2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 5, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Harry Nyce

C. James

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Run for the Cure fundraiser for breast cancer

Hon. M. Stilwell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

LaVerne Kindree

J. McIntyre

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Surrey police awards

D. Hayer

Island JADE Society

C. Trevena

Small business in B.C.

N. Letnick

Persons Case and women in government

S. Hammell

Contributions of seniors

S. Cadieux

West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund

M. Mungall

Oral Questions

Funding for Special Olympics

C. James

Hon. R. Coleman

N. Simons

K. Corrigan

Funding for programs for special needs children

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

G. Coons

J. Kwan

School district funding

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Funding for Justice Education Society

L. Krog

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Motions Without Notice

Legislative sitting hours

Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009 (continued)

Fraser

Thorne

Fleming

Ralston

On the amendment

B. Ralston

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

On the main motion

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009 (continued)

S. Herbert

Hon. K. Krueger

R. Fleming

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Horgan

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (N o . 2), 2009

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

B. Routley

J. Horgan

S. Fraser

[ Page 885 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

HARRY NYCE

C. James: I want to take an opportunity to recognize a historic moment in our province's history that occurred last week. That is the election of Nisga'a hereditary Chief Harry Nyce as president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. As we know, Chief Nyce is UBCM's first, first nations president. He served for many years on the executive, and I know that he'll continue that service for all municipalities. I ask this House to please pass on our congratulations to Chief Nyce and to the UBCM.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: A legislative officer is visiting us today in the Legislature in anticipation of perhaps a little more history. Kim Carter is the Ombudsman. If this Legislature sees fit, we are hopeful that she will leave this chamber or, at least at her next visit, that she will attend with a different title than Ombudsman. I hope the House will make her feel welcome today.

[1335]

Tributes

Run for the Cure

fundraiser for breast cancer

Hon. M. Stilwell: I would like to take the opportunity to introduce the House to Lisa Tees. Lisa has inspired many of her family and friends to run, walk and fundraise for a cure for breast cancer. This past Sunday, October 4, men and women around the province and across the country ran for the cure for breast cancer. They ran for a cure for the women in their lives.

Last December Lisa Tees was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 38 years old. After surgery, six months of chemo and six straight weeks of radiation, Lisa and over 50 of her friends participated in this year's Run for the Cure. Many ran, some walked, but all gave their time and their pocketbooks in the hopes of a cure.

Lisa's team, the Ta Ta's for Tees, won in the friends and family category, as they raised over $12,500 for the Run for the Cure. I know Lisa's message would be to all women of all ages to do self-examinations, see your doctor regularly and get a regular mammogram. In other words, Lisa's message is: save second base. Thank you, Lisa.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House a family visiting the Legislature from my riding of Delta South. Billy and Stephanie Mitchell and their sons Ben, age ten, and Sam, age seven, are here on one of the cruise ships. They are spending a day visiting Victoria before they head south to San Diego.

It's a special honour to have Ben and Sam here as they are each highly acclaimed B.C. athletes. In fact, they each came in second place in their age divisions in the western national BMX championships. Ben in particular is hoping to be a representative of Canada in the 2020 Olympics. Please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I have two introductions I'd like to make this afternoon. The first is to say welcome to Lisa Tees, because I was part of a team on Sunday that joined with the other 49 who walked on her behalf. Accompanying her today is one of the tremendous organizers who helped fundraise that incredible sum on Lisa's behalf, and that is my administrative coordinator, Lisa Johnson. I hope the House would make her very welcome.

The other group of individuals I'd like to welcome to this House I don't see in the gallery. Perhaps they're on their way here; I know they're in the precincts somewhere. It is a group of grade 12 students from Spectrum Community School, their entrepreneurship class. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Chuck Groot. The students are participating in the Junior Achievement Titan program. I hope the House would please make them very welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: There are 30 grade 11 students in the Legislature today from the Prince of Wales Mini School in my riding. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Andrew Humphries. I hope everyone will make them very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to welcome Joe Heilman from Heilman Renovations. He's from North Vancouver, a fellow chamber of commerce member. He was here for an AGM last night. I hope the House will make him feel welcome.

J. Slater: I would like to introduce Heather and Dave Remillard from the Boundary area. They live in the village of Midway. I would like the House to make them very welcome.

J. McIntyre: I would like the House to welcome the mayor of Squamish, who is with us here today, Greg

[ Page 886 ]

Gardner. He's a successful GM dealer and a prominent community leader. He ran for council in a by-election and was elected mayor last November '08. He was in the precincts here today for meetings accompanied by the new chief administrative officer in Squamish, Kevin Ramsay. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

Tributes

l a verne kindree

J. McIntyre: It is with sadness that I rise to inform the House of the passing of Dr. LaVerne Kindree a week ago Saturday at the age of 88. Dr. Kindree, a true pioneer, was the Squamish region's sole physician for many years and one of its most beloved residents.

[1340]

Dr. Kindree leaves behind an impressive legacy of public service, and for this he was recently appointed to the Order of Canada for his 50 years of dedication to the health and well-being of Squamish. I've had the privilege of working with him on some seniors and medical expansion projects, and he was truly an amazing gentleman and a community leader par excellence. He's survived by his wife Norma, five children, four foster children and many grandchildren, and he will be greatly missed by all.

I ask that the House please send condolences to the family.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Ombudsman

amendment act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

With the passage of this bill, that would change, on the request of the present officeholder, who has drawn this to the government's attention. We are pleased to present to this House a bill that would have the effect of changing the title of "Ombudsman" to "Ombudsperson" and changing that term wherever it appears in legislation within the Revised Statutes of British Columbia.

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

Bill 12, Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SURREY POLICE AWARDS

D. Hayer: It is with pride that I rise, as I do every year, to pay tribute to the brave men and women who serve and protect us in our communities. Particularly today, I want to recognize those police officers and staff support workers in Surrey who were nominees and recipients of the Surrey Police Officer of the Year Awards last week. The awards ceremony is sponsored by the Surrey Board of Trade and has a long history of recognition, dating back to the time when I was president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce.

While these awards recognize the performance of leading officers and community partners, the entire detachment deserves praise for fighting crime on our streets, particularly in the area of combatting Surrey's marijuana grow ops.

Now, I would like to recognize those recipients of the 2009 Surrey Police Officer of the Year awards. For the Arnold Silzer Award, finalists were Surrey robbery unit — Gidon — and Surrey RCMP drug section, marijuana enforcement and offence-related property teams, while the district 1 footbeat team was the winner.

Police and Business Partnership Award finalists were Barb Cerney and the Downtown Business Improvement Association, while Whalley Enhancement Association was the winner.

Municipal Employee of the Year finalists were Hardeep Gosal and Annie-Mae Perrin, while Carrie Chattell was the winner.

Volunteer of the Year finalists were Doreen Johnson and Olga Duncan, while Betty Gilbert was the winner.

Auxiliary Constable of the Year finalist, Ken Merells; winner, Mark Elson.

Police Officer of the Year, nominated by peers. Finalists were Mike Spencer and Crystal Heisler. The winner was Drew Grainger.

Police Officer of the Year, nominated by the community. Finalists were Johanna Robinson and Murray McAulay. The winner was Darren Malcolm.

[ Page 887 ]

I ask all the members of the House to join me in congratulating all the nominees, finalists, winners and sponsors for their outstanding contribution to the public safety in Surrey.

ISLAND JADE SOCIETY

C. Trevena: Most of our communities have a place of last resort — a place where the most vulnerable know they'll be helped without judgment. That, I believe, is one of the hallmarks of a civil society. Whether it be a food bank, a Salvation Army shelter or a soup kitchen, it's a place of brief respite.

Campbell River is extraordinarily lucky to have a place which is even more than that. It's a place where people who've given up all hope of finding justice or maintaining some human dignity can turn for help.

[1345]

It's the Island JADE Society, a place where people won't be turned away, where their problems are understood and the labyrinths they face deconstructed. Island JADE evolved from the North Island Advocacy. Its founder, Sian Thompson, wanted to move beyond the concept and practice of advocacy.

JADE is an acronym for "justice, advocacy, dignity, empowerment." The people who walk through its doors looking for help are helped in all of those fields — the search for social justice, the advocacy in dealing with bureaucracy, the dignity in being respected as an individual human being and the empowerment that they can take charge of their own lives.

It's not a place where miracles happen, but it's a place where hundreds of people are helped, whether assisting through complex rules in accessing welfare or — a sad commentary on today's realities — being provided with a tent because there is no other shelter available.

Island JADE is a small operation — two advocates and a homeless outreach worker — covering Campbell River and down into the Comox Valley. Its work is known in our communities, especially among those people who are directed there by others knowing that there is really nothing else around to help them.

Early this year Sian Thomson was nominated for and received a B.C. Community Achievement Award presented by the Premier. There's no question she deserved it and that her organization also deserved it. Our society will likely always need a place of last resort. Let's hope that for everyone, that place is one of justice, advocacy, dignity and empowerment.

SMALL BUSINESS IN B.C.

N. Letnick: All around this province small business people are working long hours and risking their life savings to follow their dreams. Through the thousands of individual actions taken by small business people, our province's economy has grown to one of the strongest in the country.

In recognition of this key economic sector, British Columbia has officially proclaimed October as Small Business Month. B.C. first recognized Small Business Week in 1979, and three years ago it grew to a month-long celebration to help people learn how to take advantage of the opportunities and services available to small business people.

Small business is critical to creating jobs and strong communities. With approximately 384,000 small businesses operating in British Columbia, representing 98 percent of all business in this province, the small business sector employs over one million people and accounts for nearly 56 percent of all private sector jobs in B.C.

In 2008 small business accounted for one-third of British Columbia's GDP — the highest of all provinces in the country. The number of self-employed people in British Columbia rose nearly 14 percent between 2003 and 2008, well above the national average of 9.5 percent. Small business workers have seen annual earnings increase by 24 percent over the last five years, and that's more than twice the increase for large business workers.

In 2005 the province created a permanent Small Business Roundtable to give small business a voice in government. I would like to welcome the two newest members today: Cybele Negris and Sonia Virk, who joined Kelowna's own Robert Fine and 19 other British Columbians on the Roundtable, as we work together to keep British Columbia the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada by cutting red tape and making it easier and less expensive to do business, creating jobs and increasing prosperity for all British Columbians.

PERSONS CASE AND

WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, if you stepped back in time to the first quarter of the last century, you would be shocked, I'm sure, and appalled to realize that women at that time were not legally deemed as persons. I'm sure many of the fathers, brothers, husbands and sons of the women of the time were also shocked and appalled, but not the all-male Supreme Court of Canada that weighed the arguments in 1928 and concluded that women were not qualified persons within the meaning of the British North America Act.

The five women who brought the original petition to the Supreme Court appealed the case to London, and on October 18, 1929, the British Privy Council ruled that women were qualified persons. The Persons Case was a vindication of a 60-year-old battle begun in 1867, during which women in Canada and Britain had sought

[ Page 888 ]

in vain for a determination by the courts that they were entitled to hold public office and to enter universities and the professions. The judgment of the Privy Council was one of the most important milestones in the history of the women's struggle for full citizenship and emancipation.

[1350]

This month, Women's History Month, encourages us to ask: how are we doing? Clearly there are few barriers for women now entering universities and participating in the professions. That is a great success, but the gains made by women in public life are appalling.

At the national level women sit at 22 percent of the elected members, way below many developed and developing nations. In British Columbia we see the same results. In 1991, 20 percent of the seats were women; in 1996, 26; in 2001, 22; in 2005, 21; and in 2009, 28 percent, largely due to the 34 percent of women that sit in the NDP caucus.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS

S. Cadieux: This past week on October 1 we celebrated the International Day of Older Persons. Designated by the General Assembly of the United Nations and first observed throughout the world in 1991, this year's theme, celebrating the tenth anniversary of the International Year of Older Persons, was towards a society for all ages.

Seniors are a vital part of the constituency of Surrey-Panorama, and I'm pleased this day recognizes their essential contributions to B.C. communities and draws attention to the greying of our world's population.

I recently had the pleasure of speaking to the White Rock and South Surrey Probus Club, a group of seniors who are still very active in our community. It's important to recognize that this age of aging and our seniors' need to give back to local neighbourhoods is about staying active in body and mind.

Today worldwide there are around 600 million people over age 60. This total will double by 2025 and reach approximately two billion by 2050. By 2031 almost a quarter of British Columbia's population will be over 65.

A recent

article in one of our local papers told the story of Kara Warnock, a Fraser Heights Secondary student who spent the summer with her grandmother. Her experience demonstrated to her and to British Columbians how vital the contributions of our seniors are to the future generations of B.C.

My grandmother, Patricia Homewood, just turned 93 a few weeks ago. She's meant very much to me and has certainly helped shape the person I am today. Please help me and take this opportunity to recognize B.C. seniors and join in celebrating the contributions of our seniors for International Day of Older Persons.

WEST COAST LEGAL EDUCATION

AND ACTION FUND

M. Mungall: In the spirit of Women's History Month, I'd like to share with the House the organization West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, also known as West Coast LEAF. The organization was formed in 1985 when the equality guarantees of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force.

As an affiliate of the national LEAF, their mission is to achieve equality through B.C.-based equality rights litigation, law reform and public legal education and to change historic patterns of systemic discrimination against women.

LEAF's non-profit charitable work involves many, many programs such as litigation, as mentioned, advocating legal aid reforms and supporting women's access to justice. But one program has had a very positive, very direct impact on Nelson, and that is the No Means No program.

This program empowers youth while educating them about sexual consent and human rights. By complementing existing curricula in the classroom, No Means No is working with grade 8 students at Trafalgar School. For a community the size of Nelson, that means every grade 8 student. It works with those students to delve into the myths of sexuality and stereotypes that, of course, can lead to violence. The result is that students understand their rights and respect that no means no.

To bring this empowering program to your community, contact West Coast LEAF. For a nominal fee — and of course that nominal fee is negotiable, considering the economic times — a trained youth facilitator will be able to deliver this valuable program that prevents violence in our communities.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1355]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure to introduce a friend of this House and a colleague who I'm sure needs no introduction. Joining us in the gallery is Olga Ilich. Will the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR SPECIAL OLYMPICS

C. James: Last week we learned about cuts to Special Olympics programs in the Sunshine Coast. Today

[ Page 889 ]

we've learned that those cuts are across the province. Communities across B.C. are impacted. Communities like the Comox Valley, Surrey and 100 Mile House will all lose programs and services that B.C. Special Olympics rely on.

My question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. How does her government justify wasting taxpayer dollars on video games, pool tables and three ministers to take care of sports, while it's gutting funds for Special Olympics athletes?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, we've had to make some difficult decisions with regards to gaming grants this year and had to make choices with regards to who we could help first. When we made that decision, we made that decision with regards to children in schools so they could have healthy outcomes in school.

We made the decision with regards to public safety, so that search and rescue teams would be there, particularly coming into this winter, during avalanche season — be out there to save people's lives and be there for their assistance.

Sometimes when you do that, you have to rationalize some of your other grants. Disabled sports did get some money this year, and some others have been spread across. The reason we did that is so we could actually optimize the services to communities like Mackenzie and those that may have a food bank that need assistance this year so that we can actually, frankly, concentrate on what's important.

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

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you the kind of choice this government made. This government chose to give three ministers a job instead of providing funding for disabled athletes in British Columbia. That's where the money should go.

A letter from the ministry to the Special Olympics society revealed a massive cut in funds for Special Olympics — 68 percent on the Sunshine Coast alone. Critical funding for critical services.

So my question is to the Premier. How does a 68 percent cut for Special Olympics athletes match up to this government's priority to protect funding for developmentally disabled adults and children?

Hon. R. Coleman: Like I said, we made choices. We also made a choice with regard to the developmentally disabled this year. We increased the funding to Community Living B.C. so every wait-listed person in the province of British Columbia with a developmentally disabled child will have funding for their children this year.

We increased the funding so we could deal with IQ 70, so that we could make sure the new definition could be funded for children in the province of British Columbia so they can have services in their communities where they need it.

I know it's difficult for some sports organizations right now, because we've had to rationalize some money to put priorities in different places in government. I empathize with that. I also empathize with the fact that those organizations did get some money this year. We'll try and work with them in the future to improve their outcomes. But frankly, we had to make a choice on behalf of children, developmentally disabled children in B.C. — services in the community — and we made those on behalf of the children of British Columbia.

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

C. James: I'd remind the minister that these are cuts to developmentally disabled children and adults. These are cuts to critical programs and services that provide support for those athletes.

Let's take a moment to look at this government's choices. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a no-work zone. Half a million dollars for three sports ministers' offices. That's this government's choice — and deep cuts to Special Olympics. In the Comox Valley, 83 percent cut; 100 Mile House, 80 percent cut; Surrey, 70 percent; Sunshine Coast, a 68 percent cut.

Again, my question is to the Premier. How can this government, in the year we're hosting the Olympics, justify cuts to Special Olympics?

[1400]

Hon. R. Coleman: Tens of millions of dollars to take care of developmentally disabled children and adults waiting on wait-lists in the province of British Columbia so they can have their services. Tens of millions of dollars in services for those people that the member is actually talking about, in their communities with their parents for the services those kids need, and every single dime was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite for those disabled children.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: We made choices for children, for the services for children, for meals for children in school, and those were the right decisions. At the same time, we were able to manage to send some money to disabled sports in British Columbia.

[ Page 890 ]

N. Simons: Across the province there are coaches, there are parents, there are brothers and sisters of kids and adults with disabilities — developmental disabilities, in particular — who are extremely worried about these cuts. To many, Special Olympics is what people with developmental disabilities look forward to. It gives them a meaning in life, and it gives them joy. It also brings communities together.

This priority has obviously fallen fairly low on this government's agenda. How can you explain to athletes across this province, Special Olympians, that this choice was based simply on bad planning and that the effect will be extremely negative to their families? You know what I mean.

Hon. R. Coleman: I will try and respond to the question from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

We managed to send some money to the disabilities sports in your community, as we did across B.C., as we tried to manage the dollars. The provincial organization actually received a $60,000 bingo affiliation grant, which was $5,000 more than it received last year.

As we did that, we also had to do it in the management of what the other priorities of any grant program in British Columbia should be, and that is what they identify, what their priorities are and who needs it the most at any given time. In these difficult times it's human and social services. It's public safety. If somebody is lost in the back country this winter, I want those organizations to be funded.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's also to Community Living B.C., who needed money to deal with wait-lists and other services for developmentally disabled adults and children across British Columbia. I think those were the right decisions to make.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Maybe I just wasn't expecting an answer anyway.

This is the minister who has consciously put $77 million of previously ministerial funding into gaming. He has taken away from charities — $77 million less for charities in this province. That's a cut.

Stephanie Rogers is an athlete, a three-time medallist and a swimmer. Her dad, Gary Rogers, is her coach. This is her life. This is what she does.

Athletes, Special Olympians across this province, are going to be hurt while this government is spending tons of money on Olympic boxes, luxury parties and the rest of it.

So how can this government justify those two things? Why did government make a conscious decision to fund Olympic parties and luxury boxes instead of dealing with those Special Olympians across this province who wanted to be able to participate?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's interesting to have somebody that even lives close to Nanaimo lecturing this government on issues in and around charities in the province of British Columbia. But you know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's talk about a charitable purpose. Somebody is lost in the back country in the middle of winter, and there's a search and rescue team that can go there because somebody has covered their liability and given them the machinery and the training so they can go out and save a life. That's a pretty good charitable purpose.

[1405]

A child arrives at school and gets a meal. You're opposed to a child arriving at school…? That's not a charitable purpose? You don't think feeding a child so it has a better educational outcome is a charitable purpose? I happen to think it is. We'll make that choice on behalf of children every single time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: This past July at the summer Special Olympics in Abbotsford, here's how the Premier described the participating athletes: "It's about doing your best, trying your hardest and sharing with others what you can do." Less than two months later this government turned around and made massive cuts to the same programs that allow these athletes to train and compete in sports.

To the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport: is it acceptable to make promises to B.C.'s Special Olympics athletes and then make cuts to the very services they rely on?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: As I explained to the member opposite a few minutes ago, we have to make tough

[ Page 891 ]

decisions. We did provide what we thought we could to disabled sports this year. Disabled sports actually got a number of millions of dollars. In actual fact, they did that at the expense…. There's no money for adult sports. There's no number for additional environmental groups. A number of other programs were cut in order to have money to spread around youth and disabled sports.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: I hear one of the members from Vancouver chirping away. He's the one that'll stand up in a couple of minutes and say: "I want more money for arts." So maybe you could give up the money you want for arts and send it over to disabled….

What choices would you make? You're not making a choice. You're not interested.

I'm been involved with Special Olympians over the years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just sit down for a second.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I can tell the members opposite that I know the volunteers and the coaches and the people who deal with disabled sports in British Columbia and their commitment. That's why we made the effort to make sure there would be some money available for disabled sports this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: We do know about this government's choices — choices to fund luxury boxes and choices to throw half-million-dollar parties. It's not just the families and athletes in Surrey, the Comox Valley, 100 Mile House and the Sunshine Coast that are questioning this government's priorities. People across B.C. want this minister, this Premier and this government to give their heads a shake about their misplaced priorities.

Even VANOC CEO John Furlong has publicly called for sports programs to be treated as a priority. These are his words: "I hope that as a result of what we do in February, sport will end up in a place on the national agenda, as much a priority as any other thing we care about."

Again to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport: how does she justify these shortsighted cuts for Special Olympics athletes during a time when B.C. is preparing to welcome the world for the 2010 Olympics?

Hon. R. Coleman: We make choices, and we set priorities. First of all, developmentally disabled children in the community around us and the people that represent them, like Rory Summers from the B.C. Association for Community Living, say this: "It is not often I give kudos to the government. At this particular time I think we need to. They've shown true leadership by listening to the community and responding to our needs."

Their needs were to deal with wait-lists for services for children and adults that were developmentally disabled. In British Columbia we spent tens of millions of dollars meeting that commitment.

The priorities are clear. We'll help those in need the most. We'll buy the 23 SROs in Vancouver, the 45 across the province. We'll take 7,000 people off the street and connect them to homes in British Columbia with our outreach workers. We'll do it because we're going to put the people of British Columbia that need it the most first in our decisions.

FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS

for SPECIAL NEEDS children

M. Karagianis: Families with special needs children rely on the infant development program. For example, Dorothy Gazzola, parent of Faith who has Down syndrome, said that the program is a godsend and that it has played an integral

part in how well her daughter Faith is developing as a special needs child.

[1410]

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Why is she cutting a program that has a proven track record of helping special needs children?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, as it turns out, the member is incorrect. There will be no cuts to the infant development program and no cuts to the supported child development program. In fact, both budgets remain at an all-time high of $18 million for infant development and $57 million for supported child development.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: The minister is wrong, absolutely wrong.

Right here I have a notice from the B.C. Association for Community Living: "Elimination of Provincial Infant and Child Development Offices a Shocking Blow to Child Development in British Columbia."

This goes on to say from Janice Barr, chair of the supported child development provincial steering committee and executive director of the association for Community Living: "The government is not making an administrative cut. They are severing a key link for support…a direct impact on the lives of children and youth with special needs."

Again, why is the minister cutting a vital program and eliminating a program that helps children with special needs?

[ Page 892 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Again, there will be absolutely no change to the services that are received through the infant development program and the supported child development program.

While the two provincial adviser positions have been valuable over the course of development of both of these programs around the province, these are not positions that provide direct services to families and children. The fact remains that these are administrative positions that we can fulfil the duties of within the ministry, and that allows us to direct increased funding to front-line direct services to kids.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Coons: If the minister had done her homework and talked to the stakeholders, the front-line workers and the families, she would have found out how valuable this program is.

The minister is on record saying that there isn't a need for these advisers. The loss of the infant development program will be even harder on first nations families and families living in the north.

Melinda Heidsma, Prince George Association for Community Living, which delivers the IDP services in the north, says: "The provincial IDP office is a lifeline not only for families but also for the IDP consultants all over the province."

Compared to the parents living in urban areas, those parents in rural and northern B.C. have access to even fewer supports and services for their special needs children. Why is the minister reducing the level of help that special needs families from first nations families and from the north receive?

Hon. M. Polak: Let me say to the members opposite once again that there will be no loss of service. There will be no interruption of service for families receiving the infant development program or supported child development program. In fact, what is most disturbing to me…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: …is the way in which the opposition members have preyed upon the fears of those who receive these services by telling them that a program is ending when it is not changing one iota.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: Experts in the field rebuke this minister's spin and rhetoric. The B.C. Association for Community Living says that it's not an administrative cut, that the IDP and its staff have a direct impact on the lives of children and youth with special needs.

[1415]

Now, not only is the B.C. Association for Community Living describing this cut as devastating, five front-line consultants from the Prince Rupert area who work extensively with infant and child development, especially with first nations children, say that this cut will seriously impact families, especially in the north. They point to how families in the north rely even more on the services that the IDP program provides and how it is essential for these families.

Will the minister revisit her decision and restore funding to this vital program?

Hon. M. Polak: The provincial advisers play an intermediary role between the ministry and service providers. They do not provide direct service to children. The infant development program retains its full budget of $18 million. The supported child development program retains its budget of $57 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: I find it difficult to believe that the opposition would defend the idea of maintaining two administrative positions costing us $600,000 a year that could go into direct front-line services for kids.

J. Kwan: I have a letter here, actually, from the provincial adviser, infant development program of B.C. Here's what Dana had to say.

"It is very important that MCFD and the government understand that the provincial IDP office and aboriginal supported child development provincial offices are not bureaucracies, nor are they administrative structures. They have very little, if any, administrative functions."

They go on to say:

"The provincial IDP office provides direct services to families who call for information, to professionals who need to know where to refer a newly diagnosed baby or to access up-to-date evidence based on early childhood intervention information."

My question to the minister is this. Does this sound like administrativia to you, when you're a parent on the other side needing help for your newborn child and support of services?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, let me make it clear to the opposition member. The coordinator positions that provide referrals and the types of services to which she just referred — those are continuing. We are talking about the provincial adviser positions. They perform an intermediary role between the ministry and the service providers.

[ Page 893 ]

I just can't understand why the opposition would want to maintain government positions at the expense of services to kids. What is it you don't like about providing front-line services to kids?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

SCHOOL DISTRICT funding

R. Austin: A letter from the Prince George school district clearly states that contrary to what the Education Minister told this House, they were given absolutely no warning about the cancellation of facilities grants. Now the district has a $2.3 million deficit in their special purpose fund and has cancelled or suspended all school maintenance.

I'll quote from a letter between Prince George school district and the minister. "Contrary to statements made by you and representatives of your ministry, there was no forewarning that the annual facility grant, a grant that is ingrained in district operations, would be held back or, in the case of the current fiscal period, completely eliminated."

Can the minister explain why her version of events doesn't match reality?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Ministry of Education and our government this year have provided yet again record amounts of funding for schools — records amounts of funding.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In spite of the fact there are 7,000 fewer students expected this year, we are providing an extra $84 million to go to classrooms in this province.

Our government has made choices this year. Absolutely, we've made choices about how we'll do things, and our focus is on the student in the classroom.

With respect to the annual facilities grant, back in June of this year school districts — secretary-treasurers — were advised that they should go slow on their projects, that they should use reserve funding, that this was a different year. That advice did go out in June of this year.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

R. Austin: A new minister but the same old message box. Let me quote again from this letter. "The complete absence of communication or communication that is vague and disingenuous implies either that your ministry does not want or know how to communicate or worse — that there is an underlying agenda to set boards up to fail in their basic mission."

The minister told this House that school boards were warned about the cancellation of facilities grants. The Prince George school district says that's not the case. How can school boards do their jobs when faced with a government that can't even get its story straight about major last-minute cuts to cash-strapped districts?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is a government that this year alone is investing $447 million in new schools, in upgrades, in seismic projects. We continue to make these investments because we know how important it is.

With respect to the annual facilities grants this year, the communication did go out, and we're continuing to work hard with all of the school districts. We've made it very clear. If there are issues of health and safety for students…. In fact, we've already found ways to work with districts to provide funding through their reserves so that they can address the needs of students.

This is ongoing work. We are meeting individually and discussing with each school district as necessary. Many of the school districts were able to slow down their projects, and they're having absolutely no difficulty.

We'll continue to work with all of them, to work with Surrey, and we will continue to invest in schools in this province.

FUNDING FOR

JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY

L. Krog: Public trust in the justice system is at an all-time low. After the election, five months into the fiscal year, this government and this minister cut by $310,000 the budget of the Justice Education Society. They're closing offices. They're laying off staff. They're making cuts every which way they can.

To the Minister of Education: why did she suddenly and retroactively cut the program that helps people access education and understand the law processes — essentially taking away British Columbians' rights to justice?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This year, as I've mentioned, we are providing record funding, but we've made a conscious decision this year.

[ Page 894 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In spite of what the members opposite might wish us to think, this year there is a record amount of funding going to the classroom. And when it….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: When it came to our grants, without doubt, we did make decisions that were different this year, and our priorities were clear. We made sure that we were protecting our most vulnerable students, that we were investing, again, record amounts in early learning and literacy and that we were investing in our aboriginal students. These were good decisions in difficult economic times, and they are the choices that we made.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: That's some record. It's a 40 percent cut. No matter how you dance around the issue, it's a 40 percent cut to that organization. It affects those who can least afford it — 15,000 ordinary students, 600 youth at risk and 1,000 aboriginal students in remote communities. Those services are being terminated.

This comes on top of the cuts the government has made to legal aid — cuts that already put an enormous strain on our justice system. I want to hear from this minister: what research does she have to show that this won't end up just costing the justice system a great deal more in the long run?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Challenging economic times call for leadership, and they call for decisions to be made. Our government has made a decision.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are investing record amounts in classroom education this year. It is the decision our government made, and it's a decision that we all stand by.

[1425]

We know very clearly what the opposition would have done. They are not governing. We know very clearly what would have happened. We know that right now British Columbians would be experiencing a much higher deficit and higher taxes. These are not choices that we would make.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Record investments — record investments in classrooms. record investments in students, record investments in early learning and literacy. These are the choices that we've made in these difficult times. Again, we stand by them.

[End of question period.]

J. McIntyre: I seek leave to make an additional introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. McIntyre: I notice that we have members in the gallery from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I understand they're meeting. They're having their AGM in Victoria. I hope the House will make them welcome.

N. Simons: I'll try and say this eloquently. Will the House please welcome a city councillor from Powell River, Chris McNaughton, who is in the House visiting today. Welcome to the House.

Motions Without Notice

LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS

Hon. M. de Jong: Following discussions with the Opposition House Leader and with leave, I would move a sessional order amendment dealing with the hours of operation for the chamber between now and the conclusion of proceedings.

The Opposition House Leader has the formal motion for the information of members. It would make the following adjustment on a sessional basis only, and that is that on Wednesday the House would sit in the afternoon from 1:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. and on Thursday from 10 a.m. till 12 noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.

By leave, I move:

[That effective immediately, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for

[ Page 895 ]

the duration of the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, which commenced on August 25, 2009:

1. That Standing Order 2(1) is deleted and the following substituted:

Sittings

Daily sittings.

(1) The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

Monday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Tuesday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Wednesday:

1:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Thursday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

2. That Standing Order 3 be deleted and the following substituted:

Hour of interruption.

3. If at the hour of 6:30 p.m. on any Monday

and Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:

On Monday

until 10 a.m. Tuesday

On Tuesday

until 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday

On Wednesday

until 10 a.m. on Thursday

On Thursday

until 10 a.m. on Monday

subject to the provisions of Standing Order 2(2)(b).]

With leave, I move that that sessional order be adopted by the House.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: Again with leave, I move the following motion that I have provided to the Opposition House Leader, and that is that the special committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That takes place statutorily, pursuant to

section 80 of that act.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996 c. 165) pursuant to

section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to conduct public consultations by any means the Committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings and electronic means;

(

e) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House by May 31, 2010; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee is to be composed of Mr. Cantelon (Convener), Messrs. Foster, Horne, Dalton, Sultan, and Bloy and Mme. Cadieux and Messrs. D. Routley, Lali, Gentner and Mmes. Conroy and Kwan . ]

The usual powers are granted to the committee. By virtue of this motion, the committee is charged with reporting back to this House by May 31, 2010. With leave, I move that motion.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: With apologies, I should read into the record, pursuant to the terms of the motion, the following membership. Mr. Cantelon is convener, and it includes members Messrs. Foster, Horne, Dalton, Sultan, Bloy, Mme. Cadieux, Messrs. Routley, Lali, Gentner, and Mmes. Conroy and Kwan.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm reminded, pursuant to my last comment, that that is D. Routley, for the record.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: For this afternoon, I call continued second reading debate of Bill 8, the Strata Property Amendment Act, in this chamber, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Forests.

[1430]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Strata property

amendment act, 2009

(continued)

S. Fraser: In discussions on Bill 8, I'd like to comment on a few things that affect my constituency and certainly the association on Vancouver Island of strata owners and, I would suggest, all strata owners across the province.

We have a bill here that is being brought forward, which I do not believe properly addresses the issues.

[ Page 896 ]

While it makes some attempts to do so in some circumstances, it is woefully lacking in many others.

It's unfortunate. The strata owners across the province have waited a long time for this bill. It's certainly well overdue, and the disappointment is palpable amongst the associations and owners throughout the province because there is so much missing from Bill 8.

I would like to make a few specific comments about that. A major issue neglected by Bill 8 is the large number of votes controlled by the owner-developer, if you will. That's for unsold strata units. With this lacking, developers can sort of tame strata councils, if you will, in order to evade responsibilities under the act. There's a key flaw there.

Bill 8 still does not require the disclosure of strata council minutes to a purchaser. So here we have Bill 8 coming forward now, and really, without this key information in strata council minutes, if that's not made available…. In many cases this written information would be the only indication, for instance, of a leaky-condo issue or a problem within the strata. To omit that piece of information in the bill is a massive flaw, and we don't need to poll too many British Columbians to understand that.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Although Bill 8 appears to provide for more transparency and tracking and reporting the condition of strata corporate assets, it could also be undermined if the regulations provide too many loopholes — and they do, Madam Speaker. Welcome to the chair.

Bill 8 appears to provide more transparency in tracking and reporting the condition of strata corporation assets. Again, that's undermined if the regulations provide too many loopholes, which they do.

In essence, the bill should not be premature, but it is in this case. It is not ready to bring forward after all this time and after all the waiting — patiently — by strata owners and strata associations. I know that the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association have worked hard to try to provide meaningful input to this process. I do not see their input being respected in this act, in Bill 8.

I would note that we need a proper, open and public review of the needs and the issues dealt with in this act. I would suggest that constructive feedback from strata owners has fallen on deaf ears with this government and with the ministry. I would ask that this bill be drafted in a way that protects the public interest, that protects people — strata owners — like those who live in Little Qualicum River Estates in my constituency and many more that have come to me with concerns about the great flaws and shortcomings of the previous, existing act and now are not seeing those issues addressed appropriately.

With that, I will sit down.

[1435]

D. Thorne: It was a little like déjà vu speaking to this act again, but I couldn't let the occasion pass without saying a few words about how disappointed I am in the fact that this bill has come back in basically the same form that it was in, in March when I last spoke to it. I can't see any substantive changes of any kind other than that it's no longer under the Minister of Finance. It's now under the Minister of Social Development.

I know that when we discussed this in March, it came to the House the day before…. Well, actually it was the day, if I'm not mistaken, that the government basically announced that we would be leaving this chamber and going out into the world of elections the following day.

When we were discussing this at the time, we were all aware that the bill was going to die on the order paper and that it wasn't going to pass. At that time, if memory serves, the minister, who would have been at that time the Minister of Finance, made some comments. I actually have a copy of some of the comments that the minister made.

One of the most important, according to the people on this side of the House and also some of the stakeholders — who up to that time had not been consulted in any meaningful way around this proposed bill — was that the minister had said that they would go out and invite further feedback from organizations rather than pushing the bill through in any kind of rushed manner — that now, with the summer, there would be time to have some consultation with other than developers and strata owners and things like that.

I couldn't let this pass today on second reading without getting up and stating in a generalized way that it's very, very disappointing that this consultation does not appear to have happened. The government was severely criticized last spring for having private and confidential consultation processes with developers, property managers, their lawyers and others, and also informed the strata associations that if they wanted to meet with the government and state their views and be part of the consultation, that would have to be done in silence — that there would be a confidentiality agreement, which most of the strata owners chose not to do.

They were expecting, when they knew this bill was going to die on the order paper, that even though the ministers have changed, the consultation would in fact take place. That was possibly even longer than six months ago. That hasn't happened. You know, there's a lot of disappointment around that.

I also wanted to just say a little bit about some of the issues that we talked about being wrong with the bill — or not necessarily being wrong with the bill. Most people support this bill even though it's very, very limited, doesn't go nearly far enough and has not had the proper consultation. I'm not aware of any of the stakeholders, including most strata councils, that would say they're opposed to the changes that are recommended

[ Page 897 ]

in this bill. Of course any step — even a small one, if it's a step in the right direction — is to be welcomed by all of us.

However, the more or less closed-door process that was used by this government has kind of given the ordinary person living in a strata the feeling that they're not really important to the process and that they really did have very little to contribute to the legislation, even though it's affecting them and their property and for most people, I would think, probably their big financial investment. As we've discussed in this chamber many, many times, a home is often the biggest financial outlay that most of us will ever make.

[1440]

I know that many, many — and in my own family as well — people that live in stratas or own strata units feel that the bill, even though it's a small step in the right direction, is a bit undemocratic. I say that — in fact, in my opinion and many others — that taints the bill, which is too bad, because when you have a positive bill, even a small one — you know, a small step in the right direction — it's nice for all of us to be happy about it and not feel that it's tainted in any way.

Some of the other aspects that are not considered in this bill are licensing standards for strata managers, for example. I was the past critic for Housing for the two years prior to this sitting. I heard from many, many owners of stratas that this is a significant issue and that the standards for licensing for strata managers need to be looked at and need to be cleared up, changed, clarified — whatever word you want to use — and could have been looked at over the summer.

I don't know of any reason…. Of course, I could be wrong. This may not be true. There may have been a reason that this bill had to come back in essentially the small form that it was in, in March — that we couldn't have added to it and made it a more significant bill. I mean, that would have meant leaving it and not putting it forward until November or possibly even the spring. Maybe that's the reason.

Maybe the government's thinking is: "Let's get this through now. It's a step in the right direction. Then we'll make a very big effort to actually go out and do some real consultation with strata owners, and we'll bring forward another bill after Christmas, adding to this bill, that moves us way forward, and we'll deal with all of the issues that keep coming up again and again."

Those issues are not going to go away. Those issues are going to remain. More and more people are moving into stratas. That is not going to change, and I think we all know that.

Again, this bill does nothing to improve the accountability of strata developers, for sure. We all know there have been many, many issues around that. The offence and penalty provisions that are needed are not dealt with in this bill, not in the way that they need to be dealt with.

These three issues are very, very important and are part of, I submit, the court system — the fact that you now have to go to the Supreme Court to deal with a lot of these issues. This bill will move us more into arbitration and mediation and even compulsory arbitration and mediation in some cases — all moves in the right direction, as I have said. But without the licensing standard, accountability of strata developers and proper offence and penalty provisions, that's only a small bite out of a big, big…. A small piece of the puzzle, so to speak.

I could talk about the many other areas that strata councils and strata owners were hoping would be dealt with in this bill, but I know there are other people waiting to speak. I would just close by saying that I hope I'm right. I said this in the spring, now with disappointment that it's come back in the same limited form.

I hope we can assure strata owners across British Columbia that this is just a first bite and that after Christmas there will be more, and more over the next year or so, where we'll finally deal with the whole problem for strata owners. As most of us are aging and probably…. You know, in the next couple of years many in this House will be moving into stratas ourselves. We'll all want to be consulted for changes too.

[1445]

R. Fleming: I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill 8, the Strata Property Amendment Act, in particular because in the capital regional district there are 20,000 homeowners who live in and enjoy owning a home of this tenure type.

It is a critically important debate that we're having today, and this legislation is critically important to modernize and amend it in the right way, because many people's family savings and their dreams of home ownership touch exactly upon this act and are governed by this legislation.

Let's be clear. Strata owners have been waiting a long time for the act to be changed. There have been a number of deficiencies brought to government's attention over a number of years, and this government has promised to review this legislation on many previous occasions. They had an opportunity to do that last fall, 2008. That was at least one opportunity, which they did not take advantage of, because, of course, we'll all recall in this place that the legislative sitting in fall 2008 was cancelled entirely.

I appreciate, in the context of this debate, that one does not get too many bites at the apple, so to speak. But I think that the Condominium Home Owners Association of British Columbia and other organizations have made the point, in the public realm, that even though they are among those most impatient at change, that have been loudest and most persistent in advocating for a number of reforms, common-sense changes to the act that have to happen — some of which are in this

[ Page 898 ]

bill; some of which are not…. They still validate the view that it's important to get legislation changed in the right way — not in just any way but the right way — and that it be done comprehensively.

I think one of the reasons why they can't endorse passing this legislation at this time is because the consultation was not done properly. Not everybody was invited to the table by this government to give their views, to share their experiences and to advocate for certain changes that they felt were long overdue.

Of course, we have jurisprudence to guide us in our changes. We have had the court system spend considerable amounts of its time sorting out some of the common and recurring problems with the act.

Certainly, all of the guideposts are in place for us to get legislation right. But again, the consultation, which wasn't done provincewide and wasn't done in an open manner, wasn't done in public venues allowing strata owners of all types — and there are tens of thousands in this province — to participate and make their submissions known. I think that makes for weaker legislation than we ought to be debating here this afternoon.

Having said that, I think one of the things that is long overdue and that has been consistently asked for is an improved dispute resolution process in the legislation. The fact that the Supreme Court of British Columbia had been hearing cases to do with

interpretation of this act in the past, I think, has been a waste of the court's time. And costs for strata corporations…. Certainly, there are other priorities in the justice system than to deal with that.

Now there are avenues proposed in this legislation that will be more cost-effective, more timely and more flexible, which will allow for arbitration and mediation proceedings to solve disputes.

I think people are aware that provincial politics can be a bear pit at times. I'm certainly aware that strata politics can be a vicious thing as well. So the fact that these things can be adjudicated in a more timely fashion at cheaper cost, resolving outstanding issues, is a good thing and, I think, is the main point in favour of the legislative amendment act that we're dealing with today.

I have to speak on behalf of the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association in this regard, because I have met with them on a number of occasions, and I think their criticisms of Bill 8 are valid. They have pointed out some things missing in the act that could have been contemplated and that could have been accomplished.

[1450]

One is to look at licensing standards for strata managers. In order to recruit and attract people to work as strata managers in buildings, it requires that there be a certain professional standard, and this legislation doesn't spell out or strengthen the licensing standards we have in that regard.

The other major thing, too — I think it's a good point, especially since we have had and experienced the sudden cancellation of the Homeowner Protection Office this summer, when certainly it has work to be done in remediating properties all over British Columbia — is that in this legislation going forward, we're still dealing with the past. People will be out of pocket, and some people will be losing their homes, because the province has failed a number of strata home owners in dealing with leaky buildings.

Moving forward, looking ahead, this legislation does not provide an accountability framework that is adequate for those developing strata condominium projects in B.C., and I think that's a problem.

Surely, with the liabilities that have been shared by municipal government, by property owners in particular, by everybody who has suffered because of building envelope failures that shouldn't have happened in B.C., then changing this legislation and how those things are dealt with — how liabilities are shared, how accountability is spelled out in legislation — should have been a priority that was better dealt with in this bill.

There are, for example, no offence and penalty provisions that are changed or added in this legislation, which could have served as a deterrent and a guidepost for how disputes around strata property management issues are dealt with. There could have been better — and this is VISOA's point of view, the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association — conflict-of-interest provisions in this legislation that would have removed people with perceived or actual conflicts from participating in their own proceedings or overseeing their own proceedings. Strata owners are suggesting that that has missed the mark in this bill.

Also, the rights of owners to attend strata meetings and to look at issues around strata fee inequities…. It has been suggested by many of the stakeholder organizations, for whom this legislation is written and serves, that that has been missed in this amendment bill.

I can say — as an MLA in the capital region who represents an area where the vacancy rate in the rental market is below 1 percent and has hovered close to zero percent in recent years, an area that has been without the benefit of government robust family housing programs that build new rental accommodation — that there are many people who would wish to rent privately owned accommodation in strata buildings and are prohibited from doing so because of the bylaws.

In that regard, I think

section 23 of this bill is particularly important because it will make it more fair for owners and owner-investors of strata units to have bylaws that are friendly to provisions that allow the rental of properties.

There are suites not far from this building in Victoria — in a rental market that is extremely tight, beyond critically low levels — that are dark at night every night, where people who are paying mortgages and fees on those properties are unable to rent because it has been deemed illegal to do so by strata bylaws.

[ Page 899 ]

Now, that practice could continue under this legislation, but there will be more opportunities for owner-investors and strata unit owners to have rights to rent those properties and to demand a process and an explanation by the strata property association if they are going to do that.

[1455]

I think seeking clarity on that is good for potential buyers, people who are investing in condominium units. That will produce, hopefully, some more confidence in the housing market. If you compare 2009 to 2008, housing starts in this part of the world, just here on the south Island, have declined by 75 percent. We need some market signals.

We've sent a bad market signal on the harmonized sales tax. The closing costs of a unit of housing in this part of the world have just gone up thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars for prospective buyers. We need to give some kind of signal. I hope that this legislation, by making it easier for owner-investors and owners of strata properties to rent, will be some kind of positive signal that may mitigate other tax policy measures that government is implementing and that will dampen down demand for new housing starts.

I think that is the bulk of my remarks. There's one more point I might just address in passing, and that's around the depreciation report that is a new

section of the legislation,

section 15 of the bill.

The opposition members have been asking questions about why government anticipates that there is a quite long two-year lag time for the implementation of this provision. Certainly it is nothing to do with the capacity of market appraisals and those who work in real estate to be able to adjust to this in a more timely manner. They've given the confidence that they would be ready to act sooner than what government allows in this bill.

What we have been asking for in this debate is that rather than have this be spelled out by regulation later, it be part of the main legislative package that we're debating here today. That would serve the interests of transparency. It would provide some certainty now. We've already got the main stakeholders in this province saying that they don't feel adequately consulted on this legislation. They would like more details, and they would like some things that are missing from the bill to be included now, while they have the opportunity to do it.

The depreciation report

section of the bill also speaks to that, I think, flawed process that should have taken place over the summer or whenever, when government has had ample opportunity to do so — a fulsome consultation period. It wasn't, and I think the legislation is weaker than it ought to be because that work wasn't done at the front end of the legislative process in drafting Bill 8, which is before the House today.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me some comments this afternoon.

B. Ralston: I want to address Bill 8. There are approximately 460,000 strata properties in British Columbia. Increasingly, about 25 percent of the population, I am advised, lives in strata property. Increasingly, it's a choice that people make as to the place they live.

The Strata Property Act regulates — probably to a greater extent than municipal bylaws do in the jurisdiction in which the strata corporation might find itself — the very intimate details of how the building is run, costs to individual owners, the regulation of disputes — which, given that sometimes those disputes arise between neighbours or immediate neighbours, can be very aggravating and vexing to the parties concerned and to other people who are residents or owners in the building.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Although this may not seem like glamorous legislation, it has an effect on the lives of tens of thousands of people and on a number of disputes that inevitably arise when people live in close proximity to one another.

Now, this bill does make a couple of changes, but it falls far short of the promise that the then minister responsible, the Minister of Finance, made here in this House. Admittedly, that was prior to the election, but when this bill in very similar form came before the House, only to die on the order paper when the election was called, he did say the following.

I want to quote just so that I have the Minister of Finance, the then responsible minister, accurately:

[1500]

"We should go out and invite feedback from organizations rather than pushing this bill through to a conclusion in a rushed manner.

"I certainly invite that feedback in the weeks and months to come. This is a bill that obviously will not complete all of its stages before this House rises. But it is certainly a piece of legislation that if we are re-elected as government, we are committed to bringing back into this House. We're committed to assessing the constructive feedback that comes from condo owners and strata property associations, property managers, the general public and anyone with regard to what's in the bill."

So a very broad promise of consultation from the minister.

"If there are changes that are desirable, then we would consider incorporating those changes before this bill would be reintroduced."

Now again, perhaps in the kind of expansive moment that the minister was experiencing prior to the election, he made very broad and sweeping statements in the passage that I've just quoted. Unfortunately, in putting together the bill and beginning the consultation that was promised, none of that came to pass. A very narrow consultation took place. The bill is very limited in its scope. A couple of changes are made, but it's almost identical to the bill that was presented before.

Essentially, what I am told is it was very much a closed door process and relied on input, private meetings,

[ Page 900 ]

between government officials and developers, property managers and those people invited to speak with the proposed drafters of the bill.

Now, there's certainly nothing wrong about consulting that part of the industry — indeed, it may be valuable — but the promise was made to consult much more broadly. Given the number of people that live in strata properties, given the activity of strata property owners associations, given the long list of recommendations that they have for what I think are real improvements to the legislation, that opportunity seems to have either been missed or deliberately avoided. That is certainly regrettable.

The importance, I think, for this kind of legislation is a consultation process where these individual…. They are fairly narrowly defined. They're carefully thought-out suggestions that come from many who have suggestions to make the act more workable, to resolve disputes more quickly, to address some of the inequities of finance and, indeed, the role of owner-developers, who sometimes have a disproportionate influence in the operation of strata corporations.

There is a host of reforms that have been recommended, and the government seems to have not been interested in this process to receive any of those. Certainly, they are not reflected in this legislation.

I have been, through some of the consultation I've done, particularly with the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, who presented a very detailed brief…. I understand it's been forwarded to the government, although it's not clear to them whether it was received or considered or just what steps might have been taken from their very detailed and carefully thought-out submissions.

I want to make some comments based on their analysis of the bill. Aside from the fact that the consultation didn't take place, they are concerned that the bill does not address the weak licensing standards for strata managers. Often conflict arises because of the conduct, sometimes considered to be…. This is certainly a minority of management companies, but where there are conflicts and where there appears to be unethical or unprofessional conduct by strata management companies, conflict arises.

The regulatory body that the complaints are made to doesn't really seem to take an interest in those kinds of complaints. It's the Real Estate Council of B.C. They licence strata managers, and they've been, in the view of this organization, unresponsive to those concerns.

The bill doesn't address the accountability of strata developers for non-compliance with the act or misrepresentations that might have been made to prospective buyers. It doesn't have any offence and penalty provisions. It's significant to note that legislation in Alberta, which we often hear from the government is to be considered when considering legislation, has offence and penalty sections. So does Ontario, where again there is a fairly well-used act, given the number of strata properties in Ontario. So there's no real deterrent to breaches of the act, no mechanism for addressing those in that way.

[1505]

It doesn't define the meaning of "common property." This can be a dispute, because assessments are made on the basis of common property. Where there is an uncertain and unclear definition of common property, disputes can arise.

Bad legislation or inadequate legislation that doesn't address this problem just gives rise to disputes where a judicial

interpretation is required, rather than having the drafters deal with that problem at the outset and avoiding the resort to litigation to define what should have been contemplated by the drafters in the first place.

They go on to say that greater clarity is needed in the definition of what's defined as a conflict of interest.

Section 32 is expanded but doesn't really go far enough where the owner-developer is a council member and uses or may be seen to use his position to enhance his or her financial position at the expense of other strata owners.

It's a case where the owner-developer is on the strata council and may use that position to vote on matters which may be of financial benefit to that person. It's pretty clear that that is a classic definition of a conflict of interest. These amendments don't address that in a clear way, doubtlessly giving rise to further disputes and further litigation — again, which could be avoided by the careful and thoughtful attention of legislative drafters at this stage, rather than just leaving it for another time.

Section 6 fails to embed the right of an owner to attend a strata council meeting as an observer. This right can be and has been removed from the bylaws of some strata corporations.

One would think that if you're a strata owner, if you're a member of the strata corporation, you would have the basic right to attend the meetings of the council. Apparently, in some cases it can be removed, forbidding an owner from coming to the meeting where matters of a financial interest to that person would be decided. This bill doesn't address that.

It doesn't remove the requirement for a three-quarters, or 75 percent, vote of owners under

section 39 to remove a management company as the management company from the strata corporation. The acts, I'm told, in Ontario and Alberta, often the touchstone for members opposite, do not have that requirement. What it does is…. It's a high hurdle to overcome to remove an incompetent or inefficient or ineffective strata management company as the company and replace it with another one that the owners so choose. That is not addressed.

Strata fee inequities are not addressed, arising from the limited options for unit entitlement available to the

[ Page 901 ]

developer under

section 246(3) when a strata plan is established. Once that's established, then a unanimous consent is required to change that allocation. That's as one might expect — usually, as a practicality, impossible to achieve.

It relies heavily on regulations, which could allow — it's not clear, and doubtlessly the critic, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, will pursue this at committee stage — for exemptions from depreciation reports and audited financial statements, two of the amendments to the act that this bill does bring before the House.

Parliamentarians and those who observe parliamentary processes have often spoken about the balance that's required between legislation, which is done openly and publicly and debated and proceeds through the House, and the power of regulation, which of course does not proceed through the House. It's done by an order-in-council — that is, the cabinet sitting in private, subject to freedom of information.

Ordinarily, cabinet confidentiality does not permit much insight into why a decision was made or what options were discussed and very little opportunity, if any, for public input. The balance between the legislation and the power that's given under the act to make regulations is of concern to those who observe these matters.

[1510]

Those are some of the concerns that are expressed about the bill as it is. Given those concerns and given what I think are broad and constructive suggestions that the Legislature and indeed the 460,000 strata property owners in the province might benefit from, I think it's important that there be further consultation on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill 8, intituled Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009 , be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."]

On the amendment.

B. Ralston: If I just might briefly speak to that amendment.

I've read and referred the House to the comments of the Minister of Finance made in March of this year about the fact that he welcomed a broad consultation. It's clear that that hasn't taken place.

Ordinarily, I don't think this would be necessary. But given the importance of this legislation and given what appear to be the many constructive suggestions, I'm firmly of the view that the House, this legislation and the minister — who's, I'm sure, in a very constructive mood when considering this bill…. I don't think it's a highly partisan issue, but certainly there's an opportunity for the House to work together and improve this bill.

By delaying the discussion of this bill for six months, the government will be able to go out, have that broad consultation, come back with a better, more comprehensive bill that will be of benefit to British Columbians who are concerned — and there are many — about these issues.

So with that, on the amendment, I conclude my remarks.

S. Simpson: As soon as they calm down on the other side, we'll move ahead.

We don't have any desire to delay this inordinately. What I would say is that this is important legislation. It is legislation that we know that those in the sector are looking for.

What we've been told, though, in regard to this — and we've been told it by a number of organizations and by individuals — is that they felt they had a commitment. They had a commitment back in March. At that time this legislation — or its predecessor, Bill 12 — was introduced by the now Minister of Finance, who had responsibility for that.

On March 31 in Hansard the minister made commitments. He essentially made commitments that, by their nature, almost made this an exposure bill — a bill that allowed a discussion to go on. The minister who had responsibility for the bill at the time, the Minister of Finance, said there did need to be consultation. There did need to be broad discussion around this. The government was looking forward to getting the opinions and views of a wide range of interests, including the million-odd people who live in condominiums around this province.

That never occurred. That consultation never occurred. Because of that, we're now in a situation where we felt the need to bring forward this motion at this time to make that point.

So this is a delay that we're proposing that is unfortunate, but it's a delay that's caused by the government not keeping its promise to people who live in strata properties that in fact they would be consulted, that in fact there would be that discussion.

What we know is that while the bill contains a number of important pieces — and at the end of the day we will support the bill — the reality is this: it is half a loaf. The bill is half a loaf.

There are a number of issues that are not addressed in the bill that those organizations, like the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, like the Condominium Home Owners Association, have said need clarification.

[1515]

As the previous speaker, the member for Surrey-Whalley, noted, there are a number of pieces here that are dealt with through regulation and not legislation. I know that those organizations…. First of all, their preference certainly would have been that they be legislated. But equally important, they would like to have the opportunity, I know, to have a conversation with the minister or the minister's officials about what those

[ Page 902 ]

regulations might look like when they deal with audits or deal with depreciations or deal with those other matters. That opportunity isn't here.

We've heard from those organizations. The Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association certainly commented. The Condominium Home Owners Association, which represents about 100,000 units across the province, in a release that they issued on September 22, said:

"The Condominium Home Owners Association is calling on the provincial government to conduct a public consultation prior to making any legislative changes to the Strata Property Act."

That was the day after the tabling of this bill. They went on to say:

"The Condominium Home Owners Association is advocating an open public consultation process. This legislation will have a significant impact on the use and administration of strata properties once the regulations come into effect. In addition, this legislation will impact other stakeholders such as professional engineers, certified general accountants, the real estate and development industry and requires the input of each of these industries before we can move forward.

"Prior to proceeding any further, we ask that the minister slow this process down and convene public meetings provincewide that will allow strata owners and those involved in the strata industry to comment on the proposed…amendments. Those directly impacted by the legislation need the opportunity to make the appropriate submissions."

We have heard from people in the sector that they want to support this bill. They don't believe that the bill does everything that they'd like to accomplish. There are things about the legislation, because of the nature of regulation versus legislation, that are not clear. We will make every effort to go through that in committee stage and to get that clarification.

But the best way to deal with this would be to hoist the motion, as this amendment calls for. Allow people a few months to have this discussion, as was committed to by the Minister of Finance back on March 31 when he introduced Bill 12, the predecessor to this bill. Have that discussion. Have this legislation back with the amendments or changes that are deemed to make sense based on consultation with the industry and with homeowners, strata owners, and be able to pass this in the matter of a few months.

Again, it's unfortunate that that's necessary, but if the government had fulfilled the commitment they made in March and had that consultation between March and now, we wouldn't be in this situation. But the government didn't fulfil that commitment that they made to people in the sector, and as a consequence, we are where we are today.

Our desire would be that the government do what it said it was going to do — hold a public consultation, speak to people who are interested and committed in the sector, make the changes that make sense, bring back the bill where we get a whole loaf and not half a loaf. It will be a better piece of legislation for it.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to respond to the member's motion — quite lengthily, perhaps.

First of all, let's be clear about something. It's been seven months since this legislation was in this House. After the legislation was introduced in the House, every single person that had made a submission to government was written and asked for more information if they wanted to submit it. That's called consultation.

Now, the members opposite don't like this piece of it, and this is interesting to me. It's a time-honoured tradition in this House — and members opposite that were around at the time will remember — that when you're doing legislation, you actually do consultation in a confidential way, because you don't put legislation out there in draft without having people sign some sort of a document of confidentiality.

There's a reason for that, hon. Members. Legislation can affect trade practices and economies of things, and that's why it's done that way. I want to be clear. The members don't want to hear the truth. That's fine.

So 19 parties provided comments to the Ministry of Finance staff on the drafting instructions to the amendments to Bill 12 as they were being developed. These included condominium associations, including the Condominium Home Owners Association; the Pacific Condominium Association; the other condominium associations; strata managers; strata properties of British Columbia; developers; the Urban Development Institute; the Real Estate Council of British Columbia; several property solicitors; and members of the general public.

[1520]

It is routine for government to ask that those reviewing legislative amendments pledge to keep the material confidential. The individuals and groups above signed undertakings of confidentiality. That's how it's done when you do the draft.

Next step. The other major organization that actually represents strata properties in British Columbia, which is the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, was invited to be part of that consultation on the draft legislation and declined to participate in the confidential review.

The member for Victoria-Hillside, or whatever it is, was up here a minute ago complaining about the fact that the Vancouver Island condominium association never got a chance to consult. They were invited to, and they didn't, hon. Member.

I know that you guys would prefer that we delayed this legislation and went to a six-month hoist. Then all the condominiums in the next six months that come into the marketplace can all have rental restrictions on them and not be stood up and not be held up for the people who live in them. We lose more and more rental stock. That's one of the things this legislation actually fixes.

I've got a whole bunch of other comments about what these members have to say, but I can tell you what. It's so typical of the NDP — delay, delay, delay, deny, never

[ Page 903 ]

do nothing and never get anything done. This legislation needs to go forward for people in condominiums in the province of British Columbia. We will be voting against the hoist motion.

[1525]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is to the amendment of Bill 8, Strata Property Amendment Act, reading as followed, by the member from Surrey-Whalley: "I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 8, Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009, be amended by deleting the word 'now' and substituting therefore the words 'six months hence.'"

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 32

S. Simpson

D. Black

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Popham

B. Simpson

Austin

Karagianis

Brar

Hammell

Lali

Thorne

Horgan

Bains

Dix

Mungall

Macdonald

Corrigan

Herbert

Krog

Gentner

Elmore

Donaldson

Fraser

B. Routley

Huntington

Coons

Sather

Trevena

NAYS — 45

Horne

Letnick

McRae

Stewart

Coell

McNeil

Chong

Polak

Yamamoto

Bell

Krueger

Bennett

Stilwell

Hawes

Hogg

Thornthwaite

Hayer

Lee

Barnett

Bloy

Reid

Lekstrom

Falcon

Heed

de Jong

Hansen

Bond

MacDiarmid

Abbott

Coleman

Thomson

Yap

Cantelon

Les

Sultan

McIntyre

Rustad

Cadieux

van Dongen

Howard

Lake

Foster

Pimm

Dalton

Slater

On the main motion.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Housing closes debate.

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to this, as I close debate, I have a number of issues I want to address on behalf of the comments made by the members opposite.

This particular piece of legislation….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, would you just wait a couple of minutes while members….

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Strata Property Act was actually passed and given its royal assent in 1998, and it took effect on July 1, 2000. It replaced the earlier Condominium Act.

Over the years this particular piece of legislation has been amended by successive governments as issues came forward, which is actually kind of routine with regard to legislation like this because rewrites are often lengthy and time-consuming and don't address the immediate issues that people may have or concerns they want to address.

This particular piece of legislation, in response to the members opposite….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, it significantly improves the dispute resolution process for strata corporations and strata owners. When the original act was written, I remember doing the debates with one of the members opposite back then and discussing this particular piece of legislation. There was some concern raised, as I recall — whether it was at committee stage or in a briefing — with regard to trying to put this into the courts for a group of people that have to learn to get along and try and find out how to mediate their issues over time.

There's a sense of maturity that has to come into something like the Strata Property Act and strata relationships. Over time, we did get to a point where we were spending more time, having people spend excessive dollars unnecessarily to try and settle disputes within their strata properties.

By making it go more to mediation and arbitration, it actually gives us an opportunity to start to bring back what strata corporations and strata relationships were supposed to be in the first place. That was a group of people who would have two pieces: a unit entitlement within a unit, which basically becomes what is mortgageable to them as their piece of property, and then common property and limited common property, which would be available for their use or limited use by one of

[ Page 904 ]

the residents, depending whether it's a patio or a deck or whatever the case may be.

Strata property should be clearly stated, because one of the members opposite seemed to not understand that townhouses were actually strata properties, as well as condominiums. In actual fact, they are. There are also things like bare land stratas that actually affect strata property in British Columbia as well, which is basically strata titling just the land, and the residence on top of the land being owned by the person — the strata lot being their strata lot for that particular residence.

That was one of the objectives, as we've heard over the years from people with regard to strata properties. Consultations and discussions have taken place — and government relations meetings and meetings in ministers' offices and MLAs' offices. Submissions have been made on this particular act probably for about two or three years.

We also wanted to enhance consumer protection and increase accountability. This is a pretty key piece for a couple of reasons. For instance, I've owned three condos in the city of Victoria over the years I've been here. If I go and make an investment in a particular piece of property, I make it with the information that's in front of me today. If I go to buy a piece of property, make an offer of purchase and sale, and in that offer of purchase and sale and in the bylaws of that organization it clearly states that my unit can be rented, and I make that investment on that basis, that should not be taken away from me.

However, the act as it exists allows, by a three-quarter vote, a strata corporation to decide that it's no longer a rental building. That does two things. The first thing it does is basically grandfathers me, who might own it, until the time I sell it. Then I'm stuck. It takes a whole bunch of product out of the marketplace over time, because no longer can those units be in the rental marketplace. We end up with an issue where an investor — coming from Asia, Europe or wherever they may come from across Canada — buys a piece of property and finds out after the fact that somebody has allowed those people to change that investment.

[1535]

This also allows us to do some other things for consumer protection. One of the issues some of the members may have come across in strata property and that this actually enables us to fix is this. There are strata properties in British Columbia where people have bought a townhouse, and the townhouse had an unfinished basement. By the time they bought the property, the only piece of their unit that was in the unit entitlement for the calculation of strata fees was a finished area of the building. They made the investment on that basis of unit entitlement, and that's what their strata fees would be.

Some strata councils have decided afterwards…. As development has changed and densities have changed in the building, as smaller units have come in — phased development and what have you — they've come along and said: "You know what? We want more money from you because you've now finished your basement." They didn't make their investment on the basis that that would ever be the unit entitlement. That has actually gone to court, and the courts have decided that unless we change the legislation or regulation, that can happen to somebody.

Imagine if you're a senior living in a townhouse in Langley, Surrey or a couple of other communities that I'm very familiar with, where this has happened. All of a sudden your strata fees go up by 60 or 70 percent, just because the other people in your strata decide to come and try to gouge you for the money. There's a point where there's a fundamental rule of fairness of law and a fundamental rule in the application of principles, and sometimes they don't seem to meet. That's when we have to change something to fix the problem.

Now, it's an important issue. We could sit back and wait and not do it, but a number of these are going to go to court. Millions of dollars perhaps could be spent in legal fees, where if we actually fixed the problem and get on with it, we can actually deal with that situation. We're trying to get to where we get a balance in the housing market.

I remember many years ago having debates with the member for Port Coquitlam. They were friendly debates — estimates debates.

We both had one thing, I think, that we both understood, and that was that if we didn't get a balance in the marketplace for people to allow a rental of an investment property or do basement suites or have secondary ideas in housing or, in actual fact, find a way for the federal government, which hasn't happened in the number of years that we've been in this House, to allow us to have the pass-through on taxes and costs for recapture of capital gains, we were going to end up with a rental crisis in the province of British Columbia, because nobody would make the investment anymore.

That's what's starting to happen, and this legislation allows us to change it on the condominium side. On the long-term side, there are some issues with regard to taxes, etc., in housing that we need to fix. It actually provides a framework for the creation and the operation of strata developments in British Columbia.

This is so key, because there are a number of stratas — and few, by the way — where there is this discourse within their operations. They're the ones we hear about — when there are almost half a million condominium units in British Columbia serving about a million people. Most of them function well as a group of people at a board, with their rules and regulations, and some of their bylaws actually function pretty well. But there are those that have difficulties, and that's what brings us to the House to try and see if we can strengthen the guidelines or clarify it.

The one thing we should know about legislation, though, is that we can't actually legislate human behav-

[ Page 905 ]

iour. All we can lay out are the guidelines and principles that people should conduct themselves, either by statutory law or by regulation, in order to set those guidelines and how they should operate. As they do that, it's important to recognize that over time you will amend a law in order to adjust some of those issues.

Now, these amendments, contrary to what some people have said, actually have been part of consultations with a number of people — associations, strata developers, the Real Estate Council of B.C.

I've been an MLA for almost 14 years, and I don't think I've gone through a year where I haven't had at least two or three people come into my constituency office and give me papers on strata property and recommendations and ideas that I've forwarded either to a minister, the minister responsible or to a portion of government to talk about it.

As we do this, we need to improve the ways we do it. We need to lower the temperature with regards to how that relationship is built within the strata corporation. We need to make it inexpensive, efficient and fair, and that's why we're going away from the court side to small claims court, mediation and arbitration.

This act also allows us to deal with other issues that are often of concern with regard to strata properties. I know some of the members opposite had some concerns and issues, they said in second reading, about conflict-of-interest rules. We believe this improves it. I'm sure that during committee stage, this will have a discussion with the members with regard to that. But there's very little in there today with regard to conflict of interest.

[1540]

My biggest concern, as I listened to some of the debates, was it seemed that members — and not all members, but a couple of members — opposite were basically saying: "The owner-developer is bad. The owner-developer sets his rules. The owner-developer is going to take away my rights." The owner-developer still is tied to unit entitlement for strata fees like everybody else.

One of the things we should remember is that at the beginning of this process, somebody who wants to expend millions of dollars to take the risk to build the condominium building in the first place, who will then make it available for sale or rent as it comes through…. Without them, we don't get the housing — period. So they're a partner in this, and they're not to be vilified as one member did with regards to one particular project in one particular community — which I still haven't received the details on or in fact remember.

But you should remember that most strata properties…. Any member here who has been in local government or around the development business or the real estate business or been a consumer will know that most of these are handled extremely professionally on the transition over, and the transition over just needs to have rules around it.

So as we do this, we have to remember something else. Somebody was talking about how the Strata Property Act should deal with how the building is built. Well, it doesn't. The Strata Property Act is about the relationship on property that is owned by individuals, unit entitlement in condominiums and the relationship of that group of people to make decisions on behalf of the whole condominium operation, plus make decisions on finances and costs.

The building standards branch, the building code, engineers, architects, planners, municipalities and building inspectors take care of the construction site. We changed the rain screening, as the members know, ten years ago in British Columbia in the building standards and code to a credit of a report done on leaky condos back in about 1999. We changed those rules so we could change the standards to react, and that wasn't done through the Strata Property Act. It was actually done through the building code. That's not unusual because that's the way it should be.

The issues as you come through this are interesting and require some clarification. The first one was one member opposite went into quite a discourse about rentals and how they were renting it or they weren't renting it — certain things — and somebody was nefarious on rentals and all this. So let's be clear. This act is not about some nefarious thing to get people to rent their properties. It's about saying that if you buy a property today, after this act is passed and you are allowed to rent it, you get to maintain that right to do so.

It's not about what we can't go back and retroactively change. It's about what we can do to actually encourage people to increase the rental stock in British Columbia. And if the members opposite aren't in favour of that, they will tell us, I'm sure, at this

section during second reading.

One of the other comments which somebody said was: "You've got to do something about licensing strata property managers." Since January 1, 2006, strata property managers have had to be licensed under the Real Estate Act in British Columbia. It was a change brought a few years back. They have to be licensed. They actually report through that very professional setup that has errors and omissions, etc., through the Real Estate Act, and they report through the Real Estate Council. They have to be licensed, and that actually changed on January 1, 2006. So you don't need to put licensing in one act when you already have it covered in another.

The act itself. Having talked to the various people — including some of the people whose letters were written and read into the House today — within the last few days who have said, "Get on with this. It's the right piece of legislation. You're doing it right. That's what we're asking for," etc., I think we should have to get on with it.

We'll obviously be walking through this thing in committee stage, and hopefully, we can pass the legislation

[ Page 906 ]

in this session so that we can deal with those concerns about unit entitlement, people taking away their rights, the opportunity for someone who makes an investment in a piece of real estate in British Columbia to know that if they make that investment, they can rest assured that somebody isn't going to come along and change its economics afterwards, which I think is an absolutely terrible thing to do to anybody.

It would be like somebody coming to your home and saying: "Now, in this community, if you sell your house, you can't…." or: "You have to sell your house because you can never rent it. So we don't care if you lose money in your mortgage or your house." That's exactly what — some of this — was going on.

[1545]

We need to fix that. I think it needs to be fixed as soon as possible, and I believe that. I said that in the spring when I spoke to this piece of legislation in second reading. I say it again today.

On that note, as we work forward to what the good parts of this piece of legislation are and what it's going to do that is very important within this relationship of almost 500,000 units in B.C., I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Hansen: I call committee stage on Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT (N o . 2), 2009

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 3:47 p.m.

section 13 (continued) .

S. Herbert: We were talking in the last session about

section 13, which basically strikes out "…for the purposes of Tourism British Columbia" and substitutes "for the raising of revenue for the purpose of promoting tourism."

At that time I was speaking about some of my concerns about how we're moving away from performance-based funding, dedicated funding to tourism to go for the Tourism B.C., the agency which…. I must say and to read into the record again just what an award-winning organization Tourism B.C. was and continues to be, since it's not wound down completely, and about how Tourism B.C. really is a model for other communities because its funding is secure, it is dedicated and it is performance-based funding.

I think back to the session when we were talking about this before. The minister, when asked: "Is this guaranteed funding; is this dedicated funding mandatory…?" Is this mandatory, I believe, was the question. The minister wouldn't say it was mandatory in terms of the law. He would say it was an obligation.

Well, we've seen from this government before how they say, "Oh well, yes, this is an obligation," but in fact, that doesn't turn out to be the case because they change that.

I think about the gaming money, which is supposed to be dedicated to charities, but the government has found a sneaky way to take that money and put it into programs which used to be funded by taxpayer revenues. That's why I'm spending such an amount of time on this.

Since the last discussion on this, I've spoken with a number of tourism operators. They've told me that they are disappointed in the playing with semantics, as they called it, the playing with words — how it's not mandatory, but it is an obligation. As we know, obligations are different than mandatory, because if it's mandatory, you have to do that,

whereas obligations…. At least you would think you have to do that, but as we've seen before, the government has many obligations which then are not followed through with because they're not legally required to and won't face a penalty if they do otherwise.

I'm wondering if the minister would give me his definition of the word "obligation" and whether that's legally obliged or if that's just a moral obligation.

[1550]

Hon. K. Krueger: This is actually a repetitive question from what we covered at length the last time we spoke. The provision that is introduced — raising of revenue for the purpose of promoting tourism — is much more specific than the raising of revenue for the purposes of Tourism British Columbia.

S. Herbert: Well, I differ with the minister about his answer. He, I believe, has not answered my question, which is: is it legally obligated, or is it just morally obligated funding?

I find it troubling that he tries to say this is stronger than Tourism B.C. When the money went to Tourism

[ Page 907 ]

B.C., they had their own dedicated board of directors, a board of directors made up of industry experts whose livelihoods depended and depend on the tourism industry.

Now what we're seeing is that the government is doing away with Tourism B.C. and replacing it with the minister and a couple of his handpicked advisers, which isn't the same as the professionals deciding how that money would be spent. Instead, it's much more open to political interference.

So again, maybe the minister can tell me why it's not possible for him to answer if this is mandatory — yes or no — under the law.

Hon. K. Krueger: The directive provisions in the Hotel Room Tax Act respecting this tax are in no way diminished by the amendment. If the members opposite are ever government — heaven forbid — they can introduce other words if they choose, but there is no legal encumbrance in the Hotel Room Tax Act presently for the revenues collected through the hotel tax. There is no statutory appropriation attached to the provision, and there is nothing changed in a negative way with this amendment. That's still the case.

S. Herbert: I'm just curious. The minister said that there is currently no legal encumbrance to the hotel room tax. Could he explain to me exactly what that means? Is it that it could be spent anywhere, but the government has chosen to spend it here?

Hon. K. Krueger: I just explained that. There's no appropriation under the existing provision or the amendment. The funds flow through the Ministry of Finance for the purposes stated.

S. Herbert: What I'm hearing from the minister is just backing up the concerns of the industry, which is that there is no legal encumbrance to how the hotel tax is spent.

The government used to say that that money went to Tourism British Columbia, where the board of Tourism British Columbia would decide where that money got spent and how best to market our province with a long-term vision so that we could plan, and the industry could plan, more than a year out.

What this government has done and the minister has done is done away with Tourism B.C., got rid of its independent board of directors and instead replaced it with himself and a couple of handpicked advisers, which to me is quite a difference in terms of how we market our province, in terms of who's calling the shots.

[1555]

I know we'll get to discussion of the board of directors later versus a handpicked advisory panel, but I guess I'll turn back to my question, since the minister has refused to answer it so far. Is there a legal obligation that this money be spent on tourism — so that if it's not spent on tourism, the minister would be breaking the law?

Hon. K. Krueger: Again, that's a repetitive question. I have said repeatedly that it is a legislative obligation. That's what a legislative obligation means: a legal obligation. Legislation is law.

S. Herbert: I'm hearing two things. First, the minister says there's no legal encumbrance to how the hotel room tax is spent. But now he says that the Legislature obligates them to spend this portion on tourism. Can he justify or explain to me the two differences here?

Hon. K. Krueger: There was no specific appropriation required under the legislation as it exists today. What we are doing is imposing a legislative requirement on government that the funds will be used for tourism promotion.

So nothing has been lost, with regard to the member's concerns. In fact, arguably, it will be easier to follow the money with this arrangement, because the Ministry of Finance will be reporting the specific amounts that flow to tourism marketing under this provision.

S. Herbert: The minister stated that before there was no specific appropriation, but now there is. Wasn't it a specific appropriation in that it was going to Tourism B.C., which had a specific mandate and independence to spend it on tourism?

Hon. K. Krueger: To answer the member's question, an appropriation means a dollar amount specified. What we have, by way of tracking the expenditures that the province has made on tourism promotion over the years, is in the public accounts.

In 2005-06 it was $50.237 million; in 2006-07, $57.511 million; 2007-08, $52.433 million; 2009-10 estimate, $92.9 million because of the additional appropriation to take advantage of the Olympic opportunities; estimate for 2010-11, $55.175 million; 2011-12, estimated at $58.208 million.

[1600]

When the NDP was government, the amount that was allocated was about $25 million, and that was by direction of the Treasury Board of the day or cabinet, not by legislative obligation such as the one that we are setting out. It was this government, as I mentioned to the member in our last discussion of this, that set up the revenue stream that has been funding Tourism B.C. and will continue to fund tourism promotion.

S. Herbert: That's helpful, and I thank the minister for putting those numbers on the table. I guess the big question that I have…. I understand the minister has

[ Page 908 ]

charted out to the future here. Now, if hotel revenues were to go up and the tax brought in more, I would understand it that those revenues would flow through to tourism promotion. Or would they be used for some other purpose?

Hon. K. Krueger: Well, as I just pointed out, we've substantially more than doubled the funding that the NDP government of the '90s was providing. It's certainly our intention to continue to do so in reflection of the growth of the economy, which I certainly think is going to happen in the years ahead. Our intent is certainly to continue to flow funding for tourism promotion, using the mechanism of revenues from hotel room taxes.

S. Herbert: Now, intent and action are different, and I understand the minister says that this is his intent. Is that because it's just good will, or is that because it legally has to happen?

Hon. K. Krueger: This is getting very repetitive. It's because there is a legislative obligation.

S. Herbert: I'd like to thank the minister for sharing on this

section 13. I do see that my colleague here from Victoria–Swan Lake has arrived, the former critic for Tourism and a big supporter of the sector. I wanted to make some space so that he could ask a couple of questions as well.

R. Fleming: I would like to ask the minister: following July 2011 what will happen to the certainty that the tourism industry needs around revenues that have previously flowed to them independently of government, away from general revenue, to fund tourism marketing purposes for the province of B.C.?

Hon. K. Krueger: The critic introduced this member saying that he has just arrived. We have covered this ground substantially today and last debate. This amendment imposes a legislative obligation to flow these moneys for the raising of revenue for the purpose of promoting tourism.

Madam Chair, I trust we won't have to cover all the same ground again because a new member has arrived.

R. Fleming: I just wanted a simple answer from the minister on the question of what he anticipates is likely to happen when it will be up to his government to decide beyond July 2011 how hotel room taxes will be collected and remitted.

Hon. K. Krueger: Well, if the member would please read

section 13…. What will happen is the raising of revenue for the purpose of promoting tourism, under this amendment.

R. Fleming: Would the minister allow a purpose of raising revenue for the promotion of tourism…? Would he allow in that definition debt-servicing of the trade and convention centre in Vancouver as an inbounds part of the definition?

I am aware that this question has been asked, but it wasn't answered definitively, so I want to give the minister a chance to do that again.

Hon. K. Krueger: It was definitively answered, and the member would know that if he had read the Hansard .

[1605]

Sections 13 and 14 approved on division.

section 15.

S. Herbert: Speaking of

section 15, and I mentioned it earlier, I'm curious how the minister thinks a handpicked group of advisers is better than a board of directors setting the targets for tourism in this province.

Hon. K. Krueger: The Crown corporation that was known as Tourism British Columbia obviously is being d