the reduction of, I think, approximately 10 percent of students over the decade in terms of the K-to-12 numbers. That has been driven by the demographics of our society.

We have pretty much hit bottom in terms of the student population. It reversed slightly with full-day kindergarten last year, and it continues to be on a bottoming track. It is already coming up in some school districts, but in another year or two we will start to see — again, demographically driven — a growth in the numbers.

If you look across the decade from 2001 to 2012…. Again, I know it is inconsistent with the narrative that the opposition chooses to try to build, but if one looks at the number of students, it declines by 10 percent. If one looks at the funding in the system, it rises, again, by a considerable percentage. I don't have that immediately with me, but I'm sure we can get that. Those two lines cross.

In short, even though the number of students has declined year over year, every year, for ten years, the funding in the system has grown every year for ten years. This is not supposition on my part; this is a fact — that year over year the funding has increased.

The member can argue, as I'm certain that he will, that the funding should have been bigger, or perhaps will argue that it should have been different, which is a rather more difficult argument to sustain. But they can argue that it should have been bigger.

Again, if one looks at the education funding plan for the New Democratic Party in 2009, it actually worked out to be a little bit less than what was spent in the system since 2009. That's an interesting figure as well, and it goes to underline just how challenging the issue of funding is going to be for any government in British Columbia, whether it is B.C. Liberal or NDP or anything else. It's going to be challenging.

Government has put a high priority on education. We have, in many cases…. The member points, and rightly so, to the many districts in the province that have seen year-over-year declines — in some cases, quite substantial — as much as, in some cases, 5 or 10 percent year over year. Some, like Surrey, have continued to grow through the period, but they're rare. More common is the decline year over year.

It should be noted that government has addressed that very considerable dilemma that districts may face through funding protection — year over year, trying to sustain budgets despite declining school population.

So that is to balance out the perspective here in terms of what has occurred over a decade. I hope that helps to clarify it for the member. Again, I know it is inconsistent with the narrative which is advanced by the official opposition, but it is the reality here.

Does the level of funding take away the difficult choices that school districts have to make? No. They have to make difficult decisions. Every time they meet they have to make difficult decisions.

[1515]

Does the Ministry of Education have to make difficult decisions? Yes, we do. Are there challenges in the classroom that are going to be difficult? Yes, there are.

How do we, through this situation, deal most effectively with it? One of the things that is available to all 60 school districts this year, and they have been delighted to receive it, is the first $60 million of the learning improvement fund. That has provided them with some additional dollars through which to add, for example, education assistants to the classroom, if that's what they think the most appropriate thing to do in their situation is. Or they may put it into enhancing training around special needs, for both education assistants and for teachers.

There are a great many things we can do, and I'm sure we'll turn our attention to the learning improvement fund here presently, because it is an important part of
[ Page 11532 ]
our response.

It's not just the $195 million in the learning improvement fund that is important — and the $75 million every year thereafter; that is important as well — it is how we can utilize those dollars, that $195 million, to better utilize the existing $866 million that is in the block for special needs challenges in the classroom.

You know, it's been interesting. The BCTF have quite vigorously attacked the learning improvement fund as inadequate, etc. You know, I always respect what they have to say, but the fact of the matter is the BCTF has also launched over 10,000 grievances in relation to Bill 33 and the model of classroom composition that we have now. So if there was a widespread satisfaction with respect to Bill 33 and that model for composing classrooms, it was hidden very well, or masked very well, by those 10,000-plus grievances, which have now been arbitrated and largely dismissed — but not entirely dismissed, and we will, I'm sure, get into that as well.

Again, this is a complex issue, and I acknowledge that. This is a challenging issue, and I acknowledge that. But to say that this amount of money or that amount of money makes it go away or could have made it go away, I just can't agree with. I hope that helps to balance out the picture here.

R. Austin: Just going to the figures that the minister quoted in regards to the one category, which is special ed teachers. The difference between one special ed teacher for every 141 kids and one teacher for every 163 kids is, when you think of the system, statistically actually very huge. I would hope that the minister would recognize that and also recognize that while that is the statistic — 141 to 163 I think is what I heard — that is a very large difference, statistically, over an entire system.

I think the minister also needs to recognize that while that is the overall statistic systemwide, within each school district there can be huge variations to that. If, as the minister just mentioned, you have specific school districts — principally smaller ones, rural ones — which have lost population to a greater extent than some of the ones down south, those school districts would have inevitably had to, for financial reasons, get rid of a higher percentage of specialized teachers.

All I'm trying to point out is that in those cases — and there are lots of school districts that come into that category — where they go into this collaborative process to create classes which may have four, five or six kids with an individual education plan, it is going to be much more challenging than in a larger school district where they have the supports in place and didn't need to remove as many teachers who are specialized. I'd like to make that point.

Also, in regards to our different respective narratives, while the minister likes to talk about the learning improvement fund…. Obviously, as the opposition critic, I'm delighted anytime the government is coming up with more money to support our kids in the education system. But let's be honest. That came about as a result of a court decision. It isn't like the B.C. Liberals suddenly woke up one day and recognized that all the people who'd been complaining about the lack of support for kids with special needs — that they suddenly decided: "Wow. They were right. Let's put a whole bunch of money in."

[1520]

What happened was that people had to go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, take this government to court and essentially find that the government was wrong. In her decision, Madam Justice Susan Griffin basically said that what this government had done as education policy was unconstitutional, was wrong. And here's the important thing. What she said was that it wasn't done in the interests of improving the educational outcomes of our students. In her mind, and it's in her judgment, it was done purely to save money.

Now, I am very delighted that the government, in recognition of that court decision, has decided to create the learning improvement fund. I think that it will go quite a long ways towards solving some of these problems. But once again, let's be clear. This came about as a result of a court decision, not because the government of the day on its own merit saw fit to do this.

To get back to the whole notion of collaborative creation of classes, in those districts…. I think they're principally the smaller ones which don't have as many supports from specialized teachers. I mean, here's just an example. In a rural district that's far from a major centre it is even hard to get the specialists to come up to even assess kids. You know, that is a huge challenge.

The whole notion of having a whole bunch of kids who probably have some kind of learning disability…. The teacher recognizes it and actually puts in the requisite paperwork to try and get an assessment for that child. Very often that child will not be assessed for one, two or sometimes three years simply because that school district doesn't have those specialized psycho-ed teachers or analysts who can come in and do all of this. I'd like the minister to comment on some of those things that I've just talked about.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member said a number of things in the course of his question. I'm going to try to deal with them all. I'm certain that we will re-engage on a number of points here.

The member said that the change, over 15 years, with respect to the number of special education teachers would have been dramatic. It is not. It is a reduction from 3,500 in '97-98 to 3,300 in 2011-2012, while at the same time there has been a reduction in the student population of 54,000. I do not believe that the member's argument that there's been a dramatic change in that area is clear. It is not. It further discounts the very substantial
[ Page 11533 ]
increase in the number of special education assistants over that same period.

[1525]

The member also asserts that it is in the smaller, rural-remote school districts that districts have been forced by, presumably, what I'm sure he would characterize as funding inadequacy to reduce the number of special ed teachers.

Just, again, to round out the picture, I note for the member, then, that these are the numbers for 2012-2013. They are also numbers that are the highest that have ever been in the history of British Columbia's education funding. The per-pupil funding in the Surrey school district, the largest school district in the province, per student, is $7,915. In Stikine, the smallest of the school districts, with about 200 students, the per-student funding is $27,320 for 2012-2013.

Again, it's not to suggest that in either of those districts, or 58 others, the decisions are easy ones. They are not. It is always going to be challenging to provide education services across this very large and diverse province that we have. I just want to caution the member against oversimplifying what are frequently much more complex matters than suggested.

Furthermore, I do not agree with the member's characterization around Justice Griffin's decision on Bills 27 and 28. Perhaps we can devote a section of the estimates purely to a debate about what Justice Griffin had to say in her decision at the B.C. Supreme Court. She said a great many things, including that the government had acted in good faith in terms of its decision-making. She did take exception, of course, to some of the process that was undertaken prior to the introduction of Bills 27 and 28, and government has to learn from that, just as government had to learn from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Bill 29.

Again, that would require a broad explanation of why government proceeded as it did in 2002. I was a member of cabinet in 2002. I wasn't Minister of Education nor Minister of Health. I've had plenty of experience now with Bills 27, 28 and 29, as a former Health Minister and now as an Education Minister. I know the decisions both of the B.C. Supreme Court and of the Supreme Court of Canada very well.

You know, we could have responded in many different ways to the Justice Griffin decision. We chose not to appeal that decision. We chose to try to work with the BCTF, as we had, in the case of Bill 29, with the Hospital Employees Union and the B.C. Nurses Union.

We had hoped, as we launched our discussion with the B.C. Teachers Federation, that we would, as we did with the HEU and the BCNU, reach a collaborative agreement on resolution of the issues arising from the Supreme Court of Canada decision and a collaborative bill that we would bring to the House. In the case of Bills 27 and 28 with the B.C. Teachers Federation, that was not possible. I'm glad to explore with the member the reasons why that did not occur.

We were not forced to put the learning improvement fund in place. We believe the learning improvement fund is the right thing to do, that it is very consistent with an improved framework for the management of special needs in the classroom. It is an important step forward in terms of how to best manage those issues.

Again, I would not argue for a moment that the $195 million in the learning improvement fund is a one-off solution to the challenges of class composition. It is not. It will be, hopefully, a helpful ingredient in building a collaborative school-based team model of better management of special needs issues in the classroom.

[1530]

A final point. The member suggested that somehow the modest reduction in the number of special education teachers in the province meant that diagnoses would no longer be timely. That is not correct. Special ed teachers were not qualified to provide those diagnoses.

We do have, though — we would acknowledge — a supply problem, in some corners of the province, of professionals like psychologists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists and speech therapists. There is a shortage of those in some corners of the province.

We have a discussion going with the deans of education and with the vice-presidents academic around how we can better meet that need in all of British Columbia. One of the things we're looking at is a new approach where, hopefully, we can have those speech therapists, speech pathologists, working with teachers — who would then be able to bring those skills, along with special ed assistants, more broadly to the classrooms of British Columbia.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for all of those comments.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting earlier that the teachers would do the special ed assessments. I was looking for the word for psychoeducational psychiatrist, or whoever those people are who come up, because I happen to be in a school district where it is very challenging to get any of those specialists to come in.

In my school district, I can say firsthand that there have been a number of kids who have gone at least two years, probably sometimes three years, waiting to get an assessment. Clearly, that's just way too long. It makes it very difficult for that child to ever, ever catch up.

I would like to move over for a minute to discuss specifically the B.C. education plan and their action promises that are on the website. The education plan outlines a number of promises to deliver certain components of the plan within a specified number of months. If you go to the website, a chart of all of these promises is attached to a document that's on there.

Many of the promises are within four or six months.
[ Page 11534 ]
They're based on a plan launching at the end of October 2011 to the end of February and the end of April. So there are four-month promises, which are now, I think, probably overdue, and there are six-month promises.

For example, in the six-month promises were: to develop a new curriculum and assessment framework; improve opportunities for all parents to engage in their students' learning; create an accountable and transparent teacher regulation system; verify findings of the Gartner report and determine requirements going forward.

In the four-month promises there was a conviction to review special education in the context of personalized learning. So really, the only area of significant action that's been taken so far, of course, is teacher regulation.

Can the minister provide an update on what has changed with regards to the timelines as a result of the labour dispute with the BCTF?

[1535]

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to begin…. This is just to comment on the previous discussion we were having around special needs and assessment and those challenges. It's a hugely important area, and I hope that the people of British Columbia understand that there's a lot of new science that will drive, I think, not only highly appropriate but highly valuable changes to public policy around the management of these issues in the classroom in the decade ahead.

Interestingly, much of the foundation work that has been undertaken with respect to better management of special needs in the classroom has been by Canadian scientists and researchers. Among the most eminent of those is the late Fraser Mustard, who led a lot of this work over the last 20 years — literally an amazing pioneer figure in this area. But there is today Dr. Stuart Shanker, who we recently hosted at a gathering of school district chairs, superintendents, principals and secretary-treasurers.

It was an amazing presentation about how contemporary brain science should guide the way in which we work with early learners — that is, children, really, from childbirth right through to the early teenage years — and how we can strengthen our capacity to remediate some of the neurogenetic and other challenges which may face children not only as they enter full-day kindergarten but as they present themselves at places like StrongStart or other family-oriented early learning institutions.

The key around it is this, at least as I understand it. Again, I'm no expert on it, but I've certainly been faithfully trying to learn from the work that Fraser Mustard, Stuart Shanker and others have undertaken — that is, that the intensive intervention that can occur through play-based learning, that can occur through a lot of reading, a lot of interaction, can have a powerful impact on a child not only from a psychological or self-regulatory perspective, but it can also have an impact physiologically on the brain.

Some of you may have seen the recent feature on CBC's The National, which did a long, I thought excellent feature on the work of Dr. Shanker and his team, where they utilized the MRI to assess the child's brain pre-intervention and then did subsequent MRI testing post-intervention to demonstrate that in fact in the infant-through-early-teenager brain, as the brain grows along with the child, we have a spectacular opportunity to remediate some of the early learning challenges that children come with.

[1540]

Again, this is not that we've got all the answers right now. We don't. But I think we're starting to get a better sense of what those answers might be, and the real trick here will be to take our understanding of what we should be doing and make it what we are doing within the schools in British Columbia.

That's probably going to mean not so much a focus — this comes to assessment — on the full comprehensive clinical assessment of whether a child might have ADHD, ADD, fetal alcohol syndrome disorder, autism spectrum disorder or the like. It will be a focus on, perhaps, an early functional assessment followed by a lot of intensive intervention based on the guidelines that now one could construct based on the work of Dr. Shanker and others.

Utilizing that approach will mean that over time we will in fact see ourselves turning a corner around what those eventual assessments, if they're required, will yield. In some cases the brain has changed because of the intervention. So this is startling material that we need to learn from as we think about the appropriate public policy response.

Nevertheless, it still leaves us requiring functional assessments. That's where I think…. Do we go to the universities and say: "Start training more speech pathologists and psychologists"? We could do that. But I think it's going to take a long while, if ever, to get the numbers that we'll need so that in the opposition critic's school district — or in Stikine or even in my school district, North Okanagan–Shuswap — we're always readily going to have the numbers that we need.

We think the better approach is to see a partnership built between those professionals — i.e., the speech pathologist and therapist — and the teaching profession so that we can get broader reference between the students that need it and teachers who can provide it, supported by professionals, who are probably always going to be in relatively short supply.

On the B.C. ed plan. I think it's fair to say that work has continued on all of the areas that the member laid out. On teacher regulation, it's largely completed. I think next week will be the first meeting of the new B.C. Teachers Council. All of the teacher reg associated with that is now in place. That has been, I think, completed.

A lot of the curriculum and assessment framework
[ Page 11535 ]
work has been done — or nearly completed or largely completed. The one group that we have not been able to engage with on that has been the B.C. Teachers Federation — or more broadly, teachers. There's a reason for that. We have wanted to engage teachers at a broad level, but that has been very, very challenging in the current labour relation context.

When one looks for input across a large and complex education system, there's a whole bunch of folks that you want to hear from. One group is students. I was delighted last October to launch the B.C. ed plan at the Student Voice, which is a group of 100 to 150 students from all around the 60 districts. It is very generously sponsored by the Principals and Vice-Principals Association of B.C. The Student Voice is, broadly speaking, an important part of building a B.C. ed plan.

Their parents are important constituents in terms of building the B.C. ed plan as well. We've heard now, in probably over 4,000 submissions, from many parents across the province who have a view about what 21st-century education should look like.

Superintendents are an important group, and we've worked very closely with them on the development of the B.C. ed plan. That's been a wonderful partnership for us. Similarly, with the principals and vice-principals — again, a very good engagement with them on this.

So right across the board, with the exception of teachers, we have been able to have the engagement we need to move the B.C. ed plan along as smoothly as we would like.

I would note that I have formally asked, and I have informally invited, the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation to engage on the B.C. ed plan.

[1545]

At one of our meetings some months ago she expressed some concerns about what we were doing with the B.C. ed plan. I said: "I'm very happy to sit down with you and your team, and I would be happy to sit down along with my team, to talk about the B.C. ed plan — what we're attempting to achieve there. We can do it on a without prejudice basis. It doesn't mean that you support the plan. It's just our opportunity to explain to you where the plan is going and why we're trying to do the things we're trying to do."

She said that until there was progress at the bargaining table, that would not be possible. So I have, in subsequent meetings with Susan Lambert, extended that invitation again. I respectfully submit that invitation again today. I'd be delighted at any point to sit down with Susan and her team to talk about the B.C. ed plan.

We do think that it will be very difficult to move a B.C. ed plan forward — in fact, we don't want to move a B.C. ed plan forward — without the fulsome participation of the teachers of the province.

We currently oblige all teachers in the public education system to be members of the Teachers Federation. I think Susan has given some clear direction to her members not to engage around the B.C. ed plan. So it has shut down a whole avenue of discussion on the B.C. ed plan. Again, I'm entirely respectful that the BCTF may have their reasons for that, but without a doubt, it has made progress to completion of some of the pieces of the B.C. ed plan very difficult indeed.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for those comments. I would agree with him that to make changes of the nature stated in the B.C. ed plan is basically very difficult to do without the support of those people who are on the ground delivering any of those changes. It would be like trying to make changes in the health care system without having the support of the doctors and the nurses.

I can only hope that in the future the relationship between the government and the teachers — not just at the BCTF level but, generally speaking, within the teaching profession — improves and that any potential changes are worked out with, and eventually supported by, the teachers.

Am I to take it, then, from the minister's answer, that these timelines basically are going to have to all be moved back several months until the current dispute is settled and that the minister then, perhaps, is hoping to re-engage teachers once all of this stuff over Bill 22 is over with? Is that the minister's plan?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that in some cases timelines around the B.C. ed plan will be delayed as a consequence of the disengagement that has been brought on by the labour relations issues of today and of the last several months.

[1550]

That having been said, we will continue the efforts that we have undertaken to engage with teachers across the province.

I have now had the good fortune to visit over 100 schools in over half of the school districts in British Columbia. I have on every occasion, on visiting those schools, extended, either at the school level or the district level, to the Teachers Federation and to the teachers the opportunity to sit down and talk about the issues, whether their concerns happen to be in the labour relations area or their thoughts with the B.C. ed plan. I have had many very good and constructive meetings with teachers around the province as a consequence of that.

Could there be more in a happier labour relations time? Undoubtedly. It would be a much different world of discussion were that to be the case. We also know that many teachers have gone on line and have provided us with very thoughtful submissions around the B.C. ed plan. We're very appreciative that they have done that — again, many thoughtful submissions. I mean, it's difficult at every turn to predict the future, particularly given the circumstance that we are in.

My fondest hope would be that there will be a full en-
[ Page 11536 ]
gagement by the parties in the mediation process that has been set out in Bill 22 and that that leads to a mediated settlement sometime in the weeks and months ahead. That hopefully would bring an end to what has been a very difficult period for the Teachers Federation, for me, for the ministry, for government — perhaps even for the opposition. I wouldn't know, but perhaps so. I would love to see it at an end.

The transformation, undoubtedly…. Depending on what the outcome of the labour relations issues of the weeks ahead is — whatever the outcome of that is — it will have some considerable effect on how quickly or effectively transformation can be achieved.

R. Austin: I would like to move on for a moment to the issue of library funding. The budget line dedicated to funding for libraries was moved into the general education funding this year. In previous years the amount has been $13.7 million. A dedicated funding line, of course, ensures that funding for libraries is stable and secure and creates transparency in the funding for libraries.

Concern has been raised to me by both the B.C. Library Association and the BCGEU. The ministry has informally committed, in a letter to libraries, to maintaining funding of $42 million over the three years of the fiscal plan, or $14 million per year, but this is no longer guaranteed in the budget.

The current year's service plan stresses that libraries in the community are important avenues for alternative and lifelong learning and "are an integral element of British Columbia's informal education system."

Can the minister confirm: what is the funding contained for libraries in the estimates?

Hon. G. Abbott: The funding to libraries is secure. It's three years, and it's $14 million a year for those three years.

R. Austin: Can I ask the minister why this isn't put as a separate line item, just for transparency's sake, so that all of us who are following the funding for libraries can see? Why is this just put into the general budget of the Ministry of Education?

[1555]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that it relates to accounting advice, specifically accounting advice from the comptroller who wished to clarify the number and clarity of subvotes.

R. Austin: I'm sorry. I didn't quite catch that. Clarify subquotes, did the minister say?

Hon. G. Abbott: Votes.

R. Austin: Subvotes. Could the minister just explain to me what that is?

Hon. G. Abbott: Rather than having four subvotes in the area of resource summary, core business area, we now have the three: education programs, learning improvement fund, executive and support services. Previously there would have been four with reference to the library, but it's now been rolled into the other. That was based on advice from the comptroller.

R. Austin: Sticking with the question of libraries, I'd like to just ask a question that links school libraries with non-school libraries. Obviously, with the renewed emphasis on distributed learning and personalized learning initiatives, it's going to be very important that people who want to do that can be able to access some of these programs through the libraries in the community. But it's also very essential for people to get into the habit of…. Realizing what is available at a library in the community is to first of all learn what a library is in the school system.

My question to the minister is: can he tell us what's been done to protect funding for school libraries and librarian-teachers in order to maintain that link so people who are going to school learn what it is that takes place in a library and all the possibilities that can happen so that later on, when they go out, they continue to use the library?

Hon. G. Abbott: We provide block funding to the boards of education. The boards of education make decisions with respect to that level of staff or resourcing.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a few questions with regards to the policy on P3s in the school system. The current cutoff for projects that will be considered first by Partnerships B.C. for P3 status is $50 million. That was changed. It used to be $20 million. So any project between $20 million and $50 million should be screened as to the need for a further study of its viability as a P3.

According to the fiscal plan, there are currently six projects under construction that are over $50 million, and in total there is $486 million booked for capital costs in this fiscal year, down from $530 million last year and declining to $456 million for next year. Can the minister tell me how many projects that have been announced or are under construction were eligible for consideration as P3s under these rules? That's to say, how many projects over $20 million and how many over $50 million?

[1600]

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: All school projects go through a procurement screen by Partnerships B.C. But in the school construction sector, there is little to no experience around what the member would refer to as P3s. In fact, there are no P3 school projects right now.
[ Page 11537 ]

R. Austin: Does that mean that the screening process goes through Partnerships B.C., but then if there are no projects that qualify, then can one assume that it is simply inappropriate to be building a school through a P3 model? Is that the reason why none of them even enter that process? What's the reason for that?

Hon. G. Abbott: After the screening process by Partnerships B.C. there may be a few recommended courses that could be undertaken. One of those — and, again, a fairly common one — would be the recommendation might be that it proceed to a design-bid-build process. This might be an instance — and Surrey would probably be a good recent example of it — where they have extensive experience with building new schools. They can repeat design, for example, and may. That's one alternative.

[1605]

They may recommend as design-bid-build, or they may recommend design-build, which is a little different than design-bid-build. They may recommend construction management. Theoretically, they could recommend a P3 type of structure for the school project, but they have yet to do that.

That has never occurred in B.C., and it is because, generally speaking, the scope, the size, the cost of these projects are usually much smaller than one would have to engage the interests of a P3 type of arrangement. I suppose it might be theoretically possible, if one were undertaking a lot of school construction, that in aggregate, it might be a project large enough to interest the P3 world, but generally, that's not what we're working with right now.

R. Austin: From the time that the ministry approves a capital project, such as the building of a new school, and announces it, aside from it going through the screening process of the P3 process, is there anything else that delays it from actually going to the build?

I've noticed people saying that…. We see this announcement made, and the school district then is expecting to receive the funds and go ahead. But there's quite a long delay from the time it's announced to the time that we actually get a hole in the ground and start to construct the school. Can the minister just inform us as to what causes that delay?

Hon. G. Abbott: The processes around school construction are, in fact, pretty streamlined. The utilization of the term "delay" would be inappropriate, because these are projects that have moved along very quickly. In some instances there may be issues around site acquisition or site development that might extend timelines, or where there may be seismic issues, they may also have some impact on timelines.

[1610]

To use the example of the over $350 million in projects that were announced last October 31, we have since seen the completion of the procurement review by Partnerships B.C. The school districts have proceeded with their project development reports. They've engaged architects and the like to do that. In a number of cases projects have now been approved.

Some of the projects announced on October 31 — for example, in Surrey and in Langley — will be under construction in the summer. So the timelines have been quite streamlined, and this has been pretty effective project management to date.

R. Austin: In the budget speech in February the Minister of Finance highlighted school boards as one area where non-strategic surplus assets might be found. He said: "School districts, health authorities and post-secondary institutions also have surplus assets. We may allow them to sell those assets and use the proceeds to support future services."

My question to the minister is: is this plan, as it regards school boards, reflected anywhere in the budget estimates of the Ministry of Education for the current year?

Hon. G. Abbott: No.

R. Austin: Does the minister know if sales of school board buildings are included in the $702 million figure that the Minister of Finance has frequently used?

Hon. G. Abbott: We do not know and would suggest the member may wish to canvass that in the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, which are soon forthcoming.

R. Austin: If the ministry requires school boards to sell assets or if the school boards decide that they want to take advantage of that, would they be forced to remit any money from asset sales back to the ministry? Or would that stay within the school district that sells a property?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is that the funds that may be generated by such sales stay in the school district. They would, generally speaking, go into capital reserves.

R. Austin: I'd like to just ask a couple of questions with regards to the shared services agreement. Can the minister outline for the House what functions are subsumed under any new shared services regime?

[1615]

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a couple of areas where work is being undertaken in the area of shared services. One is with BCASBO, the B.C. Association of School Business Officials. They are looking at potential bulk purchases. Buses would be one example, and fuel would be another. They are exploring ways in which, through
[ Page 11538 ]
procurement, they may be able to save some dollars for the school district, which then could be utilized in other areas of education.

There is also work being undertaken by a group of, generally, secretary-treasurers from eight Lower Mainland school districts, supported by the Ministry of Education. They are looking at a variety of common-service opportunities. Again, as examples, bulk purchases or shared services such as HR support, back-office functions are the kinds of things which that group is exploring now. The work that is undertaken and completed by that group may well inform, more broadly, work in other areas of the province as well.

R. Austin: Last year in estimates the minister said that he would be able to "provide results on the shared services pilot over the next several months." I'm quoting there. "As suggested above, the results were, in fact, that it would only proceed in the Lower Mainland and that it would bring savings of roughly 3 to 8 percent, or $12 million to $32 million dollars."

The service plan additionally claims, on page 8, that provincewide progress includes "joint-tendering…of transportation services…the provincially negotiated TELUS agreement and centralized WorkSafe B.C. claims management."

Could the minister advise the House as to what cost savings were found in that pilot project?

[1620]

Hon. G. Abbott: The work which the member summarized from the estimates of last year has proceeded. Our best estimates are that the savings have been in the range which was contemplated in last year's estimates.

As an example, around the joint procurement of buses, it's estimated that the savings would be in the 10- to 20-percent range. In terms of exploring opportunities under the TELUS agreement, we believe savings have been secured in the range of $2 million on long-distance services.

Also, the pilot work which was undertaken in the Central Okanagan school district on behalf of districts around it, in terms of consolidated claims management at WorkSafe B.C. Again, it's difficult to quantify the success of that, but we do know that it has attracted much interest and continues to proceed.

R. Austin: Is the program still in a preliminary phase, or is it being fully implemented in the Lower Mainland? At least, I realize you're starting off there and then taking it further out. Is it being fully implemented in the Lower Mainland?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

R. Austin: So the fact that it's saving money in the Lower Mainland — does this mean that other regions…? I mean, you've mentioned the Central Okanagan, but does this mean now that other regions are going to be encouraged to go and get involved in this kind of shared services agreement?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a question now, again around the shared services agreement, on just-in-time disbursement. Can the minister tell me what the status is of the MOE's efforts to institute a just-in-time system of financial disbursement, of cash management, as recommended by the provincial Auditor General?

What assurances can be given to boards of education that interest savings resulting from the MOE going in this direction will be passed along to boards to improve services?

[1625]

Hon. G. Abbott: The just-in-time disbursement has proceeded successfully, as recommended by the Auditor General. To my knowledge, it's been an effective innovation which, I presume, meets the satisfaction of all parties.

R. Austin: Could the minister please quantify the savings that have been made by this? Obviously, if we're saving money, that's a good thing. But could the minister quantify it in terms of the savings — in terms of interest payments versus savings in terms of greater administrative efficiency by not having as many bodies to do all of this work?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the concern of the Auditor General was with the previous method of cash disbursement — that it resulted, in some cases, on any given day, in having about a billion dollars in accounts that wasn't required for the purposes for which it was disbursed.

That is why he recommended the change to just-in-time disbursement — so that there would not be that issue of large amounts of cash in hand — i.e., about a billion dollars. The estimated savings from that would be, we estimate, in the $6 million to $9 million range.

R. Austin: So if the bulk of these savings, specifically around just-in-time disbursements, is in interest payments, will those savings then accrue to the Ministry of Finance, or will they accrue to the Ministry of Education?

Hon. G. Abbott: The disbursements always come from the consolidated revenue fund. And in the province, making savings, albeit very modest savings, in that area allows us to pass those savings along, whether it's to Health or Education or any other public function which the province feels is appropriate.
[ Page 11539 ]

R. Austin: Just looking at B.C. Bid over the last year, there have been at least $443,000 worth of direct-awarded contracts for ministry work related to the B.C. education plan. These contracts do not include the advertising, creative media buys or creative work on the interactive PDFs, brochures, branding, etc.

[1630]

In some cases the contracts are extensions of contracts that could not be found on B.C. Bid. As a result, we don't know the full value of these contracts, only the value of the extension.

To the minister: what is the full value of the contracts with Toutant Consulting and Horizon Research and Evaluation Inc.?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have data of that character with us. We can attempt to find it out and provide it to the member.

R. Austin: I look forward to getting that later.

To the minister: why were none of these contracts put out to competitive bids?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is an interesting but complex area which, again, will strain the bounds of my knowledge and understanding of it, but I'll do my best to relay it to the member.

First, in every instance, the ministry follows the government procurement practices around contracts. For contracts over $25,000, there is a competitive process required. For contracts under $25,000, there is an opportunity for a direct award.

Again, under specified circumstances, it is also possible to direct-award for larger-than-$25,000 contracts, provided there are prequalified contractors who may provide the service and provided they meet the specific circumstances under which such an award could be made.

R. Austin: What are the additional costs associated with contracts for media buys, creative services, design work, etc., for the B.C. education plan?

[1635]

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have that figure immediately available to us, but we've asked for it. We can provide it to the member as it becomes available to us.

R. Austin: Can the minister provide a list of all contracts related to any kind of work on the B.C. education plan, including information on their value and whether or not they were direct-award contracts?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, we can, and we shall, if that is the member's wish.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

R. Austin: Yes, I would like to get that. Can the minister confirm if any of these contracts that were split into two parts would've been required to go to competitive bids if they had been tendered in a single contract?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're guided by the provincial best practices in relation to contracting. We would attempt, when we're looking at a potential contract, to, first of all, define the scope of work, once a contractor has been secured, to meet the work that is set out in the definition. If somehow the nature of that work were to change modestly, there might be an amendment or an extension to the aforementioned contract. If the change was more extensive, then it might involve retendering or the creation of a second contract.

Again, we would have to look at best practices in respect of contracts to determine that.

R. Austin: Can the minister explain how much money is being spent in total on the B.C. education plan initiatives?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the B.C. education plan, there's very little incremental cost over and above what we do in the budget for the Ministry of Education. Almost all of the work with respect to the plan has been done by existing staff.

[1640]

It has been the work and the business of the ministry now for probably over a year, working to generate the plan, to release it, to keep the site maintained — that sort of thing. That is, by and large, done by the existing staff in the ministry.

Very little has been contracted out. It is largely a ministry work. We don't have any total of what the external contracts might be around the B.C. ed plan, but it will be very minor in relation to the work that has been done.

R. Austin: I note that recently the government put out a release in relation to creating a new dialogue on rural education. As I am an MLA from a northern riding, I would like to just in a very general sense ask the minister: what does he expect to get out of this process? I think it's a very worthwhile initiative, because there is a huge difference in delivery of education in rural areas.

I note that earlier the Minister of Education mentioned the total amount per pupil that goes to a Surrey student, versus the other extreme of the amount of money that goes to a student in…. I think Stikine is the most expensive school district to deliver services to. In spite of the fact that it's probably — what? — three times as much money going to Stikine as to Surrey, if not more than that, I would suggest that if you said to a parent, notwithstanding the geographic distance, whether they would rather go to a Stikine school or to a Surrey school, they'd probably still choose a larger urban centre.
[ Page 11540 ]

So even with all this extra money that one puts into assisting delivery of public education in a very rural school district, we still have huge challenges. With that as a background, I'd like the minister just to tell us what we expect to get out of this dialogue on rural education.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may get more of an answer here than he ever really dreamed of in terms of rural education. But I know that he's come to be accustomed to my thoughtful, comprehensive answers to the important issues of public policy which he generates as opposition critic. So perhaps you'd be disappointed by anything other than a full and comprehensive answer.

The member rightly acknowledges the challenges of rural education. I suspect that in fact we come from fairly similar ridings in terms of the rural-urban mix. The North Okanagan–Shuswap district certainly would not be the most rural and remote of ridings by any means. But there are challenges there, just as I know there are in the member's riding. I'm very supportive of him raising these issues because it is important that we have a good discussion of rural education in the ministry estimates.

[1645]

There are, by our estimate, 74,800 students in rural schools across B.C., and I'll get to the definition in a moment. About 14 percent of students, we estimate, are in rural schools, and 587 schools have fewer than 200 students. That, of course, comes with all the challenges of having a small student population.

I think, further, that northern and rural districts are experiencing the greatest enrolment decline. Again, there are many reasons for that. I don't want to oversimplify, but it is part of what is occurring demographically, not only in British Columbia but in Canada and across the western world, which is a lot of movement of young people from rural to urban areas to live and to work and so on. British Columbia is no different, and so the challenges tend to be visited on these smaller areas.

We try to respond as a ministry in a number of ways to the challenges of rural education. When we look at the funding formula…. We've made some changes in the funding formula, which I'm sure the member will want to talk about this year in these estimates.

Among the unique geographic factors that are a part of the funding to rural schools, it includes a small community supplement which provides additional funding to boards that operate small schools in rural and remote locations. There's a low-enrolment factor which provides additional funding to boards that have low total district enrolment.

There is a rural factor which provides additional funding to boards that are located some distance from Vancouver and from the nearest large regional population centre. There is a climate factor which provides additional funding to boards that operate schools in colder and warmer climates and have additional heating or cooling requirements. And there is a sparseness factor which provides additional funding to boards that operate schools located over a wide geographic area.

One would see in the Stikine district — which we referenced earlier in these estimates and which has, by far, the largest per-student funding in the province…. All of those issues would come to bear in the provision of education in Stikine, a very challenging but very small rural school district.

There have been — in partnership with the University of British Columbia and others, including Vancouver Island University — some very good partnerships to have us think about how we can, not only through the funding formula but through other ways, try to advance the interests of rural education.

The key rural initiatives, some of which have flowed from the rural task force, include: in 2010 a rural and remote practicum stipend of $500 provided by the province through UBC to support students completing a practicum in rural communities; in 2011 a growing innovation in rural sites research project, launched in partnership with UBC.

I just had a report on that. They're doing some great work in, I think it was, 16 different rural locations in B.C. — a great program.

Also in 2011 a rural literacy research partnership with Vancouver Island University was launched. This will be continuing through 2012-2013. Again, I'm very much looking forward to the results of this. I think some of the work is actually being done in the member's riding, so this will be of great interest to us all.

There are four overarching strategies that comprise the ministry's rural and remote strategic plan for 2011-2012: the growing innovations demonstration sites for teaching and learning — again, that partnership with UBC; the rural teaching initiative to support professional learning for educators in rural districts; in 2012 a partnership with the Mitchell Odyssey Foundation to encourage excellence in science in rural school communities; and in 2012 as well, the provincial rural strategy advisory council is being established to provide a voice for rural schools.

I also had an opportunity to meet with them recently. I think they're going to be doing some very exciting and satisfying work for rural schools in the province as well.

R. Austin: Could a member of the opposition come to this?

[1650]

Hon. G. Abbott: You would not only be welcome, but it would be a thrill to have you attend.

R. Austin: Thank you for that great invitation.

One of the things that's highlighted in the release…. We've had a few discussions around this, and I don't know what the answers are to it. I would like the minis-
[ Page 11541 ]
ter to tell me if he has — if not necessarily the answers — suggestions as to how to address this issue, and that is around the issue of aboriginal student attainment.

I think that while the numbers speak for themselves — and we've heard this back and forth, very often quoted — and there are some improvements that have happened over the last ten years, it still is the biggest challenge within our overall population in terms of the relative failure of aboriginal students to succeed anywhere close to the level of non-aboriginal students.

I'm just wondering what the minister's thoughts are, moving forward, as to how, after years of looking at this issue…. What else can we try and do to address this problem?

Hon. G. Abbott: I do look forward to exploring this area with the member. I know from our previous discussion on the topic of aboriginal education that the member has a passionate interest and a genuine interest in aboriginal education. I know he represents in his constituency a significant number of aboriginal parents and students. So it's important to have this discussion.

I want to just take a moment to give my thoughts on it as well, because I share that passionate concern about aboriginal learners, aboriginal success rates and so on.

I am always excited and gratified when I hear of the success stories. I think probably the biggest success story is the Fort Nelson school district — a small, rural school district which, in the most recent educational year, enjoyed a 100 percent graduation rate for their aboriginal students. That is just amazing, especially considering that about 23 percent of the students in the school district are aboriginal students. So that's spectacular from my perspective.

We think that that success rate relates to some very good work, which has now been done for over a decade in that school district, on early learning and lots of attention particularly to aboriginal learners — well, to all learners — who may not come equipped with all the advantages that others might. So I'm excited by that and other school districts with lesser aboriginal student numbers that are nevertheless doing a great job — Revelstoke, West Vancouver. There's quite a number that are doing quite well in terms of aboriginal education.

Overall, the number of aboriginal graduates from K-to-12 and high school is still far below what it should be. As a Minister of Education — and I'm sure, as a member of the Legislative Assembly, the member would probably share my…. Actually, it's a feeling of shame that we have failed aboriginal learners so badly in this province for over a hundred years.

We've got a lot of things that need to be done in this province, and among them would be improving the success rate for aboriginal learners. It is currently, I think, around a 54 percent graduation rate for aboriginal learners. That has improved over the decade. It's improved over the last two decades. It has, I think, increased somewhere around 10 percent.

The trend lines are still in the right direction. I hope that we see over the decade ahead that more school districts across the province are able to enjoy something like the success of Fort Nelson or, indeed, see that gap — the current gap between aboriginal graduates and non-aboriginal graduates — narrow and close. That's what we should all be striving for in the education system in British Columbia.

[1655]

In a society that is a caring society, we want to always ensure that for those who may come from troubled socioeconomic circumstances or who may have experienced either family or societal dysfunction, we are able to reach out to them in our early learning framework and, we hope, provide some opportunity to reverse what has in some cases been a generational challenge in terms of the relationship of families to schools.

One of the facts that, I think, we have to be honest about is that we are dealing with 150 years of bad public policy in terms of the legacy that visits us in aboriginal education. It wasn't a decision made last year or ten years ago or 20 years ago that haunts us today. They're decisions that were made a long, long time ago.

My great-grandparents on both sides of my family took advantage of pre-emption — the opportunity to take up a large tract of land, without charge, on the Canadian prairie. Aboriginal people were denied that. They were forced onto small reserves. The challenge of that still visits us today in public policy.

There was exclusion from politics and from many, many aspects of economic life 100 years ago for aboriginal people. Again, that continues to visit us today.

The legacy of residential schools. While the last residential school may have closed 30 or 40 years ago, generationally the impact of that is still very much with aboriginal people.

In our aboriginal enhancement agreements we're making efforts in all 60 school districts to reach out to aboriginal families and to bring them into institutions like StrongStart, to try to ensure that young aboriginal learners get that same opportunity to succeed.

What we know from the work of Stuart Shanker and Fraser Mustard and others that I referenced earlier in our discussion, is that we have an amazing opportunity from birth through, probably, the early teenage years as the brain grows, matures. We have this spectacular opportunity, and that extends to all children, including aboriginal children.

If we can have that focus in early learning in all our institutions, including StrongStart…. We get the parents involved, we get the kids involved, and we get all of that early learning — reading, play-based learning — that is necessary for kids to succeed later on, that is going to have a profound impact on the graduation rates. That is
[ Page 11542 ]
why I'm seeing such a strong linkage between the success, say, of Fort Nelson or Revelstoke.

The early learning framework: is it bearing fruit a dozen years later? The message is clear, profound and powerful to us in the education system that we have to reach out, including to kids that may, because of socioeconomic circumstances or dysfunction of one kind or another…. We have to make a special effort to reach out to them in those early learning years. If we can do that successfully, I think that's our best chance to see the kind of success rates that I know the member would like to see and that I would like to see in the longer term.

R. Austin: Thank you to the minister for that fulsome answer.

It would be nice if we could figure out ways to replicate the example of Fort Nelson. It's a very remote part of the province. I live in a very remote part of the province, and the difference between school district 82 and the Nass Valley — school district 92 — and Fort Nelson is just miles apart.

So my question to the minister is this. StrongStart and early education, I believe, are a very important part. But part of the challenge is that in StrongStart programs, it does require a parent to come and be present.

Part of the challenge of assisting aboriginal students is to also bring the family along with them as the support network, because we know that kids who succeed in school very often require and receive a high level of support from the family. I don't just mean monetary support. I don't just mean that they come from a big house or anything like that. I just mean a lot of interest is shown in what the child is learning in school.

[1700]

The challenge — and the minister alluded to the history of the First Nations in Canada and the atrocities that have been put upon them — is how do we get all of the First Nations to overcome that to come to a school and support their kids? Is this going to be one of the focuses in this rural education dialogue to try and figure out? I know I'm asking lots of questions here, but they're just things coming off the top of my head.

How are FNESC or the First Nations School Association helping to assist the Ministry of Education in terms of dealing with some of these issues? It's all very well for two non–First Nations people to be sitting here discussing this, but I would hope that in his dialogues with leaders in the aboriginal community, they also have ideas as to how to engage parents more — or whatever it is, whatever the answers are. I don't know. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: In fact, just last week I had a very good meeting with the First Nations Education Steering Committee, and I was both pleased and actually pretty much awed that our thinking was so consistent between where FNESC would like to go in this area and where we believe, appropriately, the Ministry of Education and government should go in this area as well.

I'll say this first of all. I always try to think of where the success story is and then to think of what the elements are in that success story that could potentially be replicated in areas like it and then, subsequently, in areas that are not like it. If one looks at the strongest numbers in terms of graduation rates, good performance on FSA tests at grade 3 and grade 7, those kinds of indicators, and then look at the nature of the district, there are some very interesting things that come to mind for me.

Revelstoke is one of our smaller districts, as is Fort Nelson. I think Revelstoke is perhaps around 1,400 students. I think Fort Nelson is just a little bit larger, but not much. They're both small districts. They are relatively compact geographically and small from a population perspective. They have, in both instances, one hospital.

Again, I think this goes to the nature of the school districts in the area in which they're offering their services. In both cases in those districts the related social services from the community and from the province tend to be integrated, because they're small enough that — to be expected — health, social services and other social service agencies come together because they tend to share space. So it tends to be integrated and cohesive in its approach.

When a baby is born in Revelstoke or when a baby is born in Fort Nelson in the hospital, there does tend to be a social connectedness that welcomes them both into the community and into the social, health and educational services that are there. So we are getting — it is really quite amazing in both instances — very strong participation by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal parents and kids in those early learning areas.

Then the question will be: "So how do we take this success that's occurring in those kinds of districts and how can we see that replicated or in some degree mimicked in other larger districts?"

[1705]

I do think there are some things we can do. In some cases it will be trying to get, for example, the public health nurse, as she goes around and visits the new mom and the new baby, to talk about the importance of StrongStart. My one-year-old grandson is a seven-month veteran of StrongStart. He started early, and the impact of StrongStart is apparent with him.

StrongStart has been a success not just because it is a great example of early social and emotional learning for infants and toddlers. It's also got huge potential — I think we're just starting to scratch the surface of this — because of the opportunity for parents to learn as well as for kids to learn.

Particularly where you may have a very young mother or where you may have a single parent or where you may have some challenge around understanding how important the parent is in the learning of a child, I think there is
[ Page 11543 ]
just powerful opportunity that exists in StrongStart that we need to further unlock.

We're thinking about those kinds of things — thinking about how we take the lessons of Fraser Mustard and Stuart Shanker and apply them in that StrongStart setting. This is fascinating stuff.

I think FNESC very much shares that idea of: how do we bring aboriginal families into this, particularly given some of the generational reluctance to do that, based on the residential schools experience? We may have to find some additional ways to bring them in, but it is hugely important that we do so.

R. Austin: I realize we're having a bit of a philosophical discussion here, but I think there is some value to it. Listening to the minister's reply to that last question, is there lots of scope within his ministry to have these dialogues cross-ministry — to try and make the linkages, for example, with early learning and social services and with a community health nurse?

Very often I think what happens is that we have these discussions, but then we all revert back to our own little silos. We all sit here, and we have estimates of separate ministries. Everything is delineated by the way that we do government. Once you reach more remote parts of the province, which aren't small — like the Revelstoke area or the Fort Nelson area — it becomes a real challenge for people who work in different ministries to ever have a vision of coming together like this.

I would like the minister to comment about what he, as Minister of Education, can do to help assist in bringing in other ministries involved in this. I would imagine that someone like Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, in the work that she does, also recognizes that a lot of the challenges that are around aboriginal kids are because of the way that we do government.

[1710]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for a very good question. I'll give you a couple of examples of how this might occur. One example is in the school district of Stikine. Both the board of education and the Ministry of Education were concerned about the achievement results that we were seeing in Stikine. We had our superintendent of achievement visit and indeed spend some considerable time in Stikine touring and talking to folks there about their sense of the challenge and why it existed.

What she concluded, ultimately, was that this required a community-based intervention to deal with the issue of low and, in some cases, declining results. The result of that was that the school district has been working with not only the Ministry of Education but with our partners — that includes Ministries of Children and Family Development, Health, Aboriginal Relations — to try to have that integrated, cohesive response to the very real challenges that exist. We believe that process has been a very beneficial one and certainly has highlighted what we can and should do as a ministry and as a school district in relation to that challenge.

Another example. This came as a result of advocacy by the child and youth advocate, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She had suggested that we needed to do something to ensure that we were assisting children in care. In response to that, we've put together a connecting program for children in care. It involves, for each of those identified children, a mentoring process in the schools which they attend, to try to ensure that they don't fall between the cracks.

R. Austin: Staying with the theme for a moment on aboriginal kids in the education system. There are a number of communities — particularly, again, the more remote you go — where, as the minister will be well aware, there is a housing crisis in the sense that a lot of First Nations reserves have lost a lot of families simply because there aren't enough houses in that community to house people who'd like to live there.

Inevitably, there's a large percentage of kids who've then moved to…. I mean, they call them cities; I call them small towns. Has the ministry ever had discussions with the federal government? When they're on reserve, there is support that is given, to a greater extent, not necessarily to the school system. Well, that's just been addressed now, finally. Of course, there was a difference in funding between what kids were getting off reserve and on reserve.

Has the ministry ever had any representations with the federal government in terms of the challenges of the number of First Nations kids who are living off reserve who really should be getting extra help to cope with the challenges that we've been discussing here? That is a fiduciary responsibility of the federal government, but we're not getting it as a result of them moving off this reserve into town. Have there ever been discussions on that?

[1715]

Hon. G. Abbott: I can tell the member that certainly there has been a number of discussions. I know I've been involved with them over the years, between provincial ministries. It may be Housing or Aboriginal Relations or Health. There are ongoing discussions between the province and federal government with respect to the federal government's support — or lack of it, as the case may be — for those First Nations who live off reserve.

Obviously, there's a discussion going on in respect of those who live on reserve as well, but it's a different discussion around off-reserve support by the federal government in a range of areas.

I guess the short answer to the question is yes. Those discussions have occurred and, I'm certain, are still occurring. Are any of them led by the Ministry of Education? No, they're not. Where we're asked to support or help out, we're glad to do that, but they tend to be led by either
[ Page 11544 ]
Ministries of Aboriginal Relations or Housing.

R. Austin: I'm going to just move for a second over to some regulations around the LIF that came out as a result of Bill 22. Bill 22, of course, was written in such a way that the learning improvement fund regulations are enacted by ministerial order and not by order-in-council, which means, of course, that they not need to be passed by cabinet but are at the sole discretion of the minister.

According to the regulations, consultation is to occur in the spring, while approval of grants happens at the beginning of the school year the next fall. This places the board in the position of not really being able to plan on some key issues. Additionally, there'll certainly be more funding requests from principals to superintendents than there are dollars to distribute — that's obvious — which will put superintendents in the position of making decisions on funding allocation instead of using the established identification process.

While this might provide flexibility, it will also likely lead to situations where kids with the most vocal advocates will get funding in lieu of kids from families with fewer resources but perhaps greater need.

My question to the minister is: if Bill 22 allows learning improvement fund regulations to be enacted by ministerial order, given the relevancy of the content of these regulations to the spending of this money, can the minister explain why this was the case? Why was this decision made?

Hon. G. Abbott: The way the process works is that the school districts are currently, as they are, looking out to September and class composition in September, identifying the known needs that they will have. They are doing their planning around what the resource requirements will be to meet those known needs.

[1720]

Also, as we talked about earlier, they are building their plans for how to most effectively manage the range of needs that they will have. As they prepare for the fall and the disbursement of funds, they know what their number is — subject to them providing us with, obviously, a plan that is consistent with the goals of the learning improvement fund. We will be disbursing the dollars that have been identified to them in September.

R. Austin: Let me get this straight. The money will be disbursed in September, at the beginning of the school year, but the final decision, once they put their plans in, is made at the end of this school year. Is that correct? So they know for planning in terms of how many people to hire — if they're going to be hiring, say, a new special ed teacher or something like that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Under the learning improvement fund, the districts have been advised of what their share of the $60 million this year is going to be. Next year it'll be their share of $60 million again; third year, $75 million; then every year thereafter, their share of $75 million as well.

I should note that all of the school districts are very satisfied with this process. We've not heard any dissonant voices around this. It seems to be well regarded, well accepted.

They are doing their planning for the fall now. When school actually comes together in September, they may refine their plan for managing the challenge and managing the dollars. In every instance the plan must be completed by October 31, but the sooner the plan is submitted and accepted by the ministry, the sooner that the dollars will flow.

R. Austin: I must have missed something. The plan has to be approved by next October, but the school year starts in September. So they are allocated the dollars, which you've already decided how much each school district is getting, they can start to use their dollars, but you give final approval to the plan after they start using the dollars. I'm not quite sure about that.

[1725]

Hon. G. Abbott: The process is actually quite similar to the process around the $866 million that forms the special needs component in the block of funding that goes out to school districts across the province. They are planning now.

Let's say they submitted a plan on September 31 and the plan was inconsistent with the mandate for the learning improvement fund. We would request amendments to be made to that plan, and in all likelihood, that would be successful.

But if they were not forthcoming, we could — just as we would around an audit of special needs dollars expenditures — take steps to…. In the unlikely event that that occurred, there are steps we could take to recover the dollars from the school district. This does not happen often, and we think it's very unlikely that that would happen. But there is some value-added in judgment by the ministry around the plan that will be assembled.

R. Austin: Is it correct to assume that once the plan comes to you from each school district and you approve it, then there isn't the discretion of the superintendent to go and start changing that once the dollars arrive? The superintendent is not moving it around. Presumably, once the plan is approved by you, those dollars do have to go to whatever it was that was in the plan from each school district.

Also, could the minister please advise the House whether any of these dollars are going to be attributed to specific children or cases or whether these are going to be generalized dollars that will go to help generally improve learning conditions in a school district, rather than be tracked from one child to another?
[ Page 11545 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the first question is yes. The dollars will be used in the areas where they've committed to use them.

R. Austin: They can't move them?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, they can't. And it is not for specific children. It is for general support in the classroom.

R. Austin: When the learning improvement fund was first announced, one of the things that the minister suggested would be an appropriate use of it would be to use it to give further skills to educational assistants.

Is that a prerequisite of all of the school districts as part of their plan — to be able to show or to demonstrate that they are going to try and improve the educational attainment of educational assistants? I think it's fair to say the minister has referred many times now to many people learning different skills in the education system — whether it be teachers learning some skills from psychologists or whether it be educational assistants learning skills from special ed teachers to be able to assist them better in the tasks that they do.

[1730]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his important question. The purpose of the learning improvement fund is to assist teachers in what are often very challenging, complex class composition situations. One of the things that I have heard, on more than one occasion, from the president of the Teachers Federation is the challenge of particularly young or relatively new teachers arriving at school and facing complex class construction situations, and she's right. This is particularly challenging.

[1735]

So because of the nature of the collective bargaining dispute that we are in, we've not had the fulsome discussion with the Teachers Federation about how the learning improvement fund might support teachers. I think there has been some discussion at the Bill 27-28 table, but it's not been the extensive discussion that we would have liked and that we continue to want with the Teachers Federation.

Contemplated within the learning improvement fund would be…. Again, for that teacher arriving and having a class that has some composition issues which they don't feel ready to deal with — perhaps an unusual physiological or psychological condition that they had to deal with — in those cases it would be consistent with LIF to see some professional development opportunity that would be generated to assist the teacher, perhaps an opportunity to get a teacher on call in place for a period of time so that the teacher could get some additional professional development or training to meet the needs of that complex classroom. There may be instances where an education assistant might piggyback on a professional development or training session that was put together for the teachers.

The intersection of the learning improvement fund with CUPE BC and what's been agreed to there involves more educational assistance where it is appropriate and more contact hours, again, where the parties believe it to be appropriate. Strictly speaking, any supplemental training that is for educational assistance alone will be something that will occur outside of LIF and will involve a commitment by the Ministry of Education and school districts to build training modules. But that would occur outside of the learning improvement fund.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for that. Is it fair to say that once you have allocated…? Well, you already have allocated this money to the 60 individual school districts. Am I correct in saying that that funding, then, will be fairly secure and will go up or down incrementally but that the school districts…?

I mean, this isn't going to be just one-off funding and then every year they have to reapply and might have a totally different amount of money. That's the essential part of my question. Clearly, if a school district decides that, for example, they're going to use some of this LIF money to hire an audiologist specialist, I take it that there will be sufficient funding there so that they're not sort of hiring professionals and then losing them the next year. Is this going to be ongoing to a certain degree? I realize it'll go up and down, but will it be reliant…?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to make sure we cover all the bases around this question, the learning improvement fund is $60 million for the current fiscal year, $60 million for the next fiscal year, $75 million in the third fiscal year and then $75 million in perpetuity going forward from there. So it is predictable in that sense.

The division of the dollars among the 60 school districts, I'm advised, is based on, I guess, just the same formula-driven model that the broader dollars are generated on. Year over year that's going to be predictable. The one element that will change next year is that there is a commitment to consult annually with the Teachers Federation on the distribution of those funds.

[1740]

That has not been possible this year because of the labour bargaining dispute. Next year, hopefully, that will be completed — touch wood — and we will have that discussion. Theoretically, as a product of that consultation, there might be some change in the way in which it is distributed, but we don't expect that. Any change we expect would be minor, and so it should be predictable, secure and sustainable over a long period of time.

R. Austin: This may seem to be a bit of a silly question, then. If it's going to be so much connected to the broader $866 million in terms of how it's distributed, why was it
[ Page 11546 ]
not the decision of government simply to add it in to the $866 million and make it part of the general amount of money that's put in for kids with special needs?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm certain that this will be fascinating to the member. The distribution of the LIF dollars is not driven by the distribution of the $866 million. It's driven by the broader funding formula around what is $4.725 billion that is distributed to the 60 school districts. The $866 million is just one component of that broader $4.7 billion. It's important that it be kept separate and distinct, because this fund is related to teaching and classroom conditions as opposed to dollars generated by identified special needs.

Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:43 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