2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Matthew Baird

D. Routley

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SOS Children’s Village Run and Walk in Richmond

L. Reid

Law Week events

L. Krog

Walter Wigmore

J. Rustad

Prevention of violence against women and Purple Lights campaign

D. Black

Dave Holmberg

R. Hawes

Campbell River Head Injury Support Society

C. Trevena

Oral Questions

Timber supply and mill operations in Burns Lake area

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

Forest management and forest health funding

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

Pipeline projects and federal oil spill response operations

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Public consultation and support for communities in Interior timber supply areas

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

TransLink governance and fare gates project

H. Bains

Hon. B. Lekstrom

S. Simpson

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. D. McRae

L. Popham

J. Thornthwaite

V. Huntington

B. Ralston

Hon. T. Lake

L. Krog

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 25 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. D. McRae

Hon. I. Chong

K. Corrigan

M. Sather

Hon. T. Lake

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation (continued)

C. Trevena

Hon. P. Bell

H. Lali

M. Mungall

J. Kwan

S. Chandra Herbert

[ Page 10803 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: The Real Estate Institute of British Columbia plays a unique role as the only professional organization whose members come from every segment of the real estate community. They bring together a diverse membership of industry professionals across nine provincial chapters. Please join me and the MLA for Richmond Centre in welcoming Brenda Southam, executive director, and Nathan Worbets, this year's president.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome and to invite the House to welcome a number of guests from Edmonton. I would like us all to welcome Rick and Amy Picard, and I would also like us to send a special welcome to George and Betty Bilida, the proud parents of Murray Bilida, my constituency assistant. He is very proud of you and so happy that you could be in the House today.

Please make them all welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: All of us today are cognizant of the fact that it is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. We all understand the traumatic impact that

an act of violence can have on a woman, children and families.

Today we wanted to recognize a group of people who do very important work. They are part of the capital regional district domestic violence unit. These individuals are working very hard to increase victim safety and to increase offender responsibility in domestic violence cases across the capital regional district.

Const. Tiffany Deyo; Sue Robinson of the victim services, regional domestic violence unit; Sgt. Jason Laidman; Insp. Clark Russell; Chief Const. Mark Fisher of the Oak Bay police department; Insp. Scott Green, who is the OIC, detective division, of the Saanich police department; and Virginia Treadwell, who is the team leader of aboriginal services with family service, kinship care and restricted home studies.

Please join me in first of all welcoming but, more importantly, saying thank you to a team of people who make a difference every day.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today, and I know members will make him feel welcome, is Dr. Larry Goldenberg. He is a professor and head of urological services at UBC and VGH. In addition to that, he has played a leading role as an advocate for men's health. In fact, he was in Victoria today talking about the Men's Health Initiative.

I think members of the House are also aware of the leading role he has played at the Vancouver Prostate Centre. He has been recognized both as a recipient of the Order of Canada and the Order of British Columbia. He is a distinguished British Columbian who works tirelessly with a team of clinicians on behalf of British Columbians.

I know the House will want to make Dr. Larry Goldenberg welcome.

Tributes

MATTHEW BAIRD

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me congratulate my stepson, Matthew. Over the weekend on the Mainland he was part of a south Vancouver Island all-star team of hockey players at a tournament. In the four games that he played, he scored five goals and six assists. During the regular season he has scored over 50 goals in less than 40 games.

Matthew is quite an extraordinary little talent at 11 years old, but this congratulation runs at odds with the constant reminder that his mom and I give to him to not take it too seriously and to develop other interests.

But in the meantime, congratulations, Matthew, for a great showing and most valuable player in the final game that he played.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: I want to introduce a couple of people who have joined us in the gallery today. We have Ruby Berry, who is the program director for the Georgia Strait Alliance and is one of the representatives on the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform. She is joined by a friend and colleague, David Lane, with the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, who is also a CAAR representative.

Will the House make them feel welcome. They've come a long way, sort of, to be in Victoria, and it is great to have them here.

[1340]

[ Page 10804 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SOS CHILDREN’S VILLAGE RUN AND WALK

IN RICHMOND

L. Reid: I'd like the members today to hold the following date. Step out for the SOS Children's Village British Columbia Run and Walk on June 30 at the Richmond Olympic Oval. Healthy families are active families, and this year's SOS Children's Village B.C. ten- and five-kilometre run and walk and the two-kilometre family walk encourage communities to embrace a healthy lifestyle while helping vulnerable children and youth, including those in foster care.

Every child belongs to a family and grows with love, respect and security. Everyone in the community is invited to get involved on Saturday, June 30 at 9 a.m. when the beautiful, natural setting of the Richmond Olympic Oval Plaza will be the backdrop for the fourth annual SOS run and walk.

The reason we're asking today is that folks need to register. The proceeds go to programs so that kids in care can grow up in a healthy environment offering stability, hope and healing. To preregister yourself and your team or get involved in sponsorship, visit www.sosbc.org\run, or simply register at the Richmond Olympic Oval on race day.

Race results will be posted on line, and medals will be awarded.

Lace up your joggers, and join SOS walk-run honorary chair, Olympic snowboarder Alexa Loo, and honorary patrons and former Olympians Dr. Doug and Diane Clement. Take steps to give vulnerable children a chance to achieve their highest potential. As role models for healthy living, Alexa, Doug and Diane are eager to share the commitment to SOS Children's Village British Columbia, along with this year's health and wellness theme, which can promote well-being in our communities: "Every child matters; every child belongs."

LAW WEEK EVENTS

L. Krog: Chaos in the courts, known criminals walking free from a clearly broken justice system, weak Crown counsel facing superior defence counsel, justice not seen to be done. Last Saturday in Nanaimo the big, bad wolf walked free again to terrorize Nanaimo's porcine population in celebration of Law Day.

It's Law Week, and the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, is hosting its annual Law Week events this week. They include regular courthouse tours; mock trials, as were held in Nanaimo; the popular dial-a-lawyer program; a fun run; other events, including a previously recorded interview with three chief justices by CBC journalist Ian Hanomansing.

Now, Nanaimo jumped the gun, but there are other events. Cranbrook, Nanaimo, Vancouver and Victoria are all participating, all with the aim to help celebrate the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So I think today it's appropriate to offer our sincere thanks to the many lawyers in British Columbia, the courthouse staff, the many volunteers and organizations that have taken time to try and celebrate Law Week. An effective, functioning justice system is absolutely central to British Columbia's democracy.

As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is a wonderful opportunity for citizens to go to their courthouses, learn about the justice system, come to understand it and support it for the good work that it does.

WALTER WIGMORE

J. Rustad: I rise today to recognize an outstanding citizen in my riding. Walter Wigmore moved to Vanderhoof in 1968 when the town was barely 2,500 people and the land was mostly farmland. He was an Ontario city boy, and he had never been west in his life. But he had just graduated with his doctor of veterinarian medicine, and he wanted to work — so much so that he was willing to start his practice in the kitchen of one of the first log cabins built in Vanderhoof.

He says: "I wanted to grow with the community because I knew I had a lot to learn." At first, he primarily served large animals — horses, cows and pigs. He has broken ribs while giving blood tests to cows in rodeo chutes. He has travelled by airplane and skidoo to remote farms, often braving extreme northern weather and dangerous conditions. He has gotten lost in a snowstorm, driven a skidoo off a 20-foot cliff, landed a plane by memory in the dark, not to mention putting 12 vehicles in the ditch, exhausted, while driving home.

To this day, Walter says that moving to Vanderhoof was the best thing he ever did. He met his wife in Vanderhoof, and they've been married for over 40 years. The couple has four children, four grandchildren, and they all live nearby in either Vanderhoof or Prince George.

Walter particularly loves the people in the community of Vanderhoof and, of course, his wild ride of a career. He has an incredible sense of humour, and with his many stories, I hope that he'll write a book to share the life of a veterinarian in rural northern B.C.

Please join me in thanking Walter for his service and in wishing him a long and well-earned retirement.

[1345]

PREVENTION OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

AND PURPLE LIGHTS CAMPAIGN

D. Black: As my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake pointed out yesterday and the Minister of Justice pointed

[ Page 10805 ]

out today, this is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week in British Columbia. Sadly, one in four women in our province experiences abuse or sexual assault at some point during their lives. Yet only 12 percent of sexual assaults are reported to the police.

Headlines detail story after story about violent incidents affecting women and girls, domestic violence, rape, illegal trafficking of women and children, on-line luring and homicide. Over 60 percent of British Columbians say they know personally at least one woman who has been sexually or physically assaulted. This violence can also cause lifelong emotional scars for the children who witness this abuse.

In New Westminster an initiative is underway to shine some light on these deplorable statistics. For the third year in a row, the community coordination for women's safety committee has organized a Purple Lights campaign. This idea began in King County in Washington State in 2007 and has since spread to 23 American states and at least three provinces in Canada.

From April 15 to 28 businesses and residents in New Westminster are encouraged to shine a purple light on their front porch or hang a string of purple lights in their window to send out the message that domestic violence has no place in our community. This initiative, in combination with an education campaign, increases the awareness of domestic violence and its effect upon children, families and our society.

Purple lights will be shining in my constituency office window until the 28th. But after the lights are taken out, we must all continue our efforts to create a society that's free of violence and fear for women and children.

DAVE HOLMBERG

R. Hawes: A few weeks ago several hundred people gathered at the Ramada Inn in Abbotsford to roast a community icon and to mark his retirement from the business community. Now, if you've ever attended a charity auction in the Fraser Valley — as I know you have, Mr. Speaker — you would undoubtedly know his voice. If you ever lived in Abbotsford, you probably know him. And if you've ever donated your time to a charity in Abbotsford, you probably worked beside him.

After arriving in Abbotsford in 1975, Dave Holmberg opened Bobcat Country Sales and began his incredible service to the community. Over almost four decades he's given volunteer support to dozens of community organizations and projects, including Crime Stoppers, the Abbotsford Air Show, the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce, the Salvation Army and Ducks Unlimited. Dave is currently chair of the Abbotsford Airport Authority.

When the Discovery trail was built in Abbotsford to provide community connectivity and a recreational opportunity, Dave was there with a Bobcat to lead the way. He's been active as a volunteer with both the B.C. Liberal Party and the federal Conservative Party.

Following the tragic passing of Dave Holmberg Jr., his son, from cancer in 2011, the Holmberg clan have devoted themselves to the construction of Holmberg House, a $7½ million hospice for Abbotsford. With Dave's family's leadership, this community dream is becoming a reality.

If you've ever attended an event where Dave is acting as an auctioneer — Mr. Speaker, you would know — don't scratch your nose or wave at a friend, or his eagle eye will spot you, and you'll be making a purchase you never planned. And with Dave, it won't be cheap.

Dave has retired now from Bobcat Country Sales. I suspect that between golfing trips to Palm Springs with his wife, Lee, he'll become a full-time volunteer. That's just Dave's way.

Congratulations on your retirement, Dave, and thanks for your 37 years of making Abbotsford a better place.

CAMPBELL RIVER HEAD INJURY

SUPPORT SOCIETY

C. Trevena: It could happen to anyone at any time, and it would change your life: a head injury. In Campbell River there is a group that can help and does. It helps dozens of people every week, every year. The Campbell River Head Injury Support Society has recently moved to a new centre, with new opportunities.

[1350]

Anyone who knew their former centre will really appreciate the amount of space they have in the former Hillcrest store on Dogwood and 9th in Campbell River, especially the people who rely on the support and who rely on the society to provide regular programming and real-life help, from dance classes, computer classes and crafts to life skills and cooking, people give advice, they receive information, and they get advocacy in how to navigate a system that may have become very complicated for them.

It's a supportive environment with the additional benefit of supportive housing. It has four apartments just right above the centre, and just behind there's a kitchen garden which is being built for cooking classes and for the community.

The organization is now looking to expand. It's looking to provide more housing on the neighbouring lot. Build it, and they will come, and they know that people do. The need for affordable and supportive housing is clear in Campbell River and in many other communities. Housing is central to a good quality of life, and the Campbell River Head Injury Support Society knows this too.

I hope that people will come visit the Campbell River Head Injury Support Society when it next has its open house, and help support the expansion of its housing.

[ Page 10806 ]

Oral Questions

TIMBER SUPPLY AND MILL OPERATIONS

IN BURNS LAKE AREA

A. Dix: My question is for the Minister of Jobs. We've spoken to him in advance of these questions, just to make sure that we all have the same information. The official opposition and others, I believe, were sent a copy of a draft cabinet submission around options that the government has with respect to the rebuilding of the Hampton mill, the Babine Forest Products mill in Burns Lake.

The submission suggests that the proposals to seek adequate timber supply, fibre supply, for the mill would not be possible under current laws and would require, in fact, significant changes to allow it to happen. I wonder if the Minister of Jobs could confirm that such changes are being contemplated.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm happy to answer the member's question.

Mr. Speaker, 48 hours after the tragedy hit Burns Lake, I flew up, and I spent time with the community up there. I met with hundreds of people who were mourning the loss of the mill and worrying deeply about the loss, potentially, of family members — who, tragically, turned out to be lost. I talked to them about the importance of having hope in the future and having faith that we, if we work together as a community, can find solutions to these problems. I told them that they needed British Columbia and that we would be there for them.

The document that the member has is a document that did not ultimately go in that form to cabinet. But it does discuss many of the things that are under discussion in the community — things that need to be discussed, issues that we've talked about with the Steelworkers, with the First Nation, with community leaders and with people from across the province. These are discussions that we have to have, and it's a much bigger issue than just in Burns Lake.

When I was up there, I promised the people of Burns Lake that we would be there for them, and we will keep that promise.

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

A. Dix: Then the Premier will know that yesterday the Jobs Minister committed to a consultation process before any changes are made to guarantee fibre supply.

The leaked document suggests…. I think the Premier suggested that it didn't go to cabinet, and that's a very good thing to learn, but the leaked document suggests that Hampton is looking for certainty around 900,000 cubic metres of fibre by the end of April. Can the Premier confirm that that is in fact their request, and will the government be providing such a guarantee?

[1355]

Hon. C. Clark: I can't confirm that that is the request, although I certainly can confirm that the folks in the community have said to us very clearly that they want government's help in trying to find a new fibre supply or trying to find ways that we can replace those jobs in the community. We have heard that from members of the opposition. We have heard that from First Nations in the community. We are working very hard to try and find solutions for the people of Burns Lake.

Now, we are going to make sure we are consulting the public about these issues. They are very difficult issues to deal with. Many of the solutions are potentially controversial, but the community needs us. The community doesn't just need the government; the community needs members of the opposition on all sides of the House.

The community needs its own leaders, its First Nations leaders, the unions, members of the community, people who work there. The community needs all of us to come together and try and find what could be very difficult solutions to very challenging problems. Ultimately, that's the only way we're going resolve this.

So I'd welcome the Leader of the Opposition, the independent members and all of the people who are interested in this issue to be part of this discussion. And know this: it will not be easy to find those answers. It is going to mean we're going to have to take some bold decisions. As I said, the community needs us — but not just the people on this side of the House. The community is depending on all of us to be able to come up with those solutions together.

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

A. Dix: Of course, in order to be part of the process, one has to have access to the information. The document from the Ministry of Forests suggests specifically that Hampton Affiliates is looking for a specific amount of fibre and is looking for a guarantee by the end of April. We would be, of course, interested in the government's response to that request.

The document also suggested that the chief forester would not be able to approve such a change in timber supply and suggests, therefore, that the chief forester, essentially, be removed in authority over a 15-year period. It cites, as a support for this, a reason to do this: "The inherent uncertainty that comes with the independent exercise of discretion by the chief forester."

I just wanted to ask the Premier…. I agree with her that these issues are very serious. I went to Burns Lake, as well, for one of the funerals, and I know what's at stake there. I wanted to ask the Premier if she is, in fact, considering removing the chief forester's authority over these issues.

[ Page 10807 ]

Hon. C. Clark: We are going to be talking to the community and talking to the broader public in British Columbia about all of these issues. I want to encourage the member, rather than just asking questions, to also offer solutions. He will have the opportunity to do that. I think the community is expecting that from all of us. People need to know that we all want to be a part of finding some solutions for this community.

I do want to pay special tribute to the member for Nechako Lakes, who has led, in a brave and very forceful way, the healing of the community in Burns Lake — $55 million for the hospital in Burns Lake that responded so bravely to the tragedy; $2.4 million for a much-needed community centre in the community; $7 million in highway improvements targeted to the Burns Lake area; a jobs fair that attracted 300 people; a dedicated man coordinating the activities of government, in Bob Clark, up there in the community; work in aboriginal affairs; work at the Ministry of Social Development.

Every ministry of government is focused on making sure that they do their bit. The member for Nechako Lakes has been absolutely vital in making sure that all of these things happen for that community, when they needed us most.

[1400]

FOREST MANAGEMENT

AND FOREST HEALTH FUNDING

N. Macdonald: So then, just to continue on the theme — the leaked document confirms something that the Auditor General said earlier this year, that the Forest Practices Board has said and that professional foresters have said. That is that the government has basically mismanaged the forest health crisis that we have. The document says that significant increases in funding need to be made in forest health — in this case in the northwest.

The question is to the government. Why did it take the loss of this mill for the Liberals to figure out that problem, and will government commit to finally addressing the forest health crisis, not only in this region but across British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the critic for providing a copy of this document. I find it interesting, actually, because the minister's name isn't even spelled correctly in the document. I'm guessing it must have been a relatively early version of it.

The members opposite should recall where the mountain pine beetle epidemic started and the actions that caused it in the first place. I recall one of the very first appointments that I served under in 2001 was a committee that was established by the Premier of the province to look at the mountain pine beetle challenges and how we could deal with those.

We produced a report that articulated many of the challenges in front of us, and in fact, we moved forward on those actions. We established a small-scale salvage program that recovered a tremendous amount of value. We moved up the value chain from just 50 percent recovery of the mountain pine beetle stands to 80 percent of the mountain pine beetle stands. We established the beetle action coalitions, three of them across the province, and funded them with significant amounts of money that have gone on to develop cross-sectoral strategies to make sure that we've got economic diversification.

None of this is new news. It's important now — it's been expedited as a result of that very tragic fire — but this all started a long time ago in the 1990s.

The real work has to be done over the next short period of time because of the fire and the need in Burns Lake and the commitment that this government has made to the people of Burns Lake to make sure we look after their interests.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: This is a huge issue. It's much bigger than this one community, and the minister knows it. I think any member who is from that region knows that government had ten years to work on this, and here we are at this point with all sorts of issues in front of us, all of them major challenges.

Going back to the document. The document says that if forest health work — which would be done as a matter of course, normally — is actually done, there is a massive economic benefit. But the government's response going forward is to actually cut $30 million in forest health over the next three years.

That is the direction that the government has consistently gone. The problems the government has created are here in front of us.

The question I have for the minister is: will the minister commit, going forward, to invest in forest health in British Columbia at a level that is appropriate? Or is it his intention to continue on the same track and have community after community face the crisis that we see in Burns Lake today?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite clearly hasn't looked through the history of this file and understood the synthesis of it and where it actually started. I remember, during the 1990s, actually logging mountain pine beetle wood. That was during a time when the government of the day said: "Cold weather will come. Cold weather will kill the beetles, and we don't have to worry about it."

This government understands the immediacy of this issue. It has been expedited as a result of the Burns Lake fire. The Premier was in Burns Lake within 48 hours of that fire. She looked the mayor, the First Nations chief and the union leaders in the eyes and said: "We're going to be there for you."

[ Page 10808 ]

We are going to do everything we can to help support this community. The member for Nechako Lakes, the Premier and myself have all made that commitment. That's what this work is all about.

[1405]

PIPELINE PROJECTS AND FEDERAL

OIL SPILL RESPONSE OPERATIONS

R. Fleming: As of last week British Columbia now faces two major oil pipeline projects that could carry millions of barrels of Alberta crude per day across our province and within our coastal waters. This comes exactly at the same time that the federal Conservatives are massively cutting Canada's environmental agencies. They are also shutting down B.C.'s oil response centre. Unbelievably, the command centre for the Pacific coast and an oil spill on our coastal waters will now be located in Montreal.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. How have the B.C. Liberals responded to this preposterous idea and decision by the Harper government to shut down B.C.'s regional oil spill response centre and move the operations to Montreal?

Hon. T. Lake: We understand the importance of protecting the environment here in British Columbia, particularly our coastal environment. We're working very closely with our federal government to understand any potential changes that will have an impact on oil spill response.

It is completely false to say that incident command has been removed. Incident command happens at the site of the emergency, and that will continue. In fact, the Coast Guard and Transport Canada have received additional funding this year, which will actually put more boots on the ground here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I would have thought the Minister of Environment would have heard by now that federal employees who work on the Pacific coast on behalf of this region…. Dozens of them are losing their jobs, and the rest of them are being moved to Montreal, while the oil spill response centre shuts down.

On Friday of this week we are going to mark the second anniversary of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The United States, to their credit, learned important lessons from this tragedy. They strengthened their environmental review process, and Canada is moving in the opposite direction.

British Columbians are being asked to consider projects that bring with them significant environmental risks at the same time that the federal government is slashing environmental protections that we enjoy as Canadians. Any reasonable person understands that it makes no sense to even consider major pipelines and oil tankers while closing the Pacific coast's regional oil spill response centre.

Again, can the minister tell British Columbians how he is standing up for their interests to strengthen, not weaken, the capacity for oil spill response in our province?

Hon. T. Lake: As usual, the member opposite is forming opinion based on speculation rather than information. This a continuing pattern, rather than getting the real information. As I mentioned, Transport Canada and the Coast Guard have increased funding to increase their capability of responding.

We have an obligation, which we will fulfil, to make sure that the environment here in British Columbia is fully protected. We will ensure that oil spill response is maximized here in British Columbia and that it is at a level where all British Columbians can feel comfortable, safe and to ensure that the marine environment is protected. That is our commitment.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND SUPPORT

FOR COMMUNITIES IN

INTERIOR TIMBER SUPPLY AREAS

B. Simpson: Yesterday in answer to a question I asked about when consultation would begin on these technical reports that are before the government, the Minister of Jobs said that they would begin in the summer, that they were still doing detailed analysis. The reports indicate — they were up very briefly yesterday on the web page — that the Quesnel timber supply analysis was completed last August and that the other timber supply reviews were completed last November.

In fact, in the Quesnel review it says that any legislative or policy changes would have to be implementable by mid- to late summer 2012. In the consultation window that the minister is suggesting we're going to have, the documents say we actually have to have the decisions made.

[1410]

My question to the minister is simply: can we start the consultations as soon as possible?

[ Page 10809 ]

Particularly in Quesnel, can we start them as early as next week or the week after?

Hon. P. Bell: I should just outline the additional work that would not normally be included in a timber supply review, for the member opposite. It includes looking at options such as extensive fertilization programs, conversion to area-based tenure, thinking about bioenergy stands and how that might help support incremental fibre volumes. That is the additional work that's going on. The member is correct that the timber supply review was completed in that particular timber supply area last year.

My preference, as I believe the member opposite's preference is, is to start the consultations as soon as possible. We understand the urgency around this. I set as a target, earlier on yesterday, summer of this year. Certainly, if we can move that up, we will.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I'm sure the minister misspoke. These are not timber supply reviews. They are in addition to timber supply reviews that were already done in these areas. They're actually asking the question: where is the extra timber going to come from? The stark outcome of this is that all of these communities, regardless of what heroic measures are taken to get extra timber…. They're all going to experience significant job loss, regardless of that.

My question to the minister is this. A senior vice-president of one of the licensees in my area said that this government has to start treating the communities in this impacted area as if they've all had a mill burn down. That's the sense of urgency they have. John Allan and COFI said on the weekend: "We are running out of time."

My question to the minister is: can we get recovery teams, as was done in Burns Lake, in these communities, and again, in particular — the minister said it in estimates yesterday — in Quesnel? Can we get a recovery team on the ground, as we begin this consultation process, so that we can plan for the future of those communities?

Hon. P. Bell: The recovery team that was sent into Burns Lake was sent into Burns Lake because there were 250 unemployed as a result of a fire and an explosion and the very unfortunate death of two individuals. That recovery team actually spans many, many different issues that need to be dealt with in that type of circumstance.

Quesnel's timber supply is challenged. We know it, along with Burns Lake, are the two communities that are probably going to be the hardest hit as a result of the falldown in the midterm timber supply.

I think what the member is asking or should be asking for is not the need for an emergency response team but for an expedited review of the options. I think that's exactly what we are committed to doing as a government.

Certainly, I would encourage the member opposite to try and be productive in terms of contributing specifically to that work and making sure that the community that he currently represents has the opportunity that we would all wish for our constituents.

TransLink GOVERNANCE

AND FARE GATES PROJECT

H. Bains: Yesterday the CEO of TransLink announced that because of a $30 million funding gap, a number of projects will be put on hold. That included two fare gates at Main Street and Metrotown stations, two of the busiest stations in the entire system.

Today the former Minister of Transportation, the current Minister of Finance, expressed his surprise at this decision, saying: "It makes no sense to me." He went on to suggest this much: "Those dollars should be available."

Can the current Minister of Transportation explain how the mess at TransLink led to the fare gates being left unfunded — these two ones?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I said yesterday we had talked about this. I spoke with the media about it. What they've done is postponed these while the audit is going to be completed. These fare gates, I think, are vitally important to the economic well-being of TransLink. I share the concerns of people. They are not cancelled. They will move ahead.

[1415]

They have always been slated to be the last two put in because of the extensive work that has to take place at the SkyTrain station itself. Those fare gates will be installed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: The Minister of Finance, who messed up TransLink's governance over a disagreement with the mayors over Canada Line, is the one who's surprised today for not having funding for these fare gates. All this speaks to the chaos at TransLink that was created by this Liberal government.

Again to the minister, can he explain how this colossal lack of planning at TransLink is now leaving two of the busiest stations without fare gates?

Mr. Speaker: Minister. [Applause.]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Thank you, hon. Speaker. There's a lot of clapping going on in here today.

As I said in my previous answer, Member, I share your concern, if the fact was that these fare gates were not going to be installed. What they've done is said — and I used the word "prudent" yesterday — that until the audit is complete that we have initiated…. And building upon Commissioner Crilly's work, they are saying: "We want to postpone this until we find the funding source that will be there for that."

I can assure the member today — and I can assure the public watching — that those fare gates will be installed, because they are a vital part of the entire fare gate policy for TransLink.

S. Simpson: Board costs have skyrocketed at TransLink. They've gone from what was about $125,000 of costs for the board in 2007 to $624,000 last year. The retainer for the chair goes from $75,000 to $125,000 in three years. The cost for directors' retainers goes from $26,000 to $40,000 over the same period, and that doesn't count the $1,200 they get paid for the meetings that they attend.

[ Page 10810 ]

The Finance Minister tried to defend this on the radio today, calling it the cost of professionalism. My question to the minister is this. Where is the professionalism at the cabinet table that allows that to happen without this minister having a plan to clean up the mess that the B.C. Liberals created in 2007?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm going to relay some information to the member that I think he's probably going to wish he would have found earlier, before asking that question.

In 2007, when the screening panel which is responsible for setting the board members' remuneration was put together…. That is a board that was comprised of a number of people, and on that board was a former Premier of this province for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Mike Harcourt, a man that I think has done a great deal of work for our province.

We should be clear. He's talking about the professional board that came in, in 2008. The dollar figure he is talking about does not reflect what previous boards had, because they were mayors of communities in Metro Vancouver already receiving a stipend for the work that they do. They had an additional stipend for the work they did on TransLink.

Member, what I'm telling you is the fees were set by a cross-section of people in this province, including a former New Democrat Premier in Mr. Mike Harcourt.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I think the people of British Columbia would like to know whether this minister thinks it's okay that those fees skyrocketed, regardless of who was consulted about it, when TransLink is going in the ditch as an organization. That's the problem we have today.

Funding for services is collapsing. The fare gate strategy is chaotic at best, with the Finance Minister saying it makes no sense to him.

[1420]

Admin cuts are growing exponentially across the system. We're seeing services cuts. We're seeing the mayor of Surrey saying she's concerned about cuts to services south of the Fraser. The minister's only response is: "Trust me. I'm talking about it." That's the only response from the minister.

Where is the plan for our strategy? Any plan or strategy from this minister or the Premier, because they seem to be on different pages. Where is the plan to deal with the mess that you've created at TransLink?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think — and I will reiterate for, I think, the third day in a row — we have a world-class transit system in Metro Vancouver. We have….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: But I will not stand here….

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Once again, I'll reiterate. We have a world-class transit system in Metro Vancouver. We are going to continue to build upon that world-class system.

Are there challenges at TransLink today? Yes, there are. Are we working to resolve those challenges together, with the Mayors Council, myself, TransLink? Yes, we are.

Member, I'm an optimist. Without question, whatever you think, I know we're going to find a solution to this that's going to work in the best interests of the public that we all represent.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will start second reading of Bill 24, intituled the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012. Should we get through that, we would then go to committee stage on Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012 and then to Bill 28, intituled Criminal Asset Management Act, 2012. If we continued, we would then go on to second reading of Bills 30 and 32.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room this afternoon we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. Should that complete, we would then move to Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO

ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 24 now be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. D. McRae: The proposed legislation addresses concerns related to the lack of an independent process to appeal decisions related to seizure and disposal of animals and lack of transparency generally about SPCA enforcement activities.

The issue of oversight for the BCSPCA is not new. It was raised by animal owners and animal welfare advocates to the Sled Dog Task Force and by the opposition during last year's committee debate of Bill 9.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

[ Page 10811 ]

We listened to those concerns, and we are here today to present our response. We understand that the BCSPCA works very hard to improve the welfare of animals in our province. The amendments are not a reflection of their performance or dedication, which we know is tireless. But as government we have an obligation to ensure that the public understands statutory enforcement processes and that there is a recourse for decisions that significantly affect people's lives, such as a seizure of a pet or animals used in agriculture.

The amendments we are introducing today will not interfere with the BCSPCA's authority to take an animal into custody from its owner where it is clearly in the best interests of the animal, but it will provide a fair and open process for hearing from both parties involved in the decision.

We are also proposing some related amendments to increase transparency, accountability and flexibility related to enforcement activities generally.

There are four main parts to this bill. Firstly, to create a statutory appeal mechanism for decisions made by the BCSPCA related to animal seizure and destruction. This appeal function will resolve complaints in a timely manner and reduce costs to the public and to government that are associated with a judicial review, which is currently the only recourse for those wanting to appeal a BCSPCA custody decision.

Secondly, the bill enables the minister to request that the BCSPCA report on matters of public interest pertaining to the administration of this act. Such reports may be made publicly available. Those provisions will allow for greater transparency as information related to the enforcement of the PCAA can now be made publicly available where it is a public interest to do so.

[1425]

Thirdly, the minister may draft bylaws for the BCSPCA for the purposes of administering and enforcing the PCAA. This authority would only be exercised if the BCSPCA could not draft its own bylaws. All such bylaws will be made publicly accessible to provide greater understanding of procedures employed by the BCSPCA. Better understanding of BCSPCA procedures could reduce the number of situations that would otherwise proceed to appeal.

Fourthly, in situations where an authorized agent of the BCSPCA is not present or otherwise not able to enforce the act, we have traditionally relied on the police for enforcement. A minor change is being made to allow the minister to appoint others to enforce the act in such situations. This provides some additional flexibility, particularly in situations where police may have other immediate priorities.

The body that will be hearing appeals under the PCAA is the British Columbia Farm Industry Review Board, known as BCFIRB. We considered the option of creating an entirely new body dedicated to hearing PCAA appeals; however, the cost of this option is prohibitive and unnecessary, considering the wealth of expert experience we have available to us in the BCFIRB.

BCFIRB reports directly to the Minister of Agriculture in matters of administration but is independent of government in its decision-making. As a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal it must adhere to the principles of administrative law. The courts have recognized BCFIRB as an expert tribunal with decisions worthy of considerable judicial deference.

I am pleased to introduce these amendments today.

L. Popham: I rise to participate in second reading of this bill as the lead, as the Agriculture critic for the official opposition.

This bill has been quite a difficult bill to navigate through, because there has been definitely two sides of the issue out in the public. There have been some concerns that the BCSPCA has with this proposed legislation, and there also have been some concerns from other animal advocacy groups.

I think it's important to review what has happened in the past when we look at making changes that will affect the future, so an overview of what has happened, basically, with the type of dispute process we've had in place between 2006 and 2012 is quite a handy reference.

Between 2006 and February 2012 there were 67 decisions made not to return seized animals after receiving a dispute from an animal owner. On average it took about 15 days between receiving notice of a dispute and the rendering of a decision by the BCSPCA.

If you eliminate the longest decision, which was 83 days — this was significantly longer than other decisions due to some very unique circumstances — and the shortest, being two days, the average time for the BCSPCA to render a decision was 14 days. Of those 67 decisions, seven owners sought judicial review to the British Columbia Supreme Court.

The time from the BCSPCA decision to the B.C. Supreme Court judgment was on average 75 days. Out of the seven decisions, all seven upheld the decision of the BCSPCA to seize the animal.

In three of the cases the judge returned the matter back to the BCSPCA for reconsideration due to further disclosure required on the part of the BCSPCA. In all of the circumstances where the cases were remitted for reconsideration to the BCSPCA, the original decision not to return was maintained and not overturned in any subsequent judicial review.

There was only one case where some animals were ordered returned to the animal owner contrary to the original decision of the BCSPCA. In that case, out of 30 animals seized, four cats were ordered returned, despite the fact that the judge deemed that the cats were in distress at the time of the seizure and were actually appropriately seized at the time.

[ Page 10812 ]

[1430]

Reviewing the history of what has happened, I think, is very, very important as we move forward with this legislation, the reason being that when you review all cases that have happened in that time period, the length of time that it has taken for these instances to proceed and to come to resolution has quite a good record.

One of the concerns that this legislation brings to myself and to all sides of the issue is the length of time that these cases could possibly take, moving it into a different type of a review process through the Farm Industry Review Board. The fact that there hasn't actually been an increase in the FIRB budget in this last budget with the Ministry of Agriculture has raised concerns, mostly because if we're adding a workload onto the Farm Industry Review Board, we are hoping that those finances would be available when needed.

I have been assured by the minister that the funds needed by FIRB are guaranteed to be there if FIRB is in need of those funds, and that's reassuring. It's reassuring, I think, to all sides of the issue.

It would be nice to see that in legislation as something that we can refer back to. I do believe that the minister is committed to that promise, but in the future if the current minister is not the minister anymore, I'm wondering if the same commitment will be there with a different minister. That's something that I would have liked to have seen clarified, but we can get into that at committee stage.

The other parts of the legislation which were…. Something that all sides of the issue could agree upon that the government should maybe consider as an amendment to the bill was the idea that the minister was able to appoint an authorized agent in a community where there may not be an agent of the BCSPCA acting. Upon discussion with the BCSPCA and other animal advocacy groups, I really felt that an amendment to this bill would be to require that person who would be appointed to have the same types of qualifications that a BCSPCA agent would have.

Currently the BCSPCA has, I believe, 63 agents that have gone through the Justice Institute for their training. I think that that's something that we could be working towards with an amendment, and I think that we could even go as far as to say that they would require Justice Institute accreditation or have equivalent qualifications.

In bringing this to the minister and his staff over the last week, I think we have found common ground there. I think that the minister is very gracious in accepting this recommendation, and I am of the understanding that this will be adopted as a government amendment. I appreciate that thoughtfulness from the minister.

The other amendment that I really do think is a matter of fairness to the BCSPCA is that when an animal is seized and needs to be housed in the care of the BCSPCA, the costs of housing that animal — or animals, depending on the case — really lands on the BCSPCA. The BCSPCA currently doesn't receive funding from the government for that service they're providing.

From talking to both sides of the issue again and making sure that people didn't necessarily think that this was a political amendment but just a matter of fairness, the ability for the Farm Industry Review Board to request an interim payment for the care of the animals from the owner to the BCSPCA would be an amendment that I also believe the minister is interested in accepting.

Again, I appreciate the cooperation that was able to be shown around this concern. I think that it's a matter of fairness. I don't think that the BCSPCA should have that strain on them, given the fact that they are required to house these animals, yet they don't receive funding from the government. I think that all sides of the issue think that would be a fair amendment, and I'm hoping that's something the minister will be putting forward as a government amendment over the next little bit.

[1435]

I haven't seen the amendments that I have been advised are available and moving forward, so if the intent is the same intent that I suggested over the last few days, I would be willing to support this bill. But I would like to review those amendments to make sure that the intent is there. Those are two of the amendments that I think would allow us to support the bill on this side of the House.

There are other concerns that we will be addressing through committee stage. They are serious concerns, but we didn't necessarily put forward amendments on all of our concerns. We're hoping that in the discussion we'll have, going line by line through the legislation, we'll be able to bring these concerns up and have a valuable discussion. And perhaps, if the minister sees value in the other concerns we have, he may consider putting forward government amendments as well.

One of the concerns that I know the BCSPCA had was the availability of the minister to request a report on any part of the workings of the BCSPCA. Now, this is, I think, driven by the need for transparency.

On the legislative part of the SPCA, I think it's fair to request reports on that part of the business. But the BCSPCA is broken into two areas. One is something that falls under the government of British Columbia. The other is a charity part of the BCSPCA. They do fundraising, and they do their own campaigns.

I don't believe at this point we would have that requirement of any other charity in British Columbia — to request a report on anything that the minister sees fit. I think this would be a really great instance where maybe the minister could make a commitment that the SPCA would be broken into two parts. One of them would be required to report out as the minister sees fit, and the other part would fall under the same legislation as other charities in British Columbia.

Those are concerns that we have. As I said, we will be

[ Page 10813 ]

going through the bill and bringing up other concerns. I think those are the more serious ones, but with the cooperation that has been shown over this week I think we can probably work together to make this as strong as possible.

The intent of the bill, of course, is to protect animals and to make sure we have the strongest legislation that we can in order to avoid situations that put animals in jeopardy. I think the intent of the bill is good. I do think that perhaps, from my viewpoint, there is a lot of vagueness in the bill. I don't know if that's because it may have been rushed a little bit, but those are things we can work on together when we get to committee stage, which will hopefully be in the next couple of weeks.

Thank you for your time. We will be having another speaker at this point.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to give support to Bill 24, and I will explain my reasons.

First of all, just to give a bit of context as to why I'm standing here, the House will probably know that I did give notice in the fall that I would be bringing forward my own bill to do with trying to prevent animal cruelty in the province. More about that will come, but I just want to give the context with regard to my background, in my education. I was going through school with the intent of trying to be a veterinarian. Unfortunately, I didn't get in, but I did graduate with a bachelor of science in zoology from UBC.

I've been interested in animal issues and scientific issues all my life, and I've also been interested in animals from a personal state, because I've owned a lot of animals. I've volunteered for the SPCA — done dog walks, all of that sort of jazz — in my youth, so I do appreciate the work that they do, as well as other animal groups. And there are a lot of other animal welfare groups out there.

After the travesty last year involving the sled dogs in Whistler, I think our government has acted very quickly. They developed a task force, which was under the leadership of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. This group developed recommendations to make sure that this horrible incident would never happen again.

[1440]

The act is being revised to reflect their recommendations. Some of these changes include: the toughest animal cruelty penalties in Canada, with fines up to $75,000 and jail terms up to two years; extension of the statute of limitations for offences under the act from six months to three years; greater accountability for owners, companies and others responsible for animals; and new abilities for government to regulate specific activities that relate to the use, care and protection of animals.

Since this process was completed, the province developed a sled dog code of practice and standard of care to provide new protection for sled dogs. These new measures have addressed all of the recommendations of the Sled Dog Task Force.

But as a follow-up from last year, many people have been asking me, knowing my background and my interest in animal welfare: "What can we do for other domestic animals in our province?" As I mentioned, again, I will be bringing forward a bill very shortly on that.

As well, people across the province have come to me, particularly constituents in North Vancouver–Seymour, and have also asked about the lack of an appeal process or an oversight mechanism over the agency with the mandate to seize the animals, meaning the SPCA.

I believe that Bill 24 actually addresses a lot of these concerns, but it also provides a wide range of improvements which better protect animals. And let's face it. That's what we're all here for — to protect animals.

Bill 24 allows British Columbians to appeal animal welfare allegations to an independent tribunal instead of having to take the issue to court, which is expensive, time-consuming and intimidating. Contrary to some of what has been said out there, I don't believe that this will endanger the animals. I believe that it demonstrates our government's commitment to animal welfare without placing additional burdens upon our judicial system.

The province recognizes that the BCSPCA does have an internal review process, but the amendments proposed in Bill 24 publicly codify this review. The BCSPCA will continue to seize animals that are at risk, but it will be streamlined. It can sometimes take up to three months in court. The length of time that an animal remains in the SPCA before a final decision is made can be reduced, compared to using the judicial review process. Even if it did take longer, taking a longer time to make animals safe is a good thing.

The bill also increases transparency and public trust by requiring the SPCA to provide the Minister of Agriculture with information, data and statistics related to the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Again, this is a good thing. Accountability and transparency are good things.

The legislation allows the minister to draft bylaws that outline enforcement procedures and appoint others to enforce the act in such situations where an authorized agent is not present to enforce the act. The powers of the SPCA are substantial, especially related to the seizure of animals. We generally appreciate all the work they do. We all do. I do.

However, independent appeals have the potential to alleviate concerns — what I've heard from constituents and some other animal welfare groups — of the SPCA being viewed or perceived as being an enforcer, a judge, a jury on animal seizures and dispositions. The dual role of advocacy and authority of the BCSPCA comes with a dual responsibility for fairness and accountability. We support a transparent process for both the owners and the BCSPCA.

One of my constituents had mentioned to me…. She

[ Page 10814 ]

has actually put out a press release supporting Bill 24, and she's an animal rights activist. She brought to my attention that last year — in fact, in March 2011 — this group, which was a coalition of about 22 animal welfare organizations, had put forward a recommendation to the ministry to make changes in the laws to protect animals.

Of these recommendations…. There were several, but some of the key ones that I'll just draw to your attention — and if anybody is interested in this document, I can give it to you — are that they requested a review board and public scrutiny and government oversight.

[1445]

They wanted to make sure that the records of the seizures were made available to the minister. Right now we don't know how many animals are seized, how they are disposed of — if they're killed or sold or adopted. We don't know how much is spent on investigations and seizures. There are a lot of unknowns there with regards to finding out how the animals are dealt with. I think Bill 24 does try to address that.

I'm going to read to you a little bit of the press release that this animal rights coalition group had sent to me for my interest.

"After the slaughter of 100 sled dogs reverberated around the world, government responded to the request for the reform of the B.C. Prevention of the Cruelty of Animals Act. Bill 24 is the result.

"Numerous animal welfare groups have approached provincial governments over many years asking for changes in legislation to protect animals from suffering because of the lack of control, accountability and oversight in how the provincial anti-cruelty laws have been enforced.

"Twenty-two animal groups from across British Columbia appealed to the government in a brief" — and I just gave you some of the points previous — "to amend the act and were heard. Bill 24 addresses many of the issues raised in the brief. Government has confirmed that the top priorities of Bill 24 are to ensure the welfare of animals and to provide British Columbians with an appeal process that is transparent and fair.

"The 22 animal groups requested greater accountability and transparency, and Bill 24 does this. It provides greater insight for the public into the enforcement activities."

And it provides for greater oversight by the Ministry of Agriculture.

"The 22 animal groups requested a quicker and more cost-effective appeal process, and Bill 24 provides such an appeal process that will save animal lives and ensure fair treatment."

Then their final recommendation in their press release is: "Bill 24 should be supported by everyone who cares about the welfare of animals."

I'll just address one other concern that has been brought to me with regards to the British Columbia Farm Industry Review Board. I am told that this appeal process will be complete well before the 75 days. I've also been told that currently it can take much, much longer than three months to get to the Supreme Court.

The BCFIRB gets its power from the Natural Products Marketing Act and the Administrative Tribunals Act. These two acts provide the authority for the BCFIRB to settle disputes and conduct hearings in a manner that precludes government involvement and limits appeals of its decisions to judicial reviews based solely on the points of law.

It is important to note that the BCFIRB will only hear appeals that the BCSPCA and the animal owners have not been able to resolve through their own 28-day process.

It does not cost more to go to the FIRB. It costs less, for both the SPCA and the owner, because lawyers are unnecessary, and that's a good thing. It is important to note that decisions need to be resolved fairly, not just quickly.

I've been told that it is anticipated that the BCFIRB will hear about ten to 15 appeals a year. They have a lengthy history of impartially resolving disputes and can help British Columbians with a fair and transparent option if they do not find the BCSPCA's internal review satisfactory.

It is an established tribunal with a lengthy history. There was an option to create a new independent panel, but again, it was felt that that option of a new panel would have not been cost-effective and would have needed to have learned their tribunal procedures.

Besides that, other provinces — including Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island — have all moved to some form of independent oversight for enforcement agencies. British Columbia right now does not have that oversight. I have felt that that's what the government was trying to address.

Again, the welfare of the animals is a top priority, and so is the correct application of the law.

Madam Speaker, I am proud of this government. I am proud of the way that this government has moved quickly on animal protection measures, even just in the last year.

[1450]

I look forward to more good news in the coming weeks with my bill coming up, and I hope people will join me and support this legislation that truly does have the best interests of animals in mind.

V. Huntington: I am very pleased to rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill 24, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. There are mixed feelings in my constituency, based on the conversations I've had with a number of the people in Delta, and certainly some of these concerns will be dealt with as the amendments proposed by the member for Saanich South are dealt with by the government.

As we know, the BCSPCA and many of its supporters are strongly opposed to this legislation. They worry that the Farm Industry Review Board will take longer than the current process to resolve appeals, which could result in both increased costs for the SPCA and its limited shelter space being tied up while an elongated appeal process is underway. They're also concerned that the new process could increase the workload of their officers beyond what the SPCA could reasonably afford.

We know that up to this point FIRB takes an average of

[ Page 10815 ]

six months to reach decisions on the matters it is dealing with. This is longer than the B.C. Supreme Court presently takes to hear animal seizure appeals. What is the minister going to do to guarantee a reasonable response time, one at least no longer than the court system already provides? And is this proposed new area of responsibility sufficiently different from FIRB's normal mandate that we can believe its appeal times will be shorter?

What expertise does the Farm Industry Review Board have in situations of animal cruelty? What expertise does it have when dealing with seizures and abandonments of highly distressed and abused creatures that are domestic animals and not agricultural livestock? And will the attitude toward distressed and abused animals be different because they are or are not livestock?

What I find more troubling is how this bill downloads new reporting responsibility onto the BCSPCA without increased funding. And while I fully support measures that increase accountability, the changes will also increase the administrative workload for the SPCA officers, who are already burdened by the potential increased workloads while the appeals are underway.

Without increased funding, are we going to see reductions in SPCA activities in the field? And I've heard nothing yet about the potential increases in funding the Farm Industry Review Board may need to cover their own increased workload.

This is a scenario we see too often from senior levels of government, and the downloading is especially difficult when an organization is fulfilling a mandate, a statutory obligation, that has to end up relying on public donations to fulfil its legal mandate. For the provincial government to offer the excuse that the SPCA can apply for the new envelope of gaming grant funding is not good enough. As a matter of fact, it is a shockingly irresponsible response.

On the other hand, I have heard from farmers in my constituency who are pleased with the changes. They believe the Farm Industry Review Board offers a less intimidating appeal mechanism than the B.C. Supreme Court, and they think the SPCA might be a little more careful before they try and seize farm animals.

Overall, there is a belief in the farming community that FIRB better understands the relationship between farmers and their animals. And while I'm sure it does have a better understanding of that relationship, I again must ask the question: is FIRB going to be conflicted when dealing with livestock abuses? Who will ensure that conditions society as a whole might find unacceptable are not going to be overlooked by an agency which by its very nature and mandate is sympathetic to the farming industry?

For myself, I would like to see reliable answers to the questions that linger around this legislation. Will the new appeal process actually result in shorter appeals? How many people did the government hear from who wanted to see the appeal process changed? There have only been a handful of cases go to the B.C. Supreme Court in recent years, so I have trouble believing there was a groundswell of opposition to the current process.

[1455]

Did the government legitimately consult with the key stakeholder, the BCSPCA, about this idea? Or did it unilaterally decide to do something and then consult by informing the SPCA about its intentions? I want to believe the former scenario, but our general experience suggests the latter is more likely. Who is going to ensure that the Farm Industry Review Board understands its duty to protect animal welfare when an appeal from the farming community is before the board?

Overall, we have a bill whose effects are still unknown and with a degree of vagueness attached. I must say that I do look forward to committee stage on Bill 24 for answers to some of these questions and to review the proposed amendments when they are tabled.

Deputy Speaker: The member wishes to make an introduction and seeks leave?

C. Hansen: Leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Hansen: I appreciate the members' indulgence.

I have three constituents who have joined us in the Legislature this afternoon. They're over here from Vancouver to meet with the Minister of Agriculture to explore new ways of expanding British Columbia food product exports into China. It gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. Kiet Loung of Adanac Seafood. He is here with his daughter Betty and his sister Cathy. I hope the House will join me in making them very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Energy seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. R. Coleman: Unfortunately, the text did not get to me before I could do the orders of the day today. At the time that I was doing them, I became a grandfather for a third time. Owen Thomas Coleman was born. By the way, my middle name is Thomas, so I'm even a bit more thrilled. He's 10 pounds 7 ounces, the first child for my son Adam and his dear wife, Jodie, and born just within the last hour or so. Everybody is healthy and happy.

Deputy Speaker: Congratulations.

[ Page 10816 ]

B. Ralston: Well, let me join, I'm sure, everyone else in offering the Government House Leader my congratulations on the birth of a grandchild — always a very happy event. I'm not able to join the ranks of those who have grandchildren just yet. At least, I don't have any that I know of.

Debate Continued

B. Ralston: But let me turn my attention to the bill that's before us, Bill 24. I want to begin by commending the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Saanich South for the steps they've taken to resolve some of the outstanding issues that have arisen during the public discussion that has taken place since this bill was tabled.

I know there had been considerable public discussion, perhaps at a less general level, prior to the introduction of this bill. I particularly wanted to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Agriculture and his deputy who, I think, have led some considerable internal discussion on this bill prior to it coming forward.

I support the principle of the review mechanism that's proposed. Presently the possible review of a controversial seizure of animals…. These do arise, where people feel strongly that they have done nothing wrong or that their efforts to care for their animals are being wrongly impugned, and it can be a very emotional and difficult issue.

The mechanism at present is a review to the B.C. Supreme Court. Now, that is a typical administrative law procedure. Usually it's very rare that one would be able to attempt that, even in a

summary way, without the assistance of a lawyer. That really does require for most people a substantial financial burden to get to the point where they can actually get their case or their review into the B.C. Supreme Court.

So the idea of moving the review of a contested seizure through the process that's set out here, where there will be a statutory effort required on the part of the agency, the BCSPCA, and the owner to attempt to resolve that issue prior to resorting to the administrative tribunal, I think, is a good and valuable step.

[1500]

The Farm Industry Review Board is an administrative tribunal. At this point it doesn't have that jurisdiction and will be gaining that jurisdiction. The argument is made that, well, there's no particular expertise there in this administrative tribunal. I think, over time, that that tribunal will acquire that expertise.

The advantage of an administrative tribunal is, of course, that it's much easier for members of the public to get access — to go there themselves, to make their own arguments, perhaps with some legal assistance. But it doesn't involve the substantial legal fees and just the difficulty that ordinary citizens have in addressing legal issues in the B.C. Supreme Court. So this is a positive step.

I would remind those who suggest there isn't expertise in the administrative tribunal that there's no particular expertise in the B.C. Supreme Court in dealing with this issue. What you have are people who are obviously legally trained and who listen carefully to the arguments and make a decision based on the principles of law and the facts of the case. That's exactly what an administrative tribunal does. So if you have people of good judgment, really, the difference in the quality of the decision, I'm sure, will not differ.

Generally, administrative tribunals are used in resolving many disputes. For example, if your car is seized by police for an alleged violation of some part of the Motor Vehicle Act, there's an administrative review mechanism to have the seizure of your car reviewed. Written submissions are made, and a decision is made. It seems to me an entirely reasonable solution that the minister is proposing in this legislation — that the administrative tribunal assume these duties.

In the case of FIRB there is the added benefit that there is a familiarity and a focus on the broad outlines of the agricultural industry. The Farm Industry Review Board, as it's entitled…. Its very name suggests that, and I think it will assist them in developing very rapidly the expertise and the knowledge and the confidence to make the kinds of decisions that the public will respect.

The other issue that is raised here is the issue of ministerial authority in the statute to request a report from the SPCA on any given topic. The member speaking before me has given some examples where one might wish for reports from the BCSPCA. I don't think there's anything particularly sinister about that. In fact, I'm sure the minister will use that power sparingly and only in cases where it will directly assist the resolution of disputes of fact or to shed light on a particular public concern.

I think it's important to have the power in reserve. Perhaps the formal power of requesting and demanding it in the statutory way won't be necessary, given that the power is there. I'm sure the organization will realize that it's simply easier just to comply with the request and deal with it.

We've had debates about animal issues on a number of occasions in the House over the last few years. There's a quotation from the now Minister of Health but previously as an MLA in opposition who said words to the effect that this statute is somewhat unusual in the sense that you have the enforcement of a public statute by a private agency. Given that context, review and accountability is a little bit different than it would be if it were a public body that was enforcing a public statute.

In my view the addition of these minor powers to require a report are justified by the I think relatively unusual situation that we have where the SPCA, as a private society, enforces a public statute — that is, the protection of cruelty to animals statute. I think that is a good thing.

[1505]

The member for Saanich South has also spoken of

[ Page 10817 ]

several proposed amendments and described them as a matter of fairness. I agree with those representations that she's made here today. She has said that the Minister of Agriculture has assured her that contingency funds…. As I understand it, certainly the funds would be available, should the Farm Industry Review Board require some modest additional funding in order to fulfil the new statutory mandate that's conferred upon it.

If that's required, I find the comfort in the representation of the minister. I think that's appropriate, and I'm confident that that will work well.

The other proposed amendment that the member for Saanich South has referred to is one that I support as well. It's an effort to make sure that the BCSPCA is kept whole, in the sense that any additional administrative cost that's required to hold animals while awaiting the first stage of the resolution process or, indeed, the second stage before the Farm Industry Review Board…. Again, I concur that that's a matter of basic administrative fairness, and I support those proposed amendments.

I want to indicate my broad support for the work that's been done by the minister and the critic and look forward to some of the more detailed questions that I'm sure will be posed at the committee stage, when we get to it.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012. I want to acknowledge the very fine work that's been done by the Minister of Agriculture, as well as the collegial approach that's been taken by the member for Saanich South in presenting some potential amendments to improve in some ways, I think, the goals of these changes to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

As a veterinary professional, I've had the opportunity to work with the SPCA for many, many years. In fact, even before, growing up as a child, the SPCA was one of the organizations that I was fascinated with and had very positive contacts with as a pet owner, as a young man.

As a veterinarian working in Alberta and here in British Columbia, I can say that this organization is well respected. It works extremely well with animal care professionals.

If it wasn't for this organization, I think companion animal owners and farm animal owners throughout the province of British Columbia would not have the comfort they do have that the wellness of animals, particularly as it relates to cruelty investigations and the sad case where animals are homeless…. We simply wouldn't have the level of care that we enjoy here in British Columbia — not that there aren't challenges.

I've worked with the SPCA on many different files — for instance, the banning of using exotic animals in circus performances in communities here in the Lower Mainland and also in my now home community of Kamloops. They've been extremely helpful in making sure that we have information available to work with local governments to see a reduction and, in fact, elimination of using exotic animals in circuses in a way that is considered inhumane.

Also, they've been very helpful to me — as a local government leader, in my previous political role — in developing the dog owner responsibility bylaw in the city of Kamloops. Again, I worked very cooperatively with them and look forward every year to different challenges that we have between the cities of Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George in raising money for the SPCA, as well as the Paws for a Cause, which is the annual dog walk that we have to raise money for the SPCA.

[1510]

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was brought into force last year, after the terrible incident around the sled dogs in Whistler, where there was a reported incident of dogs being euthanized in a fashion that British Columbians rightly felt was reprehensible.

I remember getting the news of that incident while my family was in Sri Lanka doing some work in a community there with which we are associated to recover from the tsunami that happened in 2004. We also, as part of that group, worked with an agency over there to spay and neuter animals that are unwanted in that community. It was kind of ironic, I guess the word is, that while we were in a foreign community helping to deal with a problem like that, we learned of this terrible incident here in British Columbia.

I was very pleased that the Premier of the time asked me to lead the Sled Dog Task Force to find solutions to the situation that led to the unfortunate deaths of so many of those animals in Whistler.

That resulted in the new Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which in fact gave British Columbia the toughest animal cruelty laws in all of Canada, with fines of up to $75,000 and potentially two years in jail as punishment for those found guilty of the act. Attached to the act were standards of care for the sled dog industry. I think we've made some extremely good progress in looking after the welfare of animals here in British Columbia.

I do know that when the SPCA was given powers which are very similar, as the member for Surrey-Whalley pointed out, to the broad powers of other agencies like police forces, there was concern expressed at that time in the mid-'90s about the oversight of an agency with such broad powers. I think this legislation addresses that concern. I'm very pleased that we have general agreement in the House over the need and the fairness of the changes that are being brought forward here today by the Minister of Agriculture.

The Farm Industry Review Board does have the expertise in tribunals and in these administrative processes, so I think it does provide an opportunity for those who feel that the animals they own that have been seized by the SPCA — with good intent, I'm sure, on the part of

[ Page 10818 ]

the SPCA…. It's an opportunity for the owners once the internal appeal process is exhausted through the SPCA.

Let's face it. In many cases probably those concerns have been worked out in that process, but if in fact they're not and it has to go to the second level, then rather than going to the Supreme Court — which, as the member for Surrey-Whalley pointed out, can be very expensive in terms of retaining legal counsel — an administrative review body like the Farm Industry Review Board makes a lot of sense and comes, I think, in a more accessible format for animal owners.

This board does have the expertise, I believe, to handle these types of processes. I'm confident that they will be able to do so in a timely manner. Of course, time will tell, as they take on this new responsibility. I am confident that the Minister of Agriculture and his officials will provide oversight to ensure that it is a timely process and that it accomplishes the goals and objectives that he is setting out for them.

Sometimes I think we run into situations where there are misunderstandings, and sometimes this is a matter of education for animal owners. Owning animals and having dealt with companion animals for a large part of my adult life, dealing with owners of companion animals…. I can tell you it's an extremely emotional issue when you're dealing with the health and welfare of animals.

There is a broad range of attitudes towards the welfare of animals in terms of what one person might consider normal standard of care and what another might consider normal standard of care. There are opportunities for misunderstanding in terms of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, and there are times when it's simply a matter of education and communication that solves these types of problems.

[1515]

I do think that with the best intent there are occasions whereby animals are seized in which the owners feel that it was not the appropriate situation. I do believe this board will provide an opportunity for the animal owner to be heard in a fair and reasonable way and in an affordable and accessible manner to give them a voice and to plead their case.

Also, some of the other changes that are here I think are very positive. The SPCA does have a broad mandate to enforce a statute of this Legislature, and I think it's important. These changes give greater insight into those enforcement activities of the BCSPCA. It will allow the Minister of Agriculture to have the society provide information, data and statistics relating to the enforcement of this act.

I think that's a very positive thing. The more the public knows and the more that we as legislators know about how the organization is tasked and carries out enforcement of the act gives us a better ability to understand the challenges that we put in front of that organization. The challenges include how they are able to finance their activities. I think this will provide a lot of information that will be valuable to us as we sit in this House and look at the way that we support the SPCA.

It also allows the minister to draft bylaws for the SPCA to outline procedures for the SPCA officers to follow when enforcing the act, if no bylaws exist with that organization. Again, I think this tightens up the way in which an organization is tasked to enforce

an act of the Legislature. The ministry will provide the resources that are necessary to do that, so it will alleviate the cost on the organization.

Madam Speaker, I won't go on too long. Just to summarize, I have great respect for the SPCA. Two of my colleagues, Dr. Jamie Lawson and Dr. Patricia Pryor, work within the organization in Vancouver and throughout British Columbia. They do amazing work. And their investigator, Ken Kokoska, whom I've had the opportunity to work with. They are amazing individuals. It is an enormously valuable organization.

The changes that we are seeing here today will make the organization stronger and will provide more information for all of British Columbia on how they enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which has the toughest animal cruelty regulations in Canada. It will serve the organization well, it will serve the people of British Columbia well, and it will serve this Legislature well to enact the changes that we see here before us.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will thank the House for listening and take my seat.

L. Krog: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to second reading of Bill 24.

I don't suppose there is anyone who has ever had a pet who wouldn't suggest that on occasion they'd rather go home and talk to the dog than they would to anyone else. Animals have provided comfort to our species for a very long time. My mother used to suggest that sitting around the fire with a dog beside you probably took us back to our early days in the cave and gave us a sense of security we wouldn't otherwise have had. As somebody once famously said, if you want a friend, get a dog.

Having that said, this bill, when first presented in the Legislature, raised a great deal of concern. As usual, there were comments received by many members of the House, people expressing concern for various reasons. On one end, obviously, you have people who engage in intensive farming with domestic animals who were concerned about this. You had people on the pet-owning end who likewise expressed concern. Indeed, I just spent some time yesterday on the phone with one of my constituents who had heard a little bit about the bill and was very concerned about it.

Having said that, hon. Speaker, it's time to pay compliments to the government — to the Minister of Agriculture and to our Agriculture critic, the member for Saanich South — who have worked together to try and resolve

[ Page 10819 ]

the issues that arise from this bill. I think it's important to note that society on one hand says that they don't wish to be overregulated on many occasions, yet on the other hand everybody wants regulation for something that is of importance to them.

[1520]

We are a pet-owning society. We're not just a society composed of farmers. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians keep pets, and some of them, obviously, do a better job than others. Some people spend a great deal of money on their pets. Others who are raising them for slaughter and consumption likewise spend a great deal of money and provide care.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The Minister of Environment was suggesting that I was talking about raising pets for slaughter, but of course, Minister, I wouldn't be so obtuse. I am suggesting that the average head of beef cattle is not being raised for a pet, unless that may be the course of behaviour in Kamloops. I assure that him in other parts of the province, generally speaking, they're raised for consumption.

This is about, in essence, a bit of fairness. Most people do not have occasion to have involvement with the law, notwithstanding what some may say about crime rates and notwithstanding what the Tory government in Ottawa seems to believe about the necessity of getting tougher on crime when crime rates are decreasing. But most people don't have involvement with the law in any way, shape or form, either in the criminal justice system or even in the civil justice system.

N. Simons: Or lawyers.

L. Krog: Or lawyers, for that matter, in many respects, as the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast points out.

It can be quite intimidating to have involvement with a process, administrative or otherwise, where your ultimate remedy, essentially after an initial decision, is to have to climb the steps of the B.C. Supreme Court and make your case there. It's an expensive process. It is a process out of reach for most British Columbians, based on their incomes. It is a process that is intimidating in every aspect.

What the bill does is allow for something in between. What it does is allow a person who feels aggrieved by a decision of the SPCA, a unique and highly respected organization in our society, to be appealed to the British Columbia Farm Industry Review Board. That gives an opportunity to someone who might otherwise face the Supreme Court the chance to plead their case, to make their appeal without the necessity of engaging counsel, hopefully, and without the necessity of the expense and complex procedures that are required in the Supreme Court.

When I say complex, I say that with great deference to the rules changes that were made in the last few years. I think many British Columbians find getting into court now, Supreme Court, in particular, even more intimidating than it was before. What this bill does is give that opportunity to people to take an interim step that may, hopefully, resolve the issue that arises. That, hon. Speaker, is a good thing.

Now, I know there are concerns in the community from those who take animal welfare to heart, and I applaud them. They have had concerns that they've expressed in the past about the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I appreciate those concerns. But the SPCA is a unique organization, as I've said. It is an organization that I suspect many of the members, including yours truly, have supported financially from time to time, for obvious reasons. We care about the work it does. Whether we own animals of any kind, we care about the work that they do.

I think that in the view of most of the members of this chamber we take seriously the abuse of animals of any kind. There is no more an excuse to abuse an animal than there is to abuse a human being. Indeed, there are some in our society, and a growing number, who think we have got it wrong when we think of animals as being property.

Now, that's an extreme that I appreciate presents difficulty for a lot of people, and it would. I suspect most of the members in this chamber are not vegans. Whenever you talk about this issue, it seems to me it raises a great deal of philosophical issues, things that you could spend a great deal of time discussing in this chamber.

As a proud pet owner and someone who, together with my spouse, has spent more on veterinarian bills than the average British Columbian, I can assure you, I take pet ownership very seriously, to the point where our children have sometimes suggested in the past that they weren't loved as much as the cats. Then again, hon. Speaker, children are always critical of their parents' spending priorities, if it doesn't involve them first.

[1525]

Interjection.

L. Krog: Spending their inheritance, the member has suggested. Yes, always a concern in the modern world, I suppose.

As someone who takes providing a good home for a pet very seriously, I think this is good legislation, in essence. There will obviously be questions that will arise, and I'm sure the member for Saanich South, our critic who has done a very good job to date in getting the government to respond appropriately, will be able to carry the debate in the manner that it deserves.

These are important decisions, and it is important, I think, that they, like any decision in our society, be done

[ Page 10820 ]

in a timely manner. Justice delayed is justice denied. As my principal, when I started articling many years ago, once said to me: "Just remember that when that client comes through the door and you hear their problem and you appreciate that it's actually a very small problem, it is, however, the biggest problem they have."

When an animal is seized, it is, for many people, an all-consuming issue, and it's important that it be resolved quickly. It's important that it be resolved quickly, frankly, for the purposes of the animal's welfare. So this is a step forward. It will be interesting to see exactly what the minister can say in response to the specific questions that will arise.

Overall, we have to look at this legislation and say, essentially, thank you. It will provide a mechanism that I think will be appreciated by those who have to have involvement with this process. As I emphasize and say again, being involved in any kind of process is challenging for people often not in a position to spend money, often not in a position to obtain the expertise and assistance they might need to help them through it.

Anything that keeps people out of the courthouse, as long as justice is done, is a positive thing. Courts should literally be our last resort. Forcing British Columbians to jump from a decision of the SPCA into B.C. Supreme Court always struck me as a ridiculously onerous process for British Columbians.

Today we have the opportunity to support a process which recognizes the fiscal reality, the economic realities of British Columbians and owners of animals of whatever type they may be.

I'm happy to give my general support to this bill. I look forward to committee stage to see what the government has to say and obviously, also at that point, to have time to review with interest the amendments that will be forthcoming, which will hopefully satisfy the many concerns that have been raised by our various constituents.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. D. McRae: I want to stand and thank the BCSPCA. In my community, as in many communities across this province, the organization works tirelessly, protecting animal rights and welfare across this great province. The work they often do is some that is very trying and can be very emotional, and they've done so with, I think, a great track record in the past.

I also want to express again, and I think that we talked about this before in other talks about the BCSPCA, the personal connection they have to my family. Our youngest cat, Stumpy, is an SPCA alumni.

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, well, Stumpy is…. Thank you very much to the member to my right. It is a great name because the cat came with no tail. It was sort of on sale at the BCSPCA. But the reality is that Stumpy is a very important part of our family. When we picked up Stumpy, my daughter, who was younger at the time, became a member of the BCSPCA and receives their newsletters on a regular basis and appreciates the work they do as well.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Minister of Environment, when he was talking, mentioned about, partly, how we got to this place. I wish in some ways, obviously, the events that got us here never occurred, but I am pleased that the results that came of it are making lives better for animals and animal lovers across British Columbia.

Having the highest fines in Canada, having the jail terms of up to two years I think sends a message that we respect animals in this province. We want to make sure that those who consider, basically, mistreating them realize that we do not take it lightly. So I want to thank the minister to my left, as well, for the work he did with his colleagues to help move this forward.

Also, during the comprehensive review following the sled dog tragedy, the public did raise some concerns about transparency and accountability. We are proposing these changes today to make sure that these occur.

[1530]

It is something that is common with other provinces in Canada. It is something that I think will basically enhance the BCSPCA's reputation in terms of openness, and I think that is something that is going to be well received.

As well, I'm also keen that the changes will free up valuable court time and provide animal owners with a less formal and more cost-effective dispute resolution process. We know in the courts that we'd prefer, I think, to have them dealing with criminal matters when they have to, and if we can find an equivalent board that is less stressful, more timely, it will be a benefit for all involved.

The B.C. Farm Industry Review Board will begin working with stakeholders following these amendments and make sure that they act in a fair, effective and timely manner like they have done as an organization with the other disputes.

The BCSPCA has stated that the Supreme Court generally takes about 75 days, and there have been some issues about how long some B.C. FIRB appeals do take. However, some of those appeals are incredibly complex, involving issues like supply management and such. I would argue, and so would B.C. FIRB, that if they come into this appeal process, they'll be able to deal with the resolution processes much faster.

They expect to be completed, unlike the B.C. Supreme Court which takes 75 days, in less than 60 days, and hopefully, even faster than that. I have great faith that

[ Page 10821 ]

B.C. FIRB will be an excellent body to do these opportunities. As well, it must be pointed out that B.C. FIRB will only hear appeals that the SPCA and the animal owners have not been able to resolve through the existing 28-day BCSPCA internal review process.

I'm hoping that B.C. FIRB is not overly taxed by these appeal board processes. I don't think the number of appeals will be overly huge. And like the member opposite, the critic across the way, mentioned, there have not been a huge number of appeals brought forward to the Supreme Court at this stage.

As well, we've advised B.C. FIRB that we will assist them, providing some ministry resources as needed, to make sure they can do the job they're doing, and we thank them very much for being so willing.

So again, thank you for the kind words both from members of this side of the House and members opposite. It is nice to know that we can find common ground in this House and make sure we do the best for British Columbians and the animals of British Columbia.

Saying that, I move that Bill 24 be referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, you've got to move second reading.

Hon. D. McRae: Oh, I did that at the start, but I'll do it again. Sorry.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I get so excited about introducing bills in the House.

I move that Bill 24 be referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012, 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. T. Lake: I now move committee stage of Bill 25, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 25; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:35 p.m.

Hon. S. Bond: To members opposite: we will have the appropriate ministers here for the various sections, and we're very pleased to say that the House Leader will be handling

section 1, related to the New Relationship Trust Act.

section 1.

L. Krog: No disrespect to the distinguished Government House Leader, of course, but I suggest this might be a case, given that I'm not the aboriginal affairs critic, of the blind leading the blind through

section 1.

I see the minister is ably assisted by a public servant, who I have no doubt can explain fully to me, as I'm asking this question to the minister: what is the necessity for this section?

Hon. R. Coleman: I did have a conversation with the critic before question period to walk him through this, but basically what it is, is a minor amendment to the New Relationship Trust Act. It's going to lengthen and stagger the terms of office for the new relation trust directors from two years to a three-year term. The new relationship trust board requested this change to allow more continuity in management of the new relationship trust fund and its board of directors.

L. Krog: If the minister could just explain: I assume that this is sort of a rolling appointment then? How many members on the board and how many will be…? I assume that we've got a multi-member board and that they'll be replaced on a rolling basis — much like the U.S. Senate operates. You don't elect every senator every year.

Hon. R. Coleman: Except that they roll them every two years over a six-year term, and this is a three-year term, and they basically…. It was requested by…. It's a seven-member board, by the way. So it's seven members on the board, and it was set up initially with two-year terms, and they weren't staggered. So they wanted to get them to three-year terms and have them staggered, which is pretty much standard for most of the boards within government.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Krog: I wonder if he could just explain what

section 2 is about. In other words, why is this requirement being removed? What's the purpose of it? Who requested it?

Hon. D. McRae: May I have a few seconds just to get my staff in?

L. Krog: I'm going to ask the question that is asked by

[ Page 10822 ]

every three-year-old when you tell them why they can't have candy, and they ask: "Why?" The question is:

section 2 — why is it necessary to remove this requirement?

Hon. D. McRae: The elimination of the requirement for LGIC designation of farm income plans eliminates unnecessary review and approval processes for the ministry and cabinet.

L. Krog: The minister described it as an unnecessary approval process. I'm just wondering: is that the conclusion drawn by the ministry officials? Is that the conclusion drawn by the farming community? In other words, is this a bureaucratically driven amendment, or is this an amendment in response to public questions around this?

[1540]

Hon. D. McRae: The plans now conducted under the terms are very prescriptive federal-provincial government agreements, and as such it's seen as redundancy. The federal and provincial governments have already reached agreement and approved the content of such plans, and it would be, as I said earlier, just basically a duplication of agreements.

L. Krog: If I can just ask a few more questions on this. If the governments have approved it…. What does the minister mean by that when he says the governments have approved it? Have the ministers signed off on it? Has it been approved by the federal cabinet? Is the federal government making the same kind of change legislatively, so it's going to be a minister making the decision, and that's it? How does this work?

Perhaps the minister could explain what a farm income plan is, and that might assist me in understanding.

Hon. D. McRae: Agreements require signatures from both the federal and provincial ministers, and they follow established protocols between the Ministry of Agriculture and the federal Ministry of Agriculture for negotiating at the staff level.

A prime example of such an agreement would be AgriStability, where we enter into a 60-40 cost-sharing agreement with the federal government in regards to getting dollars out to farmers in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand it, presently this has to be approved by cabinet. Henceforth, if this passes, it's going to be approved by the minister himself. Likewise, is the federal process changing?

Hon. D. McRae: The process won't change at the federal level. It's only us that required it to go to an OIC. This will make it easier for us to fall into line in making sure the agreements are done expeditiously.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

[1545]

L. Krog: This authorizes the minister, on behalf of the government, to "enter into any agreement that the minister considers would provide for the joint participation by British Columbia, Canada or another province in a farm income plan." I wonder if the minister could give me an example of what would be covered by this section.

Hon. D. McRae: Two examples we could use would be AgriInsurance or, like I mentioned earlier, AgriStability. These two programs support and stabilize farm income and protect the producers from crop losses in an event, perhaps, like weather.

L. Krog: Given that the minister's going to be given this power exclusively now, as opposed to it being approved by cabinet, what sort of dollar range are we talking about? Is there any limitation on this, or could, in theory, the minister enter into an arrangement that involves hundreds of millions of dollars or tens of dollars or whatever?

Hon. D. McRae: Providing the program was asking for under $2 million, it would be worth just a signature. However, programs that require more than $2 million would require the minister to go to Treasury Board for approvals. So no, there are not hundreds of millions of dollars….

L. Krog: I sense a certain disappointment from the minister that he can't sign the big cheques without going by Treasury Board.

I take it this also authorizes — and I assume the present act doesn't — participation in programs that involve a series of provinces. So is it the case now, for instance, that you're only authorized to enter into agreements, under the existing legislation, that involve Canada and British Columbia? Or does the existing legislation authorize the minister to enter into agreements, subject to cabinet approval, with other provinces in Canada at the same time?

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is yes. For example, AgriStability is a program that exists across provinces, across Canada. That's a multilateral. If there was a specific program that was just B.C., it would also be allowed to be signed off by the minister.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

[ Page 10823 ]

L. Krog: This is in respect to the Insurance for Crops Act. I'm wondering, again, if the minister could just explain why this is necessary.

Hon. D. McRae: It's the same rationale we used earlier, when we talked at the beginning of this committee debate. It will be for the three parallel acts. It's just making sure that there is no redundancy and the plans are conducted under the terms of prescriptive provincial-federal agreements.

L. Krog: If the minister could just explain that a little further. Does the Insurance for Crops Act, then, only have application if it involves a contribution by the federal government, or are there provisions that are in fact strictly within the purview of the province?

[1550]

Hon. D. McRae: Again, these are cost-sharing agreements with the 60-40 cost-sharing split — 60 percent from the federal government and 40 percent by the province. Again, it's just cost-sharing for good programs to assist farmers across British Columbia.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister could outline why this is necessary, apart from the convenience of it, which I presume removes this from coming to the attention of cabinet. What sort of programs are involved with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act?

Hon. D. McRae: This will capture other non-insurance and non–farm income agreements. It's broader authority for programs not captured as insurance. For example, several years ago the province had a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government in regards to tree fruit replant in the Okanagan. That was a very specific program that was neither insurance nor AgriStability.

L. Krog: Just out of curiosity, how long has the

section been in place that required the approval of cabinet? And the next question which will follow, which I'm sure the minister can answer, is: if it was so obvious that this made sense and should be done, why wasn't it done sooner?

[1555]

Hon. D. McRae: This dates back to 1979. That was a great year for me and my dad. I was in grade 3.

What happened is a federal audit, either in late 2010 or perhaps early 2011, highlighted that the authority for signing agreements between the federal and provincial governments needed L-G-in-C approval, and this was not happening. We are now rectifying that discrepancy so that we can go forward and make sure the agreements are valid.

L. Krog: I'm just delighted the minister didn't bring up the '90s somehow and why it wasn't corrected then. I'm surprised he didn't take advantage of that opportunity. It must be the spirit of great conviviality and love that has been expressed in the chamber so frequently this week.

Having said that, if this has been known for as long as it has and it has only has been raised now, quite simply, given the apparently non-controversial nature of this provision, why wasn't it done sooner? I'm going to assume, of course, that there must be at least a few agreements that passed the minister's desk under this act, and I wonder if he could in his answer just outline, for instance, in a year how many agreements would fall under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act?

Hon. D. McRae: We were signing agreements between the federal government and the province with L-G-in-C approvals up to 2004. In 2004, though I was not Minister of Agriculture at the time, the ministry was advised that the approval process was not needed. However, again, in early 2011 or late 2010 the federal audit raised the issue that this advice was perhaps weak.

[1600]

We sought legal advice and are rectifying it today with this piece of amendment. However, as soon as we found out that there were some concerns raised, from that point on, all agreements signed by the federal government and the province were actually done with LGIC approval, once we were aware of any inconsistencies in advice.

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister admit the government might have been in breach of good legal advice at some point.

I take it that the real reason for these changes is because it's been discovered that — and good legal advice revealed that — the governments may not in fact have been bound to these agreements because of the mere signature of the minister not being binding on the Crown itself. That's essentially what the minister has said. I wonder if he would just confirm that.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: The reality is, like I mentioned earlier in this conversation, that these agreements have been entered into between the federal government and the provincial government since 1979. During that course of time ministries have received different levels of advice. The reality is that when we saw the audit that existed in late 2010, early 2011, and it was advised that we did need LGIC approval, we recognized that. The agreements we entered into from that point forward required LGIC approval, and that's what we've been doing.

[ Page 10824 ]

L. Krog: I take it from the minister's answer that the agreements having been signed by the minister involved in any specific agreement were then in fact approved retroactively by order-in-council. I wonder if the minister sought advice on that, whether a retroactive approval was in fact effective from a legal perspective, given that we are coming into

section 6 here, which I was going to question him about.

Hon. D. McRae: LGIC approvals were from 2011 forward. As alluded to,

section 6 will give retroactive authority. I think perhaps the member might be asking if this retroactive authority could have been brought in by OIC. The answer is no. An OIC could not give retroactive authority for the pre-audit period.

L. Krog: I think I perhaps didn't phrase the question as carefully as I could have.

[1605]

What I am asking the minister is…. If these agreements after 2011 were approved by order-in-council because the legal advice said that in fact they required an order-in-council, the agreements entered into previously, which were signed only by the minister and not approved by cabinet, are still in legal limbo, possibly, until

section 6 is passed. Is that correct?

Hon. D. McRae: Yes.

L. Krog: I just have a very simple question. Nobody asked for the money back, did they, at any time?

Hon. D. McRae: These answers are easy. No.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

L. Krog: So I take it from the minister's comments that

section 6…. The reason for it is the fact that there has been legal advice given that the agreements may not be binding, because they weren't approved by order-in-council. They were only signed by the minister. This has gone on for some time.

I take it that there is no limitation on that. It simply says: "An agreement that (

a) was made under the Farm Income Insurance Act, Insurance for Crops Act or Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act before sections 2 to 5 of this Act come into force, and (

b) would have been valid if, at the time the agreement was made, sections 2 to 5 of this Act had been in force, is valid and is deemed for all purposes to have been made under those Acts."

I take it that this takes us back, if you will, to 1979 from a legal perspective, in theory. Is that correct?

Hon. D. McRae: It covers agreements from 2004 through 2011.

L. Krog: For purposes of the legislation though, my reading of it is…. Maybe the government's concern is 2004, but my reading of the legislation,

section 6 as proposed, is that, in fact, it would cover any agreements with respect to these three acts prior to 2004 for that matter. That's my reading of it. Is that correct or incorrect?

Hon. D. McRae: In theory they could go back to 1979, but in the research that we've done, there aren't any agreements that are in limbo at this stage.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Krog: I'm going to assume that the minister wants to have some staff here. Perhaps we'll give her a few minutes.

I wonder if the minister could just explain the necessity of bringing in this section.

Hon. I. Chong: I do have staff with me, if we do need to get into some technical issues, but I don't think so.

What I can say is that the amendment we are proposing here is to confirm current administrative practices. It will provide clear authority for B.C. Assessment to accept what we call averaged actual unit usage data regarding strata accommodation properties or leasehold accommodation properties.

[1610]

The member may recall there was a change to legislation in 2008 which allowed for a split classification approach for SAPs, the strata accommodation properties. Since then, under an agreement between B.C. Assessment and government, BCA has accepted actual unit usage data in the form of the average number of days for all units in the SAP complex. This practice is consistent with the general intent of the legislation, so the amendment we're asking for today is to ensure that that is clear in the legislation.

I just will also provide for the member, if he's interested, that over the past four years while this practice has been in place, in terms of accepting the average usage data pursuant to the agreement with BCA, there have been no assessment appeals or complaints from any unit owners.

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister say something about a split assessment appeal or a split assessment authority or something like that. If the minister could just explain what she was talking about, that would be helpful.

Hon. I. Chong: What I was referring to was when legislation was introduced…. It was in 2008. I think the member may have been involved at the time. If not, what

[ Page 10825 ]

that allowed for was a split classification approach for the strata accommodation properties. Prior to the 2008 assessment year the strata accommodation properties, SAPs, were classified as either fully residential, class A, or fully business or other, which is class 6, even though they were basically operating in the same business model of renting out units for part of the year.

I believe there was some substantial work that was done and made a determination that was causing, I think, some properties that were receiving an unfair classification if they happened to fall in fully as class 1 or class 6. So the legislation at that time was changed to allow for the split classification approach. In order to accommodate that, as well, the unit owners were required to provide certain data information with respect to usage of those units.

Since that time there has been an understanding with B.C. Assessment as to what data is being provided, and I think, as I say, actual averaged data. It has been that approach since 2008, and it has been working well. But it was determined that we needed to make clear in legislation that that administrative practice is made clear in the legislation.

L. Krog: This is a very interesting area, I must say. To put it in concrete terms, and no pun intended, on condominium buildings this applies, for instance, to a strata condominium tower in which there are individual owners. It would apply also, for instance, to the project just near St. Ann's Academy, where they're selling quarter-interests in the strata units, and presumably into leasehold accommodation property such as exists with time-share condominium stratas. Is that correct? Is this how this operates?

Then I'm going to follow up with a couple of questions. If the minister could just explain to me: exactly what does this apply to in practical terms?

Hon. I. Chong: The strata accommodation properties, SAPs, are condominium-like complexes that are operated as hotels largely in resort municipalities. The individual units are owned by one or more multiple-share owners who have restricted access to the units for personal use. For the majority of the year, however, the units are available to be rented out for short-term use to visitors to that resort.

The SAPs are located largely in resort municipalities such as Whistler, as the member will know. The cities of Victoria and Vancouver also have some concentration of SAP units. They do not include conventional hotels, motels, apartments or other accommodations that are rented on a monthly basis, such as a residence. So there is a distinction. The SAPs are defined in the Assessment Act, if the member wishes to look further in the Assessment Act.

[1615]

L. Krog: If I can try and get my head around this concept. So I've got an interest in a unit in the resort at Whistler — essentially a resort-like accommodation. I'm thinking there's one near Parksville. The name eludes me for a moment. Essentially, time-shares are what we're talking about.

The B.C. Assessment Authority will rely, in terms of valuing that unit for assessment purposes, on