2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th 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)

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 29, Number 3

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

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: At noon in the library, the B.C. Schizophrenia Society is meeting with MLAs. All are welcome to learn about the impacts of schizophrenia on patients, caregivers and loved ones and to help us to recognize the society’s great work that they’re doing to educate us and to offer hope and support for the 15,000 British Columbians who are living with schizophrenia.

I’d like to welcome David Halikowski from the B.C. Schizophrenia Society — he’s the president; Fred Dawe, B.C. Schizophrenia Society treasurer; Alan Bordeville, B.C. Schizophrenia Society board member; Deborah Conner, B.C. Schizophrenia Society executive director; Ana Novakovic, B.C. Schizophrenia Society government relations and development coordinator; Grant Monck; and Maxime Rouleau. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Karagianis: This morning there’s a bunch of bright, shiny faces up in the gallery. They fill almost the entire gallery. It is the grade 5 class from View Royal Elementary. They’re here with their teacher, Kathleen Mostyn. I see a couple of parents, I think, in the group as well. I’d like the House to make them very welcome, because they’re very enthusiastic to be here this morning.

M. Morris: In the House today, we have some of the hard-working members of the B.C. Wildfire Service — Chris Hodder, the deputy fire centre manager, coastal region; Kevin Skrepnek, the chief fire info officer with the provincial wildfire coordination centre; and Sarah Welke, the legal clerk, from the Cariboo.

[1005]

We have Catherine Morrison, the dispatcher for the coastal area; Erik Hanson, the unit crew supervisor from Burns Lake; Joel Rudyk, the initial attack crew leader from Penticton; Mike Effray, with the Strategic Fire Control centre in Cranbrook; Leanne Ingham, the aviation technician from Kamloops; Robyn Canty, the forest protection assistant for Invermere; and Brenden Wolf, the unit crew supervisor for Prince George. Would the House please make these hard-working ladies and gentlemen welcome.

C. James: I have a number of introductions to make today of hard-working volunteers and board members in our community.

First is Clay Evans, chair of the Maritime Museum of British Columbia; Jan Drent, who is past president of the museum and a retired commodore in the Royal Canadian Navy; Diane Bentley-Ramsden, manager of operations at the museum; Lori Prophet, a volunteer with the museum; Daphne Goode, a trustee with the museum; Brittany Vis, an archivist with the museum; Mark Lindholm, president of the Lindholm group; and last but not least, William John West and his wife, Bonnie Gail Stacey, who are passionate supporters of the Maritime Museum and of maritime history around the world.

Would the House please make these guests very welcome.

V. Huntington: I am very pleased to introduce John Vantol and Braden Webb. John and Braden are with the Sources Community Resource Centres program in Ladner, a home which serves youth and young adults living with autism. Sources is a wonderful Ladner institution which offers community service through its day program and residential care. Braden decided he wanted to come to Victoria to visit his MLA, and I hope the House makes him feel very welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s my pleasure today to welcome Stephen Lisik and his lovely wife, Deanna, from my community. Stephen is here for this evening’s Long Service Awards at Government House. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bains: In the House — I’m not sure whether they have made it to the gallery yet — there are about 38 grade 11 students from Tamanawis Secondary School, from my constituency, along with Ms. Lindsay Hutchison and other parents. Please help me extend a very warm welcome to all of these students.

D. McRae: I have two guests joining us in the House today. Would the House please make welcome David Davies and Tilly Enriquez.

S. Robinson: I, too, would like to welcome Stephen and Konstantina Lisick to the House today. And I just wanted to add a little bit more to what my colleague across the way had to say. Not only is Stephen being acknowledged for 25 years of service as a deputy sheriff, but he’s been an active community volunteer, serving eight years on the library board and countless other community committees. Konstantina has been involved in our school district, serving as a PAC chair and school district 43 east zone DPAC representative. I want the House to give them a warm welcome.

G. Holman: Also in the precinct today is a class of grade 5 students from the Salt Spring Centre School with their parents and teacher Kate Richer. Would the House please make them feel welcome.
[ Page 9432 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION
PROGRAMS ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m very pleased today to present the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. This new legislation will provide a transparent legal framework and delegated decision-making authority for the administration of immigrant selection programs in British Columbia, including the provincial nominee program.

[1010]

The PNP program is a key economic development program for British Columbia, because it’s the only pathway to permanent residence and citizenship where the province has a direct role in immigrant selection.

With recent changes to federal immigration programs, PNP has experienced a significant increase in demand. In response, the ministry has implemented a series of changes to improve the program’s effectiveness and ensure that we can continue to attract highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs to come and live in our province, raise a family and contribute to building British Columbia.

The new legislation has three main objectives. First, to increase the transparency of program administration with clear delegation of decision-making authority and also a formal process to review refused applications. Secondly, to protect the integrity of immigration programs by strengthening the ability to detect fraud and misrepresentation and other program abuses. And thirdly, to clearly outline the province’s ability to collect and set fees for applying to immigration programs so that they are cost-recoverable.

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

Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 37 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2015

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m pleased to introduce the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015. This bill is a collection of very minor and technical housekeeping amendments to a variety of statutes.

The office of legislative counsel routinely gathers these kinds of corrections as part of the statute revision process. Sometimes the corrections are made by regulations of the executive branch of government under the Statute Revision Act, which regulations then must be validated by this House in legislation. If the House is sitting, the corrections can be made easily and directly by this House.

These corrections are minor and housekeeping in nature, and it is part of the routine to keep B.C. statutes orderly and correct. I would like to, at this point, just say thank you to our legislative counsel, who work on all kinds of highly technical and complicated legislation, which requires analysis, understanding and meticulous attention to detail. They serve this House well.

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

Bill 37, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MARITIME MUSEUM OF B.C.

C. James: Living in a digital age, you may think that museums are less relevant than they were in the past. But in the words of Victoria museum consultant Tim Willis: “As we step further into a world that is increasingly virtual and commercial, we need physical museums even more. It turns out that museums are really good for us, for our economy, for our quality of life and for our humanity.”

For more than 70 years, the Maritime Museum of British Columbia has been good for our province. Its world-class collection includes thousands of artifacts, photographs, historic charts and three of the most significant small vessels on Canada’s west coast.

Hundreds of thousands of residents and tourists have visited the museum at the old courthouse building in Victoria. It’s been at this location for 51 years, with the building title transferred to the province in 1977 under the agreement that the province would provide a suitable premise for housing the museum’s collection.

Their current space needs significant repairs, and last October, the museum was ordered out without a space
[ Page 9433 ]
to move to. Now, a year after closing, it remains a museum in search of a new home. The extraordinary collection is being moved from Bastion Square, and staff funding is in peril.

It’s crucial that the Maritime Museum of B.C. finds a new home for its collection. Getting the museum back up and running in a new location will stimulate economic activity and inject new life into the surrounding area.

I’m sure that British Columbians and all members on all sides of this House recognize the importance of the history of our province’s capital city as a port city and the value in protecting that history and collection through a maritime museum in the capital city.

I will continue to work with the Maritime Museum of B.C. and its supporters and partners to find a new home. It’s important that we not lose this exceptional asset and that we support, recognize and protect our maritime history.

[1015]

100th ANNIVERSARY OF
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I would like to extend my congratulations to the University of British Columbia on its 100th anniversary. Opening its doors to students on September 30, 1915, UBC is the oldest post-secondary institution in B.C. Welcoming just 379 student in its first year, UBC now enrolls nearly 60,000 students at its campuses in Vancouver and the Okanagan.

UBC is consistently ranked among the top universities in Canada and the world. UBC is host to outstanding research that services the people of British Columbia and the world. I’m proud to say that UBC is a world leader in innovation and scientific discovery in diverse fields. UBC faculty are leaders in medicine and biology, implementing the world’s leading treatment and prevention regimen for HIV/AIDS.

As well, UBC graduates lead many major international business consultancies and IT firms. UBC has embraced innovation and challenged the status quo. Its entrepreneurial perspective encourages students, staff and faculty to challenge convention, lead discovery and explore new ways of learning.

UBC has more than 300,000 alumni in 120 countries. This includes two Canadian Prime Ministers and seven Nobel Prize winners in physics, economics and molecular biology.

I also had the pleasure of attending UBC. When I was a student at UBC in the ’70s, the campus seemed massive then with 20,000 students. Now with 60,000, it just seems unimaginable. At that time, there were wooden army barracks that were originally built to house students coming back from the Second World War. Now they’re replaced by architectural wonders of concrete and glass.

May the House please join me in congratulating all students, staff, faculty and alumni for 100 years of academic success.

INTELLIGENT CITY BROADBAND NETWORK
INITIATIVE FOR NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: “The city of New Westminster feels the need for speed.” So reads the opening line of a recent story in the Royal City Record, and it’s true. Our city council has launched a major initiative to wire the entire city to develop an open-access fibre-optic broadband network that extends from Sapperton to the west end to our downtown business district and river market and beyond.

It’s called the Intelligent City. The economy of New Westminster has changed dramatically in the past two decades, as many mills and industry have shut down. According to Mayor Jonathan Coté, the Intelligent City is all about repositioning ourselves to attract knowledge-based industries and remain competitive in today’s digital economy.

It will benefit hundreds of existing small businesses by providing faster Internet connections. It will open up new possibilities for students in our school district, at Douglas College and at the Justice Institute. And, says Coun. Bill Harper, the area around the new Royal Columbian Hospital is destined to become a health care hub, a centre of innovation, so this network will be absolutely vital.

The fact that New Westminster is a small but densely populated city and that we own our own power utility gives us a serious advantage. New West has also adopted a model that’s different from many others. Our city will actually own the open-access fibre-optic network and lease it to telecommunication carriers and Internet service providers, which means that smaller providers can enter the market as well as big providers.

The goal is to encourage real competition, to provide high-quality Internet service at more affordable prices. Imagine that. The community I’m proud to represent, the Royal City, is steeped in tradition. But it’s also moving forward boldly into the future. Intelligent City needs and deserves this government’s support.

POULTRY BUSINESSES IN CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: Thanksgiving is just around the corner, and it’s high time we talk turkey in these chambers, question period notwithstanding.

Everyone has their favourite recipe for Thanksgiving turkey, whether it’s oven-roasted in the traditional, time-honoured tradition; deep-fried on the patio; grilled for hours on a rotisserie; or my personal favourite, brined overnight in an apple cider solution and slow smoked over lump charcoal and alder wood chips.

[1020]

It all begins with a quality bird, and I’m proud that my riding of Chilliwack is home to some of the finest poultry-centred small businesses to be found anywhere.

Skye Hi Farms in Yarrow is a family-run farm that has
[ Page 9434 ]
been raising free-range turkeys for over 20 years. Trevor Allen and his wife, Donna, both grew up on farms and continue their tradition in the Fraser Valley. Their birds are fed a free choice grain diet with daily access to green pastures.

Silver Spoon Organic Farm in Greendale started raising organic turkeys because the flexible lifestyle allowed owners Jeff and Carrie Hooge to put their family first. What they didn’t realize is that their turkeys would become part of the family too.

They take an animal-centred approach to raising organic birds. You could say that the birds are born with a silver spoon in their beaks. They spend their days outside in shaded grazing areas, eating a diet free of pesticides, herbicides, hormones or antibiotics. They’re convinced that unlike children, spoiled turkeys actually turn out better in the long run. Jeff’s family has been farming for four generations and Carrie’s for three. They can’t wait to see what the future holds.

We also have Sleeping Mountain Organic Farms in Yarrow. They operate a store, in addition to their farm, where one can purchase a broad range of turkey products — turkey sausage, bacon, drumsticks or the whole bird.

As we prepare to give thanks for the many blessings that have been bestowed upon us in this province, let us remember the small businesses that support our economy and the agrifood industry that produces so many wonderful offerings this time of year.

MONUMENT IN ABBOTSFORD
AND EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
FOR FARMWORKERS

R. Chouhan: Last Saturday, on October 3, in Abbotsford, a Golden Tree Monument was unveiled in the memory of three farmworkers — Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu, Amarjit Kaur Bal, Sukhwinder Kaur Punia — to remember the death of these farmworkers when they were going to work in a van which was so unsafe that even the seats were not mounted properly. It did not have proper seatbelts either.

In that accident, in addition to these three women farmworkers who were killed, 14 others were very seriously injured. Twenty-nine criminal charges were recommended by the police, but none were accepted by the Crown.

Since that day on March 7, 2007, the families of all of these farmworkers — in particular, Jagjeet Sidhu, who lost his wife in this accident — worked very hard to make sure that there was a monument to remind people that these kinds of accidents are preventable and could have been stopped. They worked hard with the B.C. Federation of Labour and with other communities as well.

With help from the B.C. Federation of Labour, the B.C. government, Vancity and the Progressive Intercultural Society of Surrey, a monument was finally installed at the city library in Abbotsford. More than 100 people were in attendance, including the members for Abbotsford South, Surrey-Whalley and Vancouver-Hastings.

All those people who came to remember those farmworkers talked to each other, talked to the families to make sure that these kinds of accidents should not be happening again.

If anybody is in Abbotsford, please go visit that library at Abbotsford city hall. It’s a beautiful tree, which will remind everybody of the importance of safety on farms.

FRUITICANA OPERATIONS IN SURREY

M. Hunt: October is Small Business Month in the province of British Columbia. There are many successful businesses that are homegrown right here in B.C., and they deserve recognition for all the rewarding jobs that they provide throughout this province.

It’s with great pride that I stand here today to shine the light on my constituent Tony Singh and his business, Fruiticana. Tony started Fruiticana 20 years ago as a small operation, a specialty store catering to the Indo-Canadian community selling produce and spices. From humble beginnings, he has transformed his operation into a grocery store empire, spanning 18 locations in Alberta and B.C. and employing 500 people.

Fruiticana is proud to source a large selection of its fruits and vegetables from local growers and farmers throughout British Columbia. Tony is an active small business advocate who is also one of the founding members of the SPARK Foundation, which helps students gain a university education.

[1025]

Tony and Fruiticana have been recipients of various awards and accolades — Business Person of the Year from the Surrey Board of Trade, best ethnic grocery store, Cultural Diversity Award, Consumer Choice Award of Canada, the International Trade Award for large businesses by the Surrey Board of Trade, the Premier’s People’s Choice Award for 2004 B.C. business awards.

Now I’m glad to mention the newest addition to this list. Tony and Fruiticana are finalists for the 2015 Ernst Young Entrepreneur of the Year award. They’re nominated in the food and beverage category. I’d like all members of this House to join me in congratulating Tony on his nomination and for his hard work and dedication to his business and the province of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE
MEETING CANCELLATIONS

J. Horgan: Yesterday I asked a series of questions of the Minister of Children and Families and the Government House Leader with respect to a standing committee of
[ Page 9435 ]
this Legislature that had scheduled hearings to hear from the child’s representative on the tragic story of Paige, who was a young woman who died in the care of the ministry on the streets of Vancouver without the hope that most British Columbians would want to see for her — completely absent of opportunity, as was the case with Alex Gervais, who took his life in Abbotsford just a few weeks ago.

I asked the government why it is that the government had cancelled committee hearings that were going to address some of these vexing issues that have been bedevilling, certainly, the minister of the day and all British Columbians.

To the Premier: why is it that your government doesn’t want to talk about these very important issues?

Hon. C. Clark: As I understand the member heard yesterday — and I’ll confirm that — these committees are run by private members, these decisions are made by private members, and the scheduling of this committee meeting is made by private members.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It’s a fairly straightforward proposition. We know, members on both sides of the House who have been participants in the standing committee process, that there are a couple of them that work fairly well. The Finance Committee is one that produces reports year after year that help articulate the vision for British Columbia from British Columbians.

The Children and Youth Committee was a direct result of the Hughes intervention ten years ago to ensure that the children’s representative had access to decision-makers so that we could have robust discussions about the challenges that face children in care. Now I hear from the Premier, who refuses to take a good look at the track record of the current minister and bring some new leadership to bear so that we can answer some of these challenging questions about children continuing to die in the care of government.

We have a committee that had scheduled meetings, gone through the rigorous process of back and forth. Who is available? When can we meet? We called the children’s representative and said: “We’re all available on the sixth of October.” And suddenly, on a Friday afternoon, the government cancelled the hearing.

To the Premier, is she telling me, in response to the last question, that she is not in control of the care of children in British Columbia and that it’s up to the whims of a private member? Is that what she’s telling me?

Hon. C. Clark: I understand that this member asked exactly the same questions yesterday…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …a series of three questions and the same three questions today. I don’t have anything new to add to what I just said or what the House Leader added yesterday.

The committee will decide when it meets and what it discusses. It’s led by private members, and I know that they will continue to do their work, as we all do, on behalf of the vulnerable children that we have a duty, all of us in this House, to ensure we’re looking after and protecting.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, the absence of leadership at the Ministry of Children and Families doesn’t stop there. It goes right to the Premier’s office.

[1030]

Over the past number of months we have raised in this Legislature issue after issue after issue of a failure to protect the most vulnerable in our society. It’s crisis proportion. We’re trying to find a way through this together, a consensus approach to dealing with these difficult, difficult non-partisan issues.

One way that was described to us by Mr. Hughes when he helped us create the office was to have a committee of the Legislature available to hear and understand reports from the Children and Youth Representative. That was going to happen today until….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It has not been rescheduled. Thanks for the intervention from the Minister of Red Tape Reduction.

That’s what it has come to. Instead of dealing with crisis issues — shootings in Surrey, dead children in the streets of British Columbia — we have a minister who has red-tape-reduction day. We’ve got time for that in our schedules, but we don’t have time for our most vulnerable.

Again to the Premier, will she act today, get that committee constituted? Let’s start addressing these difficult issues.

Hon. C. Clark: The committee is constituted. The committee is meeting. They have certainly done a lot of good work, and they’re going to continue to do that.

I do not think any of these issues are advanced or any of these problems will be solved by losing our tempers. I don’t think that any of these issues will be solved by playing politics. The only way to make sure that we are look-
[ Page 9436 ]
ing after children who are in government care, which is a core duty of government, something that we….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Please continue.

Hon. C. Clark: This is an issue that all governments must take deeply seriously. Those children are vulnerable, they find their way into government care, and we have a duty to look after them.

As I said, these issues will not be addressed by playing politics, by getting angry. These issues will be addressed by doing some of the things that the minister is doing — increasing front-line staff by 21 percent, decreasing the number of children in care. Today it is the lowest number of children in care of the government since the 1990s. There are an additional 110 child care workers that have been added, and there are an additional 273 youth that were placed for adoption this year. That’s up 21 percent.

Do we have more to do? Absolutely. Are we working on making sure that is happening? The Minister of Children and Families takes that duty incredibly seriously. She will not and I will not be distracted by the tone of the opposition, by tempers that have flared in this House. We will stay focused on making sure that we do everything we can to protect those vulnerable children who depend on us.

M. Farnworth: This issue requires leadership. The children’s representative has said she wants to talk to the committee. The committee had hearings scheduled. The committee Chair cancelled those hearings and said: “No, we’ll wait until the House is adjourned.”

The Premier can show some leadership here today. She can let the Chair of the committee know and she can let this House know that she has no problem whatsoever, if she’s serious about dealing with this issue, with that committee meeting while this House is sitting so the children’s representative can come and make her presentations to that committee that she was scheduled to.

Will the Premier stand in this House and let this House know and let the Chair of the committee know that she has no problem with that committee meeting right now while this House is sitting?

Hon. C. Clark: I know that the committee will have more meetings scheduled and will certainly be hearing from the child and youth rep. That’s important work, and it will certainly happen.

[1035]

Those decisions are made by the committee. They are made by private members. For the government’s part, though, I will say we will continue to do our work and make sure that children are protected.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. C. Clark: We will continue to do the work that we are through the work of, for example, Mr. Plecas, a respected former public servant who served in an NDP government and in previous governments as well, making sure that we are adding resources where necessary, making sure that more front-line workers are available to do that work, improving our practice.

We have more to do. There is no question about that, and we are getting down to that work.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The Chair of the Children and Youth Committee is not the Premier of British Columbia. The Premier is the one who should be showing leadership on this issue. The Premier is the one who should be saying that it is unacceptable.

When the children’s representative wants to make a presentation to a committee that has seized on one of the most important issues facing government — that is, the protection of children in the province of British Columbia — and those hearings have been cancelled to suit the needs of a government that will not address this issue, then the Premier should show the leadership and stand up in this House and say that she would like to see that committee sit while this House is sitting, that there is no reason why that committee should not be sitting while this House is sitting.

Will the Premier show the leadership and do that today?

Hon. C. Clark: It is not the Premier’s or any member of the government’s role to be directing the work of a select standing committee of the Legislature. That work is done by the committee itself. The meetings are scheduled by the committee themselves. And we are…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

The Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. C. Clark: We will continue to do the good work that the Minister of Children and Families has undertaken to ensure that we are investing in the Ministry of Children and Families, making sure that the process and practices that are followed are done well and properly and making sure that we are, where necessary, fixing issues that have arisen.

We have a vital role to play in the lives of thousands of children. There are fewer children in the care of the
[ Page 9437 ]
government today than there have been since the mid-1990s. There are more children that have been placed in adoption this year than in previous years. There are more workers on the front line.

We need to continue to do that work because those children who are in our care — where we can’t keep them safely or support them safely in their own families — depend on us to make sure that we are supporting them, that we are there for them and that we will protect them despite the fact that they are some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

A. Dix: The Premier says we have to continue to do the work. We agree.

In 2002, when the Premier was Deputy Premier, the government intervened to eliminate an independent children’s commissioner, and the consequences of that were significant. They did it at a time when the Premier’s government cut funding for children and families by 23 percent in one year. That’s what happened. They got rid of an independent children’s commission.

The consequences for children were significant. The House, some years later, when the Premier was away, restored that independent officer. Now we have a Liberal majority unilaterally cancelling hearings to deny access to the new independent children’s representative coming to this House this week, in a period where serious issues are before the minister and before the ministry.

When we ask questions in this House, we frequently hear on the other side: “We can’t answer those questions. There’s an appropriate place for that, and that’s the committee.” And now they’ve cancelled the committee. It is disrespectful.

I would like to see the committee meet. The very simple question to the Premier — the Premier who was part of a government that previously shut down independent reviews and is now shutting down the independent committee — is: would she like to see that committee meet this week to discuss the very important issues facing children and that ministry in British Columbia?

[1040]

Hon. C. Clark: I really have nothing further to add to the comments that were offered today or yesterday by the House Leader. The committee is doing its work. There are more meetings to be scheduled. They certainly will be hearing from the rep.

That work that they do is very important, and we continue to support it. But I will not, should not, as the Premier and the leader of the government, be directing the work of a select standing committee of the Legislature. I trust that they will do their work and that they will continue to do it well.

YOUTH PSYCHIATRIC UNIT PROJECT
AT SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

D. Donaldson: It’s not simply youth like Alex Gervais or Alex Malamalatabua who paid the price for this government’s indifference. We learned today the government plans to build a desperately needed adolescent psychiatric stabilization unit at Surrey Memorial Hospital have been shelved yet again.

Despite promises that the new facility would start helping kids next year, it will now be delayed at least until the next provincial election. Does the Minister of Children and Family Development think it’s reasonable to make children in crisis wait until 2017 to get the help they need?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, the government recognizes the challenges families are facing in accessing support for their children with mental health issues. B.C. is facing, like other jurisdictions, an incredible increase in demand for child and youth mental health services. In fact, currently over 28,000 children and youth receive community mental health services every year. That’s more than double the number from 2003. So clearly, there is a challenge.

Mental illness can strike any family, and providing the right care at the right time can prevent longer-term health issues, certainly. Fraser Health recognizes the need for a short-stay unit for children in urgent need of psychiatric care.

The hospital foundation is raising dollars to help see that facility built. I expect, with the announcement of two now major donors, Coast Capital Savings and Cloverdale Paint, that the Ministry of Health will be looking at more accurate timelines for the completion of that building.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: It’s a pattern with this government. They find money to support projects they want and plead poverty on projects that they don’t think matter as much. They shrug their shoulders, throw up their hands and say: “Nothing can be done. Surrey hasn’t fundraised enough.”

Meanwhile, families deal with suicide and attempted suicide of their children, who could have been helped. That’s not good enough. So again to the minister, how does she plan to care for these children in crisis until the new facility is built?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is a continuum of care services for children and youth with mental health issues across the spectrum, from the community-based services that we provide in the ministry to acute services provided through the Ministry of Health and through Children’s Hospital, for example, for those urgent cases.

We’re continuing to improve the services that families can access in British Columbia. We’ve expanded our intake clinics and reduced waiting times for access to our clinicians from days and weeks to hours. We’re continuing to do that work. We are increasing the use of tele-
[ Page 9438 ]
health video conferencing across the province to make access to psychiatrists available in more rural and remote communities, with great success. We are partnering with our community service providers to ensure that information toolkits are available, both to families and to service providers in all areas.

We’ll continue to work to provide the continuum of services to families that need it, and certainly, the number of families needing that service is on the rise.

[1045]

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION

R. Fleming: Last December this government cut $9 million in funding for adult education upgrade courses, saying they could no longer be afforded. Two months later they gave a tax cut to the top 2 percent, millionaires in British Columbia, worth $230 million. Students, educators and the opposition stood up against this decision last spring.

Now new freedom-of-information records show that school districts across the province also wrote to government adamantly opposing these cuts. Letters were sent from school districts in Trail, Pitt Meadows, New Westminster, greater Victoria, Kootenay-Columbia and others, defending adult education programs that help people invest in their own futures and reduce B.C. skills shortages.

We have a new Education Minister who said he wants a fresh start. Will he take a fresh approach by restoring opportunities for adult learners and reverse the cuts his predecessor made to adult basic education?

Hon. M. Bernier: It’s an honour to stand here and talk about the fact that we have the great relationships that we do have with all of our partner groups, including the school districts. What’s really important is what we look at when we look at the education system in the province of British Columbia and the great steps that we’ve made here.

One thing I will say to the member opposite is to remind him that anybody who is looking at getting a Dogwood diploma can still do that free of charge — anybody who was unable to get the Dogwood. That’s not just students. We’re talking about adults. Any adult who was unable to get the Dogwood can go back and do that free of charge, and government will be covering all the costs for that upgrading.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, the minister should know that because of the decisions his predecessor made, literally thousands of adult learners are no longer going to school. That’s the result of what the government did.

His partners disagree vehemently with what the government has done as well. The chair of the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows school district wrote to the former minister in February and talked about all kinds of adult learners who will fall through the cracks as a result of this decision. The letter noted, for example: “We serve B.C.-graduated adults at two correctional facilities. The needs of this group of adults are apparent. The reasons to provide access to tuition-free academic upgrading is obvious.”

The chair of the greater Victoria school district said earlier this year: “Charging tuition for adult upgrading will create significant barriers for our most vulnerable adult population seeking skills to create a better future for themselves and their families.”

These school districts wrote the former Minister of Education, and he ignored them. These districts now have to charge high fees for upgrading courses while others, like Surrey, have cancelled these course offerings altogether.

My question is to the minister. Will he continue to support this incredibly poor decision brought on by his predecessor, or will he stand up and do the right thing for adult learners who want a better life for themselves and their families in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Bernier: I’m more than proud to stand up and do the right thing for the adults and for the people who want to get upgrading here in the province of British Columbia. In fact, $7.6 million worth of repayable adult upgrading grants are available now for low-income people to make sure they get those opportunities.

I think what’s really important, too, is to talk about the successes we’ve really had in the education system. When we look at the opportunities that we have here in British Columbia, I think it’s important to recognize the changes and the opportunities here. A 113 percent increase in aboriginal student graduation here in the province of British Columbia. The other one: a 190 percent increase when it comes to special needs students graduating here in the province of British Columbia.

On this side of the House, we are proud of our educational outcomes.

[1050]

K. Corrigan: The minister seems to be suggesting that there’s absolutely no change for adult education. The reality is that Vancouver school board closed the Downtown East Education Centre, closed the Hastings Education Centre, closed the literacy outreach programs, closed programs all across this province — thousands of students not getting the adult education that they’d be able to get. This government has put up barriers that are impossible to break down in this province for adult education learners.

With regards to adult basic education, the minister may want to talk to a former Attorney General of his
[ Page 9439 ]
government, Geoff Plant. Mr. Plant has just been appointed to the highly regarded position of chancellor of Emily Carr University. In 2007, it was his recommendation that all fees for adult education be eliminated. He said: “The public interest in eliminating barriers to participation in post-secondary education requires that no tuition be charged to any adult learner seeking to upgrade their education.”

So will the Minister of Education join with the chancellor of Emily Carr University; with school districts all across this province, including Kootenay-Columbia, Trail, Sooke; with the mayor of New West; and with hundreds — literally hundreds — of groups, individuals and educators who are opposed to these cuts, and will he reinstate permanent long-term funding for adult basic education in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Bernier: As I said earlier, on this side of the House we want to encourage and we want to promote the fact that we understand the stability that’s required for adult education in the province. That’s why, as I mentioned, we’ve ensured that anybody who wants to go and get their Dogwood diploma can do so free of charge in the province of British Columbia, thanks to the government on this side of the House.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Surely the minister will know that that free education is not available at the post-secondary level. VCC is the largest provider of adult basic education in this province. Their enrolment is down 30 to 40 percent — thousands of students who have had a barrier put in their way.

Obviously, Mr. Plant’s views are held in high regard by this government if he’s just been appointed to the position of chancellor of Emily Carr University. His recommendations resulted in this government providing upgrading courses for graduated adults free of charge back in 2008 — what this government labelled “the education guarantee.” Now the government has turned their backs on this guarantee and cancelled funding for upgrading courses for adults who have graduated.

Again to the minister, will he finally reverse these shortsighted cuts that are hurting adults and are slamming the door to education for adult learners in this province?

Hon. M. Bernier: On this side of the House, we’re really proud of the investments we’ve made in the education system. The reason why we’re able to make those investments is because we vote in favour of LNG, we vote in favour of jobs, and we voted in favour of Site C. Those major projects bring jobs into the province of B.C.

What’s also really important to stress in the province of British Columbia….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order. Members, it’s your time.

Please take your seat. We’ll wait.

Continue.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll just finish off by saying that we understand the investment is important. Over the next three years, $421 million is going to be added to the education system in the province of British Columbia, something this side of the House is proud of because of the opportunities in British Columbia.

[1055]

D. Eby: A few weeks ago, I sat in my office with a new Canadian from Iran. She wants to work as a nurse in British Columbia, but she needs academic English in order to do so. It’ll cost her $500 to do academic English, a course that used to be free. It might as well be $100,000 as far as her family’s concerned. They don’t have the money, and nobody will lend it to them. They were referred to my office by the Vancouver school board. There is no grant. There is no program. She’s at home as a result of not being able to do this English course.

Why is this government denying access for this woman and people like her to basic academic English so that they can join our economy in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, this is a government that believes in building opportunity for individuals. It believes in investing in the people of British Columbia so that they can maximize their opportunities in life, build their own lives, build the economy and make this an even greater place than it is already.

That’s why this government, in this year, decided to help students who need to upgrade their academic credentials. If students don’t have the wherewithal to do that and don’t have the ability to pay for it because their income is too low, we not only provide free tuition, but we provide daycare, we provide health care, we provide transportation, and we provide books. This is a record that far exceeds anything the members opposite were able to do in a decade in power.

We have a program where any individual with an income less than $23,600 gets that package for free, up front, so that they can upgrade their skills and be part of this thriving economy that leads to prosperity for all British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

A. Dix: I ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.
[ Page 9440 ]

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: I noted in the press gallery today Mr. Gary Mason. He’s a columnist in British Columbia. Mr. Mason, believe it or not, won a lifetime achievement award from the Websters. I know this because the Globe and Mail had a full-page ad today telling me that Mr. Mason won a Lifetime Achievement Award, or is winning one at the upcoming Webster Awards.

Mr. Mason has been writing about politics in B.C. here in the press gallery since the 1980s. He’s what Vaughn Palmer and Keith Baldrey call “the new guy.” I think on this occasion, we should acknowledge this considerable achievement and wish him all the best writing about B.C. politics in his current or next lifetime.

L. Reimer: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reimer: It’s my great pleasure to introduce two former members of the Legislative Assembly. One is our very own Mr. Lorne Mayencourt, of Vancouver-Burrard — that was the old riding. Also, there’s former Member of the Legislative Assembly for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the current mayor of Coquitlam, Mr. Richard Stewart. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, committee stage debate on Bill 33, Motion Picture Amendment Act.

[1100]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 — MOTION PICTURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 33; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

On section 3 (continued).

G. Heyman: When we left off yesterday, I was questioning the minister about statements that were made when the bill, in a previous version, had been introduced in 2012 and whether there were, for the want of a better word, protections built in for unnecessary requirements for duplicate demonstration of approval.

Subsequent to adjournment, I had a brief conversation with the minister and her staff. Apparently, this has been addressed in policy. A commitment was made to provide that policy to me. On the assumption that that will arrive and that the policy meets the needs of small and independent film houses, I think that’s great news and will satisfy the people who have questioned me about this to ensure that in fact the onerous requirement to demonstrate a second time on a film that is being redistributed but which has undergone no change at a cost has now been eliminated.

I have one other question on section 3. I am just wondering if, in sub (3), the Attorney General can explain what the practical difference in the change of wording will be.

[1105]

Hon. S. Anton: Subsection (3), which I think is the section the member was asking about, is a reflection of current practice. It used to be that technically, in the former sub (3), every motion picture had to be approved. Now the approval only relates to the adult motion pictures. Every other motion picture is reviewed under section 5.

G. Heyman: That concludes my questions on section 3.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Heyman: If I understood the Attorney General’s response to some of my questions yesterday, I think she answered this question. But I just want to reiterate and clarify because section 4 adds a new section 2.1, which is: “Review of restricted motion pictures for distribution.” Of course, “restricted motion pictures” is a new category or definition within this bill and will be within the act, should the bill pass.

My question was going to be: why was there no requirement previously? I believe the Attorney General’s answer was that previously, what would now be considered a restricted motion picture was considered an adult motion picture, and now that the definitions have changed, this distinction is being made. I just want to confirm that.

Hon. S. Anton: The designation “adult motion picture” used to include “restricted.” In other words, there was a big category of “adult,” and “restricted” was within that. It has actually been pulled out of that now, and it’s placed in the lineup of all the other categories — general, PG, 14A, 18A and restricted. It’s in that list now, as opposed to where it used to be, which was within the adult motion pictures.

G. Heyman: To just further clarify my understanding, restricted motion pictures are reviewed on essentially the
[ Page 9441 ]
same basis as general motion pictures, and no separate licensing is required.

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct. There’s no extra licence needed for the restricted film. There is, of course, one significant difference, which is that you may not go into a restricted film if you’re under 18. Just by way of background, that change has been in place since 1997. I’m guessing that when the member and I were both young, we probably could go into a restricted movie. That has changed now. A young person may not go into a restricted movie.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

[1110]

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could explain the effect of section 6 and how this actually changes the classification system we have now. It seems to me that this is, sort of, the essence of what this bill is supposed to do.

Hon. S. Anton: Two things. One, to the member for Vancouver-Fairview, the information the member requested has been e-mailed to him, so he should have it in his e-mail.

Secondly, the question from the member for Nanaimo. The overall significance of the changes proposed by section 6, when taken together with all of the amendments to proposed amendments to section 5, align the British Columbia law with the Criminal Code’s obscenity provisions, as well as case law relating to censorship. And it aligns with the rest of the act by clarifying, as I said a few moments ago, that the director reviews but does not approve non-adult motion pictures intended for a theatrical release.

L. Krog: In terms of the alignment with the Criminal Code and Canada’s obscenity laws, I’m just wondering: what’s the legal purpose of that, in a sense? Is it to ensure that you’ll be able to secure or win court cases that might challenge this, or is it to bring it into line with the Criminal Code because this is what we’re trying to do inferentially through this statute? I mean, what’s the actual purpose of all of this to align it with the Criminal Code?

Hon. S. Anton: The practice of the film classification team is to be conforming with the Criminal Code. Our legislation did not read that way. Ontario had similar legislation. It was challenged and amended, so we’re taking this opportunity to amend the British Columbia legislation.

L. Krog: If I understand this correctly, essentially what we’re doing is trying to impose a Criminal Code standard on the review of film in British Columbia. Is that the essence of it?

[1115]

Hon. S. Anton: The question of the approval or otherwise of an adult motion picture is a question of judgment for the film classification director and a question of the law. He does need to consider both of those things — his own judgment, of course, and the other provisions, the Criminal Code and the law as it plays out in the courts. Those are the kinds of things that need to be considered in the decisions around adult motion picture approval.

L. Krog: For example, is the concept that…? If the province approves the film, is that some kind of insurance against being prosecuted federally, so to speak, under the terms of the Criminal Code, or is it some kind of reverse process? In other words, really, why do we have this process? If we have obscenity laws that allow for the prosecution of people who distribute, sell, show, etc…. I’ll call them just “good, old-fashioned pornographic films.” Why bother to have this process in place if this process aligns itself truly with the Criminal Code? I mean, it’s….

In a city bylaw enforcement situation, bylaw officers generally don’t go out looking for a problem. It’s a question of someone complaining. They investigate. They determine whether a bylaw has been breeched. Maybe some process follows thereafter.

I’m just curious to understand. If we are aligning ourselves truly with the Criminal Code, then is this, as I say, simply to ensure that if I decide to show this film in my theatre in, you know, Fernie tomorrow, I’m going to be safe from federal prosecution because the director has decided that it’s okay to show it?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question is: if the film is approved, is that a guarantee that there will be no Criminal Code prosecution? The answer to that is no. That is not a guarantee.

L. Krog: I realize this may come out of left field. If the Attorney General can’t answer it, I might understand, but she is the chief law enforcement officer in the province of British Columbia.

For the last year or the year before, does the Attorney General have any statistics to provide the House in terms of prosecutions under the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code? In other words, how big a problem is this?

Hon. S. Anton: I don’t have an answer to that question at hand.

L. Krog: I’m just wondering: is the Attorney General
[ Page 9442 ]
aware of any prosecutions, in the last couple of years, under the Criminal Code provisions?

Hon. S. Anton: I will get back to the member with an answer to that question.

L. Krog: I guess what I’m getting at is: is this much ado about nothing? In other words, if there aren’t prosecutions for the distribution of films for commercial purposes or the showing of films for commercial purposes, why are we going through this process to supposedly modernize the reviewing process that the director undertakes?

[1120]

In other words, is it a significant public issue? I guess that is what I am getting at. Is this a substantive and necessary change? Is it an appropriate change? Is it a change that is desired by the film industry, the arts community? What’s the impetus for this?

Hon. S. Anton: I think we need to look at the overall reason for film classification, and that is this. The director of motion picture classification and the decisions he and his team make provide information to the public so that they can make informed choices for themselves and for their families. Consumer Protection B.C. and the director of motion picture classification do hear regularly from the public that they appreciate the classifications which are made.

L. Krog: I certainly appreciate the Attorney General’s answer. I don’t think any of us want to have, particularly, younger children or whoever see films of a nature that we wouldn’t think appropriate to their age because of a lack of understanding, appreciation and all of those things. I guess I’m coming back to the point again.

If the classification process is in place and people have to pay in order to participate in it and to have their films reviewed…. Surely, is there not some understanding, agreement, Crown counsel policy or whatever that deals with the issue of the person who pays for the process? It’s determined their film is — I’ll use the term in the vernacular — “legal.” They show it and then, potentially, face a prosecution.

What is the policy around this? For example, if I was running a theatre, is there any sense in me going through this process if I don’t have some comfort level, knowing that once the director said, “You’ve passed muster,” that in fact I’m not going to face prosecution?

Hon. S. Anton: The director of motion picture classification does have detailed policy which he follows and which is available on the Consumer Protection B.C. website. But, as I said earlier, this is not a guarantee against a criminal prosecution.

L. Krog: This brings me back to my point earlier in the debate yesterday. The existing subsection 5(3) says: “Subject to subsection (5), the director must” — must; mandatory — “before approving a motion picture submitted under section 2 (1) or 3 (1), remove or require the removal of, by erasure or otherwise, any portion of it that depicts any of the following.”

Then it goes on to list them quite specifically: “(a) coercion, through the use or threat of physical force or by other means, of a person to engage in a sexual act, if the sexual act that was coerced is depicted in explicit sexual scenes; (b) incest or necrophilia; (c) bondage in a sexual context; (d) persons who are or who appear to be under the age of 14…,” etc. It goes down to: “(i) conduct or an activity that is prescribed in a regulation made under section 14 (2) (f).”

In other words, it’s fairly specific, it’s quite lengthy, and it indeed includes a regulatory provision at the end of it so you can extend it to others.

[1125]

It’s subject to subsection (5), just so we’re clear for the debate, that says: “The director is not required to remove material under subsection (3) or refuse approval of a motion picture or adult motion picture under subsection (4) if the director considers that the theme, subject matter or plot of the motion picture or adult motion picture is artistic, historical, political, educational or scientific.” So fairly broad discretion to fit in what I think would be loosely referred to in the community as artistic films.

Yet the provision that is replacing it talks about the consideration of the adult motion picture, specifically sub (5), “by repealing subsection (5) and substituting the following: (5) If the director reviews an adult motion picture under subsection (1), the director must (a) consider the adult motion picture in its entirety and take into account the general character of the adult motion picture, including whether the theme, subject matter or plot of the adult motion picture is artistic, historical, political, educational or scientific, and (b) approve or refuse to approve the adult motion picture in accordance with subsections (5.1) and (5.2).”

It then goes on in (5.1) to say: “If an adult motion picture does not contain a depiction of any of the following scenes, the director must approve the adult motion picture.” So that’s mandatory as well.

He or she has to approve it if it does not contain any of the following: “(a) sexually explicit scenes involving violence; (b) sexually explicit scenes that are degrading or dehumanizing; (c) a person who is under 18 years of age, or who is intended to represent someone under that age, and who appears (i) nude or partially nude…or (ii) in a sexually explicit scene; (d) scenes prescribed by regulation.”

It seems to me that…. I’m not sure if we’re going forwards or backwards or what this means and whether this is, in fact, a reduction in the amount of censorship. Or is this allowing for a potential increase, particularly when
[ Page 9443 ]
we talk about scenes prescribed by regulation?

Scenes gives me some trouble too. Previously, it said “conduct or an activity that is prescribed in a regulation.” Now it has moved from conduct to scenes.

Perhaps the minister can explain to me…. What’s the direction we’re going, in her view? It’s her legislation. In addition, what are we talking about when we’re saying scenes prescribed by regulation? What does a scene mean as opposed to talking about conduct or an activity that is prescribed?

[1130]

Hon. S. Anton: One of the big differences in the new legislation is that in the previous legislation there was the ability to order that pieces of a motion picture be taken out.

The director will not get into that anymore. He will inform people that a certain scene is problematic, and if the person chooses to take it out or not, they can decide to do that in terms of getting their film classified. But it didn’t seem appropriate that it should be our classification people that were making the decisions as to what should or should not be removed.

The second part of the question I think was under (5.1)(d), “scenes prescribed by regulation.” This is similar to my responses from yesterday, which is that there are no proposed pieces for that regulation, but it is a placeholder, should something new arise that needs to be dealt with.

L. Krog: I’m being a bit cheeky when I say this. If I was speaking for the extreme family values folks who might want none of this depicted anywhere in a film anywhere in British Columbia, what I hear the Attorney General saying is, “Look, if it doesn’t fall in these general categories, then the director gets to approve it. It’ll be available for review because we have no intention, as a government, of doing anything that might remotely take us back to or include the provisions as they exist in subsection 5(3),” where we give that long list including incest or necrophilia or sexual conduct between a human being and an animal, etc.

In other words, we are in fact abandoning a great deal of censorship, by what I hear from the Attorney General today, when they say that the government has no intention of doing anything with the scenes prescribed by regulation. And, in fact, the director will now be relying on, if I may call it — I hesitate to use the term “superficial” — a much simpler legislative directive in terms of what he or she must or must not do with respect to movies involving sexually explicit scenes promoting violence, sexually explicit scenes that are degrading or dehumanizing, a person who is 18 years of age, etc., which is a much less specific and much more general categorization. Am I correct in saying that?

Hon. S. Anton: The list that was captured in the former subsection (3) is encompassed by the language in the new subsection (5.1).

The standards of the film classification officer are not changing in this. It’s simply a change of language which is more of a reflection of the current case law, which is to have a broader description of this form. As I said, the things that were in the previous list will all be encompassed. They are all encompassed in the list which is in the new section.

L. Krog: Just sort of a general question with respect to the Attorney General’s comments that there’s no intention to pass any regulations that would fall under (5.1)(d), scenes prescribed by regulation.

Am I wrong or am I correct in assuming that that provision…? The way it’s worded, is extremely broad, even though this is in the context of what we would generally describe as dealing with pornographic films. Does that section, in fact, give authority to the government to approve regulations that could deal with matters that, frankly, no one would ever think of as being pornographic — that have to do with other activities or human behavior, including, arguably, a political demonstration? In other words, is it so broad, or is there some provision in the act that ties this in that you can’t use this as a method of censorship in a broader context?

[1135]

Hon. S. Anton: We have to look at the context here, which is talking about adult motion pictures. As I said, for the subsection (d) scenes prescribed by regulation, there is not a plan for that regulation at the moment. But if there was something that came along that really did fit, an adult motion picture made a difference as to whether or not it should be approved, that would be a place that government could put it in.

L. Krog: But does the Attorney General agree that regardless of the context within this section, the section simply says: “…scenes prescribed by regulation”? I would argue that the simple reading of that is that regardless of context, potentially, it means you can regulate any scene in any movie.

Hon. S. Anton: To go back to the context here, you’re just not going to put something in there that is unrelated to the issue of adult motion pictures. If the member is worried about a demonstration in the city of Nanaimo suddenly being included as a regulation as something that would fit in here…. It’s a preposterous notion. It obviously has to be consistent with the act, or it’s never going to stand up to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.

L. Krog: As much as I appreciate the Attorney General’s remarks, nevertheless, if we go back to the definition we’ve already approved — an “‘adult motion pic-
[ Page 9444 ]
ture’ means a motion picture that has, as its main object, the description of (a) sexually explicit scenes, (b) scenes, depicted in a realistic and explicit manner, of brutality or torture to persons or animals, or (c) scenes prescribed by regulation.”

I just throw it out as a warning to the Attorney General that, as much as I would agree, it would be preposterous to suggest for a moment that you might film a demonstration in Nanaimo and that that would somehow be a breach of the act. But I would say that on a simple reading of it, even going back to the context, which the Attorney General is relying on, when you look at the term “adult motion picture,” it talks about “as its main object, the depiction of…” — talks about two things specifically — and then just says: “…scenes prescribed by regulation.”

[1140]

I realize the government is not likely to proceed with it. Nevertheless, from a civil liberties perspective, I just would suggest to the Attorney General that in fact it leaves, potentially — subject to some bright lawyer who has lots of time to research this stuff — a large loophole in terms of bringing under control things that no one in this House, as we’re debating this bill, ever thought should be under that control.

I simply leave that with the Attorney General. I think it’s an interesting legal point, and I’m happy to hear her response if she wishes to make one.

Hon. S. Anton: There is a remedy, should something go into any of those sections which didn’t make sense. If a film is classified pursuant to something that doesn’t make sense, the remedy is that you can ask for a reconsideration. At the end of the day, if you wish, you can go to judicial review.

I think that at the end of the day, these are in there for a fairly obvious purpose — the regulation-making authority, which is that if something appropriately comes along that is not captured by the act at the moment, that’s the placeholder that it can be put in.

G. Heyman: This section also removes section 5(3), which required the director to remove or require the removal of scenes or portions of a film that did not meet the criteria. That’s now been replaced, as I understand it — and the minister has confirmed — by approval or rejection of the film as a whole.

The Attorney General, however, made reference that the director may make the distributor aware of certain scenes that are problematic, which would leave it up to the discretion of the distributor whether to remove the scenes in order to allow the film to have more certainty with respect to approval.

There was commentary in 2012 that one of the laudable aspects of the precursor of this bill was the removal of censorship by government. But it appears that what is left is approval or rejection, or discussion with distributors about removing scenes. It’s possible to think that the government simply doesn’t want to be seen to be censoring and would rather allow the distributor to self-censor.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions. I just would like the Attorney General to explain the policy rationale for this change.

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned earlier, there was a case out of Ontario that made this provision, as it currently stands, wrong — unconstitutional, I believe. Government will not be ordering or removing or requiring the removal of pieces of a motion picture.

The film classification director may approve or not approve an adult motion picture and will have a discussion with the distributor. If the distributor wishes to make changes, of course, that’s entirely up to the distributor, but we, through government, will not be requiring people to change their films.

G. Heyman: Section (5.1) says: “If an adult motion picture does not contain a depiction of any of the following scenes,” which have been exhaustively discussed by my colleague from Nanaimo, it must be approved.

[1145]

And (5.2) says: “If an adult motion picture contains a depiction of any of the scenes referred to in subsection (5.1), the director may approve or refuse to approve the adult motion picture.”

I’m wondering if the Attorney General has any criteria or guidelines in mind or is planning to leave this to the director or if this is going to be kind of a fluid consideration based on community values at any point in time.

Hon. S. Anton: There are detailed criteria which are on the website of Consumer Protection B.C. Those criteria are built in consultation with the industry. It’s a very transparent process, and if the person wishing to distribute the film doesn’t like it, as I said a moment ago, they can ask for a reconsideration.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

G. Heyman: I’m just wondering if the Attorney General could just clarify, shed a little light on how the application of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act in the instance of the Motion Picture Act will actually work. How will it be different from anything current, if it will be different?

Hon. S. Anton: This aligns the act with the current practice and, as the member observes, brings into the act provisions from the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act around licensing.
[ Page 9445 ]

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

G. Heyman: Section 12.2 “authorizes the director to publish information respecting compliance measures under the act,” and that is welcome in the sense of consumer protection.

[1150]

People will have a chance to see information respecting suspensions or cancellations, any undertakings of distributors or people showing motion pictures, compliance orders, imposition of administrative penalties, court orders under the act, convictions for offences. That’s important consumer protection and transparency legislation, but 12.22 says the director “may” publish information. It doesn’t say the director must publish information or shall publish information.

Could the minister explain why this discretion has been granted? On the one hand, it appears that the bill contains a significant move toward consumer protection or transparency, yet it leaves total discretion about whether to exercise that rather than, perhaps, delineate very clearly some particular reasons why discretion might be used and other reasons where it should not be used.

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question is around the proposed 12.22, whether or not the word “may” should be “must.”

The practice is that everything does get published when it has come to its conclusion. Sometimes there are processes that are underway. There are interim orders made and so on. Those are not published until, as I said, whatever the particular situation is, is worked out and finalized.

G. Heyman: I understand the rationale. I’m just wondering: is this a matter of policy regulation as opposed to putting in the bill that the director must publish upon conclusion of any outstanding matters?

Hon. S. Anton: The language in 12.22 is consistent with that of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act but written so it suits the Motion Picture Act.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

[1155]

G. Heyman: In 21(c), it provides that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe a classification scheme that is considered necessary for motion pictures that are exhibited in theatres. Is there any plan to change the classification scheme currently?

Hon. S. Anton: No plans to change the current scheme.

Sections 17 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — MOTION PICTURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 33, Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. N. Letnick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada