British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, September 23, 2009

H0923pm-03

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 39th Parliament o FFicial rePort o F Debates of the Legis Lative a ssemb Ly (hansarD) the honourable bill bari So FF, SPeaker iSSn 0709-1281 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Afternoon Sitting Volume 3, Number 3

Pro Vince o F britiS h colu Mbia (entered c onfederation July 20, 1871) lieutenant -Go Vernor h is h onour the h onourable Steven l. Point, obc First Session, 39th Parliament SPeaker o F the leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y h onourable bill barisoff eXecutiVe council Premier and President of the executive c ouncil ......................................................................................................h on.

Gordon c ampbell Minister of State for intergovernmental r elations ....................................................................................................h on. n aomi Y amamoto Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................... h on. c olin h ansen Minister of State for the o lympics and a ctn ow b.c. ....................................................................................................... h on.

Mary Mcn eil Minister of a boriginal r elations and r econciliation .....................................................................................................h on. George a bbott Minister of a dvanced e ducation and l abour Market Development ............................................................................ h on. Moira Stilwell Minister of a griculture and l ands ...................................................................................................................................h on.

Steve Thomson a ttorney General ...................................................................................................................................................... h on. Michael de Jong, Qc Minister of c hildren and Family Development and Minister r esponsible for c hild c are ............................................h on.

Mary Polak Minister of citizens' Services and Minister r esponsible for Multiculturalism and the Public a ffairs bureau ...........h on. ben Stewart Minister of c ommunity and r ural Development ................................................................................................................h on. bill bennett Minister of e ducation and Minister r esponsible for early l earning and l iteracy ......................................h on.

Margaret MacDiarmid Minister of energy, Mines and Petroleum r esources .....................................................................................................h on. blair l ekstrom Minister of State for Mining ................................................................................................................................................h on. r andy h awes Minister of environment .......................................................................................................................................................h on. barry Penner Minister of State for c limate a ction ...........................................................................................................................................h on.

John Y ap Minister of Forests and r ange and Minister r esponsible for the integrated l and Management bureau ........................... h on.

Pat bell Minister of h ealth Services ...................................................................................................................................................h on. k evin Falcon Minister of h ealthy l iving and Sport ...................................................................................................................................... h on. ida c hong Minister of h ousing and Social Development .................................................................................................................h on. r ich c oleman Minister of l abour ................................................................................................................................................................ h on.

Murray c oell Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General .....................................................................................................................h on. k ash h eed Minister of Small business, t echnology and e conomic Development ................................................................................ h on. iain black Minister of t ourism, c ulture and the a rts ...................................................................................................................... h on. k evin k rueger Minister of t ransportation and infrastructure ...................................................................................................................h on.

Shirley bond leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y l eader of the official o pposition ...................................................................................................................................................c arole James Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................................................... l inda r eid a ssistant Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................c laire t revena Deputy c hair, c ommittee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................................... h arry bloy c lerk of the l egislative a ssembly...................................................................................................................e.

George MacMinn, obc, Q c c lerk a ssistant ..................................................................................................................................................................................r obert Vaive c lerk a ssistant and l aw c lerk................................................................................................................................................. ian D. izard, Qc c lerk a ssistant and c lerk of c ommittees ................................................................................................................................. craig h.

James c lerk a ssistant and c ommittee c lerk .................................................................................................................................... k ate r yan-l loyd Sergeant-at-a rms .................................................................................................................................................................................

Gary l enz Director, h ansard Services ............................................................................................................................................................Jo-a nne k ern a cting l egislative l ibrarian .......................................................................................................................................................... Peter Gourlay l egislative c omptroller ....................................................................................................................................................................... Dan a rbic

alP habetical liS t o F MeMberS a bbott, h on. George (l) ........................................................................ Shuswap a ustin, r obin (nDP) ................................................................................ Skeena bains, h arry (nDP) ....................................................................Surrey-n ewton barisoff, h on. bill (l) ............................................................................Penticton barnett, Donna (l) ................................................................ c ariboo-c hilcotin bell, h on.

Pat (l) ..................................................... Prince George–Mackenzie bennett, h on. bill (l) ...................................................................k ootenay e ast black, Dawn (nDP) ................................................................n ew Westminster black, h on. iain (l) ..................................................... Port Moody–c oquitlam bloy, h arry (l) ......................................................................burnaby-l ougheed bond, h on.

Shirley (l) ...........................................Prince George–Valemount brar, Jagrup (nDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Fleetwood c adieux, Stephanie (l) ...........................................................Surrey-Panorama c ampbell, h on. Gordon (l) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey c antelon, r on (l) ..............................................................

Parksville-Qualicum c hong, h on. ida (l) ..................................................... o ak bay–Gordon h ead c houhan, r aj (nDP) ........................................................... burnaby-e dmonds c oell, h on. Murray (l) ....................................Saanich n orth and the islands c oleman, h on. r ich (l) ...........................................

Fort l angley–a ldergrove c onroy, katrine (nDP) .............................................................. k ootenay West c oons, Gary (nDP) .........................................................................n orth c oast c orrigan, k athy (nDP) ..................................................... burnaby–Deer l ake Dalton, Marc (l) .............................................................. Maple r idge–Mission de Jong, h on.

Michael, Qc (l) .............................................. a bbotsford West Dix, a drian (nDP) ............................................................Vancouver-kingsway Donaldson, Doug (nDP) ......................................................................... Stikine e lmore, Mable (nDP) ................................................... Vancouver-kensington Falcon, h on. k evin (l) ..........................................................Surrey-c loverdale Farnworth, Mike (nDP) ............................................................

Port c oquitlam Fleming, r ob (nDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan l ake Foster, eric (l) .......................................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (nDP) ............................................................a lberni–Pacific r im Gentner, Guy (nDP) .........................................................................Delta n orth h ammell, Sue (nDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green t imbers h ansen, h on. c olin (l) ..................................................

Vancouver-Quilchena h awes, h on. r andy (l) ..................................................... a bbotsford-Mission h ayer, Dave S. (l) .................................................................... Surrey-t ynehead h eed, h on. k ash (l) ...................................................... Vancouver-Fraserview h erbert, Spencer (nDP) ..................................................Vancouver–West end h ogg, Gordon (l) ............................................................... Surrey–White r ock h organ, John (nDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca h orne, Douglas (l) ..............................................c oquitlam–b urke Mountain h oward, r ob (l) .....................................................................r ichmond c entre h untington, Vicki (ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, c arole (nDP) .........................................................Victoria–b eacon h ill k aragianis, Maurine (nDP) ........................................e squimalt–r oyal r oads k rog, l eonard (nDP) ........................................................................... n anaimo k rueger, h on. k evin (l) ..................................... k amloops–South Thompson kwan, Jenny Wai ching (nDP) ...........................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant l ake, t erry (l) .....................................................k amloops–n orth Thompson l ali, h arry (nDP) ..........................................................................Fraser-n icola l ee, r ichard t . (l) .......................................................................burnaby n orth l ekstrom, h on. blair (l) .......................................................

Peace r iver South l es, John (l) .........................................................................................c hilliwack l etnick, n orm (l) ........................................................k elowna–l ake c ountry MacDiarmid, h on. Margaret (l) ..................................... Vancouver-Fairview Macdonald, n orm (nDP) ....................................c olumbia r iver–r evelstoke Mcintyre, Joan (l) ..................................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Mcn eil, h on.

Mary (l) .................................................Vancouver–False creek Mcr ae, Don (l) ............................................................................. c omox Valley Mungall, Michelle (nDP) ..........................................................n elson-creston Penner, hon. barry (l) ............................................................c hilliwack-h ope Pimm, Pat (l) ..........................................................................Peace r iver n orth Polak, h on.

Mary (l) ...............................................................................l angley Popham, l ana (nDP) ...................................................................Saanich South r alston, bruce (nDP) ................................................................

Surrey-Whalley r eid, l inda (l) .............................................................................r ichmond e ast r outley, bill (nDP) .................................................................. c owichan Valley r outley, Doug (nDP) ............................................n anaimo–n orth c owichan r ustad, John (l) ........................................................................... n echako l akes Sather, Michael (nDP) ......................................... Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows Simons, n icholas (nDP) ...................................

Powell r iver–Sunshine c oast Simpson, bob (nDP) ...................................................................c ariboo n orth Simpson, Shane (nDP) .....................................................Vancouver-hastings Slater, John (l) ..............................................................boundary-Similkameen Stewart, h on. ben (l) ........................................................... Westside-kelowna Stilwell, h on. Moira (l) ...................................................... Vancouver-l angara Sultan, r alph (l) .....................................................

West Vancouver–capilano Thomson, hon. Steve (l) ........................................................k elowna-Mission Thorne, Diane (nDP) .................................................c oquitlam-Maillardville Thornthwaite, Jane (l) .......................................... n orth Vancouver–Seymour t revena, c laire (nDP) .................................................................... n orth island van Dongen, John (l) .............................................................a bbotsford South Y amamoto, hon. n aomi (l) ................................. n orth Vancouver–l onsdale Y ap, hon.

John (l) .............................................................r ichmond-Steveston liS t o F MeMberS bY riD in G a bbotsford-Mission .............................................................h on. r andy h awes a bbotsford South .....................................................................John van Dongen a bbotsford West ...................................................... h on. Michael de Jong, Qc a lberni–Pacific r im ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser boundary-Similkameen .....................................................................John Slater burnaby–Deer l ake ................................................................... k athy c orrigan burnaby-e dmonds ......................................................................... r aj c houhan burnaby-l ougheed ............................................................................ h arry bloy burnaby n orth .............................................................................. r ichard t . l ee c ariboo-c hilcotin ........................................................................Donna barnett c ariboo n orth ................................................................................ bob Simpson c hilliwack ...............................................................................................

John l es c hilliwack-h ope ...................................................................h on. barry Penner c olumbia r iver–r evelstoke .................................................. n orm Macdonald c omox Valley.................................................................................... Don Mcr ae c oquitlam–b urke Mountain .....................................................Douglas h orne c oquitlam-Maillardville...............................................................

Diane Thorne c owichan Valley ................................................................................ bill r outley Delta n orth ......................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ...............................................................................Vicki h untington e squimalt–r oyal r oads .....................................................Maurine k aragianis Fort l angley–a ldergrove ...................................................h on. r ich c oleman Fraser-n icola........................................................................................ h arry l ali Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John h organ k amloops–n orth Thompson .............................................................t erry l ake k amloops–South Thompson ............................................ h on. k evin k rueger k elowna–l ake c ountry ...............................................................n orm l etnick k elowna-Mission .............................................................. h on.

Steve Thomson k ootenay e ast .......................................................................... h on. bill bennett k ootenay West ............................................................................ k atrine c onroy l angley.......................................................................................h on. Mary Polak Maple r idge–Mission .....................................................................

Marc Dalton Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................Michael Sather n anaimo ......................................................................................... l eonard k rog n anaimo–n orth c owichan ......................................................... Doug r outley n echako l akes ..................................................................................

John r ustad n elson-creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall n ew Westminster ..............................................................................Dawn black n orth c oast....................................................................................... Gary c oons n orth island .................................................................................. c laire t revena n orth Vancouver–l onsdale ........................................h on. n aomi Y amamoto n orth Vancouver–Seymour .................................................

Jane Thornthwaite o ak bay–Gordon h ead ............................................................ h on. ida c hong Parksville-Qualicum ..................................................................... r on c antelon Peace r iver n orth ................................................................................

Pat Pimm Peace r iver South ...............................................................h on. blair l ekstrom Penticton................................................................................... h on. bill barisoff Port c oquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–c oquitlam .............................................................h on. iain black Powell r iver–Sunshine c oast ................................................. n icholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................h on.

Pat bell Prince George–Valemount ...................................................h on. Shirley bond r ichmond c entre ............................................................................ r ob h oward r ichmond e ast ................................................................................... l inda r eid r ichmond-Steveston .................................................................... h on. John Y ap Saanich n orth and the islands ........................................... h on.

Murray c oell Saanich South ................................................................................ l ana Popham Shuswap ...............................................................................h on. George a bbott Skeena .............................................................................................. r obin a ustin Stikine .......................................................................................

Doug Donaldson Surrey-c loverdale .................................................................h on. k evin Falcon Surrey-Fleetwood ...............................................................................Jagrup brar Surrey–Green t imbers ..................................................................Sue h ammell Surrey-n ewton ................................................................................. h arry b ains Surrey-Panorama ..................................................................Stephanie c adieux Surrey-t ynehead ...........................................................................

Dave S. h ayer Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. bruce r alston Surrey–White r ock ....................................................................... Gordon h ogg Vancouver-Fairview ............................................. h on. Margaret MacDiarmid Vancouver–False creek ........................................................ h on.

Mary Mcn eil Vancouver-Fraserview ..............................................................h on. k ash h eed Vancouver-hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-kensington .................................................................Mable e lmore Vancouver-kingsway..........................................................................a drian Dix Vancouver-l angara ............................................................. h on. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai ching kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .................................................h on.

Gordon c ampbell Vancouver-Quilchena ..........................................................h on. c olin h ansen Vancouver–West end ................................................................Spencer h erbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................eric Foster Victoria–b eacon h ill .......................................................................c arole James Victoria–Swan l ake.........................................................................r ob Fleming West Vancouver–capilano ............................................................. r alph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ........................................................

Joan Mcintyre Westside-kelowna ...................................................................h on. ben Stewart Party Standings: l iberal 49; n ew Democratic 35; independent 1

CONTENTS Wednesday, September 23, 2009 a fternoon Sitting Page Routine Business introductions by Members ....................................................................................................................................................... 717 introduction and First r eading of bills .................................................................................................................................. 717 bill 11 — l abour Mobility a ct h on. M.

Stilwell Statements (Standing order 25b) ........................................................................................................................................... 718 c lean drinking water fundraising event in o kanagan area n. l etnick Port a lberni t oy r un for children's organizations S. Fraser biotechnology industry in b.c. r . l ee c anwest r aise-a-r eader campaign D. Thorne French immersion M.

Dalton Sooke Family r esource Society J. h organ oral Questions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 720 Funding for repairs at Johnston heights Secondary School S. h ammell h on. M. MacDiarmid J. brar r . a ustin b.c. a wards online website V . huntington h on. M. MacDiarmid e arly intervention program for children with autism M. k aragianis h on. M. Polak Workshops at housing and Social Development Ministry S. Simpson h on. r . c oleman n.

Simon s Funding for domestic violence programs D. black h on. k. h eed a. Dix M. Farnworth Petitions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 725 M. k aragianis h on. G. a bbott

Orders of the Day c ommittee of the Whole h ouse .............................................................................................................................................. 725 bill 4 — Wills, e states and Succession a ct (continued) h on. M. de Jong l. k rog Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room c ommittee of Supply ................................................................................................................................................................ 751 e stimates: Ministry of citizens' S ervices (continued) D. r outley h on. b. Stewart h. l ali e stimates: Ministry of Forests and r ange h on. P . bell n. Macdonald b. r outley

717 WeD neSD a Y , SePteMber 23, 2009 The h ouse met at 1:34 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members M. Karagianis: i have today in the h ouse two sets of guests.

First and foremost, i have a group of parents of autistic children here in the l egislature today to share the stories about their experience with the early inter - vention autistic program. i have c her Sherwood — i don't see her actually here yet, so she must be on her way — c atherine c lark-t urnquist and her little baby a lexander, and n icole Strong. i'd like the h ouse to please make them welcome. [1335] in addition to that, i have another distinguished group of guests here in the h ouse.

From the Vic West c ommunity a ssociation i have the harbour committee chair, a udrey Whittall. a lso from the harbour commit- tee is Diane c arr. From the Victoria h arbour Defence a lliance, Peter Pollen and t erry Milne — Peter Pollen, as many will remember, is past mayor in Victoria. From the Victoria c anoe and k ayak c lub, Doug l inton and l inda Thomson; and from the Save Victoria h arbour group, l ynn MacDonald, Gordon Greeniaus, c arolyn Greeniaus, r ichard c ouch and barry h obbis.

They are here to shepherd through a very important petition, which i'll be presenting later on, in opposition to the mega-yacht project proposed for the inner h arbour. i hope the h ouse would make them very welcome. L. Reid: i have three wonderful guests in the gallery today. Mary Gordon has joined us. Mary is the founder of the r oots of empathy and the Seeds of empathy. That work is well underway in british c olumbia.

She's joined by Sheri Fogarty, who does project development, and Monique Gray-Smith, who is the aboriginal adviser to the r oots and Seeds of empathy in british c olumbia and across the land. i would ask the h ouse to please make them genuinely welcome. G. Coons: in the h ouse today are three special guests — two from Guadalajara, Mexico: l uis a lonso Mariscal c arvajal, who is an engineer, and Ximena de a lba del c astillo n egrete, who is a teacher and businesswoman.

They're joined by their good friend and my good friend Derek r eimer, who is retired from our Provincial a rchives and who operates a very unique bed-and- breakfast in town where i happen to stay when i'm in Victoria. Please make them welcome. N. Simons: i would ask the h ouse to help me wel- come three guests from Prince George. We have Mabel l ouie, t ravis h olyk and Warner a dam. Will the h ouse please make them welcome. H. Bains: in the vicinity we have 32 grade 10 students from t amanawis Secondary in Surrey. They are joined by their parents and their teachers. Please join with me in welcoming them. Hon. K.

Falcon: i also want to echo the welcome that the member for Surrey-n ewton made to the students from t amanawis, both the humanities 10 class and the social studies 11 class. i had the opportunity to chat with them in my office today. They're an extremely bright and engaging group of students led by two very, very good teachers, k athie c ybulskie and l indsay h utchison. They are all joining us here today. i'm not sure if they're in the galleries yet, but they are in the vicinity. i ask that they be made welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills bill 11 — labour Mobilit Y act h on. M.

Stilwell presented a message from h is h onour the l ieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled l abour Mobil- ity a ct. Hon. M. Stilwell: i move that bill 11 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. Stilwell: i am very pleased to introduce bill 11, the l abour Mobility a ct. We first introduced this bill during the last session, indicating government's com- mitment to and direction for full labour mobility. This bill represents our support for interprovincial collabora- tion to full labour mobility and to the success of workers in skilled trades and professions.

This legislation enables british columbians and all c anadians with the power to use their skills and experi- ence to their best advantage. n ow more than ever we must find ways to ensure that our businesses, skilled trades- persons and professionals can pursue every opportunity, gain every advantage, and lead our province and c anada in economic recovery. This legislation removes longstanding, unproduct- ive and archaic barriers, enabling british c olumbia to attract the workers our economy will need in the years ahead.

british c olumbia Debates718 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Mr. Speaker, i move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the h ouse after today. bill 11, l abour Mobility a ct, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the h ouse after today. [1340] Statements (Standing Order 25B) clean Drinkin G Water FunD raiS in G e Vent in okana Gan area N.

Letnick: i had the exciting experience this past Saturday, along with many british c olumbians, of partici- pating in the second annual t urn on the t ap Motorcycle r ide. This very enjoyable ride through the beautiful scenic o kanagan, and other areas like it in a lberta and ontario, raises money for t urn on the t ap, an initiative organized by Samaritan's Purse c anada, a c hristian international relief and development organization. Samaritan's Purse c anada is building and installing water filters in the developing world. They are using made-in-c anada technology, a device called a bioSand water filter.

This filter transforms contaminated or pol- luted water into safe drinkable water almost instantly. a lmost one billion people on our planet are forced to drink contaminated water every day, causing a wide variety of diarrheal diseases and killing people at a rate of one every 20 seconds with most of the dead being young children.

The bioSand filter, which has been studied by a var - iety of experts including the World h ealth organization, is helping to save lives. e ach filter, with an average cost of only $100 including important health and hygiene training, serves eight to ten people. c lean water restores good health so that children are able to stay in school and parents continue to work. Families benefit; com- munities benefit; entire nations benefit.

Samaritan's Purse has built and installed more than 100,000 bioSand filters in the developing world, and in recent years they are committed to building and installing many, many more. i would like to acknowledge b.c. event organizers a lan and bonnie Mackenzie; c arly Simla; e d Weiss and h arold bewnerick; c obb's bakery and c hoices Market for their generous sponsorship; and t rinity baptist, a lexis Park c hurch, the h ouse, as well as evangel c hurch for hosting the riders. r ecent t urn on the t ap motorcycle rides are helping to raise the funds to ensure that Samaritan's Purse and british c olumbians continue to provide these important water filters.

Port alberni to Y run For chilD ren'S or GaniZ ationS S. Fraser: The largest children's fundraiser on the west coast took to the road last weekend. The 25th annual Port a lberni t oy r un rumbled to life to raise money for the west coast children's charities. Since 1984 the Port a lberni t oy r un has grown from a December run of six motorcyclists to a must-attend event in September, with this year bringing in 1,200 motorcycle riders from throughout Vancouver island, the rest of british c olumbia and the western provinces and states.

The chair of the society, Scot l oudon, said it best: "The Port a lberni t oy r un Society is a volunteer organiza- tion, and every dollar raised goes to support children's charities and programs in Port a lberni, u cluelet and t ofino. because of the generosity of the motorcyclists and the people of Port a lberni, we've distributed more than $1 million in money and toys to children's groups through the past 25 years." l ast week's toy run was a major success.

Motorcycles roared to life at noon on Saturday and moved in convoy from l ittle Qualicum Falls, making their way over the hump on h ighway 4 and convening at the Glenwood c entre in Port a lberni. The fun continued there with games, face-painting, popcorn and all-around family fun. by Sunday $62,000 was raised and an additional $25,000 in toys was collected. Some of the charities supported by the Port a lberni t oy r un include the k iwanis h ilton children's centre, the Salvation a rmy, the bread of l ife, district 70 healthy lunches program, r aise-a-r eader and dozens of other services.

The Port a lberni t oy r un is the largest motor- cycle event on Vancouver island. a s i mentioned, 1,200 motorcyclists participated in this 25th anniversary event, and it was all about the children. biotechnolo GY in Du Str Y in b.c . R.

Lee: This week is n ational biotechnology Week in c anada. it's time to recognize the contributions of tens of thousands of british c olumbians who work in this field as students, researchers, mentors, investors, entrepreneurs, technicians, engineers and scientists. biotech is a growing industry in b.c ., and it includes biopharmaceuticals, medical devices, bioproducts and bioenergy, industrial and environmental biotech, bio- informatics, forest biotech, agriculture biotech and marine biotech, etc. [1345] Many of b.c .'s hundreds of biotech companies are located in burnaby. a mgen british c olumbia, Xenon Pharmaceuticals and canteS t are just three. a mgen british c olumbia is one of several research facilities oper- ated by a mgen inc., which specializes in the discovery

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 719 and development of human therapeutic antibodies.

Xenon Pharmaceuticals is a privately owned clinical genetics-based drug discovery and development com- pany engaged in developing small molecule therapies based on the genetic courses of select metabolic, neuro- logical and cardiovascular diseases. canteS t bioPharma Services is an analytical lab- oratory company specializing in validation and testing services. it conducts clinical drug studies and works with other pharmaceutical and biotech companies to solve scientific problems. a s we navigate through this global economic crisis, we must reinforce our strengths so that we emerge stronger.

We must not only continue to develop our rich heritage of natural resource industries; we must also be innova- tive to increase our productivity and competitiveness. o ur biotechnology industry is a prime example of an area where we can do just this. i ask that my fellow members join me in congratu- lating all who work in this important and exciting new industry. can We St rai Se -a -rea Der ca MPai Gn D.

Thorne: i am pleased to rise today to acknowledge and support a campaign that for 13 years has brought together hundreds of volunteers, community leaders and celebrities. i'm speaking, of course, of c anwest's r aise-a-r eader campaign. With the goal of eliminating family illiteracy in c anada, british c olumbians have been generously donating their time and their money. o ver the years r aise-a-r eader has donated millions of dollars to literacy programs, libraries and public schools.

This campaign reminds us that 40 percent of adults in b.c. have poor literacy skills, and nearly 30 percent of children entering kindergarten do not have the lan- guage or literacy skills they need. Poor literacy skills are a barrier to full participation in society. income levels, civic participation and even health are directly related. r esearchers estimate that the rate of return from investments in early literacy inter - vention programs is up to $8 for every dollar invested. it's tragic that in b.c., important literacy programs are being cut.

We now know that higher levels of literacy are associated with more stable employment, higher wages and a healthier economy. l iteracy programs have a huge impact on an individual's ability to adapt to changes in the labour market and increases their employability. ideally, literacy issues should be dealt with early in life with programs such as books for babies. t o abandon child and youth literacy programs for any reason is a mistake, because as we know, children are our future.

Poor literacy is b.c.'s hidden deficit. i applaud c anwest's r aise-a-r eader campaign and all the volunteers whose hard work will pay off in divi- dends, because promoting a child's healthy development in their earliest years is never a bad investment. French iMMerS ion M. Dalton: t oday i would like to recognize the teachers, parents and students who have made French immersion the great success story that it is in the province of british columbia and in the school districts which i represent — school district 42, Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows, and school district 75, Mission.

There are now over 42,000 students in French immer- sion and another 5,000 students in francophone programs. h undreds of thousands of british c olumbians have taken French immersion, and it has grown every year for the past 11 years in spite of declining enrolment. in Maple r idge and Pitt Meadows over 1,500 students, or 10 percent of the student population, are in the program. in Mission there are hundreds more. in Pitt Meadows e lementary School, where i taught last year, parents lined up for hours before kindergarten registration in order to secure a spot for their child.

This has been the story in many public schools across the province. French immersion is not an elite program. it is open to all students at no extra cost. [1350] Parents recognize that fluency in French can open up a world of opportunities for their children.

French acquisi- tion expands possibilities of employment in c anada and abroad. t ravelling becomes easier and more enjoyable. a n increased appreciation for other cultures is instilled, and other languages are more easily acquired. i applaud the French immersion teachers, who not only face the usual instructional challenges, but they must do so in the students' second language. o bviously, they're doing a great job, and the numbers speak for themselves. in Maple r idge and Pitt Meadows there are six ele- mentary schools and two secondary schools that offer French immersion, and in Mission, Mission Secondary, e cole c hristine Morrison and Mission c entral also offer it.

Félicitations et bravo aux étudiants et aux professeurs dans ce programme exceptionnel. [c ongratulations and bravo to the students and teach- ers in this exceptional program.] [French text and translation provided by M. Dalton.] c ongratulations to all those involved. Sooke Fa Mil Y re Source Societ Y J. Horgan: a ll of us have been touched by organ- izations that provide invaluable services and resources to residents in our communities. t oday i rise to speak about an important group in the western reaches of the capital regional district, the Sooke Family r esource Society.

british c olumbia Debates720 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 e stablished in 1984 by a dedicated group of women who aimed to provide families with opportunities for support, sharing, learning and relaxation in an informal, neighbourhood house setting, the Sooke Family r esource Society has become a vital agency providing essential and supportive services for local children and families.

Serving families in Sooke, e ast Sooke, Jordan r iver, o tter Point, Shirley and Port r enfrew, the society offers parenting and life skill courses, preschool programs, a used clothing exchange and toy lending library, and child and family referral and counselling services. Just recently they received international accreditation for meeting standards of excellence in service delivery. a quarter-century of service to children and families is cause for celebration. This Saturday from 12:30 to 3:30 the society is marking its 25th anniversary with a family festival at the ca Sa building on t ownsend r oad in Sooke.

The party will include live music, art activities, a barbecue and fun family activities as well. i encour - age community members to join in the fun at the ca Sa, and i ask members of this h ouse to join me in wishing a happy 25th to the society and hopes for 25 more. Oral Questions FunD in G For reP airS at John Ston hei Ght S Secon Dar Y School S. Hammell: For years the roof, skylights and win- dows at Johnston h eights Secondary in Surrey have leaked. With little support from this government, buck- ets have been used to catch the dripping water.

Finally this spring, just before the election, the government agreed to provide a grant for repairs. in the middle of the summer, in an about-face, the grant was pulled, and the students are stuck in leaky classrooms. t o the Minister of e ducation: is it acceptable for our children to be learning in leaky classrooms surrounded by buckets catching dripping water? Hon. M. MacDiarmid: i'm certainly aware of this situation, and i would like to reassure the members opposite that students' health and safety is a top priority for this government. it remains a top priority for this government.

School districts are responsible for environmental quality. They continue to monitor that in this school, and that continues. it's their responsibility. interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We've been in contact with this school, and we're discussing the possibility of them using some of their local capital reserves for this project. We're working with them, just as we've worked with the Vancouver school district for a similar problem. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. S.

Hammell: This is as much an example of this government's ineptitude as it is of their neglect of our children. a fter receiving confirmation of a $3.5 million grant and being advanced about half of it, the school hired a contractor and moved in portables as temporary classrooms. Weeks later they were told that the funding no longer exists and students are out of luck.

This government's incompetence has meant that $700,000 went down the tube to move around portables and pay severance for a broken contract. [1355] a gain to the minister: why should students at Johnston h eights Secondary pay the price for a government in chaos, and why should they suffer because the l iberals don't get their priorities right? Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This government clearly has its priorities exactly right. interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. c ontinue, Minister. Hon. M.

MacDiarmid: in the face of a global economic downturn, this government is investing record levels in education — $4.5 billion, an $84 million increase from last year's investment in our students. in a time of an economic downturn, we're keeping british c olumbians working. This year — $177 million in Surrey alone on school buildings, on seismic upgrades. This government has its priorities straight. We are absolutely working with this school district and all school districts to make sure that student safety and health is addressed. Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental. S.

Hammell: Maybe the minister didn't hear me. The work had begun. The portables had been moved onto the site, 20 percent of the grant money had been spent, and then the government shut down the program — $700,000 wasted. n ow the children in our classrooms will pay the price. t o the minister: what does she say to the students of Johnston h eights Secondary who were told before the election that the school would be fixed and, after, were told they were out of luck? h ow does this government explain to them their about-face on education?

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 721 Hon. M. MacDiarmid: it is particularly rich to hear from the member opposite about Surrey's portables. When the members opposite were in government, they had enough portables to form a very large school dis- trict in Surrey. interjections. Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat. Members. c ontinue, Minister. Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are working with school districts to ensure that students are safe in those districts.

We're continuing to do that in every district, including this one, and we're working closely with this particular school district on this issue. J. Brar: The situation is very clear that this govern- ment chose to cancel the funding of the school and waste $700,000 of taxpayer money to cover up their own budget deception. That's the situation. This government's incompetence is taking a toll on our families. This is what the parent of a student had to say to the Premier: "i'm sure if you were to visit your grand- son at school, you wouldn't tolerate the bucket placed in the corner of the classroom.

Y ou would do something about it." c learly, this government's approach to educa- tion is impacting our students, families and our entire school system. My question again is to the Minister of e ducation. c an the Minister of e ducation tell this h ouse today what steps the minister will take to fix this mess at the school, and what will she say to the families who are asking for answers? [1400] Hon. M. MacDiarmid: a s i've already clarified, we are working with this school district to see how this problem can be addressed.

Many of the school districts have capital reserves that can be used for this kind of project, and we certainly are working with this school district to see if that is a possibility. The record is very clear. british c olumbia's schools are safe. They are continuing to be invested in. n ot only that, we have some of the best performances in the world coming out of our schools. i find it reprehensible that students' and parents' confidence is being undermined by the members opposite. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. J.

Brar: a gain, the reality is this — 175 less schools, a thousand classrooms over the class size, funding cut to libraries and leaky schools. That's the legacy of this government. Students of Surrey and their families don't trust this minister and this government and their ability to manage the school system.

Johnston School is a prime example of that. in the letter to the Premier, the parent continued to say: "These kinds of actions are the reason the fund- ing is so short. n ot only should you be ashamed of the wasteful actions, you should be motivated to correct the situation." My question, again, to the Minister of e ducation: will the minister stand up in this h ouse today, correct the mess they created in this school and restore the funding to fix the leaks at this school? Hon. M.

MacDiarmid: Y ear after year after year over the last eight years, there have been increasing invest- ments in schools — increasing investments in per-pupil funding every single year. This year is no different. interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Just take your seat. Members. c ontinue, Minister. Hon. M. MacDiarmid: a s the member opposite is well aware, we've had declining enrolment in this prov- ince — 60,000 fewer students this year than there were in 2001. Y et in spite of that, we've consistently, every year, increased the funding. Since 2001, $177 million for new schools in Surrey alone… interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Members. Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …and 34 capital and seismic projects, including the new a dams r oad e lementary School and r osemary h eights e lementary School. R. Austin: a ll we get from this minister are excuses and false assurances.

Johnston h eights is just one example of how this government's decisions are directly impacting our classrooms. c uts to P ac funds, cuts to annual facilities grants, cuts to libraries, cuts to literacy programs — the cuts keep coming while school districts are expected to balance their budgets. t o the minister: is she just ignoring what these cuts are doing to our schools and our classrooms, or does she just not get it? h ow does she expect school districts to balance their budgets without affecting the classroom? Hon. M. MacDiarmid: i feel i must be in some sort of parallel universe here.

Y ear after year after year, the funding….

british c olumbia Debates722 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 interjections. Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister, just take your seat. Members. c ontinue, Minister. [1405] Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Y ear after year, funding has continued to increase. it has increased. We have invested, this year alone, $447 million in new schools and seismic upgrades. We have increased our per-pupil funding to record levels. This is the correct direction for things to go — increased funding and increased investment in this pre- cious resource, the students of british c olumbia. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. R.

Austin: l ast week the minister stated: "We've been very clear that any issue around student health and safety we will work with them to address." My question to the minister is very simple. Will the minister confirm that she will return the money to Surrey school district so they can fix this leaky roof, or is this not a matter of health and safety? Hon. M. MacDiarmid: i will gladly confirm with the member opposite what we have already done and what we're doing on an ongoing basis with every school district, including this one. We're in consultation with them.

We're talking with them about how they can meet their needs at each individual school district level. h ealth and safety of students is absolutely being addressed, clearly. b.c. a WarDS online WebS ite V . Huntington: This question is, coincidentally, for the Minister of e ducation. i'm wondering if the minis- ter could advise the h ouse of the reasoning behind the sudden cancellation of the b.c. a wards online website. Hon. M. MacDiarmid: i'll take that question under notice. interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. earl Y inter Vention Pro GraM For chilD ren With autiSM M.

Karagianis: During the election, the b.c. l iberals did not once mention that they were going to cut the intensive early intervention program for autistic chil- dren, but last week that's exactly what the Minister of c hildren and Families did. The cuts surprised and dev- astated families right across this province. t o defend the cuts, the minister said that the pro- gram had not been effective, but then yesterday she backtracked on that statement. So my question is this. e xactly what kind of data or evidence did the minister use in order to cut this very successful program? Hon. M.

Polak: The decision that we made was based on the principles of equity, access and increas- ing funding for children with autism across this prov- ince. There's no question that for the children who are enrolled or were enrolled in eibi, as we move towards the transition at the end of January, this is going to be a difficult time. We will be working with them and working with the agencies involved to ensure that there is a transition plan in place as they move to our autism funding program, but there's no question that the basis of this decision was not the quality of the eibi program. That's not in doubt.

This decision will provide greater equity, better access and increased funding for hundreds of parents across this province. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. M.

Karagianis: The minister has admitted no evi- dence whatsoever, no data to back up the decision to cut back this very successful program. a nd yet the minister has admitted today that the increase in funding to the lowest common denominator only buys an extra hour of program support for these families. [1410] t oday families are here in the l egislature to talk about the difference that this program, the eibi program, has made — a significant difference to their children. c her Sherwood said that she didn't know if her son would ever talk, look a person in the eye, or have the skills to feed or clothe himself.

Y et after going through the eibi program, her son has just entered the public school system without any aides or any other support systems — not required because of the success of the eibi. So i'd like to know from the minister why she did not think about the children like c her Sherwood's children and all the other families that have similar stories. Why were they not the first consideration? Why did she not consult with families before making these devastating cuts to this program? Hon. M.

Polak: The member may be unaware that for thousands of parents who are dealing with children with autism across this province, the financial burden goes far beyond what governments in any jurisdiction have been able to provide. What we do know is that we have to make those deci- sions based on the principles of equity, based on access

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 723 and based on providing the most funding we can to the most children around this province. There is no question that for these 70 children who are enrolled in eibi, we will have to provide them with support and assistance as we move to transition them into the autism funding program. but right now, at this very moment, there are also hundreds of parents around this province who are not receiving that additional support, and we seek to try and provide the greatest amount of support that we can for the greatest number of children across this province.

Work Sho PS at hou Sin G an D Social De Velo PMent Mini Str Y S. Simpson: The Ministry of h ousing and Social Development recently spent $19,000 on a half-day sem- inar entitled "emotional intelligence and h ow it r elates to l eadership." c an the minister tell us: what was the purpose of this workshop? h ow does it meet the minis- ter's priorities around vulnerable citizens? Hon. R. Coleman: i'm not aware of that, so i'll take the member's question on notice, and i'll get back to the member. N.

Simons: t omorrow the Ministry of h ousing and Social Development is offering a course called "Vibrational Facilitation," which is apparently supposed to help people increase their vibrational frequencies. c an the minister please tell this h ouse what that means? Hon. R. Coleman: i'll take that question on notice as well. interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. FunD in G For Do Me Stic Violence Pro Gra MS D. Black: Family Services of Greater Vancouver has been informed that funding for their domestic violence response team will end in December.

This program, which has partnered with the n ew Westminster police since 1996, provides rapid follow-up to the most severe and high-risk cases of domestic violence. With zero per- cent recidivism and a 98 percent charge approval rate, the program has saved the lives of countless women in n ew Westminster. This government is cutting their $44,000 grant. My question to the Minister of h ealth is this. Doesn't he think a woman's life is worth $44,000? if he does, will he commit today — commit today — to reinstate this funding? Hon. K.

Heed: Well, i can tell you from my experience as a police officer that domestic violence has a profound impact on our society. The recent tragedies in burnaby and the unfortunate incident in Vancouver touch us all, and my sympathy goes out to what the families are going through right now and to those children who witnessed that particular event. i can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of domes- tic violence is taken seriously by this government and will continue to be taken seriously by this government.

That is why we're working closely with the police and other service providers to coordinate our response and integrate our services to people that are victims of this violence more so than we ever have before. [1415] This year we have increased funding to domestic vio- lence — and violence in general — programs by $2.4 million to $43 million. This is on top of the $32 million that we provide to run the many transition houses that we have operating throughout the province of british c olumbia. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. D.

Black: i don't doubt the minister's sympathy, but what i want to see is leadership from this government. We're talking about the lives of women and children. Without this program, they could be seriously injured or killed. n ew Westminster police credit the structure of the unit and the unique partnership with the counsellor for saving the lives of women. c utting this $44,000 con- tract will not result in savings. Doctor visits and emer - gency room visits will go up, and so will mental health services costs. it's false economy, Mr.

Speaker — false economy. a gain to the minister: will he commit today — commit today — to protect women and children who suffer domestic violence, and will he reinstate this funding? Hon. K.

Heed: i know all too closely what experi- ences victims go through. i have been dealing with this for several years. i know what it's like to go into a house and see a four-year-old child, a son, hugging his mother on the floor, who has just been the victim of domestic violence. i can tell you the look on their face when we take them, put them in our car and take them to one of the many transition houses we have. i also know the impact that it has when a life is taken. i've gone into a house, and i've witnessed a young girl crying and hugging her mother on the floor, who has just been killed — and to take that young girl in my arms and comfort her. interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

british c olumbia Debates724 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Hon. K. Heed: We have increased funding around victim services by $2.4 million. With regard to the specific program in n ew Westminster, i have asked staff to look at that particular program so we can integrate that into our existing response to deal with domestic violence. We all have a responsibility. e veryone in this h ouse has a responsibility to ensure that we put a stop to domestic violence. A. Dix: What we have here is a profound contradic- tion between what the minister just said and what actually happened this summer.

This program had been successful for years. The Minister of h ealth and the Fraser h ealth a uthority cut this program. They went to the program offices and cut the program on 30 days' notice. This is an extraordinarily successful program. Doesn't the Solicitor General think that the government owes an apology to the people who worked in that program? a nd doesn't he think today the right thing for him to do is to go and talk to the Minister of h ealth and get the funding from the Fraser h ealth a uthority restored — not weeks from now but today? Hon. K.

Heed: The program, working with the n ew Westminster police department, is continuing and is funded to the end of the year. The staff is working wholeheartedly to find out how we can bring that aspect of it into our area so we can carry on with the good work that has been done with domestic violence units across british c olumbia. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [1420] A. Dix: h on. Speaker, they cut a program which they clearly gave no thought to. They walked into the pro- gram offices and closed it with the minimum of possible notice. What we're asking the minister today to do….

Y ou know, it was this summer…. interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. A. Dix: it was this summer that it happened, and there were no cabinet ministers around to defend it. n o cabinet ministers signed off on it. it was the wrong deci- sion. it's what happens when you're running around in the middle of the fiscal year trying to make up for an election mistake. My question to the minister is very simple. Will he or the Minister of h ealth or one of those ministers over there restore this funding today? Hon. K.

Heed: We have increased funding to victims of violence programs in this province by $2.4 million. i recognize the value of the integration of domestic vio- lence units in british c olumbia and the success, having worked alongside one for many, many years in Vancouver. o ur government is committed to integrate those ser - vices and coordinate those services so that we can make meaningful changes around domestic violence. i am advised that the funding is in place for this particular program until the end of 2009. i have also advised members opposite that we are actively work- ing on determining how we can carry on with the good work that the program delivers.

M. Farnworth: The domestic violence response team is unique. it has a proven track record of success. it is not discretionary spending. We're not getting an answer from the Solicitor General. We're not getting an answer from the Minister of h ealth. So perhaps we can get an answer from the one person in that government who can restore the funding. Will the Premier stand in this h ouse today and do what his Solicitor General will not do and what his Minister of h ealth will not do, and tell this h ouse… interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. M.

Farnworth: …that the domestic violence response team is not discretionary funding, and restore that fund- ing and ensure that it continues into the future? Hon. K. Heed: Mr. Speaker, with respect, i am going to repeat myself so that it's quite clear. This program is continuing to the end of the year. We are actively work- ing on determining how we can carry on with that pro- gram. We are working on that. i want to point out…. interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. K. Heed: With respect, i don't know how much clearer i can be. The program is continuing to the end of 2009. We recognize… interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Members. c ontinue, Minister. Hon. K. Heed: …the value of integrating our pro- grams and our services, again, so that we can deal with domestic violence in a very, very meaningful way. [end of question period.]

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 725 M. Karagianis: h on. Speaker, i would like to submit a petition. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Petitions M. Karagianis: i have here in excess of 7,000 signa- tures protesting and opposing the proposed mega-yacht marina on the north shore of Victoria harbour, and i would like to present that today. Hon. G. Abbott: i have a petition from residents of the Shuswap-o kanagan with respect to a proposed animal waste composting facility. Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: i call in this chamber continued committee stage debate on bill 4, Wills, e states and Succession a ct; and in c ommittee a, c ommittee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of citizens' Services, to be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. [1425-1430] Committee of the Whole House bi ll 4 — Will S, e State S an D SucceSS ion act (continued) The h ouse in c ommittee of the Whole (Section

b) on bill 4; l. r eid in the chair. The committee met at 2:32 p.m. on

section 2 (continued). Hon. M. de Jong: Y esterday i indicated that i would confirm some information for the member. i gave him, in response to one question, a figure of $50,000. i've since been able to confirm that that was correct. The second question that i think i undertook to deal with related to whether or not a fifth wheel could be considered a spousal home for the purposes of this act in the definition, and the answer is: under certain cir - cumstances it indeed could. L. Krog: i want to thank the a ttorney General for the certainty of his answer. We are still dealing with

section 2, and i just want to ask if the a ttorney General has had an opportunity to consider his position, in light of my comments around

section 2 — in particular, the

section that deals with "terminate the relationship." Hon. M. de Jong: i did indeed spend the better part of my evening ruminating on the hon. member's submis- sions, and persuasive as they are, they have fallen just short of convincing me to amend or offer an amend- ment to the chamber. Sections 2 and 3 approved. on

section 4. L. Krog: i just wonder if the a ttorney General could explain the benefit of

section 4 to me and to the h ouse and advise if this represents any substantive change from the existing law. Hon. M. de Jong: a s we get into the details, it can be a little bit complex. but it relates, as i think the member knows, to the admissibility of extrinsic evidence of tes- tamentary intent. [1435] The objective that i understand was being sought by the wording included here is to avoid circumstances that would have existed under the present wording where evidence would be excluded that actually could provide assistance to a court in determining what the testator's actual meaning was.

There is a distinction in that respect drawn in evi- dentiary matters between latent and patent ambiguity. We can talk about that in a moment. but the general rationale for the change here was to address situations that presently existed where, in endeavouring to ascer - tain the actual testator's intent or meaning, evidence that would be helpful and relevant was required to be excluded.

Section 4 approved. on

section 5. L. Krog: This is a very significant change in the law as it stands now and refers to the death of two persons who "die at the same time or in circumstances that make it uncertain which of them survived the other…." it makes reference to the fact that "unless a contrary intention appears in the instrument" it's "determined as if they each had survived the other or others. (2) if (

a) two or more persons hold property as joint tenants" etc., "unless a contrary intention appears…for the purpose of determining rights…each person is deemed to have held the property…as tenants in common...." i appreciate that this represents, arguably, progress in some circumstances, and certainly, it's not a statutory presumption that many people in the general public are aware of. i'm just wondering what the rationale for this change is and whether in fact it conforms or not to other jurisdictions.

british c olumbia Debates726 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, i agree with the member that this represents a significant shift. it was, as i recall over the years of work that has taken place leading to this point, the subject of significant discussion. i can advise the member…. Maybe dealing with his questions in reverse, i am advised that the

section adopts a general presumption around survivorship that is identical in substance to that which exists in the uni- form Survivorship a ct, which has been implemented in the following jurisdictions in c anada: Saskatchewan, ontario, Manitoba, n ew brunswick and the Yukon. The last thing i will say before, i'm sure, the member pursues the questioning on this

section is that there was a general belief that the existing rule around the pre- sumption of survivorship based on age led to circum- stances or situations that in no way reflected what would either be logical or be the intent of the deceased.

Section 5 approved. on

section 6. L. Krog: i wonder if the a ttorney General could just explain the impact of

section 6. Hon. M. de Jong: i think, a straightforward response here. it does re-enact

section 2(3) of the Survivorship and Presumption of Death a ct, which gives the deceased the express authority to displace the general presumption of survivorship. it takes those provisions and embeds them in this act. While i'm on my feet, since i have and will continue to rely on their guidance through these discussions, i wonder if i might introduce, to the h ouse and the learned opposition critic, n ancy c arter on my left and t yler n yvall on my right — who, i am not ashamed to admit, are of invaluable assistance in guiding me through some of these provisions. [1440] L. Krog: Some truths are self-evident. Dealing with

section 7 now, yes?

Section 6 approved. on

section 7. L. Krog: This section, i believe, and i just want to con- firm, simply carries forward the provisions of

section 2(4) of the Survivorship and Presumption of Death act. Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

Section 7 approved. on

section 8. L. Krog: a gain, with respect to

section 8, my under - standing is that this carries forward

section 91 of the e state a dministration a ct. i'm sorry that i haven't had an opportunity to check. is it in exactly the same lan- guage, or does this represent any change whatsoever? Hon. M. de Jong: That is true with one noted excep- tion. The existing statutory provisions do not include the five-day survivorship requirement that is part of

section 8. L. Krog: a s i recall, starting out in practice, the stan- dard will said if you survive 30 days…. Then it dropped to 14, and the statute now refers to five. is there some particular reason for picking five days as opposed to seven as opposed 15 as opposed to 14, and does it bring us into concurrence with other jurisdictions? Hon.

M. de Jong: i'm not sure there's real magic around the five number. i can advise, and would and will when we get to sections 9 and 10, that there are a couple of rationales for settling on that figure. it was the b.c. l aw institute's — and actually, the l aw r eform c ommission's — recommendation to settle on five days. a pparently, the a merican u niform Probate c ode sets a period of survivorship of 120 hours — interesting that they measure it in hours — roughly five days. The member is right. in standard testamentary instru- ments, solicitors will opt for 30 or 60 days.

That option, of course, still remains to those who choose to execute those documents.

Section 8 approved. on

section 9. L. Krog:

Section 9 contemplates that if a right to receive property is conditional upon the beneficiary surviving and "the beneficiary dies at the same time as the other person or dies in circumstances that make it uncertain which of them survived the other, the bene- ficiary is conclusively deemed to have predeceased the other person." This, i believe, does represent a change. a gain, the rationale and other jurisdictions that have similar provi- sions? if in fact they do. Hon.

M. de Jong: The general reason, rationale, for the change, as is the case with many of these provisions, is an attempt to better reflect the will-maker's wishes. i might be able to do this by trying to draw on a bit of a scenario. Sometimes that's the best way to analyze some of these circumstances. We have person a, who is now deceased and has left a gift to b and c for life, and then to the survivor of

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 727 them. b and c die in circumstances rendering it uncer - tain which of them survived the other, and b is younger than c. [1445] The idea in that circumstance is…. The assumption is the testator — that is, a, the original person — did not mean to distinguish between b and c. u nder the previous presumptions that existed in that scenario, one of them would have been preferred. So this provision is designed, as best one can, to preserve what would have been that testator's intention to have the proceeds split evenly between those two individuals. L.

Krog: if i can understand this, the way i read it. if a beneficiary is entitled to receive property and it's con- ditional upon the beneficiary surviving another person and they die at the same time as the other person or die in circumstances that make it uncertain, then what we're saying is the beneficiary is completely out of it. That's the way i read

section 9(a). in other words, they don't receive the benefit. a m i wrong in my

interpretation? i'm sure the learned assistants to the a ttorney General can assist me. Hon. M. de Jong: i think, as it relates to 9(1)(a), the member's description is accurate. L. Krog: With reference to (2). a gain, i believe this represents a fair bit of a change. My reading of it is that if you have two or more beneficiaries and they all die at the same time and in circumstances that again make it uncertain which of them survived the other, unless there's something in the instrument that says to the con- trary, then it's going to go equally to those beneficiaries. Fairly straightforward presumption. is that…? Hon. M. de Jong: That is also a correct analysis.

Section 9 approved. on

section 10. L. Krog: This is the fuller version, if you will, of the five-day survival rule, not making reference just to post- humous births, the children en ventre sa mere and those sorts of things. This makes the presumption that if you don't live the five days or a longer period provided in an instrument, you're conclusively deemed to have died before the deceased person for all purposes. if you hold it as joint tenants and it can't be estab- lished, then half passes as if one person had survived the other — in other words, if they both died at the same time.

So in theory, i would say, if i'm correct, a husband and wife killed in a joint accident…. Property doesn't pass to either estate, is dealt with separately. one half goes to the estate of one, and one half goes to the estate of the other. is that essentially the

interpretation? Hon. M. de Jong: a gain, i believe that is correct. L. Krog: Just so i'm absolutely correct. So what we're really saying is now that if you don't make it to that fifth day — so one of you is killed, the other seriously injured — on a joint account, then again, it's going to go one half to the estate of one, one half to the estate of the other. [1450] Hon. M. de Jong: Y es to the member. it is as if one would have predeceased and the disposition is as the member has described. L.

Krog: i'm not being critical of the reform of the law, if you will, but i come back to my point made yesterday during the course of debate.

That is that this is a remark- able change in terms of how the average person…. if they understand joint tenancies at all, it's a remarkable change in even that understanding. i come back to my point about public education. it's great for the legal com- munity, notaries and explaining to their clients, but not everybody comes through your door for a bit of legal education. a gain, i want to emphasize to the a ttorney General that if we're going to make these remarkable changes, then we have to ensure that the public's aware of it. i think the a ttorney General knows from practice himself that people have a very basic understanding of a joint tenancy, joint account. i die; you get it.

Y ou die; i get it. Joint tenancy in a home. That's the way the vast major- ity of couples — married, common-law, same relation- ships — in this province hold their property. it's sort of a remarkable concept, because unless i'm mistaken — and i will flip back — "property" means "land and personal property." i don't think there's a different definition for property in this section. is my understanding correct that this will apply to joint tenancies and real estate as well? Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

Section 10 approved. on

section 11. L. Krog: Just to confirm, this

section essentially means that the change to the joint survivorship rules that people commonly understand, which have existed argu- ably for hundreds of years in our legal history, won't, in fact, apply with respect to anything involving insurance. i'm just wondering if the a ttorney General can explain what does that mean?

british c olumbia Debates728 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Hon. M. de Jong: i think two parts to the answer. one is that the literal

interpretation is the correct one, and that is that the rule set out in the insurance a ct will govern insurance proceeds. i'm further advised that although they are not identical, the general presump- tions set out in this part as it relates to survivorship rules closely follow the general presumptions set out in the insurance a ct, but it will be the insurance a ct that gov- erns insurance proceeds. Sections 11 and 12 approved. on

section 13. L. Krog: Just so that i'm fairly clear,

section 13, — and this division 3, for that matter — makes reference only to property covered by the n isga'a government

chapter of the n isga'a final agreement, — that this is strictly in order to protect the cultural property of the nisga'a people. [1455] Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct and will note also that there are sections coming up that make reference to treaty first nations, which would include first nations like the t sawwassen and Maa-nulth.

Section 13 approved. on

section 14. L. Krog: Just to make reference to what the a ttorney General has told the h ouse,

section 14 is a contemplative section, so it's obviously designed to take into account those treaties that have already been approved, such as the t sawwassen, but also any treaty as long as it uses the language specific to this section. is that correct? Hon. M. de Jong: a slight variation on that. The way we tried, through the

interpretation a ct, to develop this is…. The magic will be in the use of the term "treaty first nations." So where those agreements are signed between the crown in the right of the province of b.c., the crown in the right of c anada and a treaty first nation, the objective is to have that group, that first nation, cap- tured by these provisions.

Section 14 approved. on

section 15. L. Krog: With reference to

section 15, again, we are back to dealing strictly with the n isga'a peoples and how notice is to be properly given to them with respect to any claims that they might have. i take it that it applies only to n isga'a peoples themselves and with respect to a n isga'a citizen. Hon. M. de Jong: My understanding is that what trig- gers the entitlement to notice and involvement standing for the n isga'a l isims Government is a case involving the will of a n isga'a citizen as that is defined in other legislation.

Section 15 approved. on

section 16. L. Krog: i wonder if the a ttorney General can just explain the effect of

section 16. My reading is that it simply extends rights under the Wills Variation a ct or division 6 of this act to n isga'a citizens. is that essen- tially it? Hon. M. de Jong: The

section is designed to ensure that the n isga'a and a treaty first nation government are provided with notice of a wills variation action. if that's going to be heard, if it involves a n isga'a citizen, then n isga'a government is entitled to notice. a citizen of another treaty first nation — that treaty first nation, as well, would be entitled to notice. L. Krog: i wonder if the a ttorney General can explain the point of allowing for notice. is it to deal with the issue of cultural property? is it to deal with the issue of juris- diction, some combination of that, or other reasons? [1500] Hon.

M. de Jong: The sections are designed and included as a means of taking into account the collect- ive nature of ownership of some items of personal prop- erty or artifacts. a talking stick, for example, may not attract the same ownership that we might assign to it within a first nation. There may be an element of collect- ive ownership. The sections are designed to try and pro- vide a means for giving expression to that where actions come before the courts.

Section 16 approved. on

section 17. L. Krog: Just to be clear with respect to

section 17, that is simply ensuring that there's no question that a n isga'a citizen is captured by the same benefits, if you will, of the small estate sections of the statute. n otice, likewise, must go to the n isga'a government again, i presume, on the same assumption that we're trying to protect what may be culturally sensitive artifacts or where there's a question of collective or community ownership. Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct. Sections 17 and 18 approved.

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 729 on

section 19. L. Krog: With respect to

section 19, does this repre- sent any change from the existing law? Hon. M. de Jong: i'm looking also at the existing

section 99. i don't see any substantive change. The lan- guage is not exactly the same. it is designed to promote uniformity with the laws of other provinces. i don't see any substantive difference. Sections 19 and 20 approved. on

section 21. L. Krog: This

section includes a couple of

definitions, including the one for household furnishings. i just wonder if the a ttorney General can confirm that in fact, that definition represents no significant change from

section 85 of the existing act. Hon. M. de Jong: i don't see household possessions in the

definitions

section of the e state a dministration a ct. Why don't i check? i'm not in a position at this point to say whether it's different or whether there was a definition. l et's check on that, and i'll endeavour to get back to the member. L. Krog: i appreciate the a ttorney General's commit- ment.

This section, by definition, is again a remarkable change from the existing law. in british columbia now a surviv - ing spouse is entitled to a life interest in the family home — the first $65,000 — and then, if there's one child, shares the residue 50-50 with that child and, if there's more than one child, one-third to the surviving spouse.

The rest is divided amongst the children, regardless of the number. [1505] Given — and i come back to my point from the other day — that you establish a spousal status in this prov- ince by living together in a relationship for two years, i would hesitate to use the term "you've hit the jackpot." but in some respects you may well have hit the jackpot in a very short-term relationship, based on the statutory definition. a lthough it may well work in — how shall i say? — an appropriate manner in many cases, in others what it means is….

For instance — and the a ttorney General can correct me if i'm wrong — say i'm divorced or i'm a widower. i have two children. They're, say, 19 and 20. They're embarking on university. i don't have a lot of money. i've lived with my common-law spouse for two years. i die. My estate is worth $200,000. My reading of this sec- tion is that $150,000 goes to my surviving spouse of two years. of the rest, $25,000 goes to her, and the remaining $25,000 is divided between my two children. i just wonder if the a ttorney General can confirm whether or not the example i've used is accurate and whether my

interpretation of this

section is accurate. Hon. M. de Jong: l et's deal with it in reverse. i think the division that the member has presented is accur - ate.

The member has some thoughts and has used some language that i may not incorporate as fulsomely in my answer, but let's be clear. u nder these provisions in the simplified example, that would be the division. i think the l aw r eform c ommission, dating back to the early '80s and the institute more recently, in making the recommendations that have been adopted and included in the legislative package, consciously was promoting the notion that the share of the estate to which a spouse should be entitled on an intestacy should be increased from where it was.

That, obviously, is reflected. a t the same time, an attempt is made to take into account and balance the fact that today there are many mixed families.

The member has described one such example, and there's any number of similar examples that we can think of, taking into account situations where the children of the deceased are not children of the surviving spouse and ensuring that some provision is made there as well. but there's no doubt that the recommendations and the approach reflected here place great value — and that probably is the correct term — on the notion of spousal survivorship, and it's quantified in a significant way. L.

Krog: t o continue. a s i understand it, in Saskatch- ewan they've got a preferential share at about $100,000, i believe, and in ontario at $200,000. So british c olumbia will have a two-tier system, if you will. The way i read this section, the spouse — common- law, married, whatever the case may be — has $150,000 off the top. if they have children together — again, whether they're married, common-law, a marriage-like relationship — the first $300,000 goes to the surviving spouse, and then the children would share the residue after the $300,000.

That's my understanding of this sec- tion, and i just want to confirm that. Hon. M. de Jong: i think the member's description is correct. i lost a bit of track halfway through the example. but to the extent that he described a difference in situa- tions where the surviving children are common to both spouses versus a situation where the surviving children are not the children of the surviving spouse, there is a differentiation that i think the member accurately described in presenting his question. [1510] L. Krog: Just to confirm, i take it that…. o bviously, the government is leaving it open to increase that

british c olumbia Debates730 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 amount — the same with respect to small estates as well — and that it is an amount that can be a greater amount if prescribed. So that would be by regulation in due course? Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct. L.

Krog: i'm just curious to ask. it specifically says: "or a greater amount if prescribed." i'm wondering why the government didn't consider the possibility that, in the exercise of this particular change — and experience provides numerous situations that might not be very appealing to the average citizen of british c olumbia, particularly the children of deceased persons whose parent got into a fairly quick and rough- and-ready relationship….

Why didn't the government consider saying simply, "or a different amount if prescribed," as opposed to being so confident the $150,000 should be the minimum that the government hasn't allowed itself an opportunity to in fact raise and/or lower that amount? Hon. M. de Jong: i think the short answer, given our history over the past century, is that inflationary trends would suggest that the ability to move the amount upward by regulation is a more likely scenario than the one described by the member. but i'm not ruling out the possibility he describes.

The fact is that it can be changed, but it would require this chamber turning its mind to the amount in a very purposeful way, as opposed to by regulation.

Section 21 approved. on

section 22. L. Krog: This

section deals with a situation: "i f 2 or more persons are entitled to a spousal share of an intes- tate estate, they share the spousal share in the portions to which they agree" — which, with great respect i might suggest, is not overly likely in the case of a partner who is married to someone who has to share with the com- mon-law mistress, if i may use the term in a somewhat sexist example; that's not likely to happen — "or if they cannot agree, as determined by the court." it then goes on to provide that if "2 or more persons are entitled to apply or have priority as a spouse under this a ct in respect of an intestate estate, they may agree on who is to apply or who is to have priority, but if they do not, the court may make the decision." i'm just wondering if the a ttorney General can pro- vide some example of where he would see this spousal situation arising and whether the language used in this

section is going to in fact invite more litigation than it is going to settle. [1515] Hon. M. de Jong: i am reminded that the distinction here, with 85.1 of the e state a dministration a ct, which drove these disputes to court necessarily, is that

section 22(1) has expanded upon that format by encouraging the members to endeavour to seek some form of negoti- ated or mediated agreement — though i can imagine, as the member points out, the difficulties that might ensue in bringing parties together and the circumstances that would make this

section relevant. n onetheless, unlike

section 85.1 of the estate a dminis- tration a ct, some thought has been given to encouraging the parties here to find some means for reaching an agree- ment short of appearing in court. L. Krog: i'm probably a bit obtuse today, and i'm sure the a ttorney General will be kind. interjection. L. Krog: The member from Malahat whatever doesn't agree, but that's beside the point. i'm trying to contemplate the situation.

When you go back to the definition of "spouses" under the act, you have to be married or you have to have lived in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years. i take it we're contemplating the situation where you may indeed have…. i think it becomes a bit difficult, because if you separate for at least two years, in the case of a marriage, then you're not together. Y ou're not a spouse. in a case of the marriage-like relationship, it can occur if one or both persons terminate the relationship. i'm just wondering whether we'd be able to get into this situation. Hon.

M. de Jong: The scenario that seems to emerge is a situation where someone has been legally married, has not yet dissolved that or triggered the formal dis- solution of that and yet, at the time of passing — at the time of their death — also has a common-law spouse of two years who acquires entitlement. So that's roughly the scenario we can think of that would render this applicable. L.

Krog: i'm just trying to get a grasp on the practical example of this in light of what the act says. if you're married, and you've lived separate and apart for at least two years with just one of you having the intention to do so, then you're no longer a spouse. That's what

section 2, the definition section, says. in order to become a spouse, you have to have lived together in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years. So are we talking about a situation of bigamy, or are we missing an intersection here somewhere? i think the a ttorney General is getting my point on this, and i'm just trying to grasp and get my head around this concept when you would have this intersec- tion where two spouses would in fact have a claim. or

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 731 does the a ttorney General see it as legally possible that one can be — what? — spending six nights here and seven nights there and swapping back and forth? [1520] i mean, this almost contemplates bigamy in some respects, the way i'm seeing it, but i'm sure the a ttorney General can assist me. Hon. M. de Jong: i think the best way i can try to answer this in terms of legislation that, by necessity, tries to account for every conceivable circumstance….

The possibility that a relationship has commenced and satis- fied the spousal definition prior to another relationship ending — such that the person no longer qualifies under a different definition of spouse, as unlikely as it may be — could occur. i'm not sure i embrace the description or the example the member gives, but maybe. So the challenge is to take account of circumstances, however unlikely but possible. L. Krog: if the a ttorney General will forgive me for putting it this way, you can have your cake and eat it too, arguably.

Y ou get to retain the status of marriage in the lawful, traditional sense and at the same time be in a common-law spousal relationship recognized by this statute at exactly the same time. if the a ttorney General can give me a better example. i can't see, given the timing — the two years and the living separate and apart…. i just want to hear an example that can explain to my very simple mind how this is ever going to function, given the way the act defines spouses. Hon. M. de Jong: t wo things.

First of all, this notion of two or more entitled spouses is not new. it did exist in the previous act, so to that extent the drafters have not developed a new concept. The hon. member began his question and submission with the old adage about having the cake and eating it too. a ctually, the person having the cake is dead, in this example.

So a situation where, unknowingly, two relationships have existed, overlapping contemporaneously — perhaps the two unknowingly, perhaps not — and two people satisfy the definition was something that the e state a dministration a ct considered and thought important enough to include in their provisions and the institute and the drafters of this document felt needed to be preserved. a s distasteful or tawdry as it may seem, the possibility that an individual or two individuals might find themselves in this situation requires, we believe, the inclusion of the provision. L.

Krog: i hate to belabour this, but i'm trying to reconcile the language very specifically. if we go back to

section 2, it says that they are "spouses of each other for the purposes of this a ct if they were both alive immediately before a relevant time…." The relevant time is the time of death of the deceased person, and "(

a) they were married to each other, or (

b) they had lived…in a marriage-like relationship, including a marriage-like relationship between persons of the same gender, for at least 2 years. (2) t wo persons cease being spouses…for the purposes of this a ct if…." [1525] in the case of marriage, they actually have to live "sep- arate and apart for…2 years with one or both of them having the intention, formed before or during that time, to live separate and apart permanently" and "in the case of a marriage-like relationship, one or both persons ter - minate the relationship." i'm not sure how you can live separate and apart and be in a marriage-like relationship.

Somebody, it seems to me, has to lose the right here. i'm just trying to figure this out. [c. t revena in the chair.] Hon. M. de Jong: This seems to be built around the legal proposition or

interpretation that in order to live in a marriage-like relationship with a , you need not to have conclusively resolved or intended to terminate a marriage-like relationship with b. a s implausible as that may sound, that apparently is the legal principle or legal argument that lies at the root of including the provision. L. Krog: i guess my difficulty is — and perhaps i'm being too moralistic in this sense — that if your spouse essentially abandons you but doesn't say it's over, and you've been married to them for 30 or 40 years, you then have to face the prospect under this section….

The a ttorney General may make reference that it exists now, but this is new law, and we're reforming the law. This supports the proposition that the person they go off and live with for a couple of years — and that's all it takes, a couple of years — has a claim on the estate that the loyal spouse, if you will, built up with the deceased person over perhaps 30 or 40 years. The a ttorney General can correct me if i'm wrong, but that's my

interpretation. We're essentially saying: "That's okay. a s a society, we won't pass judgment on the rela- tionships involved." but we will say to the loyal spouse — if i may call them that — that you helped build it all up, but your spouse, male or female partner, goes off and spends two years, and that's all it takes — two years with somebody else. Then the person they spent two years with, who may well know of the existence of the loyal spouse, is going to share in the estate. That's what this says, and if i'm wrong, the a ttorney General can correct me. [1530]

british c olumbia Debates732 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Hon.

M. de Jong: i think it's legitimate for us to walk through what some of these provisions are. in the example the member has given, one thinks through some of the other mechanisms at play and the entitlement of the loyal spouse on separation proceedings, divorce pro- ceedings, to share in the matrimonial property, take an equal share in the matrimonial property. in those circumstances, one presumes that the loyal spouse would be entitled, upon dissolution of the rela- tionship, to half of the matrimonial property — at least half of the matrimonial property, depending on the disposition of that. i'm not quarrelling at all with the member exploring the implications of some of the pro- ceedings. in that circumstance, in that example, there are some other protections that exist for the loyal spouse, to use the member's term.

L. Krog: i appreciate that they do exist, but in the case of the loyal spouse, for instance, and referring to the case of marriage, the definition

section makes specific refer - ence to "an event occurs that causes an interest in family assets, as defined in

Part 5…to arise." "i don't want a

section 57 declaration. i want this 30-year relationship to continue, so i haven't signed it, and i won't sign a separation agreement." in the mean- time, my wife, my husband, my partner is off engaged in this new relationship. What this act does is specifically recognizes, by def- inition, that potentially what would have been entirely mine if my spouse died, as the loyal remaining spouse, is now going to be shared with the new partner.

That's exactly what this is. i just throw out to the a ttorney General that…. i'm not speaking for myself in terms of my own sense of morality, but i think it's important, as we debate this today, that british c olumbians who are watching need to understand that this is what the law of british c olumbia is saying — and will be, assuming this act passes. Hon.

M. de Jong: The law as it will be, and the law as it is now and has been for some time — and, of course, again, in the circumstance, the example, that the member has brought to the floor…. in a similar situation, where the spouse who has moved from one relationship to the other chooses to stop by a law office or a notary and complete a testamentary instrument, the situation may be very different indeed. i appreciate the fact that the member is taking ser - iously the fact that there will always be circumstances that these provisions apply to, and it's worth exploring what they are.

Section 22 approved. on

section 23. [1535] L. Krog: This provides a somewhat different provi- sion than exists under the e state a dministration a ct today and refers to degrees of kinship. i'm just wonder- ing if the a ttorney General can put in simple language what this means. The way i interpret it, if you die without leaving a spouse…. Y ou've already dealt with the spousal situa- tion. if a spouse dies with no children, in

section 20 — or, pardon me, no surviving descendant, properly speaking — then the spouse gets the whole estate, and that's been the law forever. This

section provides, obviously, that it goes to the intestate's descendants and, if there's no surviving des- cendant, to the intestate's parents in equal shares. a descendant is a somewhat broader scheme and, by definition, means "all lineal descendants through all gen- erations." in other words, it will follow it down. if you've got two children, it will go equally to them. if you've got a child and a deceased child with grandchildren, again it goes down the lineal line all the way. u nless i'm mistaken, we won't get past the fifth or greater degree, because under

section 23(3): "…persons of the 5th or greater degree of relationship to the intes- tate are conclusively deemed to have predeceased the intestate, and any part of the intestate estate to which those persons would otherwise be entitled must be dis- tributed to other descendants entitled to the estate." in other words, if i'm as old as Methuselah and i've got six generations down, we're not going to get to the sixth generation. We'll go down to five, if all my kids and my grandchildren and everybody else are predeceased, but that's as far as we go. is that correct? Hon.

M. de Jong: a specific correction, and i think an important one. u nder subsection (4), in the example the member has given, the lineage through grandchildren, great-grandchildren extends as far as you can trace dir - ectly — great-great-great-grandchildren and beyond. Where the limitation exists is when we head off into a different direction. L. Krog: i appreciate the explanation of the a ttorney General. Just so i'm clear, subsection (4) says: "Subsection (3) does not affect (

a) the right of an intestate's des- cendants to inherit the intestate estate even though they are of a greater degree of relationship than the limit imposed by that subsection, or (

b) the right of a person to apply under the Escheat Act on the basis of a legal or moral claim against the former owner of an estate that has escheated to the government as property to which no person is entitled to succeed as the owner." c an the a ttorney General just explain the meaning of those two sections? [1540] Hon. M. de Jong: i think we dealt with the member's question as it relates to direct heirs — grandchildren

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 733 and great-grandchildren and so on. if (4)(

b) relates to circumstances in which there are no descendants and no other heirs within that four-degree period, and provides for a situation where property then passes to the crown via the e scheat a ct, there is provision made here for an application by what would, by necessity, be a remote relative to have a claim to that property considered by the a ttorney General, and that would take place under the e scheat a ct.

What i have asked the officials here to try to ascer - tain is whether or not a provision of that sort exists in the e scheat a ct now or exists elsewhere in testa- mentary legislation. i'm just not aware, off the top of my head, where it does. but that's what this provision would do. L. Krog: i know i'm belabouring these points some- what, but i think it's important that…. The presump- tion is that if the opposition critic doesn't understand this stuff, then hopefully, there will be at least ten other british c olumbians who will need assistance in under - standing what this means. Sub (3) talks about….

"For the purposes of this section" — in the broadest sense — "persons of the 5th or greater degree of relationship to the intestate are conclusively determined to have predeceased the intestate…." The way i understood the a ttorney General's explanation, that would mean that notwithstanding what subsection (2)(

a) says, it would be distributed "to the intestate's des- cendants," which takes us down lineally…. Did i understand the a ttorney General to say that, in fact, we ignore subsection (3), or that subsection (3) applies and that's as far as we go? Just so i understand it, it's so that in fact if you've got someone to the sixth degree, they're out of luck, but if you've got someone in the class of the fifth degree, they're in luck.

That's as far as the residue is going to drift down, so to speak. in other words, if you've got the great-great-great- grandchild, but you've got a great-great-great-great- grandchild that died and left a child, that child is out of luck, but the great-great-great-grandchild is in luck. is that the way i interpret this section? Hon.

M. de Jong: i apologize. i'm certain i was unclear. u nder subsection (4), it has the effect of exempting an intestate's descendants, and if we use that term "descendants" to mean children, grandchildren, great- grandchildren — lineal descendants…. in the example the member's given about the 120-year-old deceased, in this case, that can stretch without limit. Those heirs, those descendants, lineal descendants, are exempted from the cutoff referred to in subsection (3). That exemption does not extend when we move out to the side — to cousins, second cousins.

There is the fifth- degree cutoff referred to in the section. i'm still worried that i'm not answering in a way that assists the member. L. Krog: i think i've got the a ttorney General's point, but i'm going to try and repeat it back to him in a way that perhaps both of us, and the officials who are so ably assisting us here today, can be satisfied that we're all talking the same language. [1545] Subsection (4) says: "Subsection (3) does not affect (

a) the right of an intestate's descendant to inherit the intes- tate estate even though they are of a greater degree… than the limit imposed by…" subsection (3). So in other words, we'll go down seven generations, and there's a class of folks — there are, say, three of them, and they're lineal descendants. if there's nobody else, they get it. it doesn't stop at the fifth. but if there were two lines of descendants, we get down to the fifth degree, and they're alive, but on the other side, the fifth degree has predeceased and has a sixth degree living below them.

What, in fact, happens to the estate is that it goes to the surviving fifth, but the sixth is out of luck. is that the way you interpret this section? Hon. M. de Jong: i think i understand the example. if both lines that the hon. member has described…. if neither of them are lineal descendants, then i think his example holds and the result holds. L. Krog: n otwithstanding what subsection (3) says, and that's where my problem is….

Subsection (3) says: "For the purposes of this section, persons of the 5th or greater degree of relationship…." Maybe i'm missing the point around the degree of relationship. if we're talking degrees of relationship, does that mean that language only applies at law? i don't know this, so this is a question. Does that only apply to persons when you're going backwards, so to speak, to parents and out to nieces and nephews and aunts and uncles?

Does that language only apply in those circumstances? if that's not what it means, then the plain interpreta- tion of subsection (3) is that you go down to five, and you're done. What i'm saying is if you've got two lines of lineal des- cendants, you know…. i had a son and a daughter, and i finally passed on at 144. We've got them down to five on one side. The five on the other side is gone, but they've left a sixth layer, so to speak. The way i read this section, the surviving fifth layer gets it. The surviving sixth doesn't. Hon.

M. de Jong: t wo things that i need to alert the hon. member to, to perhaps further murky the waters. We do have to read the section, i'm reminded, in con- junction with

section 24, which relates to distribution. The other point that perhaps the…. The member began his

british c olumbia Debates734 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 question by referring to legal

definitions and legal mean- ings of terms. "Descendant," as it is used in subsection (4), is a defined term and speaks specifically to lineal descendants through all generations. in fact, that is the definition. So to the extent that there is that exemption, that should be fairly clear. on the distribution side, i'm reminded that we have to take into account the provi- sions of

section 24 as well. [1550] L. Krog: t o come back to my point. in the example i've used, you're dealing with a deceased person who had two kids. h is children have died. both children had children. The grandchildren have died. both sets of grandchildren had children. They've died. We're down to the fifth. on the daughter's side, the fifth generation, if you can call it that, has passed away. on the son's side, the fifth generation is alive.

Does subsection (3) mean that the surviving fifth on the son's side get it, and the daughter's fifth — who are predeceased but have left children; in other words, we're down six generations now — don't? if i may just have the attention a moment further…. That's because you're saying

section 24 saves us from that possibility. Hon. M. de Jong: i think the answer is yes. L. Krog: i'm delighted. i think the a ttorney General has agreed with my

interpretation of this section. i'm thrilled. i say that only in a half-joking way, because there are a whole pile of lawyers in british c olumbia who may be confronted with this as medical science improves. We may face this remote — very remote, admittedly — but indeed legal possibility that you will get to that situation. h aving said that, i think we have fairly beaten

section 23 to death. Sections 23 and 24 approved. on

section 25. L. Krog: Just to be clear, this is just the capturing sec- tion that says that if i've somehow drawn a will in such a way or there's some asset available that isn't disposed of by will or isn't the subject of a gift, then what we're saying is the intestate provisions apply to that. a gain, we'd count down the generations, all of that. in other words, the whole…. The intestate provisions apply to something not disposed of by will. it's fairly straight- forward, existing law, and nothing's really changed. is that essentially it? Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct. The intestacy provi- sions would apply with respect to that property not cov- ered by the testamentary instrument.

Section 25 approved. on

section 26. L. Krog: i appreciate that some of the members wish to get through this

section somewhat more completely, but we have a long lifetime ahead of us, i'm sure, and we'll be able to handle it. This, again, is a significant change from the existing law. it applies to an intestate estate that includes a spousal home. a spousal home, as was discussed yesterday with the a ttorney General, includes, as he advised me today, potentially even a fifth wheel and covers a whole series of things that would constitute a residence. [1555] a gain, it only applies in the situation of an intestacy or in a situation where it hasn't been disposed of by will.

What it says is "…the surviving spouse may acquire the spousal home from the personal representative to satisfy, in whole or in part…." The way i read it is that she or he has the right, and they may choose to exercise it, but it's not that they have to take the spousal home. is that essentially the

interpretation? Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

Section 26 approved. on

section 27. L. Krog: a gain, as this

section deals only with intes- tacies, as i understand it, what

section 27 means is that the personal representative, the person who applies for grant of letters of administration — whatever…. That person has to give notice to the surviving spouse of this specific statutory right. in other words, they do have the option to demand that in order to satisfy their share of the estate or further claims under this section, they're entitled…. They have to receive that notice. i would presume the same kind of provisions apply now as exist in practice. if you can't file an affidavit saying that you've sent a notice to everyone entitled under the Wills Variation a ct, under the e state a dministration a ct, you can't get a grant of letters of administration. This

section is essentially saying the same thing, except in addition, you have to have the further provision that you give them literally a copy, potentially, of this

section of the statute saying that you have the right to claim the home. Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct that this specifically and statutorily requires the personal repre- sentative to inform the spouse of his or her right to receive the spousal home. a s it relates to the spousal home…. i'm not sure there's a similar provision existing now as it relates to the spousal home.

british c olumbia DebatesWednesday, September 23, 2009 735 L.

Krog: n o, the a ttorney General is quite correct. it relates to the entitlement of a surviving spouse — period. but this is a more specific…. a nd i would imagine it's going to come in addition to the notice the way most lawyers understand it now. it will be a very specific addition that you will…. i shouldn't say "lawyers," but lawyers or personal representatives will have to send a specific notice advising the spouse of the deceased intes- tate that she or he will have a specific right to exercise the option to take part of the home as part of their share of the estate. Hon.

M. de Jong: Y es, that will be a formal part of the process. i'm advised that some thought has been given to actually particularizing the form of notice that may be required under the Supreme c ourt rules.

Section 27 approved. on

section 28. L. Krog: i see that there's a saving provision here as well, unless i'm mistaken, that the personal representa- tive, much as a representative — an executor now, for instance — is prohibited from disposing of the family home within six months of grant of letters probate, because of the provisions of the Wills Variation act.

This now applies with respect to an intestacy so that you don't get to dispose of the spousal home within 180 days — in other words, within six months — of the grant unless you've either received the consent of the surviv- ing spouse or "… the spousal home are not sufficient to pay the debts and liabilities…." [1600] i'm just curious, but i'm going to assume….

The assumption is that if the spouse can't be located, then is there some provision — and perhaps i'm missing this — for notice to be given to them? it was a loose and funny marriage, and the husband or wife is off travelling in Southeast a sia. it's impos- sible for me as the personal representative to give them formal notice. is the assumption that the same provi- sions around the registrar of the court or the court itself being able to order some other form of giving notice…? is that contemplated? Hon. M. de Jong: i think i understood the member's question this way.

Where a personal representative is seeking to discharge the responsibilities they have with respect to the spousal home under the provisions we're dealing with but is unable to do so, what options does the personal representative have? is that the question? The member is indicating that is so. L. Krog: What i'm thinking of is a situation…. Perhaps it's a falling real estate market.

These things happen in british c olumbia on occasion. i know as a personal representative that my responsibility is to get the best value out of the estate. i can't locate the spouse to whom i must give notice in this intestacy of her right or his right to make a claim. u nless there's some specific provision or the rules allow for it — and i think that because it's procedural, maybe it can be done by way of a change to the Supreme c ourt rules — i'll be in a situa- tion where if i can't do that, i'm hanging on to this house in perpetuity. e ven though there are other assets to pay the debts of the estate….

That's already contemplated here, because this

section talks about, in

section 28: "…unless assets other than the spousal home are not sufficient to pay the debts and liabilities of the estate…." n evertheless, i have this duty as a personal representative to get the best for the estate. i'll give a concrete example. i've got $200,000 in a bank account, i've got a home worth $300,000, and the market is going in the toilet.

Does this mean that if i can't find that spouse to give him or her notice, i have to sit idly by, if you will, and watch the property value decline by 50 percent like it did in the early '80s in british c olumbia within a matter of a few months? or is the a ttorney General satisfied that this is a pro- cedural matter, and you can deal with this issue in the rules? For instance, a judge, a registrar of the court, now has the ability to say, "Y ou know, you've done your best. Y ou can give notice to the spouse or a child of a deceased person by publication," or whatever. [1605] Hon.

M. de Jong: The key here, of course, is the appli- cation for representational status and, in order to achieve that from the court, from the registrar, to have fulfilled the obligations under the act. one's expectation in the majority of cases is that the representative would pro- vide notice to the surviving spouse. n ow, in the scenario that the member has described, the person seeking the grant of representative status is experiencing difficulty in doing that. Does that extend in perpetuity while the value of the asset declines?

My advice is that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to provide procedurally for an order for substitutional service would operate to allow the person seeking the grant of representative status to seek an order that would allow them to fulfil their obligations under the act and then deal with the asset. L.

Krog: That's essentially what i'm looking for from the a ttorney General — some assurance that we agree it is a procedural matter that could be handled by the rules of court. i think the a ttorney General appreciates the kind of scenario i've raised, but that he is satisfied in speaking to this h ouse that it will be a procedural matter and that the rules of court — which will obviously be

british c olumbia Debates736 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 changed, assuming this act is passed — will in fact be able to deal with the very scenario that i have raised. if we're satisfied, that's great. We can move on. Hon. M. de Jong: i think the relevant question, the one that the member is also posing, is: are there any impediments in this section, or are there any impedi- ments in the act, that would preclude a solicitor or some- one seeking a grant of representative status to go b

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0923pm-03
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0923pm 03
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0769f11206785dfdd3e23792892f872ad2d33180

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).