2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Gertie Pierre

N. Simons

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M207 — Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act

S. Chandra Herbert

Bill 15 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (N o . 4)

Hon. I. Chong

Bill M208 — The Fair Chase Act

M. Sather

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Honorary doctorate recipients

J. Kwan

Child Care Month

L. Reid

Festivals in New Westminster

D. Black

Contributions of seniors in Surrey-Tynehead area

D. Hayer

Day of the Honeybee

L. Popham

Lord Kitchener Elementary School seismic upgrades

C. Hansen

Oral Questions

Impact of harmonized sales tax on restaurant industry

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

S. Chandra Herbert

J. Kwan

Impact of harmonized sales tax on housing sector

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

C. James

Impact of harmonized sales tax on cyclists

L. Popham

Hon. K. Falcon

Petitions

J. Horgan

G. Hogg

Proclamation

Day of the Honeybee

Hon. D. McRae

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011 (continued)

J. Kwan

N. Simons

M. Farnworth

M. Sather

Hon. S. Bond

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011

L. Krog

Hon. B. Penner

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

D. Thorne

Reporting of Bills

Bill 9 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. K. Falcon

B. Ralston

D. Donaldson

[ Page 7465 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: I'd like to acknowledge Marie Little, the president of Trans Alliance Society, today. She's here to watch the introduction of a private member's bill. I thank her for her ongoing advocacy for trans folks all across B.C. Please make her welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In the House today I'd like to make four introductions. I'd like to introduce Gabe Garfinkel. He's my EA. With Gabe is Larry Garfinkel, Gabe's father. He lives in Vancouver. He's a former social worker and has operated a small business for over 25 years.

[1335]

Daniel Garfinkel is Gabe's brother. He works for his father's publishing company, has spent time volunteering for his community in Vancouver and will soon be attending chef school next year. Finally, Sara Fralin, Gabe's cousin. She's an environmental studies student at the University of Victoria, an environmental and community activist and leader. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Bloy: I'd like to introduce a friend of mine and an advocate in Burnaby. Gordon Harris is president and CEO of the UniverCity trust on Burnaby Mountain. I worked with him and a member of the opposition very closely, on getting the new school up on Burnaby Mountain. I want to welcome him to the House today.

Tributes

GERTIE PIERRE

N. Simons: I'd just like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a constituent of mine named Gertie Pierre, who yesterday was a successful candidate in achieving her bachelor of social work degree from the University of British Columbia.

Gertie Pierre has seven children and eight grandchildren. She has overcome significant obstacles in her path. She has been an inspiration in her commitment to making better her community and other First Nations communities throughout this province. Would the House please join me in acknowledging her success yesterday at UBC.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M207 — Gender Identity and

Expression Human Rights

Recognition Act

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act.

S. Chandra Herbert: I move a bill intituled Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act is about explicitly acknowledging full human rights protection in British Columbia for transgender and transsexual people.

This bill affirms what judges have been reading into the law and acknowledges the rights of all people to be free from discrimination based on gender identity and expression. It acknowledges the ongoing and extreme discrimination faced by people in our communities because of who they are.

Trans people face incredible difficulties and are regularly discriminated against, whether it be in the workforce, housing, health care or obtaining services most British Columbians take for granted. They also face significantly higher rates of violence.

Trans people have always been part of our human society but have received little recognition or attention to their unique challenges. Some in this House, indeed, may not even be aware of who trans people are or what they face in their very lives.

This bill is about celebrating the great diversity of people in our province and ensuring that everyone has the right to live free from hate and, indeed, to be loved for who they are, because when one suffers, everyone suffers.

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

Bill M207, Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15 — Municipalities Enabling

and Validating Act (N o . 4)

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4).

[ Page 7466 ]

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

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to present the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4). This legislation responds to a direct request from the city of Richmond to address a very unusual local circumstance in that municipality.

The proposed legislation would provide specific authority to enable the city of Richmond to provide municipal tax exemptions on a transitional basis to eligible commercial properties in a particular area of Richmond, an area where such properties have experienced extraordinary increases in their property values and concurrent taxes since 2005. It would also enable the province to provide partial relief from provincial school taxes in circumstances where the city has provided a municipal tax exemption.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4) be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), 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.

[1340]

Bill M208 — The Fair Chase Act

M. Sather presented a bill intituled The Fair Chase Act.

M. Sather: I rise today to introduce The Fair Chase Act. Fair chase is a concept that is embedded in the hunting fraternity. The concept is also acknowledged by government, though it has not been defined in legislation. Last year the former Minister of Environment said that B.C. is home to fair chase.

The Wildlife Act prohibits harassment of wildlife by use of motorized vehicles wherever the definition of "harass" is such that it is unclear whether or not such behaviour is illegal in the process of hunting that is otherwise legal. The Fair Chase Act will serve to eliminate that ambiguity.

Baiting of wildlife has long been considered reprehensible behaviour. This view is represented by the prohibition of bear baiting in the Wildlife Act. The Fair Chase Act extends this prohibition to wolves.

I move that The Fair Chase Act be introduced, read a first time and placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we get to that motion, hon. Member, you have a motion before that first.

M. Sather: I move first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Member, you can move the second portion.

M. Sather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the first sitting the House after today.

Bill M208, The Fair Chase Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HONORARY DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS

J. Kwan: This afternoon UBC will confer honorary doctor of law degrees on two people that I have the privilege of knowing. They are two people with very different histories and different personal stories. Both have notable achievements and are successful entrepreneurs.

Thomas Fung came to Canada in 1967, graduating from Magee high school. He then went to Japan, learned the art of baking, returned to Vancouver in 1984 and founded the Saint Germain Bakery. He's also the founder and chair of the Fairchild Group. He built North America's first multicultural retail centre, Aberdeen Centre, in 1989 and operates two TV stations, five multicultural radio stations, B.C.'s biggest Chinese-language magazine and an e-commerce company. Thomas was named one of the most influential people in Canada by Time magazine.

Ken Lyotier is a longtime resident of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. He is a recovering alcohol and drug addict and a dumpster diver. Ken deeply believes that everyone should be valued and have a sense of belonging in their own community. He was the driving force behind Save Our Living Environment, an organization dedicated to improving Vancouver's urban conditions by pursuing sustainable practices.

Thanks to his skills and dedication, Ken founded United We Can bottle depot, a non-profit social enterprise that is a significant source of low-barrier employment for residents of the Downtown Eastside. In 1995, with a $25,000 loan from Vancity, United We Can opened its doors. The United We Can community has collected and recycled well over 25 million bever-

[ Page 7467 ]

age containers over the years, and each day some 700 people earn cash with recyclables to supplement their income.

United We Can is a financially and environmentally sound social enterprise that has been recognized nationally. Ken, as the founder, received the Meritorious Service Medal in 2005, and in 2010 he received the leadership award from his own industry.

I ask the House to please join me in congratulating Thomas Fung and Ken Lyotier.

CHILD CARE MONTH

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise today and recognize Child Care Month and Child Care Provider Appreciation Day.

Just this morning I attended the Child Care Awards of Excellence in Vancouver with the Minister of Children and Family Development. The event honoured not just child care professionals from across British Columbia, but also organizations and local governments — including the district of West Vancouver and, I'm very proud to say, the city of Richmond — for outstanding service to children and families.

It's wonderful to see communities be recognized, because I firmly believe that strong, supportive and engaged communities are a key to creating a quality child care system that meets the needs of local families. If we want a stronger economy in British Columbia, it will be only because we have strengthened family.

We have a range of child care options in British Columbia which are often tailored to meet the unique needs of the children and families they serve — young parents still in school, aboriginal children and families and children with special needs, to name a couple of examples.

[1345]

I'm proud that this government has supported early learning and child care for many years, knowing the incredible difference it makes in the lives of children. I ask that the House join with me in recognizing and celebrating Child Care Month. To the thousands of amazing child care professionals, I say thank you for the work that you do each and every day to help the little ones learn and grow and have curiosity in abundance, and for the peace of mind you bring to thousands of parents across our province. We are indeed grateful.

FESTIVALS IN NEW WESTMINSTER

D. Black: The 40th annual Hyack Festival is being celebrated in New Westminster this week. An important part of the festivities is the annual Victoria Day salute to Queen Victoria and the current monarch. The city's first such event was held in 1859 at the Royal Engineers camp and was highlighted by the booming of a salute from a naval ship's cannon.

However, as noted historian Archie Miller has chronicled, in the late 1880s authorities in Victoria refused permission for residents to use New Westminster's cannon to fire the annual salute. This insult, coming on the heels of our city losing its capital city designation to Victoria, caused indignant New Westminster residents to pursue other options to ensure that the salute went ahead.

Their ingenuity won out as members of the Hyack fire brigade got possession of an anvil and proceeded to use this unusual prop to fire off the 21 rounds. The tradition of firing an anvil salute on Victoria Day continues to this day, and I was happy to participate again this year.

Yesterday I attended another traditional event as New Westminster's 141st annual May Day festivities took place. Hundreds of children gathered around the maypoles to dance and to watch the crowning of this year's May Queen, Lauren Vanags, and the Royal Knight, Markus Mattila.

May Day in New Westminster is the longest-running celebration of its kind in the Commonwealth and one that is remembered fondly by anyone who attended elementary school in our city. My oldest granddaughter, Meagan, will now have those memories, as she was one of the dancers performing yesterday.

Hyack Festival week will come to a close this Saturday with the popular international parade, one of the largest parades in our province.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS

IN SURREY-TYNEHEAD AREA

D. Hayer: In June we will celebrate B.C. Seniors Week. Our seniors are very special in every part of B.C. They are the parents, our mentors, often our leaders, and they are the reason we enjoy such a bountiful lifestyle in this province. Without them, we would not have the economy, the freedoms, the development and the stability we all enjoy.

In Surrey we have some very special seniors who trace their roots back to the first pioneers to come to B.C. and who were very significant in our growth. Keeping the pioneering spirit alive in my constituency are the Tynehead Women's Auxiliary and the Tynehead Historical Society, who raise funds to maintain our historical Tynehead Hall, host many seniors functions and raise funds for many charitable causes.

Many of these volunteers from these organizations are from pioneer families, including Dave Stevens, a grandson of pioneer Joseph Stevens, who arrived in Tynehead in 1918; Zina York, granddaughter of pioneer Rory McCaskill, who arrived in Tynehead in 1890; Judy de Vries, granddaughter of pioneer William Frost, who arrived in Tynehead in 1907.

Other volunteers include Liz Milligan, Nancy Kalinovich, Jackie Woods, Doris Hoffman, Andrea Terris, Maxine Wilson, Joan Parolin, Margaret Smith,

[ Page 7468 ]

Bel Carter, Kim Adamson-Sharpe, Monica Matsi, Kathy Poole, Leonora Bradley, Graham Sharpe, Brenda Holt, Alexius Matsi, Baird and Bram Terris, and Barry Shiles.

My constituency's seniors population includes many others, including the Fleetwood Seniors Planning Committee chair Mildred Davies, vice-chair Wayne Armstrong, treasurer Irene Wazny and many, many more volunteers.

I ask the House to thank the seniors across the province for all they have done and continue to do for everyone and request all MLAs to make sure they attend seniors functions the first and second week of June when it is Seniors Week.

[1350]

DAY OF THE HONEYBEE

L. Popham: May 29 marks the Day of the Honeybee here in B.C., and it is my pleasure to celebrate bees in the House this afternoon. Bees are little creatures with a big job. They pollinate flowers, allowing a steady supply of food for everything else that shares this space.

I recently found a book in the Legislative Library called Honeybee Democracy and was entertained by the idea of bees making decisions collectively and democratically. The author, Thomas Seeley, brings the reader close to the hive in the annual cycle of these remarkable insects. He notes that in the late spring and early summer as a bee colony becomes overcrowded, a third of the hive stays behind and rears a new queen while a swarm of thousands depart with the old queen to produce a daughter colony.

These bees evaluate potential sites, advertise their discoveries to one another, engage in open deliberation, choose a final site and navigate together as a swirling crowd of bees into their new home.

Evolution has honed the decision-making methods of honeybees over millions of years. He concludes that what works well for bees can work well for people. Any decision-making group should consist of individuals with shared interests and mutual respect. Debate should be relied upon. Diverse solutions should be sought.

Let's celebrate the Day of the Honeybee and today, if only today, practise honeybee democracy.

LORD KITCHENER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

SEISMIC UPGRADES

C. Hansen: There is a group of students visiting the Legislature today from a school in my riding, Lord Kitchener Elementary. I know this will come as a surprise to many, but when I visited the school a few months ago, I caught many of them writing on the gymnasium wall with felt pens. I must confess that they caught me doing exactly the same thing. We were all writing farewell notes to a part of the old gym that has since been torn down as the first stage of the seismic renewal for the school.

The fact that the main part of the school is being replaced with a brand-new school is not remarkable in itself. Since the seismic program was launched five years ago, almost $600 million has been spent, and 134 schools have had seismic work done.

What is interesting about this school is that the very oldest part of the school that was built in 1914 will remain. The newer part of the school — one wing built as recently as 1962 — is where the seismic problem is. When the new school is finished, that part will be demolished. The difference is that the newer part of the school is brick-clad concrete, and the part built in 1914 was built from wood. It's a great example of how B.C. wood is the preferred building material for buildings in any seismic zone around the world. You will be pleased to know that the new school will be built from wood.

I want to thank three tireless parents, whose children attend the school, for their efforts over the last number of years to make this project a reality. They are Peggy Alca, Kosta ChatziSpiros and Doug Campbell. Thanks to their efforts, the students of Lord Kitchener Elementary will be able to enjoy the heritage of the 97-year-old wooden schoolhouse complemented by the modern features of their new wooden school that will be there to serve the community for the next 97 years.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON RESTAURANT INDUSTRY

B. Ralston: The restaurant industry employs over 161,000 people here in British Columbia. Before the last election the B.C. Liberals said to the restaurant industry, in writing: "We have no plans to implement an HST." After the election was over, of course they went back on their word. They made families pay more, they hurt communities, and they hurt small businesses.

The restaurant industry has said that the HST will cost them $750 million a year in lost sales, or $50,000 per year for the average restaurant. Yesterday Ian Tostenson, president of the Restaurant and Foodservices Association, said: "I can't see how these changes help."

To the Finance Minister: will he admit that the B.C. Liberal HST bribe does nothing to help a struggling restaurant industry here in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I do have to say that I can't take credit for the incredible boom time happening right now in the restaurant industry, with the Canucks moving their way through to a Stanley Cup.

[1355]

[ Page 7469 ]

I have to admit that I certainly can't take credit for that. But what I can say, which I know is extraordinarily good news for the restaurant sector, is that when we send out $200 million worth of transition payments to families with kids and to low-income seniors, that gets recycled back into the economy pretty fast. I am certain that some of that is going to go back into the restaurant sector.

I'll also say this, because I know how hostile the NDP always is to reducing any taxes. I can tell you that when you drop the HST by 2 points and you put $1.7 billion back in the pockets of British Columbians, it gets spent back in the economy. Restaurants, movies, retail — it gets spent. That's exactly what will happen with a 10 percent HST.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the restaurant industry is looking for long-term solutions. They warned that the HST could cost at least 12,000 jobs. In fact, since the legislation was introduced, restaurants have been reporting declines in sales. This latest attempt by the B.C. Liberals to buy votes won't do anything to help, according to the restaurant industry.

Let's revisit what the Premier said just back in March. "We aren't going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two before the referendum. I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money."

Even his own Premier recognizes that this gimmick is just a desperate B.C. Liberal attempt to save their seats and does nothing to help a struggling restaurant industry. Why doesn't the minister just own up and admit it?

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess I should be used to it by now, but the NDP hostility to reducing the tax burden on families remains. It never, never changes. When we introduced a series of tax cuts to income tax, 37 percent reductions since 2001, they voted against every single one of those — every single one.

When we marched that general corporate tax rate from one of the highest in Canada under the NDP down to one of the lowest, most competitive in B.C., they voted against every one of those reductions.

Why can't you just allow families to have some tax relief with a 10 percent HST instead of fighting to go back to a 12 percent sales tax? That's the question I have for the NDP Finance critic.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: I know it makes the Finance Minister uncomfortable, but let's go back to that quote from the Premier again. "We aren't going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two before the referendum. I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money." That wasn't two years ago; that was two months ago. True to form, a B.C. Liberal Premier did exactly what she said she wouldn't do.

This gimmick does nothing to help the restaurant industry and creates confusion as we head into the HST referendum vote. Will the minister admit that this is a sign of desperation and that once again the B.C. Liberals have left the restaurant industry to fend for themselves?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Finance critic for the NDP is wrong again, actually. What the Premier said….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: What the Premier was very clear about was making sure that we go out and listen to British Columbians. That's why we engaged in the largest listening exercise in the history of the province — 275,000 British Columbians participating in our telephone town halls.

[1400]

We have responded to what we heard. We've responded by saying that we're going to go forward with a plan that reduces the HST to 10 percent and that provides transition payments for families with kids and for low- and modest-income seniors.

I, for the life of me, can't understand why the NDP wants to argue to go back to a 12 percent sales tax that's inefficient and that duplicates a provincial sales tax administrative system with a federal sales tax administrative system. It's tough on business, tough on small business, bad for jobs. We're going the other direction.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the Finance Minister talks about listening, but for a guy who talks about listening, he sure does a lot of shouting.

Here are just a few of the things that Ian Tostenson, the president of the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, has said about yesterday's B.C. Liberal vote....

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Your time, Members.

Continue, Member.

[ Page 7470 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I'll say it again so that maybe the minister can listen to it. Here are just a few things that Ian Tostenson, president of the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, has said about yesterday's B.C. Liberal HST vote-buy: "I think that they're mad at us. They see the restaurant industry, roll their eyes and say, 'We just don't want to hear from them.'"

To the Finance Minister: during your listening exercise how could you possibly have missed the voice of the restaurant industry that says the B.C. Liberals' HST vote grab is devastating their businesses?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the NDP member of the opposition should know that he should be careful to distinguish between the lobby group for the restaurant association and individual restaurateurs.

I'd like to quote from what restaurateur Peter Oates from Carmelo's restaurant in West Vancouver said when he was on The Bill Good Show . He said that since last July Carmelo's has never done better. Sales have improved each month, year after year. He's got all 12 percent back on $3,000 worth of kitchen renos, through the HST input tax credit, as well as on his hydro and his gas bills.

He saves an hour a month on paperwork. I know how much the NDP loves paperwork. There's got to be lots of paperwork in an NDP world.

You know, that's just one. I've got others that I'm happy to read in. Vikram Vij, the owner of Vij's Restaurant, on CKNW: "Business is good. You know, the HST has been a little bit of an issue, but not a big one."

Rod Butters from RauDZ Regional Table restaurant in Kelowna, on CKNW, on Bill Good : "We've tried to be very proactive in our approach to our pricing and are supplying phenomenal value. So we actually haven't seen a dip. Knock on wood. Our business actually continues to grow." Imagine.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: So the minister decides to listen to his friends. He doesn't listen to the restaurant service association. He doesn't listen to the Canadian restaurant service association. No, these are associations made up of restaurateurs and food service industry all across B.C. They actually pay to be a member of this association so that that association can bring their voice to a minister who isn't listening.

This latest B.C. Liberal HST gimmick is clearly an obvious and desperate attempt to buy votes. B.C. families know it. I know that the Finance Minister knows it, though he won't admit it. Even the Premier knows it, and she has acknowledged it through quotes: "I think people will see that as buying them with their own money."

What is particularly devastating to the industry is that this latest gimmick makes things worse, according to Mr. Tostenson, hitting them now from both sides. He says: "First the HST increase, and now another 2 percent business tax increase."

To the Finance Minister: why is this B.C. Liberal government punishing small, B.C. family–owned restaurant businesses?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'll keep going, then. How about Andrew Latchford from Cactus Club Restaurants? A pretty sizeable chain of restaurants, lots of employees there. What does he say? He's come to the conclusion that the HST is a good thing because it will improve B.C.'s economic outlook, and as the economy grows, so does the restaurant business.

I've said it before. I know that the NDP believe that, even though there are 140 countries around the world that use value-added taxes that are identical to the harmonized sales tax and that in those countries, whether it's Paris or Rome or London.... They all have thriving restaurant industries, just as we do here in British Columbia.

I can tell you this. A lowered HST puts $1.7 billion back into the pockets of consumers. That gets back into the restaurant sector. That gets back into the retail sector. That gets back into the economy. It will continue to grow the economy in British Columbia with a sales tax process — actually, an HST — that makes sense economically.

J. Kwan: It's a bit rich — isn't it? — coming from the Minister of Finance, who takes policy direction from a Premier that he has criticized, that uses a ready-fire-aim approach to policy-making. This is the Minister of Finance, and a government, that takes this approach: "I see no evil, and I hear no evil."

The restaurant associations and the industry are telling this government that the HST is bad for them and bad for their business. Don't take my word for it. They did their own survey with their own membership. Their membership said that since the HST has been implemented, in the first seven months business went down 15 percent.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: why is he failing the small business sector by adding injury to the wound, by first misrepresenting their position on the HST and then, later on, also increasing the small businesses tax for the restaurant business association?

Hon. K. Falcon: Perhaps the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant should just lift her eyes from the lobbyist report she's been reading and listen to what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business wrote about our plan to reduce the HST to 10 percent.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Wait for it. It gets better. It gets better.

What did they say? That 83 percent of the CFIB members support an HST rate going to 10 percent. That is

[ Page 7471 ]

the voice of small business from one end of this province to the other, from one end of the country to the other. I can tell you that putting $1.7 billion back into the pockets of consumers is a benefit to consumers. It's a benefit to the restaurant industry. It'll be a benefit to the broader economy.

I know that in an NDP world there can never be any good news, but I can tell you that on this side of the table we know that a growing economy raises all boats, and that's better for everyone in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Who are these lobbyists? Ian Tostenson just about ran for the B.C. Liberal leadership, and he's the one that's criticizing this Minister of Finance and their government.

The B.C. Liberals' motto is: "We'll mislead you before the election, and we'll mislead you again after the election." Around the time the restaurant industry said that tinkering with the HST won't help their struggling industry, the Premier herself said: "People will see that as buying them with their own money."

[1410]

Premier Clark knows the gimmick that she announced yesterday with this Minister of Finance is transparent and is just about buying votes. The restaurant business associations and the restaurant industry are not buying it. Will the Minister of Finance just admit that the B.C. Liberal government's ready-fire-aim policy is a failed policy?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was part of one of the worst governments in the history of the province of British Columbia.

I'll tell you this. I don't mind pointing out what a great environment the restaurant industry enjoyed in the 1990s, with the highest personal income tax rates in North America, the highest marginal income tax rate in North America, the highest general corporate tax rate — 16½ percent — in the country, one of the highest small business tax rates.

In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was the chief of staff of a government that had a small business tax rate of almost 9 percent. We've marched that down to 2½ percent. We've got a thriving small business sector in British Columbia.

I'll conclude with this. I know it is just impossible for the NDP to get their heads around providing any kind of tax relief for British Columbians. They voted against every tax reduction we've put in place, and now they're going to campaign to have a 12 percent sales tax instead of a 10 percent HST. That is classic NDP.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON HOUSING SECTOR

S. Simpson: The voters and the citizens of British Columbia will find the tax relief they want when they kill the B.C. Liberal HST this summer.

This desperate attempt by the B.C. Liberals to buy votes in this upcoming referendum offers little or no support for the housing sector or for potential new home buyers. The HST is driving up the underground economy in the renovation sector, and this vote-buying scheme does nothing to change that. The industry is also worried about how many new home sales or renovations are now going to get put off till 2014.

The HST scheme guts government revenues. It hurts small business and continues to hurt the housing sector. Why should anybody in this sector feel anything but disappointment and concern about this Liberal government and its vote-buying scam?

Hon. K. Falcon: I know that the NDP can work themselves up into a real froth trying to fight a tax reduction, and here we go again. God forbid there should be any benefit to consumers out there.

I've got a couple of uncomfortable NDP facts. I like reading these into the record because I know how uncomfortable it makes the NDP. First uncomfortable NDP fact: employment has increased 1½ percent in the period since the HST's introduction — just to put that to rest.

The member just mentioned how, apparently, the housing industry has been devastated under the HST. Apparently, there are no houses being built anywhere in the province. Uncomfortable NDP fact No. 2: housing starts have grown 11.9 percent since the introduction of the HST. That's up.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Since they're calling for more, one final uncomfortable NDP fact. In 2001, the last year of the NDP reign of terror in the 1990s…. In 2000 a family of four earning only $30,000 a year was paying taxes, fees — everything all included — of $3,739 under the NDP. Under the B.C. Liberals today, it's $2,087, a 44 percent reduction under this government.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: In February the Premier said: "This is the kind of politics that led to the breakdown in public trust in the first place…. This type of doubletalk on the HST is damaging to the public trust that government must have to be successful." Clearly, she's not

[ Page 7472 ]

paying attention to her own words, and neither is this Finance Minister.

The B.C. Liberal story on the HST changes every day. The numbers change every day. This government is not believable. They're not believable for consumers in this province. They're not believable for people in the housing sector. When is the government going to stop misleading British Columbians on this tax and tell people the truth about what you're doing and correct it and get on with getting a proper tax in this province — back to a PST, back to a GST?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Wait. Just wait.

Members. Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: In his exuberance, he got so excited that he said he can't wait to get back to imposing another tax, a higher tax on British Columbians. It's incredible. It's in their genetic structure. "We must have higher taxes. We must have higher taxes." That's the NDP approach. It is incredible.

I'll tell you this. What we will never be apologetic about is listening to 275,000 British Columbians. I am proud to have a Premier that listens to British Columbians and, more importantly, responds to what she hears from British Columbians and acts in a manner that will reduce the tax burden on British Columbians to the tune of $1.7 billion, provide transitional cheques to families with kids under 18, transitional cheques of $175 each to low-income seniors so that we can get to a lower HST. That is good public policy.

C. James: I'd like to tell this minister that real relief for families will come when they defeat the HST this summer and then defeat the B.C. Liberals right after that.

The Finance Minister talks about home-building. Well, the B.C. Liberal HST adds yet another burden to families who are trying to make ends meet. We know that the cost of housing is unattainable to most families in British Columbia.

Using Vancouver as an example, it's the third most expensive city in the world in terms of housing. It's difficult for any young family to get into the market. What many of those families will do is buy an older home and try and fix it up. Well, the B.C. Liberal HST has just made it more difficult, adding costs to buying homes and adding costs to fixing them up.

Will the minister finally acknowledge that the HST hurts families trying to make ends meet?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's interesting that in that question — the example she gives of buying a used home — there's no HST that applies to any used homes in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: As usual, the NDP spend all their time outside of question period just scouring to try and find some bad example they can possibly find. So I'll give them another interesting example.

In rural B.C., Member, people buy pickup trucks. They like pickup trucks. Pickup trucks aren't cheap — in fact, about $65,000 if you want to buy a Ford F-450, for example. Under the NDP, of course, they consider that a luxury automobile, so they put a 3 percent luxury tax on that, you may recall.

[1420]

In fact, they put a luxury tax on every vehicle over $30,000. Apparently, that's a luxury for families in the NDP world. But I can tell you that under HST, we get rid of the 3 percent luxury tax, and at a 10 percent rate, the savings....

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Over $3,000 in savings under a 10 percent HST. Why don't we ever hear about those examples from the member opposite?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: British Columbians aren't fooled. Homeowners aren't fooled. The construction industry isn't fooled. Families aren't fooled. They know. They aren't fooled by the B.C. Liberals, because they see the results of the HST every single day. They know it's making their lives more difficult. They know the HST is a bad tax, and they're getting hammered by it.

The public doesn't trust the B.C. Liberals, and they certainly don't trust them on the HST. Will the minister admit today that B.C. Liberals have failed B.C. families?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I can tell you: the job creators of this province aren't fooled either. The mining sector isn't fooled by what the NDP want to do in going back to a higher 12 percent, inefficient PST-plus-GST system. The forestry industry sure isn't fooled by what the NDP want to do in terms of going back to an inefficient tax system.

I can tell you that the small business sector isn't fooled by what the NDP want to do, and that's why the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, representing small business, supports what we're doing. That's why the B.C. Chamber of Commerce president has come out strongly in support of what we're doing with our lowered HST.

They're not fooled, because they understand what an NDP government means to business. That means less jobs, a shrinking economy and higher taxes for British Columbians in every single income category.

[ Page 7473 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON CYCLISTS

L. Popham: Next week is Bike to Work Week. It's the first Bike to Work Week under which bikes are subject to the HST.

Encouraging people to use their bike as part of their daily commute is good for the environment, and it's good for people's health. It's more difficult to encourage people to bike when bikes, bike repairs and protective equipment like helmets now cost more because of the B.C. Liberal HST. Why is the Minister of Finance punishing cyclists?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would ask the member for Saanich South why the NDP wants to punish purchasers, who can now pay a lower rate on furniture, on clothing, on electronics — on everything that had a 12 percent PST plus GST that will now be 10 percent under the HST. That's what I'd like to know.

Why are they so opposed to a tax change that puts the average family in British Columbia $120 to the good? Why are they so opposed to having average British Columbians come out ahead with a 10 percent HST rate? It is incredible to me, although I shouldn't be surprised, given that they have continually voted against every single tax reduction that we have put in place on this side of the House.

[End of question period.]

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would like to introduce in the gallery today Mr. Kulwant Sihota, Ms. Caroline Bauer and Mr. Dave Janda, joining us from Yellow Cab in Vancouver. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1425]

Petitions

J. Horgan: I have a petition signed by 736 British Columbians due to concerns of health effects resulting from the usage of wireless technology. The petition is calling on the government to repeal those sections of the Clean Energy Act currently mandating smart meters for B.C. residents until the B.C. Utilities Commission has agreed that their deployment can be done with wired technology to protect citizens concerned by radiation.

G. Hogg: I rise to submit a petition on behalf of the parent advisory council of Earl Marriott Secondary School, signed by approximately 900 residents of Surrey concerned with respect to the overcrowding of the schools in Surrey.

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to rise and present a proclamation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Proceed.

Proclamation

DAY OF THE HONEYBEE

Hon. D. McRae:

"Whereas the honeybee, through its role as a pollinator, has been an important part of our agriculture efforts since ancient times; and

whereas the honeybee plays an essential role in the success of agricultural enterprise in British Columbia; and

whereas the honeybee has been under serious threat due to diseases and environmental conditions that ultimately threaten the future of agriculture in our province; and

whereas the government of British Columbia has worked with the agriculture industry to improve production and stabilize that industry; and

whereas it is in the interests of furthering that goal to raise awareness of the role of the honeybee and the plight it faces; and

whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased to enact Order-in-Council 903 on October 11, 2002; now know ye that we do by these presents proclaim and declare that May 29, 2011, shall be known as the Day of the Honeybee in the province of British Columbia."

If I may, as people walk by the Empress Hotel, they may look down into the grotto area, and they will notice some honey hives or beehives down there. Today at two o'clock, just half an hour ago, they officially welcomed the new beehives to the Empress. Further, if I may, I had the opportunity of presenting this proclamation to Barry Denluck last week as I visited his home and his hives in Victoria, British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 12 to continue in this House, followed by committee stage of Bill 10, Bill 9 and Bill 8. In committee A, I call the Ministry of Finance estimates.

[ Page 7474 ]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Police (Independent

Investigations Office)

Amendment Act, 2011

(continued)

J. Kwan: I rise to continue debate on Bill 12, the Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011. Prior to the break I was just talking about the Davies Commission.

Mr. Speaker: Members, would you move off to your other duties so the member can speak.

J. Kwan: I spoke about the history around the Frank Paul case.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I was at the point where I was going to raise, as well, that there's an aspect of the Frank Paul inquiry that has not yet been completed. In fact, the Davies Commission could not finish its work because the Ministry of Attorney General, the criminal justice branch, challenged the commission's jurisdiction to inquire into its response to Mr. Frank Paul's death. That was its decision: not to approve criminal charges against any police officer.

At the time, the Davies Commission ruled that he had the jurisdiction to inquire into the matters otherwise considered an aspect of Crown's privilege. An application for judicial review of the ruling was dismissed by the B.C. Supreme Court on July 24, 2008, and the matter is now currently before the B.C. Court of Appeal. To that end, the matter is not yet complete, as it is still outstanding as to that aspect of the Frank Paul inquiry.

[1430]

The interim report, this report that I'm speaking about, "reports on all aspects of the inquiry's mandate, except as it relates to the response of the criminal justice branch" — which is now outstanding. "Depending on the outcome of the litigation, the inquiry may hear evidence and then publish a final report into the branch's response."

I actually think that this is critical to the issue at hand as it relates to Bill 12. The matter is that we require independent investigations into these things, and where an inquiry is in place, there should be no barriers for the commissioner to finish his work. In this instance the Ministry of Attorney General stood in his way, and as a result, we only have partial findings coming out of the tragedy of the death of Frank Paul.

I want to touch on another case as well. Before I do that, I do want to say, though, for the government to realize the importance of Bill 12, I think there were accompanying recommendations that should have been adopted by the government, by policy, in this Legislature coming out of the Davies Commission.

The Davies Commission actually recommended that, aside from an independent process, Vancouver city, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the provincial Ministry of Housing and Social Development at that time — that's what the ministry was called — and the aboriginal community "jointly develop a comprehensive response to the needs of homeless chronic alcoholics within the city of Vancouver."

That would include the following components: a civilian-operated program for attending to chronic alcoholics who are incapacitated in a public place; a civilian-operated sobering centre; an enhanced civilian-based detox program; the provision of permanent low-barrier housing designated for the specific needs of chronic alcoholics which would offer palatable alcohol substitutions and managed alcohol programs; and finally, the provision of community-based, multidisciplinary assertive community treatment services.

That's part of the recommendations that come with the request for an independent investigative process. So far a lot of these recommendations have just been left sitting on the shelf with the commission's work, and I think that's a shame. So the work is not yet done. If we're to honour the death of Frank Paul, then we'd better get on with it with respect to the implementation of the other recommendations.

I want to touch on another situation that I think received some media attention, but still the case, I think, is very significant. I think as of yet nobody in this chamber has mentioned this case and put this on the public record. This is the case regarding a man, Mr. Yao Wei Wu, who was beaten up by the Vancouver police in his own home.

The situation was such that the police had shown up at this man's house at around two o'clock in the morning and knocked on his door. The man woke up and sort of went to the door. Then, according to reports, Mr. Wu was beaten up by the police, and he sustained severe injuries to his eye, to his body and so on.

It wasn't until later that the police realized that they had the wrong man. In fact, they went to the wrong door. There was a domestic dispute call that came in, in the area there, and the police came to this house. When Mr. Wu opened the door, the police thought that that was the man and then began to assault the man, resulting in him suffering, as I understand, severe injuries.

Now, I have to say the Vancouver police did apologize for this incident fairly quickly, because it hit the media fairly quickly, particularly in the Asian media outlets. It hit the media fairly quickly, and the police did apologize for that incident. But at the same time the police also

[ Page 7475 ]

issued a statement alleging that Mr. Wu had resisted arrest, and that's the reason why he was beaten up.

[1435]

The Vancouver police had to retract that statement subsequently as well. The matter is now actually before the courts, of course, as we know. The further situation to this, which I find extremely disturbing, is that the matter was referred to a police investigation. In the system, the way in which it was, the investigation was done not independently, shall I say. In other words, it was actually investigated by other police officers in another jurisdiction. The result of that investigation said that the allegations made by Mr. Wu about the assault were not substantiated.

This matter then went further than that to the point where Mr. Wu retained legal counsel. It was also brought before the Police Complaint Commissioner, and the Police Complaint Commissioner had actually referred this matter to an inquiry.

So there's an inquiry underway, but little did we know, though, that the Vancouver police officers who were involved in this case are now challenging the inquiry itself and have gone to the court to ask for the inquiry to be dismissed. At the time of this case the police chief had said that there was no need for an independent investigative process to be in place and that what was happening was just fine.

I would argue that it wasn't fine. I can't help but wonder. Had there been an independent investigative process into this case that Mr. Wu now finds himself having to fight against the police officers for this inquiry, would the findings be somewhat different than what was reported and suggest that the allegations made by Mr. Wu for the assault from the police are not substantiated?

I think these are the kinds of cases that illustrate the point very, very clearly that we need a fully independent investigative process that is completely at arm's length. It raises the critical question in Bill 12, and that is to say: should those investigative processes only go to an independent investigative procedure if it's a matter involving death or serious injuries?

How does one define serious injuries? In the case of Mr. Wu, would you call that a serious injury sustained by Mr. Wu, so therefore it warrants an independent investigative process? To be frank, I think what is required is that these kinds of cases and the notion of not just death or serious injuries should warrant independent investigative processes. Rather where there are allegations of misconduct, where there are issues on the breach of trust from the police system is at issue, these matters should automatically go to an independent investigative process.

I think if we did that, then you would, in fact, go a long way to restoring confidence in our police system. We should all have confidence in our police system. We rely on the police system in our communities, each and every one of us, for the job that they do.

At no point am I suggesting that the work of the police officers is easy at all. In fact, they put their lives at risk every single day when they go to work, and I fully recognize that. That does not mean to say, though, that there are not situations of misconduct. For that reason, accountability of the system and the procedures within the system are paramount, and that's how we can maintain the kind of trust that is required in our broader community with respect to the police force.

The Braidwood inquiry has brought forward, I think, really the issues at hand in a very high-profile way, in a very tragic way, in a way that made all of us stop to think about this situation and about the investigative processes of the police, and so on. That said, there were many cases before that. Those cases I think all attributed to bringing forward Bill 12.

[1440]

The Braidwood inquiry recommended:

"'Police-related incidents' include but are not necessarily limited to incidents in which a person dies or suffers serious harm…which involves possible contravention by a municipal police officer or RCMP officer of any provision of the Criminal Code or any other federal or provincial statute that, if the incident were investigated by a police officer, might in the minds of reasonable, informed members of the public undermine confidence in the police."

That is a recommendation that came out of the Braidwood Inquiry, and that is, I think, what I'm speaking to.

Aside from just allowing for independent investigative process into issues of death and serious injuries, I think that at a time, or any time, where the police force's conduct could have an effect of undermining the confidence of the public for the police force, we need to ensure accountability is there, openness is there and, most important of all, independence of investigative processes are in place.

So I say that Bill 12 is indeed a baby step. We have much to do in addressing this issue. I hope that the government will allow for the Davies Commission to finish its work so that we can actually see a final report coming out of the Frank Paul inquiry into this series of incidents that have occurred in our community.

Last but not least, as a preventative measure, I think that we need to bring in policies that address some of these issues that have been touched on by the Davies Commission, which talks about the need for a sobering centre. I've written to Solicitors General over the years — actually, I think three or four at least — in that period where there've been ongoing changes with the government around who is the Solicitor General, and I've written to the former ministers about this.

I ask this minister to take up this cause so that the implementation of these preventative measures can be put in place so that the death of Frank Paul is not in vain, that we actually learn those lessons, that we put in place — yes, as a first step — investigative processes but will let the inquiry and the work of the Davies Commission

[ Page 7476 ]

complete its final stages and have the Attorney General's office not actually challenge the courts on the matter of the issue around potential charges related to the police in the Frank Paul case.

Finally, last but not least, to implement the rest of the recommendations in the Davies Commission. I think we owe it to the Paul family. I think we owe it to the public, who want to see safety in our communities, who want to provide the kinds of services that are so necessary for those who are in need, who are vulnerable in our communities so that they, too, can be at the threshold of success at one day in their lives so that hope and dream of success can be realized.

Until we do that work, I am afraid that many people's voices would be in vain, and I think that's not the purpose of this Legislature. It's certainly not the purpose of why I run for office. I want to effect change. I want to see the kinds of changes for the people, particularly for those communities who have little or no voice in our society. They, too, are deserving — for the very reason that they're part of the human race.

N. Simons: It's my privilege to be able to take my place in this debate to talk about the Bill 12 before the House, Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011. I would like to say, obviously, that I will be speaking in support of this bill but to point out, as is my responsibility as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, how I might find ways of improving such legislation in order to better meet the needs of the people of this province.

I think I'll start by saying that it's a good thing that we're having an independent oversight of police activity and police-involved deaths. I think that's been a long time in coming, and I think nobody needs to be more pleased about that than police themselves.

I worked very closely with many police officers in my previous employment as a crime prevention coordinator of the Northwest Territories. I've worked closely with police officers in my responsibilities as the director of child and family services — a lot of interaction with police officers. I see the difficulty of their job on a day-to-day basis.

[1445]

I might also acknowledge that they see the complexities of the job of a social worker, and more than one have told me on occasions that they would not want my job, as it also entails a number of difficult decisions and is fraught with its own series of challenges.

I acknowledge and I respect the work that police officers do. I used to be a teaching assistant at Simon Fraser, where I often taught the course 369, which was ethics and interpersonal skills in the criminal justice system. So I'd have plenty of opportunity to talk about the importance of following good procedure and discipline within an important and powerful agency in our communities, and that is the police. I think nothing is more important for our communities when it comes to the criminal justice system than to have trust in that first door to the criminal justice system, which is the police, and I respect the work that police do.

I've spoken to many police officers who also agree that when they see something their colleague does that brings the entire police brother- and sisterhood into disrepute, I think it hurts them as much as it hurts our communities, just as when we hear something that maybe a forester does — cuts a tree too close to a stream. Other foresters who obey the law and who practise ethically and in an environmentally sound way don't like to hear about those stories.

Police officers need to know that they're supported by the public. They need to know that the public supports them and that they are, in fact, part of the public.

When I was teaching an introduction course on criminology, I often talked about the principles of Sir Robert Peel, who was considered the founder of modern-day policing. He lived between 1788 and 1850. He wrote down…. Some of you may remember when he originally published his report. The nine principles of policing, I think, are as apt today as they were back then.

We can learn a lot from the principles that Sir Robert Peel put forward. Let me put them on the record so that in future the members from the government side will have an opportunity to research without having to go far from their desks, which might be helpful. The first of those principles is that the basic mission for which police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. Indeed, this is something that we all agree with. I think this is something that, clearly, we see on many of the logos on the doors of police: to serve and protect.

Second is that to be able to perform their duties, they need to be dependent on public approval. I think that, obviously, public approval in the work of the police officers is necessary for them to have confidence.

The third is cooperation with the police. In order to build cooperation with the community, there needs to be a good relationship, and that relationship is dependent on a number of factors, none more important than mutual trust.

Fourth, the degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. Now, if members on the government side who nod blankly would consider that more closely, they'll realize perhaps that in fact our communities are protected not by the visible presence of guns and of armoured vehicles but of a police force that is an extension of the public.

The fifth principle is that the police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. Once again, it's self-evident that the primary role of police is to ensure that law is adhered to and that it is applied impassionately.

[ Page 7477 ]

Number 6 is that police use physical force, to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order, only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient. Once again it's talking about the gradual escalation of necessary force in dealing with the public when there are problems.

Number 7 is that police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give their full-time attention to the duties of upholding the law.

Number 8: police should always direct their action strictly toward their functions and never appear to usurp the power of the judiciary. That is, they perform their duties independently of the court system.

Finally, the ninth principle of Robert Peel's principles of policing is that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. In other words, it's sort of the Theodore Roosevelt "speak softly and carry a big stick."

[1450]

I think when you deal with policing that in effect reflects the concerns of the public, you find a police force that is able to accept criticism, work from constructive criticism and improve the service that it provides to our communities.

Now, I heard one member of the government side say that this was great work in a timely manner. The great work being referred to is the introduction of Bill 12, which is a baby step in the right direction. When it's a step in the right direction, it's difficult to criticize. However, it does not go as far as the recommendations of public inquiries, of respected judges in this province who have looked at serious problems in our communities.

We've seen custody deaths. We've seen examples of egregious overuse of authority and power. We've seen less on public events as well — the incident of the pepper spraying in Sechelt with the First Nations returning from a successful soccer tournament and engaging in a parade around their community, when the front vehicle was stopped and the confrontation resulted in pepper spray.

I read the police investigation into themselves. I was greatly dissatisfied with the lack of objectivity of that report. I was not interested in criticizing individual officers. I was interested in ensuring that what we can learn from an incident like that is learned.

What happens is there's a defensiveness, an understandable defensiveness, when the agency doesn't have a structure that can be shown to be impartial so that the people who are concerned about the actions of police do not have to simply whisper or complain or criticize even the process that existed at the time for review.

What we do need is independent, impartial oversight. This government showed an abhorrence of that idea when it came to problems within the child welfare system. This government was dragged into the new reality that there needed to be some impartial oversight of the child welfare system.

That did not come easily, and that did not come quickly. Years and years of fighting, in fact, years of pointing out the failures of the current system resulted in government finally taking action. In fact, a judge, once again, made recommendations on how to make sure that the child welfare system was overseen in an independent and objective way. This was not something that government wanted to do.

In this particular case this may be a small step in the right direction, but it's a very, very slow in coming step. We've had deaths that have resulted in the call for independent investigation since 1998. In 2004 an apology was issued on the Frank Paul death, and recommendations were made.

It's not as if this government doesn't have the capacity to generate new legislation when it's politically expedient to do that. What I'm suggesting, to the very rapt attention of members opposite, is that when the will is there to maybe make some political points, it seems that government is prepared to act.

In January of 2011 we saw a report issued by the Representative for Children and Youth saying that 21 deaths of infant children in this province could have been prevented. Absolutely. I think what one sees from that is the speed at which legislation or action from government can be taken.

In the same month we saw the tragic and unconscionable slaughter of animals, which not only resulted in a task force within three weeks but legislation within two months and debate in this House about the neglectful or horrific treatment of animals.

We have the capacity in this House. It is our responsibility in this House to address issues of public concern in a timely way. This legislation is very late in coming, but it's welcome. It is equally welcome as it is late, and I'm proud to support it.

I think that it could certainly use some improvements. This House is the place, is the chamber, in which such improvements should be proposed. I hope that they will be. I hope they'll be heard.

We talk about debate. Often we do have two soliloquies following one another instead of actual debate and reconsideration. That, to me, would be a wonderful thing to see. If we could in fact address the concerns raised by the community that this legislation only is used when there is a death or a serious injury…. I think the definition's not quite exactly right.

[1455]

I believe that in the interest of the public, incidents that bring police officers or police forces into disrepute must, in all occasions, be reviewed by independent oversight.

[ Page 7478 ]

We need to preserve our confidence in the police of our communities. They are the thin blue line, often referred to as the thin blue line. We need to ensure they have the support necessary to conduct their business adequately, but we also have to make sure that they reflect the best interests of our communities. The best interests of our communities means that they're transparent and accountable to the people of this province. I believe that this legislation brings us closer to that goal, and for that, I believe, we should be pleased.

All of this reflects the importance of good consultation and good inclusion of people in oversight of public affairs. I believe it's important to ensure that all the necessary voices are heard.

The necessary voices were heard in the Frank Paul inquiry. Important voices were heard in the Dziekanski inquiry. Whenever there's an opportunity to learn…. The Missing Women Task Force, unfortunately, has excluded a number of important voices from being heard. I think that's something that the government should reconsider, when $6 million was available for the defence costs of the B.C. Rail accused and yet funding in equal amounts is not available to important aboriginal and women's groups in the Missing Women's Task Force. I think we see an inequity. I think we see a bit of…. It's bordering on some hypocrisy.

While I am pleased that this legislation is before the House and I'm looking forward to supporting it in second reading, I do believe that there's an opportunity to make it better. What an opportunity. If we make it better, let's do our best to do so.

With that, I will cede my place to the next speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Coquitlam. [Applause.]

M. Farnworth: I notice applause from across the way. How touched I am.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, no, no. That's okay. Nothing could distract me, and certainly not the minister. That would be too much of a challenge even for him.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: No, no, no. I was thinking on how I follow my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast and the words that he spoke. Quoting Sir Robert Peel — I mean, that's pretty impressive.

My colleague says, "Quickly," and I guess, yeah, given the time and the number of speakers, I probably should get to the point, which is Bill 12, the Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act. It is an important piece of legislation, and I'm glad to speak on it because this is something that this side of the House has been talking about and pushing the government on for quite some time.

As critic for Public Safety for the last few years, this has been an issue that I think has been an important one. I think all of us have recognized this needed to be dealt with. It has arisen out of some very tragic cases in British Columbia over the last number of years in all parts of the province. A couple of them — the Ian Bush case is one; the Frank Paul case is another — really shook, and had an impact on, public confidence in policing in British Columbia.

Particularly in the Dziekanski case, it really generated a significant discussion right across British Columbia about how oversight of the police takes place in our province. It was timely in the sense that the RCMP contract was up for renewal. This was an opportune moment to be able to say: "We want change in British Columbia in terms of how complaints against the police are dealt with, particularly when it comes to serious injury and to in-custody deaths and deaths in general."

So the opportunity to make legislative change…. I think the time is now, and I'm glad to see this piece of legislation here. The recommendations out of the Braidwood Inquiry into the Robert Dziekanski case, I think, are crucial in terms of understanding this particular piece of legislation. The recommendations, I think, by and large, have been followed. I think it's important to recognize that.

[1500]

Just to back up for a minute, we are in this province in a unique situation where we have municipal police forces and the RCMP. We've had one standard set of rules for dealing with municipal police forces and another set of rules for dealing with RCMP detachments around the province. There's something not right in having separate processes, separate outcomes, separate ways of dealing with in-custody deaths and deaths and serious cases of injury.

There is a principle that one standard should apply to everybody, and I think that that's something that the vast majority of people in this province would expect. It's one standard of justice for everybody, and that's what this legislation does. I also think that instinctively, people understand that there's something not right about the police investigating themselves.

To me, one of the most important aspects of this legislation is that not only will it help to restore confidence in the police when these types of issues are dealt with, but it's good for the police as well. That is one of the key aspects of this legislation, because I think it's important that the police know themselves (1) that there's one standard for everybody and (2) that the changes we are making will in fact restore and increase public confidence, which is crucial for them to be able to do their job in the way that we expect them to be able to do their job.

[ Page 7479 ]

I think all of us in this House recognize the important job that our police forces do in this province, the tremendous sacrifices they make, but also that in order to do that, there needs to be public support. That's crucial, and this bill goes a long way to doing that.

It's important to recognize some of the comments from Justice Braidwood, who says: "This reform will go a long way towards strengthening public confidence in our law enforcement agencies. Public reaction was swift and vocal that the police should not investigate themselves, and I encourage the people of British Columbia to support this legislation. It certainly conforms to my recommendations."

To me, that's important, because Justice Braidwood was the author of that report. Justice Braidwood is the one who reviewed the legislation that has been tabled by the government. The comments of Justice Braidwood are a measure of the support that's there from the individual who authored the recommendations but sends a strong message to the public that the changes he wanted to see happen, the changes we have called for in this House over the last number of years, will in fact come into legislation. So I'm pleased that that's taking place.

I do think that it is also, though, an opportune time to recognize that.... It is important that the public understands that these changes are taking place.

The idea and the recognition of civilian oversight are crucial. There is a model in Ontario. British Columbia's model will be somewhat different, but it will allow for — over the next number of years initial investigators can be police — a transition to fully civilian oversight. I think that's a strong step forward and will place this province at a leading edge in terms of how investigations take place. That is good for the long-term confidence in policing in British Columbia.

But I also think that it is appropriate for the opposition to be able to raise questions, particularly in committee stage, as to where, on recommendations that Justice Braidwood had in place, it does veer from his report. I look forward to hearing the minister's explanations around that, particularly around the issue of the Ombudsman on the oversight and the rationale and the reasons for the changes that were made.

By and large, I am very pleased and supportive of this particular piece of legislation. I think it's one that is an indication that we as legislators have heard the public loud and clear and have learnt lessons from some of the tragedies that have taken place over the last number of years in this province.

When you look at some of the statistics in British Columbia, it has been pretty concerning. We as a province led this nation in the number of in-custody deaths in this country. That is a very disturbing statistic, and it's not one that we should be proud of.

[1505]

If this legislation helps to bring that down, if this legislation helps — along with other changes government can be making — to deal with those types of issues, then I think this legislation will serve the public well.

I'm not going to speak for too long, other than to say that a lot of the questions in here have been asked in estimates debate over the last number of years. I can tell you that I am pleased to see this before the House with us debating it and discussing it. I look forward to the opportunity — along with the critic from our side for Public Safety, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake — of asking questions at committee stage and getting further clarification on some of the changes that have been taking place.

I just want to say that I'm very pleased to see this important step forward taking place. I look forward to voting in favour on second reading and on the final reading of the bill.

M. Sather: I am pleased today to stand up and speak in favour of Bill 12, the Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011. This has been a long time coming, but I think there had to be a process of evolution, if you will, to get us to this place where this valuable legislation could be introduced. Certainly, there have been widespread, or at least strong in some cases, public statements and public complaints about the concept of police investigating themselves. Of course, that centres around particular, very unfortunate incidents that happened.

I think, perhaps, there was a time when the police — both municipal police and the RCMP, which this bill applies to — may have had some difficulty with a challenge to their authority to investigate themselves. But I'm really pleased to see that the municipal police and the RCMP are supporting this legislation. I think it's very important that they see the value in it, not only for society but for their organizations as well.

It must be very challenging, indeed, when your members are challenged by the public in the conduct of their duties. This takes it out of the hands of the police and, I hope, makes it easier for them, as well as assuring the public that all due diligence is being done to deal with this kind of information.

I have a close family member who's a police officer. Although I haven't spoken to him specifically about this issue, I'm sure that he, too, would be very pleased to not have to be involved in any way in any kind of direct intervention such as we had before this legislation was introduced. I think it's going to be helpful.

There are questions that arise around the issue of the definition, I guess, or the limitation to alleged misconduct by a police constable that caused severe harm or death. Obviously, those are situations that we want to have investigated. But members of families whose loved ones have been involved in these unfortunate inci-

[ Page 7480 ]

dents have said that they would have liked to have seen a wider net, if you will, as to who might be included under this legislation.

Now, the government is saying that they will bring in regulations that will encompass not only incidents involving death or serious harm and an allegation of police misconduct but also other offences and offences that undermine public confidence in policing.

[1510]

I'll look forward at some point to seeing whether that does take place. I think it may be necessary because the net may not be wide enough.

One of the speakers earlier on referred to the horrific incident that happened in Mission, a neighbouring municipality to where I live, where two individuals were shot in their home. One was found dead. The other did not succumb to her injuries immediately. Lisa Dudley remained living for four days until she was discovered, and she died shortly thereafter.

The issue is around the due diligence of the police officer in the case. Shots were heard by neighbours and were phoned in. The officer apparently drove to the neighbourhood but did not go to the house and did not discover this very tragic event that I'm sure has traumatized her family to a very great extent.

It's interesting, though, to know whether or not a case like that would be encompassed by this legislation as it now stands without regulation. I don't think that it would be, because the investigation can forward to the criminal justice branch misconduct that results in the two prescribed conditions or where there's a commitment of an offence under an enactment of Canada.

In this case I don't think that that would be the case. Certainly, I don't think the officer could have been charged with an offence, and wasn't. His punishment, if you will, was small, certainly — one day's docked pay, I think. Yet the case was so horrific that one wonders if there shouldn't have been more consequence.

On the other hand, I would say it has resulted in a change of protocol for the police, certainly the RCMP, whereby they must now either make contact with the complainant on site or must ensure that there is actual follow-up of a nature that could…. You never can be positive that it's going to result in knowing what took place but could make it more likely.

I made a complaint to the police in the middle of the night, the RCMP in Ridge Meadows — who are doing a great job, I want to say — about shots that I heard in my neighbourhood. I was surprised when I subsequently got a call from the officer. He discussed the specifics of it, and that was that. I was very pleasantly pleased that there was that kind of follow-up. That's what the RCMP is doing now as a result of that very unfortunate incident, and that's a very good thing.

I think that this bill will be supported by all members of the House, and it should be. There may be some specifics, I'm sure, that the members leading our side of the discussions on this bill will have to say at third reading.

I just wanted to read into the record some of the comments by Mr. Jim Chu, chief of the Vancouver city police. He said: "It's a historic day for policing in our province. This new legislation will increase the transparency of police actions."

[1515]

That kind of cooperative atmosphere is going to serve us well. If the government decides to make further changes through regulation, then I think the groundwork is there for the kind of cooperation between the judicial branch, the government ministers and the police agencies to make that possible.

With that, I look forward to third reading at committee stage, and I'll take my seat.

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

Hon. S. Bond: I am very appreciative of the comments that have been made by members on both sides of the House. I think this is one of those all too rare occasions where we actually recognize that this is an important piece of public policy, that all of us recognize its time has come. I am going to resist the urge to work through the questions that have been provided in terms of things like scope, because in fact, as you read the bill, there will be a very broad scope.

When we go back and look at how it will compare to Ontario's, I think the members will be quite surprised that in fact there is a very broad list. There will be a very long list and opportunities to look beyond simply those things that might be described by serious harm or death.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I very much appreciate the comments by the member for Port Coquitlam when he said that this needs to be good for police as well. As I've listened to the description of the bill, it's been described anywhere from it's a baby step to it's a beginning step and it's a good first step.

This is a very powerful piece of legislation, and it's made more powerful by the fact that when we introduced the bill, it wasn't the government standing alone. In fact, I want to remind the members, and many have commented on this already, that we stood surrounded by police leaders from across British Columbia — from across the RCMP and from municipal forces as well.

I want to close with a few of those comments as a reminder of why the bill is timely and why it's taken time. We're actually at a place where we stand together with the police to suggest that it's time we move away from police investigating police.

[ Page 7481 ]

In fact, if you look at what Supt. Tonia Enger said…. She represents the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, and she said:

"The police are the guardian for the public, the people. There is nothing more important to us than public confidence and public trust. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police applaud the government in this step of introducing legislation. We look forward to working with government. The chiefs of police recognize it's in their best interest."

Chief Jim Chu said:

"I'm representing the B.C. municipal chiefs of police. This is very important, public support of police actions, because for the last while there's been a lot of criticism of police investigations, especially in the cases of serious harm or death. These criticisms undermine public confidence. This new legislation will increase transparency of police actions.

"Again, I want to close by thanking the government for introducing this important legislation."

Commanding Officer Peter Hourihan of the RCMP:

"'As others have said before,' he said, 'the confidence the public has in police is paramount. We need it desperately, and the public needs it desperately. The police need confidence in themselves. This type of legislation will enable that. It will provide further benefit to all.

"'As police officers,' the commanding officer said, 'when we join any police organization, we give up the right to be mediocre. That's a huge responsibility, but it's one we carry proudly. This kind of legislation will help the people in British Columbia do a better job in British Columbia.'"

I can assure you that as we go through committee stage, we will walk through the discussions that we had with Commissioner Braidwood. We didn't move away from the recommendations that he made without consultation and a true belief that this legislation reflects exactly what Commissioner Braidwood asked the government of British Columbia to do.

With that, I close with these comments made by Justice Braidwood. He said, on May 17:

[1520]

"By tabling this legislation today, the promise has been kept. I commend the government for its commitment to this much-needed reform. I salute, too, British Columbia's municipal police forces and the RCMP, who have embraced the need for a civilian-based agency to investigate serious public-related cases. This reform will go a long way towards strengthening public confidence in our law-enforcement agencies. I encourage the people of British Columbia to support this legislation. It certainly conforms to my recommendations."

I hope that as we move forward and discuss this legislation, we'll all take time to remember those graphic and very tragic circumstances. It's appropriate to stop and remember Robert Dziekanski, Ian Bush and Frank Paul.

I was so appreciative that Premier Clark took the time before the legislation was introduced on that morning to call the mothers of Robert Dziekanski and Ian Bush to tell them that we honoured the commitment we made to bring this legislation to the House. But I want us also to stop and remember that every single day in British Columbia, men and women who serve in police organizations put their lives on the line for every single one of us in British Columbia.

They do it with honour. They do it with integrity. And as we bring this legislation forward, we need to remember that the vast majority of men and women who serve in police forces across this province do so with integrity and with a purpose, and that is to make sure that all of us live in a safe, healthy and prosperous province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: Now I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be placed on the orders of the day at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011, 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. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 10, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 10 — Wills, Estates and

Succession Amendment Act, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:24 p.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: My question to the minister is very simple. I'm just wondering why we need to add these sections. Were they not included originally for some reason, and if so, why?

[1525]

Hon. B. Penner: Just before I start, for those who may be watching this soon to be scintillating debate, I'm sure, seated to my left but to the viewers' right, I think, is Nancy Carter, executive director of the civil policy and legislative division within the Ministry of Attorney General. Seated to my right but to the viewers' left is Tyler Nyvall, legal counsel, civil policy and legislation division, Ministry of Attorney General.

Some of these provisions are not changing. Some are merely changing location but not content. There are a number of

definitions that previously were housed in

section 12 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. We had advice from legislative counsel. One of the drafters felt these

definitions would be better located in the general definition

section in

section 1.

[ Page 7482 ]

So that's a bit of housekeeping, I guess, in terms of legislative practice. Then there are some new

definitions or additional divisions for "Nis g a'a Lands," "Nis g a'a Village Government" and the "taxing treaty first nation" concepts, which are being added. I believe this has been done following consultation with the Nisga'a.

L. Krog: I'm happy to have that

section passed.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Krog: What's the impact of changing the definition of "nominee," and what's the purpose of it?

[1530]

Hon. B. Penner: To the member's question, this

section would amend "nominee" to recognize that a committee appointed under the Patients Property Act might only be granted powers in relation to the person's medical decisions and care. It is only intended that committees granted powers over a person's financial affairs will be recognized as a nominee for the purposes of the act — so just to clarify the authorities that they have.

There is also a change, if you look at subsection (

d) to the amendment. That's apparently a transitional provision, because over time as the treaty is implemented, the provisions of the Indian Act that pertain in this area will gradually fade away. So I think the overall intention of the Nisga'a treaty is to gradually wean themselves from the implementation of the Indian Act.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering why the change in the definition of "spousal home," and what impact will it have on the law?

Hon. B. Penner: I believe there are a couple of things happening here with this amendment. First of all, it's been flagged for me that we're changing previous language that talked about "joint ownership" to use the phrase "owned in common." There was some concern expressed on the part of the Nisga'a that it could be interpreted as joint tenancy, and so the use of the phrase "owned in common" is meant to address that and make it clear it's not a joint tenancy situation that we're talking about.

Then secondly, the definition of "spousal home" is being amended to ensure that the Wills, Estates and Succession Act provisions relating to a spouse acquiring a spousal home will generally apply to Nisga'a or other treaty First Nation land. So that would be the default provision — that the Wills, Estates and Succession Act does apply to First Nations treaty lands unless the Nisga'a or other treaty First Nation land laws overrule the application of the spousal home provisions by restricting the transfer of the land.

L. Krog: Relying on the able advice the minister is receiving from his excellent staff, I'm just curious to know…. The term used here is "owned in common," as opposed to jointly owned. I'm wondering: contrasted with the understanding of a tenancy in common, is there any difference?

[1535]

Hon. B. Penner: The term "owned in common" is broader and can include and does include the concept of tenancy in common, but it's not restricted to a tenancy in common.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

L. Krog: I just wonder if the minister could explain the effect of

section 11. It's fairly lengthy and includes a number of provisions. My reading of it is that it essentially preserves the right of the Nisga'a peoples to restrict ownership of land to members of the Nisga'a Nation. But, as I say, it's a fairly long series of sections and includes a number of provisions, and I'd just appreciate hearing from the minister.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that the member's summation is essentially correct. What we're doing here is indicating that if a person is not entitled under Nisga'a or treaty First Nation law to hold an interest in Nisga'a or treaty First Nation land, then the Wills, Estates and Succession Act does not enable that person to acquire an interest in that land. The amendment aims to avoid a mistaken belief that provisions relating to estates can be a vehicle to acquire a right of ownership or an interest in land that would otherwise be contrary to Nisga'a or treaty First Nation law.

The amendment itself does not change the law, as a court most likely would find treaty legislation paramount regardless. This is just for the sake of added clarity.

L. Krog: Given my limited understanding of the Nisga'a treaty, it strikes me.... I thought that's what the minister might say. Is this a case of having to, you know, gild the lily or protesteth too much? I mean, why would there be any suggestion that the fundamental law could be changed by the mere fact of the death of an owner? That's the concept I'm having some difficulty with.

Have there been cases in other jurisdictions or something that has led to this? I won't call it an overreaction

[ Page 7483 ]

— that's not the language I'm looking for — but it just strikes me that this shouldn't require legislative confirmation to state the obvious.

[1540]

Hon. B. Penner: As indicated in my first answer, the intention here is really just to clarify and make it as obvious as possible to anyone picking up the statute and reading it that you have to keep in mind whatever the Nisga'a or treaty First Nations law has to say in this regard.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

L. Krog: What's the effect of this change in terms of its clarification? What exactly does it mean? If the minister can describe, having regard to the fact that this is a difficult act, in simplistic language, what's the effect of this change in terms of clarification?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the attempt here is to draw a clearer distinction between sets of relatives along parental family lines in the distribution of shares of an intestate estate.

We're also addressing a potentially unequal distribution of shares among great-grandparents and descendents of great-grandparents. I'm told that this is a situation that is unlikely to arise frequently, but apparently it was, initially at least, a theoretical concern raised by the Canadian Bar Association and then again by a speaker at, I'm sure, a very interesting conference.

Maybe the member had the opportunity to attend. It was last November, 2010, at a Wills, Estates and Succession Act overview offered by the Continuing Legal Education Society, where one of the speakers at that session also asked some questions about this provision. We're responding to that.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 14, it simply provides, I gather, that notice has to be given to the surviving spouse in addition to the notice under subsection (1). This applies only to Nisga'a lands, I take it. It has no effect on any other notice requirements?

Hon. B. Penner: In fact, what we're doing by virtue of

section 14 is adding subsection (2.1) to

section 27 of the act so it indicates that it's either on Nisga'a lands or treaty lands where the rule applies.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, with respect to

section 15, I take it this would obviously apply in a situation where a minor is entitled to an interest in a home of the deceased, and that's a spousal home, obviously. It's restricted only to spousal homes. I just want the minister to confirm that.

[1545]

It has the effect of ensuring that the interests of the minor are, in fact, protected if no one is in a position to act as guardian. And/or does it include and cover the situation where an infant has a guardian actually appointed?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, this applies where a minor or a child has a guardian.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

L. Krog: My reading of this

section is that, again, we have a situation where there's an interest that would flow through to a minor child in the spousal home. I think a good example would probably be a common-law couple, I presume — potentially, as an example — where you have a child of the deceased who is not a child of the common-law couple themselves but simply a child of the deceased.

I take it this is in order to protect the administrator or executor from fixing a value on it that would in fact have the effect of depriving the child of a right that it would otherwise be entitled to. Is that more or less what we're doing?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

L. Krog: This one was so much fun. I just have to hear the minister on the record explain to me the importance of the comma, which he pointed out to me in second reading debate.

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, we are debating a comma in this particular section,

section 18. The member, in second reading, did ask.... He couldn't see what the difference was here. At first, I couldn't either during the briefings on this legislation, until we were finally able to find that there was a comma being added.

I was told that this is the preference in style by the legislative counsel. They believe this will provide greater certainty for whoever is asked to interpret it, perhaps judicially.

[ Page 7484 ]

L. Krog: For the record, I just want to confirm: does the minister suggest that style is more important than substance?

Hon. B. Penner: At some point drafting style can become substance.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

L. Krog: If the minister could just explain the effect of this section.

[1550]

Hon. B. Penner: This is, perhaps, somewhat more substantive than the comma debate, but what we're doing is making the term consistent with what's already in the

definitions section, which uses the phrase "the will-maker's signature." This is apparently an issue that was also flagged at that most interesting CLE conference last November.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

L. Krog: This suggests that.... It talks about proceeds — that the proceeds are gross proceeds, as opposed to net proceeds. What would constitute the difference between net and gross?

Hon. B. Penner: This is another issue that was flagged, I think, at the same conference, or at least it was certainly flagged by the Vancouver wills and trust

section of the Canadian Bar Association.

The idea is to make sure that the beneficiary receives the gross proceeds of whatever the item is. An example would be if there was a vehicle that was sold on consignment. This would make sure that's the gross amount that the person is entitled to, as opposed to the amount less the commission. So if the vehicle were worth $10,000 and if the commission were $2,000, the ultimate recipient might not be happy about just getting $8,000. Rather, this makes it clear that they would be entitled to the $10,000 amount.

[1555]

L. Krog: So just to be clear. The commission, then, would be a cost chargeable to the whole of the estate, as opposed to that specific item.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that, generally speaking, the member is correct.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

L. Krog: The section, as it exists, has some very specific things in it. This seems to open it up a great deal more broadly. I'm just wondering what…. I assume this may have arisen out of, again, comments from the bar. If the minister could explain and perhaps provide some examples of what this

section is contemplating, because I'm sure examples must have been used in order to lead to this.

Hon. B. Penner: Our intent here was to allow a court looking at a set of actions to determine whether or not those actions indicated an intention to revoke a will. We were concerned that the previous subsection (

d) in

section 55(1) was perhaps somewhat too restrictive to potential scenarios that are difficult to contemplate in advance.

We wanted to just provide that flexibility or leeway of a trier of fact to make that determination. This is, again, a change that was recommended by the Vancouver wills and trusts

section of the Canadian Bar Association.

L. Krog: Appreciating that a great deal of work went into the initial act, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, I'm just curious: does this

section bring us into line with other provinces, or are we on the cutting edge? Where do we fit in the grand scheme of other legislatures across the country?

Hon. B. Penner: We don't have that information with us here at the House, but one of our staff is prepared to see if we can find that from other provinces.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

section 26.

L. Krog: If the minister could just explain this. You're changing the

section to say if an order has been made under

section 60, which I would have thought included periodic or lump sum payment…. Then it's been changed to: "...If the court has ordered periodic payments, or that a lump sum be invested…." What's the effect of this?

[1600]

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: What we're doing here, on sober second thought, is resorting back to language that was contained originally in the Wills Variation Act. After receiving some advice and reflecting on this further, we felt the wording in the Wills Variation Act was preferable to what had been initially contemplated for the new act.

[ Page 7485 ]

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering: what's the effect of this change in terms of the people who may make a new designation?

Hon. B. Penner: This is a rather technical amendment, but in essence, what's happening is we're narrowing the scope of representatives who can make a new designation of a designated beneficiary in a benefit plan. The change is required to reflect the limitations on authority that arise under the Representation Agreement Act from the Revised Statutes of British Columbia 1996 .

The current provision in the Wills, Estates and Succession Act says that a nominee may make this designation. In this specific instance the definition of "nominee" is inconsistent with adult guardianship provisions that also address this area and which do not permit the making of a new designation under a benefit plan.

Rather than amend the definition of nominee in the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, this provision will be amended to remove the defined term and refer instead to the specific categories of representatives who are permitted to make a new designation under a benefit plan. The desire for this amendment or the need for this amendment was identified by ministry staff.

Sections 30 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

[1605]

L. Krog: Again, this section. The explanatory note suggested: "...adds circumstances when the registrar may grant probate or administration." I'm just wondering: what's the substantive effect of this? It seems pretty straightforward, and I'm just curious to know why we even need this section.

Hon. B. Penner: The new provision being added to

section 129, the new subsection (3), makes it clear that the registrar can do this work in addition to a Supreme Court judge.

Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

L. Krog: Just for the sake of clarity, and I suspect this is a fairly obvious answer.

Section 40 certainly wouldn't have any effect on the rights of a person in a personal injury claim who dies, with respect to damages for the personal injury itself, as opposed to economic loss — in other words, for the pain and suffering. This isn't going to have any effect on that kind of claim — is it?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to preface my answer by noting, this amendment was identified or suggested by the British Columbia Law Institute. What we're doing here is, in effect, broadening the application of the

section by deleting the term "party." So "party" can have a specific meaning, often, in legal proceedings, and that's not our intention in this section.

Section 40 approved.

G. Gentner: I request leave in order to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: It's a great deal of pleasure to introduce into the House today grade 4s, 5s and 6s from one of the best, outstanding schools we have in North Delta, Gray Elementary School. The adults are also accompanying them, and the teacher, Grace Yan. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1610]

Debate Continued

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

section 43.

L. Krog: With respect to this, this substitutes: "legal expenses incurred in the administration of the deceased person's estate." How would legal expenses be defined in a circumstance like that?

Hon. B. Penner: The amendment here is an attempt to try and narrow somewhat what's included in the legal expenses related to dealing and disposing with the matter. Ultimately, I suppose a court could be called upon to determine whether any expenses were actually within the meaning of the phrase "legal expenses" in this section. I guess a court would apply the dictionary definition or the usual definition within the context of the facts at hand.

Sections 43 to 59 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 7486 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Wills, Estates and

Succession Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 10, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1615]

Hon. P. Bell: I call committee stage, Bill 9, intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 9 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO

ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 4:16 p.m.

The Chair: We'll take a two-minute recess while staff arrives.

The committee recessed from 4:17 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

section 1.

L. Popham: I guess my first question is around the definition of "person responsible for an animal" or "person responsible for the animal." There are three

definitions given.

[1620]

I just wonder if the minister could give me an example of the type of person that would be responsible for an animal, such as maybe somebody who owns a business or just an example of that.

Hon. D. McRae: I'll give you three examples.

For "owns an animal," I will use myself as an example there. I own three animals. I have two cats and a dog. They are things that we have acquired over time. In case you're curious, it will be Scuby, the Jack Russell; Stumpy, the cat with no tail; and Fat Rizzo, who is a cat who has a glandular problem.

The "custody or control" by an employee would be, for example, a dog-walker. They don't own the animals, but they are actually employed by an individual to take an animal for a walk.

And "operator" pertains to regulated activities. For example, when the sled dog industry regulations come in, the operators would fall under that definition.

L. Popham: Well, for the record, I have Jake, Jane, Jigsaw Puzzle, April and Chico. I won't go into what exactly they are, but they're my family pets.

So anybody who owns an animal or anybody who's pet-sitting an animal?

Hon. D. McRae: Pet-sitting would fall under custody of an animal.

L. Popham: Moving on to "service animal," could I have an expanded definition of what a service animal would be?

[1625]

Hon. D. McRae: So "service animal" refers to law enforcement animals. For example, a police dog or a police horse, as well, could also fall under that. In the future we will prescribe other animals through regulation rather than through legislation. But what we will do at this time is we wish to work in parallel with the Guide Animal Act.

L. Popham: Would this definition include carriage horses?

Hon. D. McRae: No, it would not. The reason is, of course, that I don't think carriage horses would fall under the Guide Animal Act. So what happens under this will be purely following the Guide Animal Act as it pertains to animals.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

Hon. D. McRae: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 2 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Duties of persons responsible for animals

9.1

(1) A person responsible for an animal must care for the animal, including protecting the animal from circumstances that are likely to cause the animal to be in distress.

(

a) must take reasonable steps to prevent the animal from being in distress, and

( b 2 ) A person responsible for an animal must not cause or permit the animal to be , or to continue to be , in distress.]

[ Page 7487 ]

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

L. Popham: The intent of the proposed legislation before us is to prevent cruelty to animals. Given the circumstance that happened in Whistler and other circumstances that are similar, my concern right from the start was around businesses that use animals as inventory. I actually tried to submit an amendment, but it didn't fit in this section. But I still think it's a good place for me to ask a question and to make a point around the planning for animals in businesses.

If a business were to fail, I believe there needs to be a plan in place to deal with the animals at that point. I think that in the case of the sled dog disaster, we saw a business that was failing, and I assume that the solution to some of their problems was to slaughter the dogs involved in the business. This would also pertain to something like a pet shop or anything that uses animals as their inventory, as you would a regular business.

[1630]

My amendment actually was shaped around having to submit a plan for the animals in the case of a business failing. I guess I'd like some comment back from the minister around that. I still think that that's legislation that needs to be in place. I don't know where it would fit, or maybe it's for future legislation, but I do think it's quite important, and I think it would allow us to control the finality in that case.

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite basically — to make sure I paraphrase it right — is concerned about, for example, if a pet store were to fail, what would become of those animals. A couple of things just to read into the record, if I may.

"9.1(1) A person responsible for an animal must care for the animal, including protecting the animal from circumstances that are likely to cause the animal to be in distress." Distress is a very broad-based definition pertaining to many aspects of an animal's life, including the end of life.

Under that, there is the responsibility of the owner, whether they are a personal owner, like myself — I mentioned earlier I was the owner of animals — but also as basically an owner of a store. If you have animals under your care, you must make sure that they are not under distress.

The things that can be done. The critic may wish to pursue with UBCM the municipal government role in allowing the sale of pets in retail stores. That may have some element. The ministry does continue to work with the BCSPCA and other partners to promote the network of rehoming organizations. However, if a person were to dispose of animals in a way that was causing distress, the BCSPCA would have the ability to investigate and make recommendations as it so pertains to the end of life of that animal.

[1635]

L. Popham: I think the minister understands the intent of what I was saying. I guess the definition of "distress" is questionable because in some cases you can't tell when an animal is in distress. I'll give you an example of a pet that my family had. It was a newt. I have no idea how to tell if a newt is in distress, because newts don't do a lot. So maybe you could expand the definition of "distress" for me.

Hon. D. McRae: For the purposes of this act, an animal is in distress if it is deprived of adequate food, water, shelter, ventilation, light, space, exercise, and care or veterinary treatment. It could also be kept in conditions that are unsanitary. It could be not protected from excessive heat or cold and, also, if it is injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or abused or neglected.

As for the newt. I would trust that if it was a member of the BCSPCA or a veterinarian, a vet, they would be able to determine if there was distress caused. Obviously, we can't go down a path and try to determine and make a regulation pertaining to every single animal that may exist out there. We have to trust that the people who have expertise in this area would recognize distress.

L. Popham: Thank you very much for clearing that up.

In the case of a situation like the sled dogs, where there's possibly a report of animals in distress, can the minister tell me if the BCSPCA is required to help the animals, regardless of the numbers of animals reported? If there were, say, a hundred sled dogs, is the BCSPCA required to take those dogs into their ownership to relieve the distress, regardless of the number of animals?

[1640]

Hon. D. McRae: Under the existing act, not the amendments.... I'll just read into the record: "...the authorized agent" — in this case the BCSPCA — "may, in accordance with sections 13 and 14, take any action that the authorized agent considers necessary to relieve the animal's distress, including, without limitation, taking custody of the animal and arranging for food, water, shelter, care and veterinary treatment for it."

Now, in some cases, obviously the BCSPCA will take the animal into its care, but it also has the ability, through its network, to — and this is the term in the industry —rehome the animal if necessary.

L. Popham: Is the minister saying that the SPCA is required to take those animals in distress?

[ Page 7488 ]

Hon. D. McRae: They may. That's at the discretion of the BCSPCA to make that call at the time.

L. Popham: Do you know of an instance where the BCSPCA has not had the capacity to take the animals in distress?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm here today to deal with the legislation. I don't understand or I don't have access to the day-to-day operations of the BCSPCA, obviously. I do know that they continually do work with rehoming organizations and have those cooperative agreements in existence. As for the day-to-day operations, that is their expertise. We're here to talk about the legislation and such.

Also, I'd like to remind the member — if possible, in a polite manner, at least — that that's in the existing legislation. We're talking about the amendments today.

L. Popham: Thank you for the reminder, Minister. But we are here to discuss the legislation and the amendments that are being brought in. I guess I am trying to ensure that they are preventing animal cruelty in the intent of this bill.

For me, knowing that, I guess, the BCSPCA or the body that's regulated to make sure the animals are prevented from being in distress…. I'm here to make sure that this legislation is going to prevent that, regardless of the amount of animals that are found in distress.

I guess my question is: does this require all animals to be brought into custody, regardless of number of animals? The reason I'm asking is because…. If there is a large number of animals, is there a chance, with this legislation, that animals could be left in a place of distress because of a capacity problem?

[1645]

Hon. D. McRae: Again, the key word here is "may." But like the member opposite, I share the member's concern. This act gives the BCSPCA the discretion or ability to act; it does not require them to. However, I think all of us on this side and that side of the House have a common interest in ensuring that animals in distress are treated in a very ethical manner and such. I have faith that the BCSPCA has acted well in the past and will continue to do so well into the future.

L. Popham: Would the BCSPCA be the only body required to take the animals into custody, in that case?

Hon. D. McRae: Under this act, the BCSPCA is the only authorized agent. They can work, however, with other partner organizations to accommodate or rehome animals at their discretion.

L. Popham: This might be an odd question, but is just a regular citizen allowed to take an animal that they feel is in distress into their own custody?

Hon. D. McRae: No. If an individual were to feel that there was an animal that was in distress, the best thing they should do is report that issue to the BCSPCA as quickly as possible, and the BCSPCA would act.

L. Popham: I'm going to move on to 9.2(1): "An operator engaging in a regulated activity...." I'd like an expanded definition of "a regulated activity."

[1650]

G. Gentner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: It's also a great deal of pleasure…. Earlier I introduced a class from Delta North. But I have a new class up in the gallery. I also want to correct the record. I've made a major faux pas. I introduced them as Gray School. I'd like to introduce you to one of the best schools in all of North Delta, Gibson Elementary. Could the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. McRae: Just to read into the record: "'regulated activity' means a prescribed activity in relation to the breeding, care, keeping, training, use, transportation, disposition, assembly or killing of animals."

If I may, I'll use an example. Right now there are a number of individuals representing organizations, basically making recommendations from the Sled Dog Task Force. So for example, if I may, I'll just read some of the organizations involved.

Right now we have the Ministry of Agriculture, the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia, the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We have several industry reps in the sled dog industry. We have the University of British Columbia, the Professional Mushers Association of British Columbia, the International Sled Dog Veterinary Medical Association. The University of Guelph is involved.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association right now is making recommendations, just like I mentioned earlier, pertaining to the breeding, care, keeping, training, use, transportation, disposition, assembly or killing of animals, which then would be coming to the ministry and the minister's office, and, if signed, becoming a regulation that would cover all those elements of care for the animal from basically birth through the end of life.

[ Page 7489 ]

L. Popham: Thank you for the explanation and the example. This is where I actually thought about putting in an amendment to t