2013 Legislative Session: Fifth 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, March 14, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 44, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I understand that there are going to be a lot of introductions today, so if we can make them as quick as possible.

Hon. M. Polak: There are two young men from my riding visiting here today — Todd Hauptman and Derek Robertson. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Donaldson: I'd like the members here to make a guest welcome today. My sister Sue Donaldson is in the gallery. She was a trailblazer for me in many instances, good and bad. So would the members please make her welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Two good friends and dedicated employees, Shannon McGroarty and Kim Sawatsky, are joining us in the gallery today.

D. Black: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce my husband, Peter. He's here to see my last day in the Legislature. We've been married almost 48 years. We have three wonderful sons and seven delightful grandchildren, and I'm very much looking forward to having more time to spend with them. So would you please make Peter Black welcome.

Hon. B. Stewart: I'd like to recognize four people who are present here today. I'm sure that all the members on both sides of this House are familiar with the fine work that the Knowledge Network does in providing public-supported, informative and inspiring television programming for the people of B.C. Through its innovative schedule, the Knowledge Network gives British Columbians a window to the world as well as fun, educational programs as they watch with their families.

The president of the network, Rudy Buttignol, and his wife, Margie, are here with two members of the Knowledge Network's board of directors, Nini Baird and Sinclair Mar.

Mr. Buttignol has had a notable and rewarding career in Canadian media spanning four decades. Later this afternoon I will be proud to present him with the Diamond Jubilee Medal in recognition of his hard work.

I'd just like to thank them all and make certain that this House welcomes them here today in Victoria.

R. Fleming: In the gallery with us today is someone who's well known to many members of this House, having interviewed a great number of them on the air. He's a recovering journalist now. Most recently he was the news director at CFAX Radio. He was formerly a news anchor and television personality at CHEK News. I would ask the House to please make welcome Murray Langdon, who's with us here today.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I would like to introduce someone who is here to pay tribute to her husband and his commitment and dedication to making this world a better place. After 28 years of public service as an elected official, 17 years of them spent in this House, she is here to honour his last day sitting in this chamber as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Would you join me in welcoming Corinne Coell, wife and biggest fan of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. Can the House please make Corinne welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to introduce two people today. One is a very good friend that I just got to know in the past year. She's very interested in politics and in the best interests of British Columbia. Her name is Joan Robinson, from southern Vancouver Island.

I'd also like to introduce my legislative assistant, Cathy Armstrong, a longstanding friend with a long history in Abbotsford and here in Victoria. She's done a great job for me in the past year. Please have the House welcome these two visitors for me.

K. Falcon: Today, on my last day in the House after 12 years, I was hoping to bring my entire family over. Unfortunately, my wife is with our three-week-old, so Jessica, my wife, and my newest addition, Jacqueline Rose, couldn't be here. But I am really thrilled to be joined by my three-year-old daughter Josephine, who is with us today up in the gallery.

I want to thank Sarah O'Connor, who's my legislative assistant, for also doing double-duty as a babysitter and, Mr. Speaker, yourself and your office for the nice gifts you gave her and the colouring books and the ABCs, and all of you who have been so kind and generous to make Josephine's stay here a wonderful one while she has her dad working in the building.

Hon. I. Chong: On the floor of this chamber I'm delighted to welcome a former MLA for Richmond Centre, former Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and former Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. She is now back in the private sector helping to grow our economy, helping to create jobs and volunteering on several boards, one of which is the B.C. Achievement Foundation. Would the House please welcome Olga Ilich.

[1340]

D. Horne: Aujourd'hui c'est la célébration de la Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. It's British Columbia Francophonie Day today, and with us in the gallery we have Pauline Gobeil, who is the recipient of the award this year for her contribution towards strengthening the French language and culture in families in British Columbia.

As well, we have Dr. Réal Roy, who is the president of the B.C. Francophone Federation, as well as many other presidents and executive directors and members of our B.C. francophone community — too long so that I won't read the list. Thank you, and I wish the House to make them welcome.

C. Hansen: In 17 years in this House I have never before today had the opportunity to introduce my wife, Laura. It was 17 years ago that I was the president of a great company that Laura and I co-owned, called Image Group, which is one of the leading promotional products companies in Canada.

When I got elected 17 years ago, I not only had to turn the keys for the president's office over to Laura but also all of my shares in order to comply with conflict-of-interest rules. I can tell you that in the following eight months after Laura took over running the company, sales went up 42 percent. Every four years she joked that I had to get myself re-elected because she didn't want me back in the company.

That was a joke, wasn't it, dear?

I must say, as this job is what it is, that I haven't been home as much as we both would have liked over those 17 years. I know I've got some new scars. I've got a lot more grey hair. I've got 17 years of chores to catch up on at home, and quite frankly, I look forward to it.

D. Hayer: I have five special guests here. The first one is Dr. Har Harbhjan Singh, who used to be an ADM here. For 30 years he worked in the provincial service, 27 years back here in Victoria. For the last 12 years he's helped me as MLA, guiding me, and I want to make him very welcome. He is here with his son Sunil Singh Khaneja, who is a pharmacist. He owns two pharmacies.

Also, I have my constituency assistant and communications officer, Mark Rushton. He has been with me since 2001. He helps my constituency and helps with all the issues in the community. He's available to our office seven days a week, almost 24 hours a day. Without his help, I would not have been able to do my job over the last 12 years. Also, I have my LA, Chantel Elloway, who has been with me for a year and a half — she's doing a great job helping in my office in Victoria — as well as my lovely wife for more than 31 years, Isabelle Hayer, who is also here.

Would the House please make them all of them very welcome.

J. Horgan: I have two introductions to make today. Firstly, joining us in the gallery from my constituency in Langford are students participating in the PATHWAY Project.

Facilitators Randy Waldie and Tara Hall are here with the following participants in the PATHWAY Project, which develops job skills for students and young people trying to enter the workforce. We have Brenda Bernard, Erin Brown, Leonard Crop, Mary Donald, Cody Fornell, Jorey Frank, Krista Gilmore-Blaine, Nicky Hickson, Kayla Johnson, Chris Matthis, Austin Pimbal, Eva Riddler, Desiree Thornton and Jordan Swanell. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.

Also, I don't know if my colleague from Shuswap has thanked the interns from the Liberal side. I know that it's very disappointing for the interns not to be participating in the rigorous estimates process this year. Nothing excites quite like a couple of hours of estimates debate.

Our interns on the NDP side — Rebecca Whitmore, Braeden Wiens, Kate Russell, Emma Fraser and Katie Dittrich — will be saying farewell to us today as the House departs. It's a sad day for me, because I didn't visit them as often as my colleague from Nelson-Creston or my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim. I lost this time around. I'll do better next time.

Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Les: Like the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I thought about bringing my whole family out today. But then in deference to other members who might like to have people visit as well, we decided not to. It was actually not a decision made by me, but….

[1345]

Joining us today is my wife, Mattie. On the first of May we will be celebrating that she's put up with me for 40 years. Also joining us today is my son Chris and his wife, Carina, their daughter Airyn and their son Lyndon, and my son Allan with his daughter Emily. They're in the Speaker's gallery, and I'd like the House to make them feel welcome.

M. Dalton: In the gallery is my lovely wife, Marlene. It's Francophonie Day today, and just to let the members know that we got engaged on the Eiffel Tower 28 years ago. I sang my proposal to the tune of "Mon Cherie Amour."

I'd also like to acknowledge all the LAs that support me and all of our staff right here, to thank them for the tremendous work they do and the long hours. Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

M. Coell: Joining my wife, Corinne, and me here today are three very good friends: Don Crocker — and if you remember the '60s west coast music, you'd remember him as the drummer for the Motifs — and Craig and Sue Girard, who in 1981 worked on my first campaign
[ Page 13601 ]
and have worked on all 11 of them. We really appreciate that. I know you're here to make sure that I don't run again. I won't.

Would you please make them all welcome.

G. Abbott: I want to join my friend the Opposition House Leader in thanking all of the interns for their service here. I had the opportunity to do some wine tasting on Monday evening with the interns. I must say that as we took it into the early hours of the morning, some of the distinctions between NDP interns and B.C. Liberal interns blurred to the point of disappearing.

I just wanted to thank them all. They're all wonderful young people and have been an awesome resource to those of us in this chamber, so thank you.

Also, I want to say a brief thank-you to a couple of the very hard-working legislative assistants we have. Suneil Karod and Eddie Zhao have done a great job of keeping us in line over in the east annex, and I want to thank them for their service.

B. Lekstrom: In carrying on the introductions of our staff, we have three other legislative assistants from the east annex, the upper floor. I would like the House to please welcome Brandon Reddy, Stephanie Wray and Emily Phillips to the Legislature.

H. Bloy: I have the privilege of introducing 44 school students from the best school in British Columbia, Westridge Elementary School, who are joining us today. Take it from my friend and colleague. I would like to welcome them, and I hope the House will make them welcome today.

D. Hayer: I also have Rick Orlando, who's my constituent and who has volunteered with me. He works in the assembly and does a great job. He's also in the gallery. Would the House please make him very welcome too.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

YOUTH ENGAGEMENT CONTEST
IN STIKINE AREA

D. Donaldson: Two years ago our Stikine MLA offices teamed up with Smithers hockey great Dan Hamhuis of the Vancouver Canucks in our Don't Let Gangs Score contest for 13- to 18-year-olds. Last year it was Don't Let Cyber Bullies Score, and this year I'm pleased to announce that we again teamed with Dan and the Canucks and many other businesses and community sponsors to hold the newest iteration of our contest, Don't Let Apathy Score!

We know from talking with RCMP, community leaders and youth that 13- to 18-year-olds gain resiliency. They're better able to withstand the draw of gangs or are less likely to be bullied by being engaged in activities they have a passion about. So the Don't Let Apathy Score theme was chosen.

It was, perhaps, a bit more challenging theme this year. Contestants were asked to submit a piece of visual art depicting overcoming apathy. When promoting the contest at a local school, I spoke to a group of more than 80 grade 8s. I asked if any of them knew what apathy meant or what an example of overcoming apathy would look like. Not one of them said a word. Tough crowd.

I said to them that they were being pretty apathetic, and I learned that irony doesn't work well with grade 8s. But then one young woman put up her hand and said that taking action against the Enbridge pipeline, like attending local rallies, was an example of not being apathetic, and the discussion got going from there.

[1350]

We had some amazing entries. The results are being displayed at our MLA offices in Smithers and Hazelton, as well as on the Stikine MLA website. The judges made their decision this week. I'm very happy to announce that Smithers Secondary School grade 11 student Kat Morris is the winner for her incredible piece of work with multiple images and messages about hope, overcoming obstacles and not being afraid to stand out. She'll be attending the Vancouver Canucks home game against Colorado with her mother on March 26.

Thanks to Dan Hamhuis, Hawkair for the flights, all our sponsors and the judges. To the young people: don't let apathy score!

GRATITUDE FOR SUPPORT
DURING WORK AS MLA

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, as this is my last statement in the Legislature, I want to thank you and all the MLAs and their families; all the legislative staff members; my wife, Isabelle Martinez Hayer, and my children — Alex, Sonia, Anthony and Katrina — and my daughter-in-law Sabrina and all the special people in our lives — Iha, Sladjan and Jordon; my mother, Baldev Hayer; my mother-in-law, Consuelo Martinez; my late father, Tara Singh Hayer; my late father-in-law, Jose Martinez; my sisters Rupinder, Daljit, Satpaul; my sisters-in-law Lygie, Pomponia and Maureen; my brothers-in-law Jose, Harjit, Amardeep, Kulwinder, Nick and Bob; and the rest of my very large family; and all my dedicated riding association board members, many of whom have volunteered and helped me for more than 14 years.

It was those volunteers who helped me win the nomination in 2000 against Surrey mayor Doug McCallum and then the provincial general elections in 2001, 2005 and 2009. These dedicated board members, along with many other volunteers, have helped me over the past 14
[ Page 13602 ]
years at many events, including our annual summer barbecues, our annual Christmas open houses, the Surrey Food Bank breakfasts and our annual seniors dinners, and community events in Guildford, Fleetwood, Fraser Heights, Port Kells and Tynehead. They also volunteered in our regular newspaper mailouts that are sent to all the homes, apartments and businesses in my riding in Surrey since 2001.

Thanks to all of my current and former legislative staff, including Chantel Elloway, Gabrielle Price, Ben James and all my constituency staff for the last 12 years, including Mark Rushton, Manuel Santos, Paul Keenleyside, Gina Andersen and dozens of students from local high schools who have volunteered at my office for work experience during the past 12 years.

My heartfelt thanks to all my friends, constituents, supporters, volunteers and the thousands of other volunteers who have helped me over the last 12 years. I want to thank them. I really appreciate everything you've done for me and my constituency and our province of British Columbia.

WORLD KIDNEY DAY

M. Farnworth: Imagine you're a five-year-old kid and you're taking a pee and it doesn't come out yellow. It comes out blood red. You're pretty scared, and your mother is pretty worried too. So she whips you off to the doctor, and you find out you've got nephritis of your kidney. That was me when I was five years old. Luckily for me, it was treated and cured, and everything has been fine ever since. But it made me acutely aware of the importance of kidneys and the importance of properly functioning kidneys.

Well, March 14 is World Kidney Day. It's an opportunity to highlight the importance of kidney disease and what we can do to not only prevent it but to treat it. Most important of all, three things: to educate ourselves about kidney disease; to screen ourselves on our kidney functionings to make sure they're functioning properly; but most important, and what I want to talk about today, is donate.

Kidney transplantation is one of the easiest methods of saving somebody's life. We have two of them. We can live with one of them. All of us in this room have the ability to give the gift of life to somebody else. Currently 85 percent of British Columbians say that they're willing to do that, and yet only 19 percent are registered to donate. What we need to do is change that, and if we do that, we can save a life. We can improve the health of British Columbians, and we can do that while we educate and get people screened.

So let's all think about World Kidney Day — recognize that we have two kidneys and one of them we can give.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

Mr. Speaker: Member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

D. Horne: Merci, Monsieur le Président. I'm pleased to announce the proclamation of March 20, 2013, as la Journée de la Francophonie de Colombie-Britannique. Since the House is not sitting next week, this event was celebrated at lunch here today in the rotunda.

The theme of this year's celebration was "Families first." Francophonie and francophile families shape a considerable segment of our society in British Columbia. They represent almost 300,000 people. They hold a significant place in the demography of our province and, really, a strong place in our history as well.

[1355]

Today's proclamation of B.C.Francophonie Day honours our vibrant and dynamic French-speaking community and the more than 70,000 francophones as well as the francophile population, which I just mentioned, in British Columbia who embrace the French language. Our francophonie population is an invaluable part of our heritage and a resource that contributes to improving the social, economic, political and cultural fabric of our province as well as our country.

Partout au pays les Canadiens choisissent de vivre et de prospérer en français. Félicitations à tous les francophones et les francophiles de la Colombie-Britannique pour leur contribution. Bonne Journée de la francophonie. Merci.

Pour les autres qui ne comprennent pas, all over the country Canadians choose to live and prosper in French. Congratulations to all the francophones and francophiles in British Columbia for their contributions. Have a very good Francophonie Day.

TWO-MINUTE STATEMENTS
BY PRIVATE MEMBERS

G. Gentner: I'm sure you remember the sitcom Seinfeld, when George says to Jerry: "Let's do a show about nothing, absolutely nothing. They can do something; we can do nothing." Mr. Speaker, you guessed it. I'm doing a two-minute statement on the two-minute statement, or maybe we should call it "The New Reality Show Called The Backbenchers."

It's not easy to come up with a topic and squeeze it in apolitically within two minutes. Like, what can you really say? Decisions that go into choosing a topic for two-minute statements…. It's sort of like drying your hands in a public washroom. Do you choose the electric blow-dryer and expose your hand to the doorknob, or do you kill a tree and take a napkin and actually use it to get out of the washroom? Or do you help…? My gosh. I only have a minute left.
[ Page 13603 ]

Cabinet and opposition leaders do not appreciate all of the time spent reducing earth-shattering epitaphs into mere seconds — editing, rewriting. It takes time. Introductions ramble on, and most preambles in question period take at least two minutes, but be assured that the Speaker will cut you off exactly at two minutes.

It's been said that a sucker is born every minute but a backbencher can speak for two minutes. So why do we have two-minute statements? Well, it was an invention by the B.C. Liberals in 2002, February 13. It was a time when there was a vast majority, and the back bench needed something to do. It was busywork.

But let me talk about the member for Kamloops North — I know my time is almost out — who introduced the first statement in the House on that day. He said: "…private members were prevented from genuine participation in the decisions and processes of government." Until a two-minute statement, non-cabinet MLA voices were muted and overlooked — "every MLA will be a working MLA." Then he went on to say….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. Your two minutes is up.

BURNABY AND ASIA-PACIFIC

R. Lee: I have the privilege to be the last member making private member statements today. In retrospect, I'm probably one of the longest-serving private members on this side of the House — for the last 12 years — sharing the title with the member for Surrey-Tynehead. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant can claim her title over on the other side.

It's really an honour as MLA to serve my constituents in Burnaby North. Burnaby has experienced tremendous growth and renewal. As a founding member of the Pacific Gateway Committee of the Burnaby Board of Trade, I can see more and more local businesses being connected to the Asia-Pacific. I have the pleasure to work with many people with a vision and interest in the farthest economic development areas in the world, having served as Parliamentary Secretary for the Asia-Pacific for over seven years.

Many names come to my mind — former Premier Gordon Campbell, the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. Under the watch of these leaders, B.C.'s exposure to the Asia-Pacific has more than doubled from 2002 to 2012. The exports to China experienced a 6.5-fold increase from $774 million to $5.8 billion.

[1400]

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to work with many government representatives from the Asia-Pacific, meeting many at trade and cultural dedications and working with dedicated staff from the Asia and Pacific Trade Centre, B.C. market representatives in the Asia-Pacific region, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada and many local cultural, trade and business associations. A big thank-you to all.

I would like to express my well wishes to all our retiring members, as well as to members who are going into another round of the democratic process.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO PARTISAN
ACTIVITIES RELATING TO
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

J. Horgan: Today at 11:30 the opposition and the public received a scathing indictment by the deputy to the Premier, John Dyble. It was a scathing indictment of a plan concocted and contrived in the Premier's office, executed by staff in the caucus and, sadly, involving public servants.

Mr. Dyble says in his report, in conclusion: "The terms of reference for this review do not extend to making findings with respect to cabinet ministers or to caucus employees. The public service 'Standards of conduct' do not apply to these groups. Therefore, this report makes no assessment of their conduct."

My question is to the Premier. Surely, based on the findings of Mr. Dyble, it's past time for the Premier to call a full and independent inquiry into the multicultural outreach scandal.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, you know, it is always the right thing to do when people make mistakes, serious mistakes, to stand up, admit the problem, accept responsibility and make sure you get to the bottom of it so that you can fix it. That is what we have done in this case. British Columbians deserve accountability for what happened.

We are accepting all six recommendations of Deputy Minister Dyble's report, because I certainly believe that serving the public is the highest honour. We have an obligation to live up to the highest ethical standards possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Mr. Dyble, in his exhaustive report of public service activity, gave a comprehensive list of those that were interviewed during the course of his investigation. At the time this plan was hatched in the Premier's office, the chief of staff to the Premier was Mike McDonald. Mike McDonald remained the chief of staff to the Premier until February and then stayed on as principal secretary well into May. He's now running operations for the B.C. Liberal Party, yet he was not interviewed.

My question to the Premier: how can the public have any confidence that this scheme devised to transfer pub-
[ Page 13604 ]
lic information held by government to the B.C. Liberal Party has had a full and thorough airing if the head guy in her office at the time and the head guy running her campaign was not interviewed? How do we have any confidence in that?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I want to reiterate this. I have made every effort since the document came to light…. The first time I saw it was when the NDP tabled it in this House. We've made every effort to get to the bottom of this. That has included the resignation without severance by my deputy chief of staff, and resignation without severance by another member of the staff who was named in the report as having committed a serious breach of the code applying to public servants. We've also committed to making sure we make right all of the other things that happened that were wrong.

I want to draw attention, as well, to the fact that when this came to light, the first thing I did was make sure we did everything we could to get to the bottom of it, because the essence of leadership is not to hide. It's not to run away. It's not to deny responsibility. It's to accept responsibility when something wrong has been done and then do everything you can to make it right. That is the definition of leadership.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: In the "Summary of Events and Facts" Mr. Dyble lays out quite clearly the individuals involved in the preliminary meeting that set in motion the plan to harvest names from government sources and transfer them to the B.C. Liberal Party. In fact, he says as follows: "Attendees generally agreed that the meeting, chaired by the deputy chief of staff…was an effort to capture current activities of the attendees related to multiculturalism and to bring better coordination among the three groups."

The three groups were the government, the caucus and the party. This is a three-legged stool. Mr. Dyble investigated one leg. Will the Premier commit to a full investigation of the B.C. Liberal caucus and, most importantly, the B.C. Liberal Party so that we can get to the bottom of this once and for all?

Hon. C. Clark: Of course, the individual that the member refers to has resigned and took responsibility for making a very serious error of judgment, and did that without accepting a penny of severance. In addition to that, another member of staff who is named in the report also resigned, and did that without accepting a penny of severance.

In that same spirit, I appointed John Dyble. I asked John Dyble to review this. When we make mistakes, we have a responsibility to step up, not to deny that a mistake was ever made. We have a responsibility to look into it, not to deny the opportunity for the light to shine on it. And we have a responsibility to fix it so that it doesn't happen again.

That's what we have done since this information became public. That is being here today answering questions, being available to the media to answer their questions, appointing the review, making sure that staff held themselves accountable for this and, most of all, not denying that there was a mistake made. That is what leadership is all about.

POSSIBLE RELEASE OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION TO B.C. LIBERAL PARTY
BY GOVERNMENT

C. James: I'd like to read a quote from Mr. Dyble's report: "E-mail records show that Fiera Lo" — executive assistant to the Multiculturalism ministry — "sent three packages of lists of individuals who had been attending events with the minister…to her personal e-mail account on March 4. Of note, prior to joining government, Fiera Lo was an employee of the B.C. Liberal Party and attended the December…meeting in that capacity, and was given the assignment of 'ethnic lists.'"

Given this information, my question is to the Premier: does she stand by her statement that no private information was transferred from the government to the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. C. Clark: I note that the opposition on the one hand says that they don't take the report seriously and on the other hand is happy to quote from it. And I'm glad they do. It was a thorough report that was undertaken by the most senior civil servants in this province, esteemed people with good judgment. It's a thorough and rigorous report. I want to thank them, in particular, for giving us this report so that we can get to the bottom of it.

But I think it does point out a stark contrast between the ways the government and the opposition choose to operate. When a mistake is made, when serious wrongdoing is alleged, I went out…. Our cabinet asked John Dyble to look into it so that we could get to the bottom of it.

We haven't denied that there was a problem. We haven't evaded responsibility. We haven't refused to be here. We've done all of those things and answered all of the questions that were put to us. And now Mr. Dyble has given us his report so that we can take further action based on his review. That is the right thing to do.

Admitting when you make a mistake and trying to fix it is the right thing to do. That is a very stark contrast between the way the government operates and the way the opposition chooses to operate.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
[ Page 13605 ]

INVESTIGATION INTO PARTISAN
ACTIVITIES RELATING TO
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

C. James: The Premier stood in this House and told this House that she had talked to the Liberal Party and that there was no information transferred to the party. It seems inconceivable that three packages of lists were sent from a public e-mail to a private personal e-mail for any other reason. The Premier's assurances just aren't good enough. The Premier's conversations with the party just aren't good enough. It's very clear.

I will ask the Premier again. Will she call today for a full independent investigation so the public can get all of the answers to this scandal?

Hon. C. Clark: Of course, the reason the member has a report to quote from is because our government, when we recognized that a mistake had been made, rather than running and hiding and trying to deny it, accepted responsibility for it and made sure that an independent, highly respected civil servant reviewed it.

I hold that in stark contrast to the way the New Democrats have approached the problems that have beset them with respect to constituency funds. If the member is serious about making sure that all of us in this House live up to the same standard, her party needs to do the same thing.

S. Simpson: Mr. Dyble, in his report, acknowledged that his review excluded any review of cabinet ministers or of caucus staff. What Mr. Dyble said in his report is that, of course, he conducted this under the public service standards of conduct and that those do not apply to these groups. Therefore, this report makes no assessment of their conduct.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: The Premier told the Opposition House Leader, in answer to an earlier question, that she wanted to make sure to get to the bottom of this. If that in fact is the case, will the Premier today put in place an independent investigation that has the authority to get at cabinet and caucus staff so that we in fact do get to the bottom of this?

Hon. B. Bennett: There is an interesting contrast developing here this afternoon. On our side of the House our leader has stood up and taken responsibility for the mistakes that were made. She immediately asked for an independent report on the matter. We have that in our hands today. We have all apologized for the mistakes that were made. On the other hand, the NDP have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

They have been siphoning off constituency office funds for five years. The members' manual, as you will well know, states that those funds cannot be used for political purposes. The hon. member who asked the question actually said on the radio earlier this week: "Well, of course it was political." That's what he said.

My question back to the hon. member is: when are they going to order an investigation, and when are they going to apologize, and when are they going to pay the money back?

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Let's be clear here. Let's be clear. The people of British Columbia aren't buying this government trying to change the channel from a scandal that starts in the Premier's office and works its way to the Liberal Party — a scandal where this government manipulates the public service in order to supply its political party with information and resources. It's an embarrassment, and it's a scandal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: So let's talk about the story. Here's the story. Mr. McDonald — Mike McDonald….

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: Mike McDonald was the Premier's chief of staff when the actions at the heart of this quick-win scandal were taking place. He is today a key player in the Liberal's re-election campaign. What we know from this is that there was no ability or capacity for Mr. Dyble to review or look at Mr. McDonald's conduct or the Liberal Party's, even though the Premier today said the party will pay back $70,000. That sounds like an admission of some guilt.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier commit today to an independent investigation that has enough authority to get at the Liberal Party and to ask them and Mr. McDonald questions about the Liberal Party's conduct in this scathing scandal?

Hon. B. Bennett: This is what the Auditor General had to say about the use of constituency office funds by the opposition for the illicit purposes. This is a direct quote from the Auditor General: "Funds accruing to this account were being used for partisan purposes and not for
[ Page 13606 ]
goods and services consistent with the original purpose of the constituency office."

We all know in this House how it works. The money for our constituency offices is transferred directly into our bank accounts, and we use it to keep the lights on, to heat our offices, to pay our staff, to deal with our constituents. That's our primary job — to deal with our constituents and take responsibility for those that we're directly accountable to.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but this group on the other side of the House deliberately, knowingly, took $200 a month for five years and sent it back to a slush fund — a secret slush fund that was protected by privilege — and used it for political, partisan purposes. They should just own up to it. It's not that hard to apologize. I did it here yesterday. I'm waiting for it.

RETENTION OF RECORDS RELATING TO
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

K. Corrigan: My question is to the Attorney General, who has a very serious responsibility in government, as she well knows. My question is: what steps are being taken to ensure that all documents related to the multicultural outreach scandal have been preserved or recovered?

Hon. B. Bennett: I thank the member for the question. I haven't had a chance to read the report all the way through, but I have been briefed about the report. I understand that there were something in the order of 10,000 documents associated with this report. That sounds fairly exhaustive to me, but we'll all have a chance to read the report later.

[1420]

What I'm wondering about at this stage is…. There is evidence that the opposition has taken funds that were intended for their constituency offices, sent it to a secret fund here in Victoria and used those funds to pay for political operatives here in British Columbia, one of them being Gabriel Yiu, who has — oh, just coincidentally — run for the opposition three times. He's running again in 2013. There may be more, for all we know.

It would be so easy for the opposition to just simply stand up and say, "You know, this is what we used the funds for," and then show us some documentation and perhaps apologize for what they've done.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, I have read the report, and I'll do one little quote here from it. "IT security records show that Brian Bonney forwarded over 1,100 e-mails from his government account to one of three personal e-mail accounts during the time he was employed in the public service." Then, a sentence later: "…given the volume of personal e-mails involved, it is evident government resources were misused."

My question, again, to the Attorney General. Recommendation No. 4 says: "The legal services branch of the Ministry of Justice should take appropriate action to secure any government records in the possession of former public servants and caucus employees named in this report and seek an undertaking that these records have not been used for inappropriate purposes." Has that been done?

Hon. B. Bennett: Obviously, the opposition is not prepared to own up to what they've done. Hon. Speaker, it's with some regret, actually, that I have to point out to you and to the House that this is part of a pattern of conduct with the NDP over the years.

They have a leader who backdated a memo and for several weeks refused to come clean on that fact. This is a fact. You know, it is a fact. He then left with $70,000 of severance. He also forgot his ticket on the SkyTrain, apparently, and the other day actually hid here in the chamber rather than go out in the hall and talk to the media and explain about this secret slush fund that you all know you have.

Hon. Speaker, when you think back to the legacy of this NDP party, you can't help but think about the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and Sister Margaret, who used to receive a cheque for $1,000 every month, and then, of course, she had to cut a second cheque for $900 and send it back to the Commonwealth Holding Society. She finally got tired of it, and then they cut her off.

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY
INVESTIGATION AND
ROUND-TABLE PARTICIPANTS

M. Farnworth: Between September 26, 2012, and early October ministry staff received at least three different anonymous calls suggesting that Brian Bonney and Fiera Lo asked round-table participants to provide personal information and information about their members.

One caller was angry because after attending the meeting and providing personal information, she claimed to have subsequently received political materials at her home. Another caller alleged that she was told that grants to her organization would be at risk if events were not scheduled for the minister. One of the callers also indicated that she was pressured not to report her concern to government.

My question is to the Premier. Were any of the participants of these round tables interviewed in this investigation?

Hon. B. Bennett: I wanted to make one thing really clear. Two wrongs don't make a right. We have admitted
[ Page 13607 ]
that there were mistakes made on our side, and we have apologized for those mistakes. The Premier acted immediately, ordering the review or asking for the review.

The review is done. It disclosed something like 10,000 documents. It seems like a pretty thick report. I haven't had a chance to read it all the way through yet. So I believe that we have learned from our mistake.

[1425]

On the other side of the House they clearly have not learned anything. They haven't learned anything, not even from this most recent scandal. They haven't learned anything from the 1990s with Bingogate. It is a pattern of conduct for this party.

I wish that the member, who's been here a long, long time…. He did have a break, I think, for one term, but he's been here a long time. It seems to me the right thing for him to do would be to stand up and apologize, because otherwise they look like hypocrites.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Yes, hon. Speaker, I most certainly do.

I'm going to apologize. I'm going to apologize for working with Gabriel Yiu and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to get some documents translated from Chinese into English and English back into Chinese and having them sent to China. I'm going to apologize for doing that because the result of that was that we managed to break a deadlock with the Amanda Zhao case. The killer that fled this country went back to China thinking he could escape justice. And I'm going to apologize because that outreach work resulted in justice for someone who lost their daughter.

There were people who participated in the round tables who felt pressured. They made anonymous complaints to this government. Unfortunately, those complaints weren't acted upon. So my question to the minister, again, is this: why weren't any of those participants in the round table interviewed?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, we're not, on this side of the House, asking the hon. member to apologize for legitimate outreach work that both sides of the House do. Frankly, I applaud the opposition member for the work that he just described.

What I do think the opposition ought to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: What I do think the hon. member should consider apologizing for is, frankly, what the Auditor General said, which is that funds accruing to this account were being used for partisan purposes. That's what they should apologize for.

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

D. Routley: Previous information around this scandal showed us that the former deputy chief of staff of the Premier referred to an oral culture in that office. She confirmed that, in fact, all business was done orally and that any e-mails were deleted. No records were kept.

Page 23 of today's report confirms and reveals that the former Minister for Multiculturalism was asked why his former communications director was using personal e-mail for this correspondence. He said it was to avoid freedom of information. He confirmed that that culture is not just one of oral culture but one of evading the very statutes that this House establishes and is meant to defend.

[1430]

I would like to ask the Premier, who made a commitment to open government when she was running for leadership…. I would like to ask the Premier about that commitment and this rot of that very principle and how deep it extends into government. We see that it extends at least as far as the ministry for Multiculturalism.

Madam Premier, how far does this culture of evasion, this oral culture, extend in your government?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I've already observed, the reason that members of the opposition and any member of the public has a report from which to quote is because, when it became clear that a very serious mistake had been made, I asked the head of the civil service to review it so that we could get to the bottom of it.

I apologized for the mistake. Two members of staff have resigned and accepted responsibility for their part in it, and they've done that without taking a penny in severance from the taxpayers of British Columbia.

When you make a mistake, the right thing to do is own up to it, to accept your responsibility, to do everything you can to get to the bottom of it and to fix it. The test is not whether or not people make mistakes — because they do. The test is how we respond to those mistakes when they are revealed.

We have decided to respond to this mistake by asking a senior civil servant, one of the most esteemed in our province, to get to the bottom of it and make that report in its entirety public and available so that we can be held accountable for how we fix it.

The NDP should do what we are doing. They should take responsibility. They should not hide behind privilege and secrecy. They should make sure that they make good on the mistakes they have made, take responsibility, review it and make the results public, just as we have done. It is absolutely, when it comes to the public's money,
[ Page 13608 ]
always the right thing to do.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: I seek leave to submit petitions.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 22,000 British Columbians are beseeching this Legislature to not oversee the destruction of the last of B.C.'s endangered old-growth forests or B.C.'s forestry jobs.

G. O'Mahony: I rise to present a petition entitled "Democratic Election Process" for the residents of Cultus Lake, supported by Cultus Lake Community Association and signed by 281 of the roughly 400 year-around residents of Cultus Lake. From the petition in regard to the Cultus Lake Park board: "The board needs to be elected by the people they govern, like every other local government in British Columbia — a fundamental principle of our democracy."

M. Dalton: I rise to present a public petition regarding service to save bus routes in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge.

G. Gentner: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

G. Gentner: A petition by 490 students from the secondary schools of Seaquam, Delta Secondary and Sir Winston Churchill. They ask the House to demand that the government of British Columbia reallocate a greater portion of funds used to combat homelessness towards human resources for existing and proposed transitional housing programs.

Reports from Committees

C. Hansen: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for the fifth session of the 39th parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[1435]

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

Leave granted.

C. Hansen: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make a few brief comments.

This report summarizes the committee's review of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Introduced in 1990, the act provides a statutory framework for dealing with conflicts of interest involving Members of the Legislative Assembly. The act also provides for the appointment of a conflict-of-interest commissioner, an independent officer of this Legislative Assembly.

The committee was first authorized by the Legislative Assembly to review the act on March 15, 2012. Over the months that followed, the committee undertook a comprehensive examination of the legislation, something which had not been done since 1999. We also held public consultation and invited presentations from several stakeholders and expert witnesses, including the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Paul Fraser.

During the review of the act we heard support for the legislation and how it continues to provide an effective framework for dealing with members' conflict of interest. At the same time, submissions made it clear that revisions were needed to modernize the act, which has not undergone significant amendments since 1992.

Toward this end, the report makes 34 recommendations designed to update and enhance the legislation. They include proposals to strengthen the power and jurisdiction of the commissioner, to clarify existing provisions and to promote greater transparency of members' financial disclosures. In addition, we also recommend that periodic reviews of the act be required in the future to ensure that the legislation stays up to date.

As Chair, I am confident these changes will improve provincial conflict-of-interest guidelines and ensure members' ethical conduct.

Mr. Speaker, as Chair, I am pleased to report that the committee worked collaboratively throughout this process, and all the recommendations were agreed to unanimously.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the review, including Paul Fraser and his staff, the expert witnesses and everyone who sent in written submissions. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Deputy Chair, the member for Fraser-Nicola, and all of the other committee members, whose hard work and cooperation throughout this process made the report possible.

I would like to also give a very special thanks to the Clerk's office and the diligence and support that they provided us. In doing so, I would particularly like to compli-
[ Page 13609 ]
ment the exemplary efforts above and beyond the call of duty of Byron Plant of that office.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speaker, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the 39th parliament.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

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

The report summarizes the committee's activities between June 10, 2011, and November 6, 2012. During that period, the Public Accounts Committee received and reviewed nine audit reports and three follow-up reports produced by the Office of the Auditor General. We also approved the Auditor General's annual work plans.

I would like to thank all committee members for their efforts during the past two years. The Deputy Chair, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, deserves special mention for his cooperation in facilitating the work of the committee. I also appreciated the assistance provided by the offices of the Auditor General and the comptroller general.

In closing, I would also like to thank John Doyle for his work as Auditor General and wish him well in his next assignment in the state of Victoria in Australia.

D. Horne: I would like to join with the Chair of the committee, the member for Surrey-Whalley, and thank him for his great work as Chair of the committee. I think the work of the Public Accounts Committee over this parliament has been an example of how we actually can work together and get things done in the interest of all British Columbians.

I'd also like to thank the work of the independent member for Delta South, who was also a member of the committee for the time of this parliament.

As I say, from what we have just seen in question period, obviously, this place can get very emotional. But I think the work of committees can really take that emotion out of it and do the right work for the people of British Columbia. I think the Public Accounts Committee is a very good example of that.

I thank all the members and the Clerks for their assistance.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 10, to be followed by committee stage debate on Bill 12.

[1440]

For the information of members, the House, of course, always sets its own schedule, but there is, I believe, some understanding that at around 3:30 the House would resume debating the throne speech.

I call Bill 10.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — SENIORS ADVOCATE ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

On the amendment to section 2 (continued).

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I just want to introduce the staff who are here from the Ministry of Health to support me for this bill, Christine Massey and Corrie Campbell, and I very much appreciate them being here.

Prior to our break we were presented with a proposed amendment to Bill 10, section 2, and I rise to speak against the amendment. It's government's intention to have a seniors advocate appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as per the legislation.

K. Conroy: Mr. Chair, I thought the person presenting the amendments got to speak to them first, so that surprises me.

I'd like to speak to the amendment. Section 2(1) removes the duty of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a seniors advocate. The amendment would require the unanimous recommendation of a special committee for the appointment of the advocate and ensure the transparent selection of this position, based on expertise and suitability, by limiting ministerial influence over the appointment. Once selected, it would be the Legislative Assembly that would appoint the position.

Section 2(2) removes the requirement for the appointment to be made under the Public Service Act. The
[ Page 13610 ]
amendment ensures the independence of the advocate by making them responsible to the Legislative Assembly instead of the ministry. An overwhelming choice at every consultation held across the province, as well as from groups and organizations, supports the independence of this position.

Section 2(3) adds a section which limits the term served by the advocate and ensures the Legislative Assembly has a clear opportunity to review the work of the advocate and consider reappointment after a defined period of time. It also limits the number of reappointments to one, in order to ensure the advocate does not become overly entrenched in their position.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: To the member opposite, my apologies for not allowing her to speak to the amendment first. As I said previously, I'm opposed to the amendment.

The Chair: Member for Cariboo North, on the amendment.

B. Simpson: Speaking on the amendment. Thank you, Chair.

This is the right direction; it's the appropriate direction.

I want to make a general comment just now, though, to the House Leaders that we don't have a hard cap on time allocation. I think it's unfortunate that we didn't have a fall session. Some of this legislation requires serious debate, and while we are operating to an agreed-upon time frame by the two caucuses, next time they might want to inform the independents prior to five minutes before it's announced in the House that that's what they're operating to.

There are serious questions about this bill; there are serious questions about the next bill. I'm rising to support this amendment. I think that this is the right way to do it, and I think that with a vote on this amendment, we will be able to signal the appropriate way that the independent office should be established. So I am letting the Chair know that it's my intention to call the vote on this amendment.

[1445]

V. Huntington: I, too, support this amendment. I believe it is indeed the right way to go. If you're going to have an advocate, make him or her an independent individual who can investigate the true concerns of the seniors in our province and who has the capacity to make recommendations as an independent officer of this House.

I strongly support the amendment. I do believe it is the way that this act should be structured. I would urge the government to consider the amendment in a reasonable fashion. The act as it sits now does not satisfy what the seniors of British Columbia have been asking for and what they need.

[1450]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Hon. M. Stilwell: Mr. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Stilwell: Joining us today from my riding are 18 grade 10 students, along with two adults and their teacher, Mr. Scott Anderson, from the best school in British Columbia, the Pacific Torah Institute. Would you please join me in making them all feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

[1455]

K. Conroy: For responsibilities of the seniors advocate,
[ Page 13611 ]
in section 3, it seems that this legislation enables the advocate to be almost a referral position, as opposed to actually ensuring issues are heard and dealt with.

I believe that the advocate should only be dealing with very difficult situations that arise in this province. I think our constituency assistants are very capable of referring situations to wherever they'll get the best help. It seems somewhat odd that the advocate would be doing this.

I ask the minister: will the advocate actually have the ability to work on individual cases if there is no other appropriate person or body in place to refer them to?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, our constituency assistants and many others in the province do great work. Many organizations do great work. This provision for a referral with consent is just in the event that someone comes forward with an individual concern and the advocate believes that they are not aware of services that are available.

As I've said before, though, in the event that an individual comes forward with a concern and the advocate believes that it is a systemic problem or one that impacts on others, the advocate certainly can take that issue and look into it as the advocate wishes to.

V. Huntington: On the issue of monitoring the provision of seniors services, given that the advocate can turn a specific complaint or concern over to the appropriate jurisdiction, does this entitle the advocate to monitor the response of that jurisdiction? And is he entitled to provide any recommendations as he turns the issue over to the appropriate jurisdiction?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's just a referral. There's not an intention for monitoring or expecting reports back or anything of that nature.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

K. Conroy: This revolves around seniors issues. I'm just wondering. This is the clause that has the whole issue around "independent." It says that the advocate can advise "in an independent manner." I'm not sure how the person can be independent in any way when the person they're reporting to is the Minister of Health and very often the majority of the cases that the advocate will be dealing with are issues that arise within the Ministry of Health.

I have a concern about what this actually means here in this bill. It says "in an independent manner," when it's obvious that there is no intention of allowing independence within this bill.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What we've done here is used language that's almost identical to the language that describes the role of the provincial health officer — that he or she "must advise, in an independent manner." It's that same language that we're using. I think, certainly, most people would have a view that the provincial health officer does function quite independently.

K. Conroy: I think the provincial health officer does do great work, but I don't think they deal with the types of issues that will be coming to this position and that could have been coming to this position for the last six or seven years, since it was proposed. One of the issues is….

[1500]

I mean, when you look at what's happening with the child and youth commissioner…. If they had to report to the Minister of Children and Families, I don't think that position would still be around. So it is of great concern to many of us in this House that are on this side, as well as to people in the province that have expressed real concern about this.

One of the other things in this section is that it seems to give the minister the ability to choose which reports they'd like to make public, and I'd like to ask if the minister would be required to make all reports public.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just with respect to the duties and responsibilities of the provincial health officer, the provincial health officer would…. For example, in the case of something like an outbreak of SARS, that would certainly be a very serious matter. And as I think we've agreed, certainly that person does function very independently.

With respect to the reporting, what this section does is lay out that the advocate must report to the minister at least once each year and that that report will be made public. But it also makes it very clear that the seniors advocate may report to the public in any manner on any matter arising from the fulfilment…. So the advocate could make any report public that he or she wished to.

V. Huntington: Is there anything in this section which would stop the advocate from making one report that instantaneously or concurrently went out to the public and to the minister?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: No, there isn't.

B. Simpson: Again, further clarification on this. This is an area that has been canvassed with me by seniors organizations and seniors advocates in my area and that they're very concerned about.

I want to be clear on the minister's answer to the member for Delta South. Would the seniors advocate be required to have any report vetted and agreed to by the minister prior to publication? Or would the seniors advocate, as a statutory officer, be free to go directly to
[ Page 13612 ]
the public and report directly to the public without the minister's approval?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Section (2) provides for the seniors advocate to do exactly that which the member describes. The annual report goes through the minister and then will be made public.

V. Huntington: I think that sort of hinges on the question I was asking. If the annual report was more fulsome and was also intended by the advocate to go to the public, could he submit the single report and make it public at that time?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That annual report, as described here, would go to the minister and be made public. But the seniors advocate, again, has the ability to report to the public in any manner on any matter arising from the fulfilment of their responsibilities.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

K. Conroy: This talks about the power to hire staff and retain experts, but nowhere in the budget is there any funding identified for this position. In fact, the minister herself was quoted as saying that the position would be funded through savings in the Ministry of Health budget.

I'm asking: what if those savings don't materialize? How can the advocate hire staff without a designated budget? How can this position even exist without a designated budget?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I certainly apologize to the member opposite if I've ever been unclear about this. It was never the intent for this seniors advocate to be funded from some sort of mysterious savings. This is going to come from the ministry's budget. That has always been our intention.

[1505]

The seniors advocate will have a budget, will work within a budget allocation, like any deputy would in the provincial government, and will have the power to hire staff and retain experts.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

K. Conroy: Are the terms of reference for an advisory council going to be established by the minister, the ministry or by the advocate themselves?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: They will be established by the advocate.

B. Simpson: In this clause it says that the seniors advocate "may establish an advisory council." What if the seniors advocate decides they don't want one? Do they have the discretion to not have an advisory council, and why did the government decide to give that discretion and not make it so that the seniors advocate actually establishes an advisory council?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This goes to the independence of the seniors advocate. We've left room here for the advocate to establish an advisory council, if he or she wishes to, and to opt whether or not to do that.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

K. Conroy: I just want to know what the penalties are if a person or service provider doesn't comply with a request for information. Even the Ombudsperson couldn't get some material from…. Some of the health authorities didn't provide material for the report that she was doing, and I want to know how this legislation will ensure that the information is forthcoming. Again, what penalties are there if the person or service provider doesn't comply?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The duty to provide the information is a legal requirement within government. The expectation would be that the information would be provided. There are no penalties attached to this.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

K. Conroy: I'd like to know: what are the penalties if someone does contravene this clause?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, this is a requirement of the law, and there are not penalties attached.

B. Simpson: Again, because we are truncating debate, a lot of this would require substantial time. I want to honour and respect the critic that's coming up next with the next bill to get some of her stuff on the record too.

This part is particularly troublesome, because one of the things we deal with in our office all the time is the very deep fear in seniors and their families of reporting cases of abuse, suspected abuse, documented incidences of abuse — that their family member is vulnerable, in the situation they find themselves in, to continued abuse or to the kinds of things that are stipulated in this section of the act.

A truly independent officer of the Legislative Assembly would give greater comfort to many of those families, as
[ Page 13613 ]
opposed to a functionary of the very ministry that they're calling into question. That's an important and fundamental distinction.

[1510]

I wonder if the minister could explain on the public record how individuals who are concerned about reporting cases of abuse to the Ministry of Health, which they believe is facilitating the abuse…. How will they be protected from further abuse?

Just because it says in here there's going to be some kind of charge laid and that they are somehow protected, that will not give them comfort. How do you comfort those people that want an independent officer for this very reason?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I know that there's a divergence of views as to how this seniors advocate, the role, and how the legislation should come forward. I understand that. But for serious cases of abuse, there are a number of avenues that people can pursue. There's the assisted living registrar. It can be pursued through the criminal justice system. Again, I would remind the member that the intent of the seniors advocate is not to look at individual cases.

V. Huntington: Then could I ask the minister: who would be responsible for ensuring that the protection of the individual is a reality? Which public body? Is it the seniors advocate, if he can't go looking at certain and specific issues? Is he responsible for ensuring the protection of the individual? Is the ministry? If that's the case, who in the ministry? How is section 9 anticipated to be actionable?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, it really does depend. There wouldn't be one person or one individual. In certain situations, if there was a concern about abuse, it might go to the criminal justice system. It could go to the assisted living registrar. There are a number of other places where such a case could be taken.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I rise to report the bill complete unamended.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 3:14 p.m.

[1515]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SENIORS ADVOCATE ACT

Bill 10, Seniors Advocate Act, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 10, Seniors Advocate Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage for Bill 12, intituled the Community Safety Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 12; H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 3:17 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Bond: I would just like to introduce two of my staff that are with me, who have worked very hard on this and a number of other issues within the ministry.

Kathy Kirby is the director of legislative initiatives and accountability in the policing and security services branch, and Jeremy Wood is the senior policy and legislative analyst in policing and security services. Like other public servants, and particularly in this ministry, they work tirelessly, and this is certainly the product of much work and consultation for a very long time.

K. Corrigan: Just for clarification, the definition of "building" would include a house. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: The definition of "director." It means "the director of community safety designated under section 3." Is it expected that this will be a new position in government?

Hon. S. Bond: While we're still working through the business model, it would be safe to say that it could be a new person, but not required.
[ Page 13614 ]

K. Corrigan: Is there any money in the budget, either for 2013-14 or 2014-15, for a new position?

Hon. S. Bond: I think this may have been discussed in the briefing with the member opposite. Certainly, I've been very public about this.

This is an enabling bill. We do not intend to…. We're not in a position to even begin using this model in the short term, so there are no specific budget allocations. We have to actually develop a business plan. We have to develop the business case.

This is about enabling a process that's actually in place in other parts of Canada. We think it's an important piece of legislation to ensure that this work can continue.

K. Corrigan: Well, I agree. It's a piece of legislation that we certainly are going to support, since it's very close to legislation that the member for Surrey-Whalley introduced as a private member's bill in 2009. So yes, we will be supporting it.

However, I'm asking the questions because even though it's described as enabling legislation, nevertheless, as of today, it will become a law. When it's a law, then you have to do that which the law prescribes, which is, I would assume, put in place the various mechanisms.

[1520]

I would assume that the minister is not suggesting that this wouldn't be done until 2016 or 2017. That's why I'm asking about whether or not there is money in the budget for it. It's certainly quite possible to make promises, but this government has been very clear that they don't want to put things into the…. They're claiming to be careful about the budget. I'm just trying to note that there are things that are being promised that there's nothing budgeted for it.

I'll go on to my next question, which is on the definition of gangs. It's described as meaning "a group of individuals who associate with each other for criminal or other unlawful purposes."

I'm wondering if the minister could give me an example of what kind of "other unlawful purposes" would mean that somebody could be described as a gang for the purposes of this act.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm just going to harken back to the member opposite's questions or comments about budget initiatives. This is an important enabling piece of legislation. Other jurisdictions in our country use this law to deal with nuisance properties. It's been successful.

The reason that there is not an articulated budget is because we still have work to do. There needs to be the development of a business case and a business model. In fact, the two exceptional public servants sitting in this House with me today would assure you that there is a lot of work to do. We need to garner the expertise necessary to actually put this into place.

That issue has been canvassed extensively by the member opposite. This isn't a partisan safety issue. I gave credit to the member opposite for the bill that he introduced and, in fact, was very happy to do that.

In terms of a gang, it's a group of individuals who participate in either criminal or other unlawful purposes — for example, bylaws. There are lots of issues that are creating conflict in communities that may not necessarily be criminal but, certainly, are unlawful, and the definition of "gang" points that out.

K. Corrigan: But the word "gang" has very serious connotations, and of course, this is a scheme wherein somebody can make a confidential complaint about a house in their neighbourhood, or an apartment or a building. There is an investigation that happens. There are attempts to have the activities cease. It can then go to court. The property can be closed, and people can be evicted from their property.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I think that when we're trying to determine what kind of activity qualifies that an individual can make a complaint about, it's important to understand what we're talking about. When the minister talks about breaking bylaws being gang activity, it gives me concerns, so I'm trying to get something more specific about what kinds of bylaws could be broken that would then characterize somebody as being a member of a gang.

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: I think, to the member's point, this is simply pointing out that while there are criminal behaviours, there are also other unlawful behaviours. In fact, if a gang or a group of individuals is involved in those unlawful purposes, certainly, this act would apply to them. I should point out — obviously, we did look at the work of the member opposite — this definition was exactly the same definition that the member opposite included.

K. Corrigan: But this is not talking about gangs who are doing criminal things and, as well, other unlawful purposes. They are being defined as gangs on the basis of the other unlawful purposes. The minister said that, for example, could be breaking bylaws, so what this section says, this definition says, is that the breaking of bylaws will define somebody or could define somebody as a gang.

When we take it past criminal, it's dangerous territory, and so I'm trying to understand what kind of bylaws could be broken that could then define somebody as a gang member.

Hon. S. Bond: The director obviously would use discretion about when a group of individuals participates together in criminal behaviour or other unlawful pur-
[ Page 13615 ]
poses. The definition is one that we believe is also utilized in other jurisdictions, and it has not been considered an issue.

C. Trevena: The minister has just mentioned in the answer to a couple of questions that this is a piece of enabling legislation to move the process forward, but there is no business plan for it, so the work has still got to be done.

I just wanted to ask the minister why we even have this legislation when we don't have a business plan. Surely, it would be better to have the plan and build the legislation on that rather than the other way around and backfill it.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we've actually spent months and months listening to neighbours, people in their communities and others who are concerned about nuisance properties. As MLAs, we hear about that all the time. This legislation is built on the practice and legislation that exists in other jurisdictions across this country. It is enabling. It would allow us to then move forward and put the framework in place to deliver the program.

In fact, that's what legislatures do. That's what governments do. That's what leadership is about. You actually take those ideas, bring them to this place and make sure that there's a framework, that there's a law. And then we're going to figure out the absolute best mechanisms for actually delivering what many, many British Columbians have been asking for.

K. Corrigan: The definition of "specified use." These are uses that, if they are happening…. For example, possession, growth and so on of controlled drugs and substances; manufacturing and import, etc., of liquor; child sexual abuse and so on; possessing and storing firearms — these are all the specified uses that would be a valid basis for neighbours to make a complaint about a problem property.

But subsection (b) says: "prostitution or activities related to prostitution." Again, I have some concerns about what the width or the breadth of that definition could be. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what the limits are of "activities related to prostitution."

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, this is about neighbourhoods and about people living in neighbourhoods. In fact, this particular specified item is common in legislation across the country. One of the things, for example, would be frequent visitors in neighbourhoods at all hours of the day and night. Traffic. Indecent exposure, for example, is also an issue. Child exploitation — it's all of those kinds of things.

British Columbia is not adding this to the list by itself. In fact, we've very carefully consulted with other jurisdictions. One of the most important things in this framework is that in jurisdictions where this legislation has been in place, most of these disputes are resolved by dealing on a negotiated basis with the landlord, saying: "Do you know there's some stuff going on, on your property? Maybe we need to deal with it."

It's been extremely effective. A very small percentage have ended up in the courts, and communities feel safer and better about the neighbours that they share their neighbourhood with.

K. Corrigan: I could ask this now or, I guess, later when…. But I'll ask it now since we're on the subject. The minister mentioned that it would be indicated — prostitution or activities related, could be frequent visitors — at all times of the day or night. The minister isn't suggesting, I hope, that frequent visitors or people going in and out of a house or apartment regularly at all hours of the day and night would be enough to establish that somebody needs to be investigated and possibly have some kind of resolution in and of itself.

Hon. S. Bond: Of course not. This is about looking at a problem property. It's about a process where there would be a report made anonymously, and then, of course, there would be required to be…. It has to be habitual. It has to happen continuously. There needs to be evidence that there is some type of specified behaviour happening.

Of course it's not about simply having cars in the neighbourhood and visitors attending that home. It is about the opportunity for people who observe problem behaviours in their neighbourhoods to actually have a mechanism for saying: "This is a problem. I don't feel safe in my neighbourhood. I want to have the opportunity to do something about it."

Let's be clear. Six jurisdictions across our country already utilize this legislation, so we are not reinventing the wheel. In fact, British Columbia, in my view, has taken long enough for us to get to this point.

K. Corrigan: I guess since we're talking about the limits of what activity and so on, it's as good a time to ask — and if the minister would prefer to have this later, then I'm happy to do that — what steps the minister and the ministry took in terms of satisfying themselves that this piece of legislation would not offend the Charter of Rights.

I'm referring particularly to section 7, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" — or any other sections of the Charter.

I'm wondering what steps has the ministry taken to satisfy itself that this is not challengeable or successfully challengeable. I know that in the briefing we were told, and I appreciated it, that there have been 3,000, I think, complaints in Manitoba. Three went to court. All
[ Page 13616 ]
were successful, and there have been no challenges. That wouldn't necessarily mean that it still wasn't challengeable. But I'd just like to get a little bit of background on that.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, a great deal of work has been done. In fact, the type of legislation that we are debating today has actually been operating successfully in Canada for over a decade now. It was first introduced in Manitoba in 2002.

[1535]

There have been several court decisions where the question of constitutional validity has been raised and explored. One of the most thorough assessments can be found in the case of Nova Scotia v. Cochrane, 2008. That was in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. I urge the member — I know that she is a member of the bar — to go and look at Hon. Justice Gregory M. Warner's decision.

He works through a very significant process, but one of the comments he makes:

"I am satisfied that the purpose of this legislation is to regulate the use of property so as to suppress uses that adversely affect the property of others or interferes with others' enjoyment of their property, and that its most important characteristic or dominant feature is not to supplement the criminal law."

He goes on. In fact, that was done in 2008. This law has been virtually in place for over a decade in the country.

C. Trevena: On this definition of "specified use" that we were talking about a few moments ago, I just wanted to get clarification from the minister. Reading through the specified use, it seems to me that every aspect here would come under Criminal Code rather than civil code.

I'm wondering why you're looking at a civil tool to do something that is related to criminal activity. We have the Criminal Code and the police there to do that. Why are you setting up a whole parallel system based on neighbours looking out at neighbouring property?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, this type of legislation has been in place across the country. In fact, the first attempt is to deal with this via negotiation, dealing with problem properties and landlords. There is ultimately in every circumstance the ability for this to end up in court.

Recently when we announced that the act was going to be brought into the House, chiefs of police across this province stood up and celebrated the fact that this was one additional mechanism that would help support them in the work that they are trying to deal with, with problem properties in our province.

So yes, this is an approach that deals with, first and foremost, notification to the landlord or to the owner of the property to say: "We have an issue here. There has been a report filed, a complaint made anonymously, and we need to work through this."

The vast majority of these issues in other jurisdictions — we have done our homework — are dealt with through negotiation or discussion with landlords or property owners, because at the end of the day, many of them may not even know what kind of behaviour is going on.

We talk about the list of specified uses. I'm not sure that people in British Columbia want unlawful drug use, dealing, production or cultivation going on in their neighbourhood — or unlawful sale of liquor, sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child or related activities.

These are issues that create challenges in neighbourhoods. This gives neighbours the chance to say: "We're not happy about that. We don't feel safe in our neighbourhoods." It's been in place across this country, it has been successful, and that's why it's in the Legislature today.

C. Trevena: Surely, though, the neighbours have the ability, if they know that there is criminal activity happening in their neighbourhood, to call the police. That's what we have a police force for at the moment, and that's why we have…. If there is criminal activity, a person can call the police. They can have their name withheld. It can be privately done. Why do we have to set up this extra system?

Hon. S. Bond: As I just said to the member opposite, police deal with problem properties all the time. In fact, as we brought this legislation and we had consultation about it, police leadership in this province was very pleased and in fact stood up beside me and said: "This is another way for us to help deal with those kinds of properties."

[1540]

Across this country other jurisdictions have found this to be successful and useful. It has created safer communities across a number of jurisdictions. So in fact, we're not reinventing the wheel. It is to support and give police another opportunity.

What's critical to me is that neighbours have the ability to make these kinds of complaints anonymously. That's absolutely critical. We want to make sure that they feel safe to be able do that, dealing with the kinds of problems that are listed under specified activities.

The Chair: The member for Surrey-Fleetwood seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Visiting us today are four very special guests, and they are here all the way from India. They are my friends, and they're also my relatives. They are Randojh Singh, Jugraj Singh, Harpeet Singh, Daljit Singh. I'll ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

V. Huntington: The specified activities: "(h) the accommodation, aid, assistance or support of any nature
[ Page 13617 ]
of (i) a gang, or (ii) a criminal organization." Under Canadian jurisprudence and in court, it has been extremely difficult to prove participation in a criminal organization, sometimes even a gang, yet I take it that this enables somebody without that proof to be evicted under a specified activity. Is that correct? In other words, you need no proof that it is a gang member or is harbouring a gang or a criminal organization.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, eviction, for example, would only come after a court process. The court would have to be satisfied that the test had been met.

V. Huntington: But the test is a balance of probabilities. It's not proof, in the case of this act. Is that not correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to get clarification. In this section we have a designation of a director, and then we have a unit set up. Again, just for clarification from the minister, is there anything in the budget for this?

Hon. S. Bond: This section allows the person who the minister designates. The minister would designate the director. They would be a public servant, and their actions governed, of course, and guided by the Public Service Act.

In fact, as I have explained to the member opposite, this is enabling legislation. There is work to be done. There is no intention for this…. In fact, the work that needs to be done will take a period of time which is fairly extensive.

No, as we create a budget for the next year, for example, we don't anticipate this will be ready to be in place, so there are no budget lines for things that we don't expect to happen within the next year.

V. Huntington: In relation to the appointment of a director, what levels of expertise do you anticipate the director to have?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the question. In fact, when we look in other jurisdictions, typically a law enforcement background and, likely, extensive case management — those kinds of things. The person may also have a law degree. Typically, though, a law enforcement background.

V. Huntington: To what extent did the minister and her department look at bylaw enforcement within municipalities and bylaw enforcement officers, instead of police officers in the true sense?

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, nothing precludes that for sure. It is the director and the investigators who will actually build the case. We would look at expertise…. We're not in that position yet in terms of actually looking at a director. We're still working through the actual implementation and how it would work.

Again, in other jurisdictions, typically law enforcement. But you know, the member opposite is correct. It may well be a person who has had that kind of experience as well.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

K. Corrigan: This is a section which allows the director to "designate as investigators persons who are appointed under the Public Service Act." It says that the investigator is a peace officer for the following purposes: "investigating or attempting to resolve complaints…posting documents…closing, monitoring or securing a property under section 24."

I'm wondering if the minister could explain what kinds of powers this individual is going to have and not have. Also, as part of that, what is going to be the relationship between the investigators and the police in terms of getting evidence and exchanging of evidence?

Hon. S. Bond: Probably the best way to describe the duties of a peace officer is to give the member opposite examples of who other peace officers would be — sheriffs, for example. And there are some corrections officers. They have the power of arrest. Their major function is to investigate and gather information.

In terms of their relationship with the police, there is not a formal relationship with a police organization, but for example, if they were going to deal with a particular property, they would notify the police and work constructively with them. But there's no formal connection between the investigators. As I said, a similar comparison in terms of a peace officer would be the same type of responsibility and power that a sheriff has.

K. Corrigan: I think this is a very important section — or the director's actions after receiving the complaint. They're both dealing with the same thing, about what an investigator can do. I think this is really important.

For example, would the investigators have access to provincial databases that have criminal or other types of activities entered on to them? Would this person have, through the police or some other way, access to CPIC and that kind of information? Would the investigators have the ability to enter a facility?

I know I asked that question in the briefing, but I think it's important to know the answers to these kinds of questions. I'm trying to get a sense of what police-like powers these investigators will have.
[ Page 13618 ]

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we've looked closely at work done in other jurisdictions. There is the possibility for these investigators to have access to CPIC, but it is not automatic. They would have to apply for it. That process has been undergone in other jurisdictions. It's not an automatic expectation, but the application could be made. There are no police powers here in terms of a warrant to enter property.

K. Corrigan: Would there be an expectation or some ability to access information from police files?

Hon. S. Bond: This piece of legislation does provide lawful authority to seek additional information. An investigator could approach, for example, the police and say: "Has there been other repetitive behaviour on this piece of property?" This legislation does provide lawful authority for investigators to access information — for example, from the police — about whether or not there's been repeat behaviour on a piece of property.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to say at this point that there are so many questions that I would have liked to have answers to on many, many sections. But I respect the fact that we have some esteemed members of this House that are going to be retiring and are going to be making their last speeches today, so I'm going to go through this very quickly. I would have preferred to have had a chance to do more. So I'm not going to ask any more questions on that section.

V. Huntington: I, too, won't carry on at this point, as much as I feel that this is, surprisingly, one of the more important bills that has come in to this House. It is a fundamental assault on civil liberties. I think that it deserves really careful attention from this House, and it's obviously not going to have that.

On section 4, then, I'll just simply ask: can an investigator respond to a complaint from a municipality or a police department to do in a civil manner what they cannot do criminally? Can they actually accept and proceed on an investigation from a police department or a municipality?

[1555]

Hon. S. Bond: We have not distinguished in terms of what the person's role or occupation is. A person can make a complaint to the director. So yes, it could be a police officer who could make a complaint. It does, however, preclude someone from Vanderhoof making a complaint about someone in Prince George. It needs to be someone within that community or neighbourhood. But we have not distinguished what sort of definition of person.

In fact, this legislation mirrors legislation that's in place in other provinces across the country.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I notice that it says that a person — this would be somebody living in a neighbourhood — can "make a complaint to the director if the person believes" that certain activities are occurring and "the community or neighbourhood is being adversely affected by the activities."

I noticed that there is no reference to these complaints being made on reasonable grounds, so it is merely if the individual believes that. Was there any thought to having it be on reasonable grounds, or is it because the director, who can then deal with it later, will decide whether it's reasonable? Is that why that wasn't put in there?

Hon. S. Bond: We did not consider that. In fact, the director does have discretion under another section of the act to actually determine whether or not to proceed with that particular complaint.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

K. Corrigan: This is a section on which the Information and Privacy Commissioner sent a letter to the minister, expressing concern about the fact that this essentially provides an override of section 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain why the minister has decided that there will be an override in subsection (2), saying that it applies despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we thought very carefully about this, and in fact, we worked with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on a number of aspects of this bill. But we need to be clear that the reason for the override is to provide the highest level of protection for a complainant and make sure that the confidentiality of that person is respected. We want to be sure, for people who make a particular complaint, that that information is kept confidential.

I should note for the member opposite — and I'm not going to look up right now because I will not be able to continue this looking at the Opposition House Leader — that concern over protecting complainants' identities is also paramount in other jurisdictions that have enacted similar legislation.

[1600]

We should be clear. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and the Yukon have all included overrides of their respective access-to-information legislation. And I should note that the member for Surrey-Whalley includ-
[ Page 13619 ]
ed a similar override in his 2009 private member's bill.

Hon. M. de Jong: Point of order. The Opposition House Leader needs to explain himself.

J. Horgan: I thank my colleague across the way. This is my son's jacket, and the fact that I can wear it after losing 50 pounds is the reason I have it on. I want to thank the Government House Leader, and most importantly, I want to thank my son Nate for providing me with this garb today. I appreciate it very much.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

C. Trevena: Likewise, I feel that it's very unfortunate that we are rushing through this bill. I think we have a lot of questions on it, no matter the fact that a similar piece of legislation was tabled as a private member's bill. Even though this is just — what did the minister say? — an enabling bill with no business plan behind it, we still have the duty to examine it because of the potential infractions on people's civil liberties, which have been very hard-fought-for.

My question on section 12 is…. We're talking about how the court can make a community safety order if the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that activities in respect of the application…. I would like to ask the minister why it is the balance of probabilities rather than hard evidence.

Just because we are truncating this, I'd like to explain my concern. This bill could leave people homeless. It could impact whole families and not just the individuals who are basically being talked about by their neighbours and getting an investigation. It could leave families homeless. There are many implications of this. I'd like to know, on that reasoning, why we have the balance of probabilities rather than evidence.

Hon. S. Bond: The reason we are using the balance of probabilities is because it's a civil standard for a piece of…. This is civil law. Again to the member opposite, while I respect her concerns and, I'm sure, those of some others on the opposition bench, the fact of the matter is that this legislation has proved to be unbelievably successful in other jurisdictions across the country.

In fact, the member opposite's colleague tabled a bill very similar in nature to this one which includes the same degree of using the balance of probabilities. We believe this will help create safer neighbourhoods in our province, just as it has in six other jurisdictions.

Sections 12 to 54 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: With that, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:04 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1605-1610]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT

Bill 12, Community Safety Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

H. Lali: I want to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead.

H. Lali: I wanted to actually raise a point of order and register an objection in the House. The hon. member, our House Leader…. I wanted to actually ask the Speaker to
[ Page 13620 ]
make a ruling in terms of the dress code issue. I don't think the member quite cleared his dress code with the dress police and also with the member from Harry Rosen. I was wondering if the Speaker might make a ruling on his dress earlier.

Mr. Speaker: I'd definitely seen it on TV, and it jumped out, but I think it was appropriate for the Opposition House Leader.

Hon. M. de Jong: I guess that makes him the K Mart kid.

I call continued debate on the speech from the throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, there are a number of members that would like to get some speaking in, so if we could hold everybody's speeches down to maybe five to ten minutes kind of thing.

Surrey-Tynehead.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to resume my response to the throne speech, which was interrupted due to the presentation of the provincial budget on February 19, 2013. When I spoke on that day, I made note of some of the accomplishments that I have achieved for Surrey-Tynehead and the city of Surrey during my 12 years as MLA.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

As I conclude this, my last response to the throne speech in this Legislature, please let me say what a tremendous honour and privilege it has been to serve my constituents of Surrey-Tynehead and advocate for all residents of Surrey and British Columbia for the past 12 years. I will miss the opportunity to work directly in the Legislature of British Columbia, but I will continue to be a strong advocate for my city, for my residents, my constituents, for all British Columbians in the coming years.

I also want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I also want to thank our regular Speaker, who has done a great job for the last four years that I've been an MLA here in this term, and then I also thank the past Speakers who were there for eight years before that.

At the same time, I want to thank all of the staff of the Legislative Assembly, including the Clerk's office, the Clerk of Committees staff, Sergeant-at-Arms and security services, Hansard, the financial services office, protocol, the tour office, the dining room, independent officers, the maintenance department, as well as all of the press gallery.

[1615]

I want to thank my wife and all my very large family.

I want to say thank you to the dedicated board of directors I have in my riding. There are many of them. They include Alex, Carlos, Rue, Brenda, Russ, Tom, James, Isabelle, Marilena, Kal, Kathy, Gina, Rick, Marina, Sherrold, Paul, Ray, Jas, Shivraj, Sonia, Penny, Marianne, Avtar, Dave, Jassa, Del, Kulwinder, Davinder, Shivraj, Manuel, Bobby, Preet, Ian, Kassandra, Grant, Richard, Katrina, Anthony, Nola, Alexander, Sabrina, Daman, Sladjan, Jordon, Dawn, Gurpreet, Bob, Barb, Kulwinder, Darleen, Norm, Sophia, Neetu, Sarwan, Wazir, many who have volunteered and helped me for more than 14 years.

This dedicated board of directors, along with many of the other volunteers, have helped me over the past 14 years at many large events that we hosted in our community. They helped me with our regular MLA newsletters that were mailed to all homes, apartments and businesses in my riding since 2001.

I would also like to thank Sen. Yonah Martin, Sen. Dick Neufeld, Sen. Gerry St. Germain, the late Surrey MP Chuck Cadman and past MP Dona Cadman and all other past and current MPs, Minister James Moore, Minister Jason Kenney and other federal ministers, as well as Prime Minister Harper and other past Prime Ministers who have helped me over the 12 years, some of them over the last 20 years.

I would also like to thank Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts; Murray Dinwoodie, Surrey city manager, and all the staff there; the Surrey councillors and Surrey school board members and staff; and other city mayors and city councillors and community organizations who have helped me over the past 12 years as MLA in Surrey-Tynehead.

I would also like to thank former Premier Gordon Campbell for helping me and supporting me and investing billions of dollars in my constituency and in my city of Surrey and our area. I would also like to thank past Ministers Carole Taylor, Wally Oppal, Rick Thorpe, Iain Black, Judith Reid, Olga Ilich, Bill Reid, the late Stan Hagen and the late Sindi Hawkins.

I would also like to thank all my MLA colleagues from the past years, including Reni Masi, Gulzar Cheema, Brenda Locke, Tony Bhullar, Patty Sahota, Dennis MacKay, Val Roddick, Rob Nijjar, Karn Manhas, Al Horning, Joy MacPhail, John Nuraney, Lorne Mayencourt, Wilf Hurd, Penny Priddy, the late Rev. Val Anderson and all my current MLA colleagues from both sides of the House as well as the four independent MLAs and the members from all the parties who helped me for the last 12 years.

I also to say a special thank-you to the MLAs for Surrey-Cloverdale, Fort Langley–Aldergrove, Surrey–White Rock, Peace River North, Peace River South, Langley, Surrey, West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, Vancouver, Abbotsford, Williams Lake, Vancouver Island, Mission, Chilliwack, Prince George, Shuswap, Kamloops, Port Coquitlam and Delta, all the current and past B.C. ministers and their staff and all the deputies and their MAs and EAs who have helped me to achieve my goals for my city of
[ Page 13621 ]
Surrey and family members of all of the MLAs who have sacrificed their home lives so that their spouses and their parents could do the work for the province and their constituents.

And all my current and past legislative staff, including Chantel, Gabrielle, Ben, Kevin, Brandon, Britney, Matt, Cayley, Derek, Katherine, TJ, Gillian, Eric, Delphi, Tara, Tracy, Tim, Stacy, Blair, Michael, Roop, Melissa, Kevin, Rick, Christy, Mike Morton and Primrose Carson. All my constituency staff for the last 12 years, including Mark, Manuel, Paul, Gina, Penny; and my past CAs, Sophia, Neetu, Lovleen, Shareen, Barb and Kuldip; and the dozens of students from the local high schools and others who have volunteered in my office for their work experience for the past 12 years.

My heartfelt thanks go to my friends, my family, constituents, voters and thousands of volunteers who helped me over the years.

I would like to acknowledge and thank all the British Columbians throughout this great province who I had the great privilege of working with from many cities and municipalities across the province, which include Burns Lake, Cranbrook, Dawson Creek, Duncan, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Golden, 100 Mile House, Kamloops, Kelowna, Keremeos, Kitimat, Mackenzie, Merritt, Nelson, Nanaimo, Oliver, Osoyoos, Penticton, Peachland, Princeton, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Alberni, Quesnel, Salmon Arm, Smithers, Summerland, Terrace, Victoria, Vernon, Williams Lake and many other cities and municipalities across the province.

[1620]

A special thank-you to the thousands of our dedicated organizations, non-profit societies such as the Surrey Crime Prevention Society; Fleetwood Seniors Planning Committee; Tynehead Women's Auxiliary; the Serpentine Enhancement Society, which operates Tynehead Hatchery; Surrey Board of Trade and CEO Anita Huberman; Cloverdale District Chamber of Commerce and Bill Reid, executive director; Cloverdale Business Improvement Association and Paul Orazietti, executive director; Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association; Surrey Delta Scott Road Punjabi Bazar Association, president Amarjit Samra.

All of the non-profit societies and organizations that volunteer in our province that make British Columbia such a wonderful place to live, to work and to play, today and tomorrow, for generations to come — thank you. Thank you to all British Columbians for giving me this opportunity and this great honour to serve you. And thank you, Mr. Speaker and all the members from both sides.

D. Black: Today I rise to make what will be my final speech in this Legislature. I actually feel a bit emotional, and I've been reflecting on what I want to say for the past few days. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues who are also retiring: the members for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows; Delta North; North Coast; and Coquitlam-Maillardville — the one we often call the member from Bonavista. I also offer my best wishes to all of the retiring government MLAs and ministers who are leaving this place.

My journey in political life has not been a traditional one. Not once, as a girl growing up in Vancouver, did I consider a role in politics. Unlike the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken, I never spent my spare time reading Hansard as a young person. I never dreamed of becoming the Prime Minister of Canada or the Premier of British Columbia. It was not something girls of my generation saw as an option for themselves.

Politicians were invariably older gentlemen, although I did grow up in a family where politics and issues of the day were discussed and sometimes debated with great vigour. My grandparents, who lived only a block away, were Progressive Conservatives. My parents supported the CCF-NDP. This partisan divide made for some very interesting Sunday dinners.

I married young and was the mother of three by the age of 24. In 1975, when the Dave Barrett government went to the polls, it was clear to me that their re-election would be a big challenge. As a young mom, I knew the positive difference his government had made for ordinary families like mine and how it had reflected my own values.

I decided it was important to do what I could do to work for their re-election. I volunteered, going door to door, knocking on doors in what was a very divisive election campaign. It was quite the experience. Although the NDP were not elected in the '75 campaign, that started me on a road in politics that eventually took me to the House of Commons and then here to this Legislature.

My journey to the Legislature from Parliament Hill was taken, in part, because of the example set by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill was elected to lead the NDP at our most difficult and challenging hour. With courage and with determination, she began the hard and often solitary work, delivering us from the political wilderness.

She embodied the message that she carried. Her life's work as a foster parent, community activist and school board trustee was built on an abiding faith in the value of every individual, on the bedrock belief that British Columbians could not move forward while leaving so many behind and that everyone in B.C. mattered, no matter where you came from or what your life circumstance.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill carried that message with purpose and with conviction to every corner of our province, building our party as she improved our politics. I saw in her and I continue to see in her what is the very best in public service.

She is compassionate, thoughtful and driven by that very basic truth that we can achieve more working
[ Page 13622 ]
together than we can alone. Under her leadership and in that spirit, the NDP once again took its place in public life as a powerful voice for the many, not just the few, a voice for a more equal and prosperous province for all its citizens.

[1625]

She inspired me to join her team, hoping to help take the NDP from opposition to government, firm in my belief that we could make a real and lasting difference for the people of British Columbia. Although she did not become Premier, I'm very proud to have worked alongside her, to share in a very small way part of her legacy. Today in my last speech to this House I want to pay tribute to her.

Thank you, Member. Thank you, friend. Thank you.

I also want to pay tribute to her successor, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I've known him for many years. I first met the member for Vancouver-Kingsway on Parliament Hill, and for a time I worked with him in the office of former Premier Glen Clark.

He, too, represents what is best about public service, guided by the principle that we should be judged by how our actions affect the most vulnerable among us. He, too, has led our party — my party — with a conviction that politics in B.C. can rise to a higher standard, that it can appeal to our better instincts and that government can be and must be a force for good.

In leaving this House, I regret that I will not be here to support him and our caucus in whatever role British Columbians deliver to them. But I am looking forward to knocking on doors and driving people to the polls on May 14, because like so many other British Columbians, I too believe it's time — time for a change. I believe the Leader of the Opposition is offering a positive vision of a more hopeful future and change for the better, one practical step at a time.

My four years here have certainly been eventful. We've seen a change in leadership in both the government and the opposition sides. I served a brief stint as Leader of the Official Opposition while my party went through a leadership contest, and I was truly humbled by the response from people all across B.C. who offered me their advice and their best wishes.

I cherish the memory of talking to them about our province, about its future. Over and over again they told me they wanted a province that serves all of its citizens. Their faith in the potential of our province continues to inspire me.

For the past two years I've had the honour of serving as the Assistant Deputy Speaker of the Legislature. There are a lot of people I need to thank for helping me to fulfil this important role of chairing the House. The Speaker, whose sage advice, support and wisdom have helped me enormously. The Deputy Speaker, the member for Richmond East, has been incredibly supportive, and we formed a friendship which I'm sure will continue post-politics. She's the longest currently serving member, someone I've called the deaness of the House.

Thank you to both of you.

The Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the Law Clerk, the Committee Clerk — all have been instrumental in assuring that I appeared to know what I was doing while in the Speaker's chair or chairing committee. You all have my eternal gratitude.

To my office neighbour, the Sergeant-at-Arms, thank you for the many acts of kindness you've shown to me over the past few years.

All of these important officers have terrific staff, who make sure that this place runs so well, sometimes in very challenging circumstances.

I want to thank the Hansard staff, the dining room staff and everyone else who works in this Legislature. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

In leaving this place, I feel a responsibility to comment on how the House works and to reflect on what might be done to improve the process. The Legislature is a very important democratic institution. As former Speaker Bill Hartley said: "An effective parliament is not a static institution, and rules can become archaic if they are not regularly reviewed."

While we must respect our traditions, we must also move with the times and ensure that the Legislature meets the democratic needs of our time. Important changes have been made by the current government. Set election dates were established; a set budget day; a legislative calendar; and the introduction of private members' statements, which we heard a little about earlier in the day.

Later the government lengthened question period from 15 to 30 minutes. These were important and progressive changes to how the Legislature operates, and I congratulate the government for taking that action.

[1630]

I hope future governments will consider reforms that include sending proposed legislation to standing or legislative committees. This would allow work to continue even when the House is not sitting and would perhaps lessen the use of closure. Committees could call expert witnesses and have more effective public consultation. The estimates could also be referred to committee for consideration.

MLAs develop expertise in different areas through their critic responsibilities, through matters constituents bring to our attention, or from personal experiences and interest. They often become very well versed on different policy areas. This expertise could and should be utilized much more fully in a more functional legislative and standing committee system.

I was struck by the comments from the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky when she made her final speech in the Legislature. She mentioned that one of the highlights of her career was chairing the Committee on
[ Page 13623 ]
Children and Youth, working together with the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads in an open and collaborative manner to put forward a report on very important issues both sides of the House could endorse.

I believe that the Legislature and the public in British Columbia would benefit from changes that would allow more of this type of bipartisan cooperation.

Another suggestion for procedural change flows from my two years in the chair listening to debate in the chamber that too often seemed to be a regurgitation of talking points, one member after another on both sides of the House. In the House of Commons there's a question time after each MP speaks. The length of the question time depends on the length of time allotted to the speech. Questions from other members are not predetermined and depend on being recognized by the Speaker.

I think it improves debate, and it certainly encourages members to be somewhat — somewhat — more accountable for their comments. And it's fun. It keeps you on your toes a bit. It encourages members to think on their feet and to be prepared to defend their positions on the floor of the House.

Finally, I want to urge adoption of the bill, presented many times by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, to end political donations from corporations and from labour. Its time has come, and I hope that it will be acted upon quickly.

Earlier I spoke briefly about my journey in political life. One of the key parts of my dedication to social democracy has been a passionate commitment to women's equality. I've worked hard to promote policies to advance women's social and economic equality in our society and to encourage more and more women to run for public office. As I prepare to leave electoral politics, I want to take a couple of minutes to reflect upon where we are in the struggle, where we've come from and how much more there is yet to be done.

A personal hero and someone I've drawn inspiration from is Agnes Macphail, the first woman elected to the House of Commons. Her courage and her determination continue to inspire many of us. A lot has changed since Macphail was first elected in 1921, but there's still a long way to go.

In three years, on September 14, 2016, we'll mark the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage in British Columbia. B.C. was the only province in Canada to hold a referendum on extending the right to vote to women in provincial elections. A women's coalition formed, the B.C. Political Equality League, and led the drive for a yes vote. I want to take a moment to thank the majority of male voters who were ever so kind to vote yes. Despite the yes vote, it wasn't until the following year that legislation was passed by this House to put the referendum results into law.

In January of 1918 Mary Ellen Smith became the first woman elected and later the first woman cabinet minister in all of what was then the British Empire. She championed many policies of particular interest to women, including legislation to make sure minimum-wage laws applied equally to women.

When we speak of women in the Legislature, it's important to also recognize the Premier, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. She stepped in to seek the leadership of her party at a very challenging time. She's shown courage, determination and a desire to serve our province, and I'm sure she would agree it's a role with many, many very difficult and challenging moments.

[1635]

I know how important it is for girls and young women to see the face of a woman in leadership roles so that girls like my five granddaughters can grow up seeing a reflection of themselves in the Legislature, seeing women making a commitment to public life. It is important.

When I left the House of Commons, I asked a very learned friend to calculate for me how long it would take, considering the rate of progress women have made in Parliament, to achieve gender parity. The answer astounded even me. It will take until December of 2100 — almost a century. We must all do better.

Currently the House of Commons has 24 percent women MPs. The B.C. Legislature jumped to 31 percent with the by-election victory of the member for Chilliwack-Hope. Internationally, Canada ranks 45th in the world in representation of women in national parliaments. This is simply not good enough. We still have a long way to go.

I am proud that my party has taken concrete action to ensure the nomination of women in winnable ridings. In New Westminster this means we've nominated an experienced and talented woman, Judy Darcy. Although I won't take anything for granted, I'm confident we'll be hearing her passionate voice in this chamber after May 14.

I urge other political parties to do the difficult work to make sure we see a legislature in the near future that more accurately reflects by gender and by ethnicity the population we serve.

Reflecting back on my time in politics, I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to work together with many others to influence change. In 1991 I received all-party support in the House of Commons to recognize December 6 as a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.

I had the support of women across the floor — most importantly, cabinet minister Mary Collins, who ensured that all government members supported the bill. In those days, you needed a unanimous vote to pass a private member's bill, not just a simple majority as it is today. I know that Mary worked hard to make sure the bill passed, as did Mary Clancy, the Liberal critic at the time.

I also introduced anti-stalking legislation, which the government adopted and presented as government legislation.
[ Page 13624 ]

My three years as Defence critic under leader Jack Layton took me to Afghanistan in 2007. It was a remarkable experience, and I learned firsthand how professional and highly skilled the men and women in the Canadian Forces are. I stayed at Kandahar Airfield and saw the enormous challenges they faced. I had opportunities to meet and talk with these incredible members and was even able to go "outside the wire" for a short time. I learned how much these courageous men and women really do reflect our values as Canadians.

On return to the House of Commons, my private member's bill was passed to secure job protection for Canadian Forces reservists employed in federally regulated workplaces.

Serving the people of New Westminster both federally and provincially has truly been an honour and a privilege. New Westminster is a unique and wonderful community. Its history goes back to the Qayqayt First Nations who lived along the banks of the mighty Fraser. New Westminster was Canada's first city west of the Lakehead and British Columbia's first capital.

It's a rich and welcoming community with an outstanding culture of reaching out to help others. Many organizations in the city provide services to foster a sense of community and to welcome newcomers. New Westminster has vibrant non-profit and volunteer organizations that work hard to make sure our city is a welcoming place for all its residents.

The city is changing from mill town to what some people have been calling the new Brooklyn. It continues to evolve as a family-friendly and supportive community, a community in a city I'm proud to call home.

Political life is never a solo act, so there are many people to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. I've been blessed with talented and dedicated staff who've worked alongside me for many years.

From the House of Commons, Kevin Gilmore, Marika Morris, Shelley Canitz, Wendy Beattie, Irshad Manji, Scott Harris, Lauren Dobson-Hughes, Mattieu Jacques, Sam Heppell and others who've made my life easier and who, more often than not, made me look good.

[1640]

In the constituency, Susan Reimer, Tania Jarzebiak, Marja Kauppi, Melanie Sanderson, Brynn Bourke, Jarrah Hodge and today, Stuart Alcock and Linda Asgeirsson. These people have run my constituency offices with efficiency, warmth and consideration for all of the people in our community. And in Victoria, thanks go to Lucy Mears, Heidi Reid, Teresa Scambler and Amber Nash.

Political staffers are a breed apart. All the difficult and good work they do is credited to their MLA or their MP, yet they continue in the cause and the values that they believe in and support. Each of them has my enduring gratitude.

Thanks, too, to all the wonderful people who volunteered on my many political campaigns. To Alex Ng, who has helped me over the years to win nomination contests and has been president of our local riding association for the past year. Lynn Bueckert worked with me in many different capacities: in a memorable nomination battle, as an executive member federally, and as a very long-serving constituency president in New Westminster. Cheryl Greenhalgh has been my financial agent both federally and provincially. It's a tough job, requiring many hours of accounting, and I very much appreciate her commitment.

Thanks to them and thanks to all the others too numerous to mention, and to my family — my large, extended family, my aunts, my uncles, my cousins; my brother Brent, who travelled from Toronto for each one of my campaigns; my sister Lorraine, who offered support from England. Each of them, although not always supporting my political family, have given me their unqualified support both financially and emotionally.

To my three sons — David, Matthew and Stuart — who've campaigned for me in every election, strong in their belief that their mother was up to the task, and who have inspired me to be all that I could, I want to thank each of you. I love you very much. I'm very proud of you. Each has chosen a field of public service and has shown strong leadership and a commitment to make life better for others. It's such a delight, as your mother, to see what wonderful and evolved parents you've become, alongside your exceptional partners — Maya, Joanna and Takako.

I am so looking forward to spending even more time with my brilliant and very talented seven grandchildren. Meagan, Lauren, Ian, Christopher, Kate, Rebecca and Maggie, I know we're going to have a lot of fun together. The next chapter of my life is sure to be a fulfilling and a happy one.

Finally to my husband, Peter, thank you for your steadfast and unqualified support over so many years. I remember well our first conversation when I was considering running for nomination, a contested nomination, in 1988. And you said: "Dawn, if I wanted to run for office, I would just expect you to support me. If you want to run, you can expect that support from me." It was a pivotal moment, and as they say, the rest is history.

You've been there to provide that support through thick and thin, through wins and losses, and I believe it has made our relationship even stronger. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I have no regrets about leaving this incredible career, one that has offered me so many wonderful opportunities. It is time for others to take forward our agenda for fairness and opportunity, time for a change. I am confident that those who follow will achieve many great things for the people of New Westminster and for British Columbia.

I wish all future members of this place great wisdom and compassion as they address the economic and social challenges facing British Columbia today. [Applause.]
[ Page 13625 ]

K. Falcon: I am keenly aware of the time constraints here, so I'm going to try and be as brief as I can. I want to start by saying that the only member of my family that was able to attend and be with us here today is my daughter Josephine, who is three years old. She's up there right now.

[1645]

Josephine, Daddy loves you. Wave, Josephine. Attagirl.

I really want to start by thanking my family — my wife, Jessica; my daughter Josephine; and my new daughter, Jacqueline Rose — who have been such incredible supporters during times when I was away from home travelling, spending more time than I care to remember in hotels and airports in countries and provinces and cities, missing them tremendously.

I also want to thank my mom; my dad, who passed away, unfortunately of a degenerative illness early in my career so didn't get to see a lot of the highlights or lowlights, depending which side of the House you're on perhaps; and my brothers Mike, Danny, Larry, Dave and my brother Greg, who is no longer with us.

I also want to thank staff. Because there are so many of them, I'm just going to use first names for most of them. But everyone in this House knows how important — incredibly important — they are in the life of a busy politician and especially a minister.

I want to thank my executive assistants, the ministerial assistants — Linda, Pam, Jay, Dave, Lisa, Cheryl, RJ, Robbie, Cory, Fraser, Mark, Boomer, Jen, Jamie, Sam, Erin and Carolyn — who were just such a great help to me. My constituency office staff, both past and present, I can't say enough about — Natasha Westover, Sharon, Sam and my two current staff, Linda and James.

There are people that help you in public life, political people that raise money for you and organize events for you, and they do it for nothing — nothing but the belief that maybe an individual can make a difference. I had a lot of those people, too many to mention, but I do want to just touch on Gord Schoberg, Norm Stowe, John Vickerstaff, John O'Neill, Ryan Beatty, Dan McLaren and others that were so helpful to me over the years.

The professional civil service. I just want to say how proud every British Columbian should be that in this province we have an absolutely unbelievable civil service. I mean that sincerely. In every ministry, in every department, in virtually every interaction I had, I just came away with a complete new impression about how professional our staff is in the civil service.

I want to mention a few, but they're only representative. I do want to really recognize Dan Doyle, my first deputy minister when I was first Minister of Transportation; John Dyble, again, an outstanding civil servant; and Peter Milburn, who served me with distinction as Minister of Finance — truly exceptional.

Of course, all the legislative precinct staff — everyone, from the kind folks who picked up my garbage late at night when I would be in the office working late. They were always so amenable to all the staff in the buildings, who have been so great to work with.

I also want to thank Gordon Campbell. You know, Gordon was a former Premier that I worked with for the vast majority of my time in public life. I want to say that I admire him and continue to admire him. I think history will judge him as one of the great Premiers of our province. I think he will be in the pantheon of great Premiers that I have admired — some you may be surprised at.

W.A.C. Bennett, of course, because of the dams and because of B.C. Ferries. Both were very controversial decisions at the time.

Bill Bennett, with the restraint program — very difficult to do but well ahead of governments around the world, recognizing that government had to live within its means — and the Coquihalla Highway, of course — extremely controversial but key to opening up the interior of the province, recognizing that the province is bigger than the Lower Mainland and Victoria.

Dave Barrett, because Dave Barrett was also bold and visionary in his own way. I didn't agree with all of the public policy positions, but I admired the strength of character to say that this is the right thing to do, whether it was the ALR or other decisions that he was involved with.

That, at the end of the day, in my 12 years of public life, is what leadership is about. It's about doing what you believe is right, regardless of whether it's easy. That, I think, is the key distinguishing characteristic amongst public policy.

Folks, I would like to say that Gordon Campbell was very good, because he allowed me to be the spearhead of a lot of very difficult, in some ways, and challenging public policy files but never once tried to say, "Don't do that" or "Do something different" — or in any way tried to rein in some of my well-known excesses.

[1650]

I have a few things I would like to say, I hope in the spirit of goodwill for this House and those that will serve in the House and those that will form the next government. Obviously, I'm hopeful it will be on this side, but for whoever forms government, I think there are a few things I'd like to touch on.

The first is the importance of investing in infrastructure — infrastructure that is going to make us stronger as a province; more competitive; with a greater, knowledgable population base that can serve us well in the years to come.

I had the opportunity of overseeing, as Minister of Transportation, over $10 billion of major strategic investments. I believe they are strategic and will serve us well, not just today but many decades into the future. Whether it was the Port Mann Bridge, the Canada Line, the Sea to Sky Highway, the Cariboo connector, the Port of Prince Rupert — all of those were important projects
[ Page 13626 ]
that will pay dividends for many, many years to come in British Columbia.

So, too, are the investments in portfolios I had nothing to do with. Post-secondary investments. SFU, a university I barely recognize anymore when I go back there from the time I was at that school — all the new buildings, all the new investments that have been made. Similarly across the province. K-to-12 education.

These are important. But what I can say to this House is that many of those projects that I was personally involved with had enormous amounts of controversy associated with them. In fact, there were lots of times when it would have been easier just not to do them. But I want to say here that it is so important, and I'm so glad that with the support of my colleagues we said: "No, we're going to get them done. It's right for the province. It's right for the future." We did, and they are serving us well today.

The second point I'd like to make, quickly, has to do with fiscal discipline. This is a very different world that we're in today. It's a world where, I can assure you, the financial markets look very, very differently on politicians and governments — for good reason. Politicians have failed around the world to demonstrate the kind of discipline that shows that they can be trusted with the financial purse.

I hope and I plead with all of us to understand how important it is that we think about the next generation and the generation beyond when we think about all the people that come to us in government and say: "Spend more. Spend more. Do more of this. Do more of that." I hope we'll think about the responsibility.

The fact that British Columbia has enjoyed seven credit rating upgrades over the last 12 years and enjoys the highest credit rating possible today, I think, is very important for all of us. But it's very important for the next generation that we preserve and protect that. I want to make an appeal for those that will follow me, whoever they are, to really do that.

The other thing I would say about government is to remember this: if we focus on outcomes, that is so much more important than focusing on how much we're spending. Never is this more true than in the Health Ministry. I had the honour of serving as the Health Minister. It is not about more money. It is about measuring how we are spending that money and what kinds of outcomes we're getting.

When we're getting poor outcomes, stop doing it, or do less of it, or do it differently, but don't be afraid to challenge the status quo. It's very, very important if we are to preserve a great public health care system for the next generation and beyond.

The final point I want to make — so my colleagues can get up and speak, and I've tried to be as brief as I can — has to do with just the opportunity to have served in this House, to be an MLA, first elected in 2001, re-elected in '05 and '09 with larger majorities each time by some amazing constituents in Surrey-Cloverdale.

I have always been humbled to come to this House every day I see it. Even today on my last day, when I look at these buildings and think that I played a small part in some of the public policy debates and decisions that went on in this House, it is a tremendous honour. Those that are here and those that will return, treasure that honour. It is something that is very important.

Remember this: honesty in politics, I think, is a great thing. It sometimes gets you in trouble. Often I would say things, answering questions, and it would create stories and the media would get very excited. But at the end of the day, you save a lot of time by just being straight-up. I hope that people will continue in that approach in this House. Most do — I know that — and I hope they will continue in the future.

To my constituents, thank you so much for giving me the honour of serving you. I did my very best for Surrey. I did my very best for the province of British Columbia, and I enjoyed working with all members of this House on both sides. I genuinely did.

[1655]

M. Farnworth: I don't intend to speak at length.

Deputy Speaker: If I could remind the members they had a time allocation agreement.

M. Farnworth: I do not intend at all to speak at length, but what I do want to do is take a moment to acknowledge some of the people that I've had the pleasure of working with in my own caucus but also in the opposition over the last almost 17 years in this House.

I'd first like to pay tribute to my colleagues who are not going to be returning: the member for North Coast, from whom I learned a lot about ferries; the member for Delta North, from whom I learned so many other things; the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — we share our love of the north side of the Fraser; the member for New Westminster, whom I've known for a very long time and who provided me with a lot of advice coming into this chamber.

Finally, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, whom I really will miss. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition referred to our relationship as kind of like Tracy and Hepburn. Take that how you will.

I'd also like to acknowledge that there are some members leaving on the government side whom I've had the privilege of working with both in opposition and in government. I'd like to take the opportunity to wish them well and to acknowledge them.

The member for Shuswap was a critic of mine in Municipal Affairs, and his humour and wit and insightfulness I've always enjoyed. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena — when I was Health Minister, he was my critic then. As well, in my time as House Leader I got
[ Page 13627 ]
to work with the member for Abbotsford-Mission and built a relationship with him. I found him also great to work with.

The one thing I'd like to leave is that this House functions when members are able to form relationships with each other — relationships that allow conversations and discussions to take place in an avenue of trust. That happens in this place. Most people don't do that. The members for Shuswap and Vancouver-Quilchena, for example, are examples of that.

I truly want to say that you leave here with my full respect and the respect of the opposition. As the member for Port Coquitlam, I just want to thank you for your years of service and wish you well.

With that, other members now can take the opportunity to speak.

G. Abbott: I remember rising in this chamber 17 years ago to give my maiden speech, just a kid with a big moustache and a crazy dream, and here I am today making my geezer speech. I'm going to be something which I'm not normally, which is relatively brief. In my geezer speech I would have loved to have gone on a little bit more with some unsolicited advice, but I'll try to constrain that today.

I want to begin by thanking my family — my long-suffering wife, Lesley, who has put up with my 34-year addiction to elected politics. It has been a long-term addiction. I was, in fact, 26 years old the last time I woke up without a political office in my pocket. I'm slightly older than 26 now. It's been a long time, and I'm looking forward to seeing what it's actually like not to wake up as a politician. So I do thank Lesley very much for putting up with me and my addiction for all those years.

I want to thank my kids — Megan, Brant, Wade — for all they've done for me as well, and my grandson, Raiden, and my mom, Irene. [Applause.]

Thank you. I'm emotional too early in this speech. I wanted to save that for the end.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I want to thank my constituents in Shuswap. They have been faithfully electing me and re-electing me for 17 years, despite the obvious faults that I bring to this role. That was a fabulous 17 years — a great honour to represent them in this chamber. I do thank them for that.

From my even earlier years, I want to thank the electors in the district of Sicamous and in electoral area E of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. I spent 17 great years in local government before provincial government — again, just a tremendous honour to do that.

Again, I want to thank all of my constituents in the Shuswap for this great opportunity.

[1700]

I've been blessed over 17 years with remarkable constituency assistants. I always say that I have the best constituency assistants in the province, and I mean that. I've only had three over the years: the current two, Roxena Goodine and Holly Cowan, just tremendous constituency assistants; and before them June Wayslow did a wonderful job as my CA up in Salmon Arm as well. They've been tremendous. For 12 years, almost all of it in executive council, they took a lot of the weight of constituency issues when I was busy with ministerial tasks, which occasionally were daunting as well.

I want to thank the B.C. Liberal Shuswap constituency association. Again, they had a pretty tough job trying to continuously elect a commodity that was as deeply flawed as I was, but somehow they were able to do it. I want to thank longtime president Brian Cowan, my good friend, for all of his work, all of the members of the executive, all of the volunteers — countless volunteers who work tirelessly so that we have this extraordinary opportunity to serve in this remarkable assembly.

I also want to thank my…. There have been many, many ministerial assistants and executive assistants over the years. Actually, they call themselves the Bad Abbotts. They are a form of recovery group. Because of my notoriously prickly personality, they have a tough time, so they have to get together, play golf and drink heavily on occasion in order to recover from being a Bad Abbott. It's been great fun. They're a great group of people.

To my current legislative assistants, Suneil Karod and Sarah O'Connor, thank you for the work you've done keeping me squared away the last few months.

To the Legislature staff, this is a remarkable place, and it's remarkable because of all of the work that you do here.

I want to thank the folks in the library. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that we could probably balance the provincial budget just on the forgiven library fines they have provided to me over the years. I thank them for that. Thank you to the Sergeant-at-Arms staff — terrific people, always there with water when we need it, always there with helpful advice when we need it. Thank you to the dining room staff and all of the folks who keep the building going. This is a wonderful place and a community in and of itself.

Finally, and I think, very importantly, I also want to thank the many dedicated public servants that I've had the honour to work with over 34 years. I do thank the current Premier, and I do thank former Premier Gordon Campbell for the opportunity to serve in, I guess, half a dozen demanding roles as a minister. I wouldn't have been able to do it without the faith that they demonstrated in me.

Politicians, of course, can't do it alone. It's only in partnership and collaboration with the public service that we are able to achieve anything in this assembly. I've had the good fortune to work with really remarkable public servants, whether it was in Education; Health; Aboriginal Relations; Sustainable Resource Management;
[ Page 13628 ]
Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. In each and every one of those ministries I had outstanding deputies who were able to work with me and with the team to bring together some great changes.

I want to thank every member of this assembly as well. I think every member, whether they're B.C. Liberal or whether they're B.C. NDP, whether they're retiring or whether they are continuing…. Every one of us gets elected to this place to try to make British Columbia just a little better place when we leave it than when we arrived. I feel very proud, actually, that I leave this place and, I hope, leave this great province a little better in education, in health, in aboriginal relations, in municipal affairs than when I arrived 17 years ago.

I'm also confident in saying that I'm very sure that I've left those who are continuing here with a good many puzzles to solve as well.

I do hope, as you proceed with your work post-2013, that whoever the new Premier is, whoever the new legislators are, you find ways to strengthen the committee system, find ways to revitalize the estimates process.

[1705]

One of the things I go away with that I think is unresolved is I think every member of this House comes with a real thirst to participate in the creation of public policy, and we don't get enough opportunities in that area. I do hope that all of the members, post the 2013 election can look at that and strengthen those parts of our operation.

Finally, to me, the principle that has always guided me in political life is the principle of equality of opportunity. That is a principle that has been articulated probably for a couple of hundred years and has been articulated in a great many jurisdictions. It's also a principle that has never been achieved in any jurisdiction at any time.

British Columbia, I believe, is blessed by great natural and human resources, and I think British Columbia can be the place within a generation where every young British Columbian — whether they are aboriginal, non-aboriginal, new Canadian, my grandson — can pursue and achieve their dreams, in this great province that we call home.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

J. Les: It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to make one or two comments about the Speech from the Throne and then to add a few closing comments of my own. With respect to the Speech from the Throne, I have got to say this. Its focus on the future opportunities of this province I found striking. Others have said its focus was too narrow. We have many opportunities in this grand province of ours.

It just so happens that we have this immense resource called natural gas. It is, in many ways, one of the great fuels of the future. It is a clean fuel, and we have it in remarkable abundance. Our ability to manufacture that into various products and to sell that around the world truly does represent a remarkable opportunity for this province.

I want to congratulate the Premier for her relentless focus on this future opportunity for our province, and within that, to also focus on the opportunity we have, over time, to retire the debt of this province and in that way invest in our children and in our grandchildren.

It is a concept with which I am not unfamiliar. I previously served as the mayor of Chilliwack, and I was so pleased when I left office that I was able to leave office with all the debts of that city paid off. It is a great way to present an equal opportunity not only to the current generation but also to future generations.

For me, this journey started almost 30 years ago. In 1983, I was approached. Would I run as an alderman, as we were then known in the city of Chilliwack. My initial reaction was: "Oh no, that's not something I can do." But somehow it sparked something in me, and I went back a few weeks later, and I said: "You know, I've been thinking about this. It won't let me go. Would you consider supporting me?" They said: "Absolutely. We'll do that."

To my own surprise, I got elected in 1983 as an alderman, served for three years, and again completely unexpectedly, the then mayor was elected as an MLA and resigned the mayoral seat. I found myself running for mayor, and I was elected.

I remember so clearly my first council meeting that I chaired as mayor. I had called the meeting to order, and almost in a moment of panic, I thought to myself: "What the heck have I done?" But I was, relatively, a lot younger then than I am today. As a matter of fact, I was the youngest member of council, as mayor at the time. But supported by good staff and supported by a wonderful group of councillors that I was able to work with, we got a lot of good things done.

[1710]

That went on for a combined 16 years, and it was a real pleasure. But there is always a time to undertake a new opportunity. There's also a time to leave and to pass the torch on to someone else. With the turning of the millennium came a new opportunity with a new riding in the Chilliwack area, then called Chilliwack-Sumas. I went to work to secure the nomination, and I was able to secure that by acclamation and then was elected to this place in 2001.

To this day, every time I walk in that door, I consider it a great honour to be able to serve in this place. There is no question that anybody who serves in this place has a great honour bestowed on them.

I want to thank a number of people. First of all, my constituents who, in three different provincial elections, sent me to this place to represent them. With all of the faults inherent in me, I hope at the end of the day the judgment will be that I did a creditable job on their behalf.
[ Page 13629 ]

My family, some of whom were here earlier today, I cannot thank enough — my wife; my children; my grandchildren; my mother, who is, fortunately, still with us.

My constituency assistant. I heard the member previous talk about how he had two or three. I've only ever had one, I'm pleased to say. Pam White came to work with me in 2001, and she worked out remarkably well. She deserves a lot of the credit for all of the good work we were able to do in the constituency office.

One of the barometers I used to use was that I would come to the constituency office from time to time, and there would be a bouquet of flowers on the counter. I said: "Your husband is trying to score some Brownie points." No, I was always wrong. It was always a constituent who had sent some flowers for the great job that she had done on their behalf. I thought that was quite remarkable. I couldn't have had, over the years, a better constituency assistant.

All of the colleagues that I've had the pleasure of working with in this House…. I'm talking about all of the colleagues, both sides of this House. We sometimes spar remarkably, but at the end of the day — and it's been mentioned several times today — when we are able to work together, usually not in this particular chamber but in other venues, I think we tend to bring out the better in each other. I lament the fact that we don't actually have more of an opportunity to do that.

I listened with interest to the remarks from the member for New Westminster and her suggestions for parliamentary reform. Perhaps I will do that another day, but there are a few I could add as well. I remember not too long ago getting a phone call from the Leader of the Opposition. We were kind of chatting back and forth a little bit. I think it was when I had announced my retirement or my impending retirement from political office.

I said to him: "One of the things that I think is an utterly useless exercise that we embark on in this House is question period." Now, I know some of you love question period. I do not. I think it is a stupid thing. It brings out the worst in all of us. It is political theatre for the people who sit up there in the press gallery. That's the only purpose it serves, and I would salute the day when we could cast that aside.

I was reading not too long ago a biography of William Gladstone, Prime Minister of England in the 1800s. I was struck by the fact that when important legislation was being piloted through the British Parliament, Gladstone spent hour upon hour upon hour in the British Parliament very much involved in the debate.

It's something we don't see anymore. When question period is over, this place empties out. It's like a vacuum in here. The press gallery is gone. I think we cheapen what this institution is supposed to be doing by reducing it down to those sound clips, and when we are so complicit in that exercise. For what it's worth, it's something else to think about.

The estimates process really could be reformed, I think. Using this chamber, for example, to do estimates I've always found very foolish, when we could be debating important legislation in here. And I mean really debating, not regurgitated speeches over and over again, written by our various caucus staffs, but thoughtful debate.

[1715]

We do have examples of that here from time to time, and it stands out when that happens. You know it when you hear it, and I regret that we don't hear it enough.

I'm not going to be too much longer, because there are others who wish to speak. In terms of the people that I wish to thank — the caucus staff, obviously, and the legislative assistants, the communications staff, the caucus executive — it's more people than I can name.

To my caucus colleagues, I hope this doesn't surprise anybody. In our caucus room from time to time we've had some pretty thorough debate on some of the issues. I haven't always agreed with everyone, and everyone has not always agreed with me. I want to thank my colleagues for putting up with my arguments, with my thoughts on the various issues of the day. I always treasured the fact that we could tolerate one another and tolerate a divergence of opinions.

Those of you who have been to my office here in Victoria, in this building, might have noticed a plaque on which is written a certain quote from Adam Smith. I wanted to read it into the record this afternoon, because it captures many of the values that I have tried to bring forward as I discharge my responsibilities in this place. It goes like this: "Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of affluence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice, all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."

One other philosopher of the past that I appreciated very much over the years is John Locke. He said this: "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom." I think that both of those quotes are worth thinking about as we go about our work in this place, whether it's today or in the future.

I wish everyone in this place well. I wish all of the very best to the incoming government after May 14, whatever stripe that government will be. I will be following with great interest how the future of this province unfolds.

To everyone who has been so much a part of my life in this place, thank you so much. This much is true: when the writ drops, and I think it's on April 16, we can then officially say, as far as this place is concerned, that Les is no more.

Mr. Speaker: Just to remind the members that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. I think we've got two more people to make some brief comments.

B. Lekstrom: I am very appreciative of the few mo-
[ Page 13630 ]
ments I have to say a few words on the last day in the Legislature for myself. I won't be running again.

I will start with a number of thank-yous, as my colleagues before me have as well. I've written them down, something I haven't done too much in the last 12 years as far as notes go, but I wanted to try and make sure that I hit on everybody.

Certainly, first and foremost, the people of Peace River South that elected me and put their trust in me — I thank them. My constituency assistants, Mr. Jim Noble, who left me after 11 years to retire, and Mr. Dale Bumstead, who serves with me today. The executive of my constituency — without their hard work, I wouldn't be sitting here as a representative of Peace River South.

To the Hansard staff: I want to say thank you. To the cleaning and maintenance staff of the building who we get to meet every day that we're here: thank you, because there is no greater building in this province than what we get to operate in here. To the Sergeant-at-Arms staff: thank you. And to the legislative dining room staff, who are so much a part of all of our lives: thank you.

To the officers of the Legislature: the work you do goes unnoticed far too often. For that, I am grateful to be able to say thank you for the work you do on behalf of all British Columbians.

[1720]

To all of the staff in the legislative buildings: thank you. To the staff I have worked with over the many years as an MLA, as a minister…. To all of the staff: my heartfelt thanks goes out to you for your commitment to British Columbians.

To my colleagues on both sides of this House, I have learned a great deal from all of you over the years. Twelve years has been an amazing run for myself to be able to hold this position and an honour that is beyond any words I can say here today. But thank you. From the committee work we've done together to sitting in this chamber listening to the debate, to communications we've had between each other, whether as a minister or an MLA…. I can't say enough. I've learned from each and every one of you, and for that I'm grateful.

To my family — I'll try and do this — to my wife, Vicki, to our daughters, Lindsey and Taiya, to Lindsey's husband, Blaine, and Taiya's boyfriend, Todd, to our grandson, Sawyer, and to my yet-to-be-born granddaughter, Cadence: thank you. And to my mom, and to my brother, Jeff, and his family. They have been my biggest supporters. You know, you grow up, and you never believe you'll be here. I am eternally grateful to all of them. I'll recompose myself here, so I can say a few more words. Thank you to my family, who I love with all my heart.

Now, I know my time is limited, but there are a couple of things over the years I have learned and a couple of things that I would like to see changed around these buildings, from all of us and from the public. The improvements…. I don't know if it would be change, but improvements I could see….

My colleague John — and I'm sorry about the name, Mr. Speaker — touched on question period. I think there is a place for it, but I do think we can improve on both sides of the House — how we do it. When a question is asked, I'd love nothing more than to see a question answered. We seem to avoid that at all levels. It's something that….

I want to say thank you to my colleague from Juan de Fuca. When I served as Minister of Energy and Mines, we sat down early in that mandate for myself, and I said: "Look, if you're going to ask a question, I'm going to answer it. I'm going to do my best, whether it be in this House or in estimates." I thank you for the opportunity to do that.

I think that our bills, as we talk about those in this Legislature — some of the most important work we're elected to do. I think the governments…. Whether it is our government or future governments, whoever it would be, I think there's a lot to be said that we can learn from whoever is in opposition or sitting as an independent.

When amendments are brought forward, they're not all bad amendments. I think the sign of strong government is our ability to say: "We didn't think of that, but you did, and we think that improves the bill." I would love nothing more than to be able to see that happen.

I would also like to see one other thing happen. We hear a lot about it when you hear people saying: "Take that outside this House and say it outside." I don't think there should be immunity in this chamber. I think there should be respect and that respect carries on whether you are inside this chamber or outside. The ability for all of us to say what is true and factual is important to the fundamental democracy that we live in, and I think immunity should be removed out of these chambers. That's my view. That's what I think we can do as legislators.

I do think there are some other things that the public can do. We don't speak about that quite enough. The improvements I'd like to see there…. I think all of us, as individuals — not as legislators but as British Columbians — always want more and always want to pay less. And there is a reality, ladies and gentlemen, that that just isn't possible in today's world.

I think we have some tough decisions. I think our health care is one of the most important issues that are going to face the governments of the future. I don't believe it's sustainable the way we go about it today. I think there are going to be some difficult discussions that have to take place, but the reality is that those discussions will be forthcoming, and I think we can actually continue to live in the best place on earth, without question.

Mandatory voting is something I think about often. Men and women fought and died for our right, all of our right, to live in a free and democratic society. It hurts me greatly when I see the numbers that go out to vote in our
[ Page 13631 ]
province and in this country, in local elections as well. Somehow we have to solve that.

I'm going to close with this, as I know my time is short, and I know there are others that want the opportunity to say a few farewell words. We live in one of the greatest democracies in the world. Let us work every day to make it work, and let us never take it for granted.

[1725]

I know I'll catch it from my wife because she says I say it too much. I think many of you have heard this before. On our worst day here in British Columbia, we should always remember that we will still have it better than 90 percent of the world will ever enjoy on their best day. We should never forget that.

I'll close with this. Having had the honour and the privilege of serving as MLA for Peace River South and the people of this province for the last 12 years, it's an honour I'll carry with me for the rest of my life. Thank you to all of you for helping build this province.

Mr. Speaker: Abbotsford-Mission, I'll remind you that I'm going to have to cut you off exactly at 5:30.

R. Hawes: Then I'll be very brief. I want to start by again thanking, as many have before me…. My wife, Alma. We've been married 43 years — happy years, great years. She's still the love of my life, and I hope I'm of hers. My three kids, Derek, Darren and Darcy — the three Ds. I named them that way, hoping if I just called the name kind of blurry, one would come. Now, it turns out, none come.

I want to thank my constituency assistants — Sharen Parkinson, Linda Kingsbury, Mark Duyns — especially Sharen Parkinson, who has been with me 12 years. Mr. Speaker, you'll be pleased, as will the Auditor General, that every time I've wanted to spend money on something stupid, she puts her foot down and says absolutely not. She is very, very tight with money, and that's a great thing to have.

In the House here we've lost three friends, and I really do want to mention them. Val Anderson was just a true gentleman. Those who served with him know Val was a great man. Stan Hagen was a man of great humour and a good friend to all of us in this House. Lastly, Sindi Hawkins — jeez, now I'm going to break down on Sindi — who was a great friend of mine, and I'm still very, very sad about the day that we lost Sindi.

People have been talking about what we should do in this House. The first thing we should do is…. Whoever the new Speaker is, the Sergeant-at-Arms…. For Pete's sake, why can't we drink coffee in the House?

And I do have to say this too. Sometimes in this House, when a party line gets in the way of your conscience, really, to everyone, follow your conscience. You're always right if you do that. Sometimes that might get you in trouble.

I want to thank all of my colleagues that I've worked with for 12 years — some for eight, some for four. I want to thank all of you across the…. It may be a surprise, but I actually have warm feelings for the people across the aisle here in the NDP. Many of you I consider to be pretty good friends. And you know, it's been said outside of the House: actually, we work well together. You want the same things as we do. We just sometimes have a little different road map, but between us we're going to get there.

Lastly, and the only thing I'm going to say…. I heard some quotes. I'll give a paraphrase. My quote will be from Pogo: "I've seen the enemy, and it's us."

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct.

R. Cantelon: This will be a very brief speech. I want to thank everybody especially for their support during my health concerns.

I think most of what we want to say has been said by previous speakers, and I'm in awe of their experience and knowledge. We must learn to work better. We must inspire people to vote more for us. I don't just mean for your party or our party, but I mean collectively we need to do more to do it. And we need to make changes in the chamber so they do that.

So thank you. It has been an honour and a privilege. I'd like to especially thank my member, from Nanaimo, for his graciousness during my health concerns. I thank my wife, Shelley, for 19 years.

Mr. Speaker: If members would remain….

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

[1730]

Tributes

MR. SPEAKER

Hon. M. de Jong: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this is something of a point of order. We have in this institution, which is laced with much ceremony and protocol, an interesting ceremony that takes place at the beginning of each parliament. One amongst us is selected, wrestled, coerced, tricked into taking the chair that you occupy today.

You have been through that ceremony on two separate occasions. You have served two parliaments in their entirety. That in and of itself is exceptional, but I think that all members of the chamber would agree that you have left your own imprint on this chamber over those eight years: firm when necessary, flexible when appropri-
[ Page 13632 ]
ate, collegial to all and professional always. You have been our conductor, our head chef and ringmaster of what, at times, can be a three-ring circus.

You have managed to keep your head when those about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you. You are — in my view and, I think, in the view of all members of this chamber — a credit to the chair and the history that it represents and the authority that it represents over this chamber.

I know that my friend the Opposition House Leader will in a moment join me in extending congratulations not just for a longevity that is almost unprecedented but for a contribution that you have made and that your constituents have allowed you to make in serving a function that is essential to the proper functioning of this important institution of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for what you have done. [Applause.]

J. Horgan: I want to join with my colleague the Government House Leader in offering, on behalf of the opposition, our thanks and respect for the work you've done — in my case, for the past two parliaments. You have been our head referee. You've been available in your office. I've never felt uncomfortable coming to you with a concern and a problem.

You are not necessarily the leader of the grandpas here in number but certainly in stature, hon. Speaker. If we were only as gracious every day as we have been today, I would argue that your job would have been all the more easy.

On behalf of the people of Penticton, I think also that it's important to say that since 1996 you have been their representative in this place not just as Speaker but as a representative in cabinet and as an opposition person. In discussions with you about your time in opposition, I've tried to tailor my approach. The member for Peace River South made reference to that. If we all just tried a little bit harder to get along, I think that the respect for this place would increase. You've made that a calling, and I thank you for it.

Best of luck, Grandpa. I think everything's going to be fine. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Well, certainly, I would like to thank all of you. In particular, I want to thank my wife, Edna; my three sons, Glen, Mike and Darren; and Glen's wife, Hillary and my grandson Ben. Mike and my youngest son, Darren, with, of course — I shouldn't say favourite granddaughter, because I've got two — Kayla and Allison.

I look back over these 17 years. As somebody said, on May 14 it will be the first time that I won't be in elected office in 35 years, because I had 18 years in the school district and then 17 years here, which have been fabulous years.

I look back on that first day when getting elected and coming…. Of course, I went through a judicial recount, so I got here late. But certainly, it has been something that I can look back on and really be thankful for.

[1735]

I think the last eight years having the ability to be your Speaker and remembering the time that Mike and Mike dragged me down the centre aisle…. You won't have to drag me back out, I'll tell you. I look back at those times, and I want to especially thank Premier Campbell and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, Carole James. I can say it because I'm the Speaker.

They were doing their part to bring the tone down. I think that over the time of talking to other Speakers from across Canada — and, actually, around the world, but particularly across Canada — we actually had set the bar a little bit higher in some of those times. I thought today that I must say that I have not missed a question period in eight years. So today I thought: "I've just got to make it through this last question period."

I want to particularly thank all the staff throughout the buildings and, in particular, to thank Mr. MacMinn and Craig and Kate and the table officers, because without them…. When I first sat up here, I thought: "Wow, what do you do?" But you've got great minds in front of you thinking all the time and worrying when you turn around and say what you're going to do.

We had the opportunity of having the Grey Cup at the Bar, and George said: "Don't you dare bring it over the Bar." He could see in my eyes: "Mike, we're bringing it over the Bar." Those two were a bad influence.

Again, I want to thank all of you, because it doesn't happen without all of us. It has been a great 17 years. I know that walking out of here inside of 15 minutes or so is going to be difficult, but it's going to be a blessing in some ways. I get to spend more time with my wife, Edna, and, particularly, my grandchildren.

You get to have some great friends. Somebody said: "Do you have good friends on both sides?" We certainly do. I get, particularly, the member for Port Coquitlam, Mike. You get to have good friends on both sides — Shirley and Rich and all the others. You just become close over time, because this becomes your family. You're spending a lot of time here. I think a lot of people don't understand how much time we spend away from our families.

I hope on May 14 that all of you, the ones that are running, have the ability to come back, because we're going to be faced with probably 25 or so new members for certain. And I hope that whoever, in that period of time, you elect to fill this chair, you drag them up with the same vigour that the two Mikes dragged me up to the front.

I know that I'm very thankful for everything that everybody has contributed to my life over the last 17 years. So thank you, and with that, I think we're going to invite Her Honour to preside over the remaining moments of time here. Thank you. [Applause.]

[1740]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested attendance to the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Destination BC Corp. Act

Tla'amin Final Agreement Act

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013

Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013

Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013

Seniors Advocate Act

Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013

Community Safety Act

Auditor General Amendment Act, 2013

Justice Reform and Transparency Act

Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013

The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013

Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2013

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[1745]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: The good thing about having staff is…. I've got to thank Karen and Angela that they reminded me I forgot to mention my youngest son's wife, Eliza, and my middle son's girlfriend, Cassie. So now I've covered off some of the other bases.

I want to thank, of course, Karen and Angela and then Marg and Jane and Rudy, who used to work for me in my constituency office, and others. You know, we don't get it done without a lot of good staff, so thank goodness for them because they just cleared up a few things that I might have got into trouble with.

Before we adjourn, I want to wish you all well in the election. It's an important time because it's democracy for British Columbia. That's such a meaningful time. A good portion of you are going to leave here and be basically on the hustings trying to get elected.

I know that on May 15 and sometime in June a lot of you'll be back here. Democracy will prevail, and we'll continue on doing all the good things that we do.

Surprisingly enough, question period will probably stay the same. As much as the member for Chilliwack would wish it different, I'm sure it's going to stay the same.

So at this point in time, good luck.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fifth session of the 39th parliament of the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time and date. In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: The 39th parliament is drawing to a close. Who knows what adventure awaits us all? Bonne chance, good luck, à la prochaine fois.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice. [Applause.]

The House adjourned at 5:48 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 © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada