2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M202 — Lobbyist Registry Reform Act, 2009

C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Parent advisory councils

S. Fraser

Sturge-Weber syndrome

R. Lee

Response to typhoon in the Philippines

M. Elmore

Harmac mill

R. Cantelon

Harry Nyce

R. Austin

Community Living Month

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Impact of harmonized sales tax on tourism industry

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

S. Herbert

N. Macdonald

M. Farnworth

Government action on women's equality and violence against aboriginal women

M. Mungall

Hon. K. Heed

Women's access to legal aid services

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. de Jong

Actions of Olympic Games security unit

L. Krog

Hon. K. Heed

S. Simpson

Petitions

S. Simpson

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Insurance Amendment Act, 2009 (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Insurance Amendment Act, 2009

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Hon. S. Bond

H. Bains

G. Coons

[ Page 975 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: First of all, I'd like to introduce my three friends visiting us today: Julie Kaye, Susan Adams and Phillipa Fairburn. Julie and Susan are here for the first time. It's great to see them. You all may recognize Phillipa as she's with the Sergeant-at-Arms here, keeping us safe.

I would also like to make another introduction. We have Claremont high school here, a grade 11 social studies class, with their teacher Phil Ohl. I'd like to make them welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: There are three representatives of the Arthritis Society that are joining us in the gallery this afternoon. I had the pleasure of attending their Bluebird Gala, their annual big fundraising dinner in Vancouver just last week, where they raised nearly half a million dollars in that one evening. It's money that will go towards research and support for the more than 600,000 British Columbians living with arthritis.

The three who are here today are Marg Vanenberg, a longtime friend, who is the executive director; and Quincey Kirschner, the director of education and services with the society, who is obviously no stranger to this House and to its members. Also, Lorne Mayencourt is joining us today. He is, of course, a longtime member for Vancouver-Burrard who has just recently become the director of major gifts for the Arthritis Society. Will the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

Hon. K. Falcon: Just following up on the introduction by the Finance Minister, I too want to recognize the three individuals that the Minister of Finance recognized.

I also want to thank Cheryl Koehn, the president of the Arthritis Consumer Experts, and also a couple of doctors who were here at an event I was at, at 12 noon, and were not only promoting the results of the Where Is Arthritis Tour that undertook a tour across British Columbia but also tested the Minister of Health along with some of my other colleagues to make sure that we are aware if there are arthritic conditions. Fortunately, I think I passed the test at this point.

But I do want to thank Cheryl Koehn, the president of the Arthritis Consumer Experts, and also the two doctors that came along, Dr. Jason Kur, rheumatology clinical instructor at UBC, and Dr. Ada Mann, who has a residency in rheumatology at UBC. They were all there today, and we want to make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's been 33 years since the Indian men's national field hockey team has been in Canada. They were last here to participate in the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, but they are here again to participate in a seven-game super series taking place from October 9 to 24 in Victoria and Surrey.

They are led by their management team: Mr. Anupam Ghulati; their coach, Mr. Jose Brasa; assistant coach, Mr. Ramandeep Singh Grewal; and their goalie coach, Mr. Romeo Jones. I know that members will want to make them feel welcome as they will watch us stickhandle our way through the legislative proceedings.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M202 — lobbyist REGISTRY

reform act, 2009

C. James presented a bill intituled Lobbyist Registry Reform Act, 2009.

C. James: I move that a bill intituled Lobbyist Registry Reform Act, 2009, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. James: The Lobbyist Registry Reform Act introduces amendments to B.C.'s Lobbyists Registration Act. The official opposition has introduced lobby reform amendments in previous private members' bills, including the Accountability Act introduced by the official opposition in 2008.

Like the Accountability Act, this bill reflects recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner in his letter to the former Attorney General dated October 6, 2008. In his letter to the registrar, David Loukidelis called the existing act inadequate and advised that amendments to the legislation providing "robust mechanisms for compliance oversight" were needed at the earliest opportunity.

Here we are today halfway through our fall sitting of the Legislature, and no legislative amendments have come forward.

This bill introduces Information and Privacy Commissioner recommendations to make the lobbyists registry more effective. Those amendments include an obligation the public office holders verify registration, the power for the registrar to levy administrative penalties and a provision making it an offence to obstruct the registrar. The legislative authority to set regulations regarding registration fees has also been removed.

[ Page 976 ]

These amendments will provide clear rules to ensure that lobbying is done ethically and transparently. Members of this House will recall the many commitments to openness and transparency made by the government. This act actually establishes stronger, more open and more transparent requirements for the ethical conduct of lobbyists and public office holders in this province.

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

Bill M202, Lobbyist Registry Reform Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PARENT ADVISORY COUNCILS

S. Fraser: The district parent advisory council is an organization made up of representatives of school PACs which act as a liaison between schools, the school board and also a provincial parent body called the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. Some 1,700 parent advisory councils — or PACs, as they're known — cover for critical shortfalls in the education system throughout the province. Their work has become essential for the well-being of our students. Their vital funding comes from direct access gaming grants, and the parents involved lever the value of every dollar they get from that money.

[1340]

With recent unexpected and massive cuts to those funds, volunteers will have to redouble their efforts. Our PACs provide for everything from sports programs to reading clubs, from outings and field trips to playground equipment. If it were not for the selfless work and dedication of the parents involved, dropout rates would be higher, grades would be lower, and grad rates would be down in the province of British Columbia.

The PACs fundraise too. The breakfast club at Eighth Avenue and ADSS — Alberni District Secondary School — in Port Alberni are examples of this and are largely run through donations. The PAC at ADSS feeds over 300 students breakfast every day. When children have food in their stomachs, then it's shown that their behaviour improves, grades improve and attendance improves.

The parental advisory council at E.J. Dunne Middle School in Alberni Valley has provided needed bursaries, social responsibility programs such as the Roots of Empathy, anti-bullying education and breakfasts for hungry children. And there are more hungry children in British Columbia than ever before.

In these trying economic times and especially in resource communities like Port Alberni that have been hit hard, the importance of parent advisory councils has never been greater. Let us all in this House never forget that.

STURGE-WEBER SYNDROME

R. Lee: Earlier this year I had the pleasure to meet a constituent of mine named Deirdre Forbes McCracken. From Deirdre I learned of a rare congenital disease called Sturge-Weber syndrome that affects her son Connor. Next week is Sturge-Weber Awareness Week, and I would like to share some of what I have learned.

At birth Sturge-Weber is usually associated with a port wine stain, a reddish to violet discoloration of the skin covering the eyelid and the forehead.

With this condition, a collection of abnormal blood vessels overlying the brain affects brain function. Sturge-Weber can be associated with epilepsy, often beginning in the first year of life. Progressive weakness of one side of the body, similar to that caused by a stroke, is common.

Learning disabilities, intellectual impairment, behavioural problems and in some cases symptoms similar to attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can be present.

Glaucoma may be present at birth or can appear months or years later. Increased fluid pressure with this condition may damage the optic nerve and result in vision loss.

The cause of Sturge-Weber syndrome remains unknown, as does a cure. However, the Sturge-Weber Foundation of Canada is working to change this. I encourage all members to visit their website at www.sturge-weber.ca where we can learn more about this condition.

This site also has information about a fundraiser on Saturday, October 17 at the Massey Theatre in New Westminster. I hope this event is very successful and that one day a cure will be found.

RESPONSE TO TYPHOON

IN THE PHILIPPINES

M. Elmore: I'll be speaking today about hope for victims of Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines. This is a story of hope in the midst of disaster. It is about ordinary British Columbians responding to the needs of Filipinos devastated by Typhoon Ketsana.

As of yesterday — Monday, October 5 — latest reports say there are 288 fatalities with 42 people still missing, and damage to infrastructure and agriculture is estimated at over $193 million Canadian.

A total of nearly 800,000 families, or four million persons across the country, were affected by Typhoon Ketsana. During this traumatic period I sympathize greatly with all those trying to rebuild their lives today — especially with the women, who are often made more vulnerable as a result of natural and manmade disasters such as

[ Page 977 ]

this. I understand that since women are overrepresented in the informal and agricultural sectors, areas greatly hit by Typhoon Ketsana, a large number of women are left without a means of income as they struggle to provide for their family and daily needs.

[1345]

But as I witness the calamity brought by this typhoon, I also recognize the hope that organizations and individuals are trying to give to the victims. Soon after we heard about the devastation wrought by Typhoon Ketsana, efforts were underway to provide relief to the victims. Within 48 hours meetings were held, donation drop-off points were set up and fundraisers were organized. I applaud all of these initiatives, and I think it's fantastic that many in the Filipino and broader community have taken the initiative to raise funds for the Filipino-based organizations closest to their hearts.

Given the widespread destruction resulting from the typhoon, it's urgently important to mobilize as much help from as many people as possible. During this very difficult time I'd like to recognize a number of organizations with fundraising efforts: Canada-Philippines Solidarity for Human Rights, Migrante B.C., Committee for Domestic Workers and Caregivers Rights, Salamat, the Typhoon Ondoy fundraiser through the Enspire Foundation and local church groups working with the National Council of Churches in the Philippines. Thank you to everyone who has already donated and given their time for this relief work.

HARMAC MILL

R. Cantelon: They said that it couldn't happen and it couldn't be done, but they were wrong. It was about a year ago that a group of employees under the banner of Nanaimo Forest Products petitioned the court in June in Vancouver to take over the pulp mill from Pope and Talbot.

Now, there were a lot of bottom feeders there — I was there in the courtroom, and I could tell you it was high drama — who said: "Nah, they can never make it. Just break the mill up, sell the parts, ship it overseas, do whatever." Well, these were determined people, and I was happy to see that the province, under the Attorney General, gave the court to consider the fact that there were jobs at stake here and that they were at risk.

But it was about more than jobs. It was about the fact that these employers and union workers got together, and they were ready to risk their homes — risk everything to make this venture work. It was about more than just their jobs. It is a critical core of employment for the entire city of Nanaimo.

In fact, it's fair to say that this was really the way the pulp industry was going with many mill shutdowns — virtually the last stand of the forest industry. If we were to lose a pulp mill, it would have a domino effect throughout the forest industry on Vancouver Island.

These workers are committed not just for their employment but for the employment of their children. It was really something. Both sides of this House have said often: "We need to work together, put management and union together, and develop a new rapport." We talked about it, and they did it. They created a new model that's working very, very well in Nanaimo.

I credit Levi Sampson and the energy and leadership he brought. He brought investors with new money, fresh ideas and fresh entrepreneurship. The naysayers said: "It won't last until Christmas." Well, last Sunday they celebrated the first year of successful operation. There are 216 employees there, and they're reaching production levels of a thousand metric tons per day. Pulp prices are up to $6.60. Now no longer is the issue: can we make it? It's: where do we go from here?

HARRY NYCE

R. Austin: I would like to tell this House about a remarkable constituent of mine and his long journey of public service for his small community, his first nation and, as of last week, this province.

Harry has served the broader public as a director of the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine for the past 23 years. As one of the principal negotiators of the Nisga'a treaty in 1988, Harry Nyce was given the name of Sim'oogit Saga'ween — Sim'oogit meaning chief and Saga'ween meaning sharp tooth. This is a historical family name that belonged to a great hunter and fisherman.

In 1996 Harry began serving on the executive of UBCM. Looking at the long history of UBCM, I noticed that there have been presidents from all four corners of this province. While representatives from the larger cities have dominated this important position, there have also been a few from smaller communities. Lillooet, Mackenzie and Trail come to mind as examples. But let me share why this election is quite extraordinary.

First of all, Harry is once again breaking ground in being the first aboriginal leader to hold this post. Second, he hails from a community that has a population of only 250 people, a small village resting on the banks of the Nass River where the original Nisga'a population of another community had to resettle after the last volcanic eruption in this country around 250 years ago.

[1350]

There are no stores there and just a one-way bridge across the river. Only 25 years ago there wasn't even that

[ Page 978 ]

bridge, and everything was barged across the beautiful Nass River. I'm sure that when Harry first went to Alberta and then to the University of British Columbia to study political science, it must have been just a dream to enter public life and serve his community. That dream has come to a great climax, and I wish Harry well. I'm sure that his experience and wisdom will shine and that all of us will be the beneficiaries of his leadership.

COMMUNITY LIVING MONTH

J. Thornthwaite: Community Living Month is celebrated nationally each year to acknowledge the gifts and talents that people with developmental disabilities bring to their communities. I was fortunate enough to meet Caitlyn Sassaman and Mary Dowdall in my office at one of my first appointments in my constituency in June.

Community Living B.C., a provincial Crown agency, believes that adults with developmental disabilities and their families have the right to pursue good lives in welcoming communities. Part of a good life is feeling safe where you live, go to school, work and play.

This year CLBC is celebrating Community Living Month with Start with Hi, an initiative to encourage British Columbians to make individuals with developmental disabilities feel safe and included in their communities. Start with Hi was created to build all British Columbians' awareness and to help people with disabilities feel safer and more welcome in their communities by simply saying hi.

Start with Hi is built on a social networking basis and encourages British Columbians to share their stories of inclusion and safety on a microsite, startwithhi.ca, and through Twitter and Facebook.

We're all responsible and have a role in building an inclusive and supportive community for our fellow citizens who live with developmental disabilities. During Community Living Month and beyond, we ask everyone to start with hi and take it from there. It can be the beginning of a small connection that can lead to a larger sense of safety, belonging and welcome for someone in your community.

I encourage all members to take

part in Community Living Month and Start with Hi. Great things can happen through small actions.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON TOURISM INDUSTRY

C. James: A report commissioned by the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario shows that tourists in that province will be paying a lot more because of the HST. Here's just one example from that report. A weekend holiday for two people alone will see a 44 percent increase in taxes under Ontario's HST.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism. What analysis did the B.C. government do on the impact of the HST on the tourism industry, and will he table that information today?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we know is that the tourism industry in North America does well when the economy does well. We also know, according to leading economists throughout Canada, that the shift to the HST is probably the single biggest thing that we can do to create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

But I can also tell the Leader of the Opposition what is a recipe to destroy the tourism industry in British Columbia. It's a recipe that calls for a 20 percent increase in their wage costs, which was proposed by that Leader of the Opposition, and it's also measures that would ensure that the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: And the tourism industry in British Columbia also knows that making sure they have some of the most competitive corporate taxes in North America will allow them to thrive and allow them to flourish in British Columbia in opposition to the kind of policy that the Leader of the Opposition announced last week, which would ensure that they do not get the benefit of tax reductions that this government has announced.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has a supplemental.

[1355]

C. James: I guess that's the answer from this government to the tourism industry: "We're bringing in a new tax that's going to hurt your industry, and sorry, we did no analysis whatsoever — none." That's basically what the minister said to the tourism industry today — no analysis on a new tax that is going to negatively impact the industry.

Let's take a look at what the Ontario report said: "The application of the HST on visitor-related goods and services will result in widespread increases to the total price by the consumer. Whether it's movie tickets, taxi fares, parks admissions, hotel rates or restaurant meals, consumers will be paying more under the HST, and an entire sector of our economy will be hurt."

Again my question is to the Minister of Tourism. During a time when revenues are down and tourism has

[ Page 979 ]

already been taking a hit, how can this government justify forcing a new tax on this industry with no analysis of the impact?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what the tourism industry should be asking of the Leader of the Opposition is…. If she's such a big supporter of the tourism sector, why is she denying them some of the most competitive tax rates in North America?

In terms of the tourism sector, there is no question. There are some things after tax that are going to be a little bit more expensive. There are other things that are actually going to be less expensive, and a hotel room is one of those things that will come down in terms of the tax rate that will be applied to the consumer.

We know that the HST is going to stimulate the economy. It's going to create jobs. Even though we do not have an unemployment rate in British Columbia that is anywhere near the unemployment rates that we saw in the 1990s, we still have an unemployment rate that is unacceptably high. This initiative that we are taking will stimulate those jobs, stabilize those communities and make sure that families are going to be able to travel and enjoy the tourism product that is offered throughout British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: It's obvious that the government hasn't listened to anyone in the tourism industry, because the clear message that's coming across is that the HST is going to hurt the industry, and this government is not listening to the tourism industry. That's what's clear.

They didn't consult, and they didn't do any kind of analysis around how this is going to hurt the industry. It's very clear. The HST was brought in by stealth in the middle of a recession, weeks after the polls had closed. Now B.C. consumers and the economy will pay the price.

So my question is again to the Minister of Tourism. Why are the B.C. Liberals, in a recession, taking a hammer to the tourism sector without a shred of consultation or analysis?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition consulted with British Columbians before she said to the tourism industry that she was going to take away their small business reduction.

I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition consulted with British Columbians before she came out in opposition to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Olympic and Paralympic Games are going to be the biggest benefit to the tourism industry in British Columbia not only for 2010 but for 2011, for 2012 and for the next decade ahead.

That is exactly why in the September Budget Update , we put an additional $39 million into tourism marketing in British Columbia to make sure that the world knows that British Columbia is one of the best tourism destinations anywhere on the planet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait, Member.

[1400]

S. Herbert: Well, I think what we've seen from that side is that there is no Minister of Tourism. The government promised to double tourism by 2015, but then they hit the industry with a new tax, the HST, which the Council of Tourism Associations says will be devastating and ruinous to businesses. The B.C. Liberals did it without consultation and have done zero studies on the impact of the HST on our province's biggest employer — the tourism industry.

Well, I'll tell you what the Ontario tourism study shows. It shows costs massively increasing for consumers and says that the HST will be a big negative for that industry.

My question for the Minister of Tourism, if he should decide to stand: why did the B.C. Liberals fail to analyze the impact of the HST on the number one employer in our province? And why should these businesses and employees pay the price, through bankruptcies and job losses, for the HST betrayal and this government's incompetence?

Hon. C. Hansen: If this member is such a big supporter of the tourism sector, why was he out advocating that they should have an instant 20 percent increase in their wage costs in British Columbia? If this party on the other side is such a big supporter of the tourism industry, why was their leader out opposing the bid for the Olympics, which is going to be one of the biggest benefits for the tourism industry?

I recommend to the member opposite that he actually read the study that was done by the TD Bank chief economist, which came out just two weeks ago, that shows that, yes, there is going to be a very, very small increase…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: …in consumer prices in Canada. It would be about a 0.9 percent increase in consumer

[ Page 980 ]

prices, and that is a far cry from the grandiose increases that the member is purporting.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Herbert: Again, we see that the Tourism Minister is missing — missing on this file that's crucial to their industry. The Tourism Minister — and I'll quote him since he won't speak in this House — is quoted as saying that the tourism industry's fears are unfounded.

Reality check, Mr. Minister. Tourism revenues are already falling. Businesses are already struggling to keep from going under. People are already travelling less.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Herbert: So what do the B.C. Liberals do? They slam these businesses and consumers with the HST which, according to this new report, will increase total taxation for a weekend holiday by 46 percent; a family camping trip, 33 percent; conventions, 37 percent. That's not unfounded, Minister. That's an attack.

Commenting on the B.C. Liberals' attack on tourism, Jon Garson, vice-president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said: "We see government standing behind the tourism industry, pushing them off the edge." Pushing them off the edge, Mr. Minister.

My question to the Minister of Tourism, should he finally choose to stand: when he calls the industry's fears unfounded, is he just incompetent, or is he intent on pushing the tourism industry off the edge and the employees out of their jobs and the businesses into bankruptcy?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if the member took the time to check, he would find that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce is not only an active supporter of the HST, but they have been an active supporter of the HST since the mid-1990s.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what would have slammed the tourism industry in British Columbia. What would have slammed the tourism industry in British Columbia is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: …a 20 percent increase in their wage cost, which was advocated by that member and that party in the last election.

N. Macdonald: Well, British Columbians know that they're paying for a Minister of Tourism, and I think the question most have is: why? This is a minister that is supposed to be able to stand in this House and answer a question.

You have Panorama, Revelstoke, Kicking Horse, Kimberley, Fernie ski resort. All draw heavily from Alberta and the prairie provinces. Panorama says that 80 percent of the people that they attract are from those jurisdictions.

[1405]

The HST is going to add a new 7 percent tax on lift tickets, meals, ski and snowboard rentals, ski school fees, day care, and the list goes on and on. It is a predictable result. It will be devastating. That is what the industry is saying. How can the minister defend this government imposing a job killer of a tax with no study at all into the repercussions and with no consultation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: What those visitors will find after next July when they come to British Columbia is that their hotel room costs are actually going to be lower because of a reduction in the hotel costs.

They're also going to find that when they enjoy that nice meal at that restaurant in any of those resorts, that bottle of wine — that nice B.C. wine that they have along with that meal — is actually going to be lower in cost.

You also find that the success of ski hills around British Columbia does better when the economy is doing well, and they suffer when the economy is doing poorly. In the 1990s when we never had a single year where the unemployment rate was below 8 percent, it was a difficult time for the tourism industry because unemployed British Columbians don't get the chance to enjoy those resorts and facilities.

The HST will stimulate the economy, it will stimulate job creation, and those employed British Columbians are going to be able to have the opportunity of enjoying our fine tourism offers around this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, having heard that weak defence from this minister five or six times here, I completely understand why he didn't want to make it during the election. I completely understand.

What the industry is telling the Minister of Tourism, if he cares to stand up and speak in this House, and what the Minister of Finance is hearing is clear. It's not just the Kootenays; it's the Okanagan. Big White Ski Resort describes the HST as terrible. They say: "It's like a brick wall right in front of us." Management says that it's not only the list, which I've already spoken about here; it's also 7 percent on flights.

It is a complete reversal of B.C. Liberal pre-election promises. It is a job killer. The question I have for the

[ Page 981 ]

Minister of Tourism is: how could he enter into and support a tax that he has not studied and that the industry is saying is a job killer? How can he stand and support that — or will he stand?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I recommend to the member that he actually read some of the material that's been put out by Canada's leading economists not just this year but over the last number of years, which actually indicates that this shift to a value-added tax — like 130 countries around the world have already done, including 29 of 30 OECD countries — is the single biggest thing that British Columbia can do to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

M. Farnworth: The taxpayers of this province are paying for a Minister of Tourism who sits silently in this House. He's very brave outside the House, like on NL Radio this morning where he's saying that the fears of the restaurant industry are unfounded, that he's going to find that the restaurant industry's concerns are nowhere near as drastic as the industry thinks. That's what the Minister of Tourism said this morning.

Will the Minister of Tourism have the courage of his convictions, have the guts to stand in this House and tell the public of British Columbia why those restaurant owners are wrong, why they shouldn't be worried and what studies he's done to back up the words that he said this morning on radio?

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Just to remind members….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. No personal attacks, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: I've had the pleasure of meeting with the tourism industry since the middle of July. I've also had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the restaurant associations on several occasions. We've had good, constructive dialogue. We've certainly talked about the impact that HST is going to have on those industries.

When I hear news reports of a representative of that sector talking about how this is going to be an additional 12 percent tax, it sort of underscores for me some of the hyperbole and exaggeration that exist out there around the impact of the tax.

When I hear the member from Vancouver-Burrard talking about this increasing costs by 46 percent, it shows me either that there is some pretty faulty research or that he simply doesn't understand how the tax will work.

We continue to work with the industry representatives, and we will certainly look at what measures we can take to make sure that they continue to have dynamic and thriving industries, particularly as we go into the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games and reap the benefits of a new, energized economy that will flow afterwards.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON WOMEN'S EQUALITY AND

VIOLENCE AGAINST ABORIGINAL WOMEN

M. Mungall: Today the West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund released its report on B.C.'s compliances with the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. A few of the grades: missing and murdered aboriginal women, F; women in housing, D; women in social assistance, D; child care, D.

This government offers little — or even detrimental — action for women's equality in B.C. How does this government justify it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

M. Mungall: Hon. Speaker, I would gladly ask the minister of women's equality, but that ministry was cut in 2001. So taking that into consideration, let's pick one of the topics: missing and murdered aboriginal women. We'll direct that question to the Solicitor General.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. K. Heed: I want to advise the member opposite that investigations that are ongoing in matters in front of the courts…. I will not comment on it.

But I will also advise members that our primary goal has always been to ensure that we have front-line services available for people who become victims of violence in society. As mentioned, we are investing $43 million into programs to ensure that we have victim assistance available, whether it's members from a disenfranchised group in life or who fall victims of violence.

Mr. Speaker: Member, there were two questions. The first one wasn't answered, and the second was a second question. So on to the next person, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

[ Page 982 ]

WOMEN'S ACCESS

TO LEGAL AID SERVICES

K. Corrigan: The report card gave the government an F — an F for failure to ensure that women have access to our justice system. Why has this government gutted legal aid services and allowed critical services like the Family Law Clinic to close their doors?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the member is incorrect. Funding for legal aid services from the government has actually gone up again this year.

[1415]

That is not to say that there aren't challenges experienced by the legal aid society. Their other sources of funding, relying as they do on investment incomes driven by interest rates, are challenged this year.

That's why the government, in addition to providing that legal aid support, has pilot projects in place in communities like Duncan, for example, and in the Fraser Valley. They're designed to work with women, work with victims of domestic violence, and to ensure that the support is there and the training for prosecutors who can actually specialize in the prosecution of domestic violence crimes is there.

We will continue to provide that support where it's needed and when it's needed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: This report, which is generated by West Coast LEAF, a highly respected organization, lays the blame at the feet of this government. Just this year the Family Law Clinic was axed, dispute resolution referrals eliminated, extended services for family law cases suspended and the Legal Services Society gutted.

Can the Attorney General please explain how dismantling the legal aid system will improve outcomes for women, particularly single parents who desperately need these services?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's an important subject. I think it's a vitally important subject. But I also think that the member as a legislator and an occupant of a seat in this chamber has a duty to check her facts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: She chooses either deliberately or inadvertently to bring information to this House and present facts that are not facts.

The funding for the Legal Services Society from government has actually increased. Now, that may not fit within the parameters of the political story that the member chooses to advocate, but it is a fact.

There is still much work to be done. That's why we continue to have the pilot projects. That's why we continue to ensure that there are trained prosecutors specialized in addressing the needs of the victims of domestic violence. We have done so in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future.

ACTIONS OF

OLYMPIC GAMES SECURITY UNIT

L. Krog: Chris Shaw is a professor of ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia and an outspoken critic of the Olympic Games. Friends and former family are being questioned by members of the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit about Professor Shaw's activities and associations.

Professor Shaw is exercising his democratic rights in criticizing a major government expenditure. We all enjoy the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so my question to the Attorney General is simply this. Does he think it appropriate to send the RCMP out to harass the government's critics?

Hon. K. Heed: The province of British Columbia, in partnership with the federal government, is committed to delivering a safe and secure Olympic Games. We certainly believe that every person has a right in Canada to peaceful protests, and I believe the police understand and will respect those rights.

As you can imagine, this is a very, very large task that the RCMP have to ensure a safe and secure games in Canada. You can imagine the volume of information that comes in with respect to security around such a large event.

[1420]

The RCMP are engaging with security experts from all over the world, gathering that intelligence. It's incumbent upon them to check out each and every lead or piece of intelligence they have to ensure that we have those safe and secure games in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, that is an outrageous statement in response to a clear breach of trust. Danika Surm is a 24-year-old student. Has she been involved in any anti-poverty protests? No. "Have you been involved in any type of street protests?" "No." "Have you ever been arrested?" "No." Yet two — two — members questioned this woman about her association with a citizen who is protesting the Olympic Games.

We're coming to November 11. Is that member going to go to his Remembrance Day ceremonies and shake the hands of the veterans and compliment them for

[ Page 983 ]

what they did, while his government is engaged in this kind of activity? I want to hear from this minister who in this government authorized these investigations and the harassment of ordinary citizens.

Hon. K. Heed: As you can understand — and I hope the members opposite can understand — the RCMP have a very, very important function. Could you imagine if they didn't check out the information that they get? What would happen if something occurred during the Olympic Games which they had the duty and ability to prevent? Our goal is to ensure that we have those safe and secure games. I expect law enforcement to do whatever they can to ensure that security and to prevent incidents from taking place.

In order for us to have safe and secure games, we will balance the individual rights of people in British Columbia, people in Canada, with ensuring that we provide safety and security to people in our province, to athletes that are coming and to visitors that are coming to our country. If people in the public have a complaint with respect to the RCMP or members of the integrated unit from a municipal agency, there is a process for them to take their complaint to.

S. Simpson: Professor Shaw is a peaceful critic of the Olympics and has been a critic for some period of time and has always done that in a peaceful manner. There are letter writers, writers of letters to the editor, writers of articles. These are the people who we now are discovering that the Integrated Security Unit is visiting — visiting their families, visiting their friends and inquiring about these people in this manner that is a breach of their civil liberties. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association, among others, has raised this concern.

My question is to the minister. Does the minister support these actions, or will the minister tell the Integrated Security Unit to respect people's civil rights and back down?

Hon. K. Heed: This government continues to ensure a safe and secure Olympic Games for Canada. We do not direct the RCMP on what they should be doing. But I can assure you that we do not intend in any way whatsoever to abuse people's rights. We will act within the law, and that's my expectations of the police that are out there to ensure that we have the safe and secure games.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; and in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 6, the Insurance Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, just before we get started, one member failed to introduce his petition.

[1425]

Petitions

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to present a petition with 370 signatories from the Raise the Rates campaign, looking to increase income assistance, end eligibility barriers for welfare, increase the minimum wage and build some affordable housing.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 6 — INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

section 14 (continued) .

B. Ralston: Just before we broke for lunch, the minister had made reference to representations by the industry and, I think, had expressed an uncertainty as to just what representations had been made on this particular point.

In October 2008 the Insurance Bureau of Canada made a submission to the Finance Committee, and it was a written submission. I just want to quote the passage, and this is on this issue of prescribed exclusions.

"IBC recommends that the list of prescribed exclusions relating to the peril of fire, to be set as per

section 28.4(1) of the Insurance Amendment Act, include the current list of permitted exclusions set out in

section 122(1) with the addition of losses or damage resulting from terrorism and nuclear incident. IBC also strongly recommends that earthquake be added to that list of permitted fire exclusions to allow the creation of a stand-alone earthquake insurance endorsement that would incorporate coverage for both the shake and fire following an earthquake."

Now, I gather that the position of the previous Minister of Finance was that to permit what the IBC suggests would lead to concern or confusion among consumers, because they would expect that fire, regardless of the cause, would be covered.

Is that the reason that the minister is taking the position that he takes, when considering the comments and the representations made by the Insurance Bureau of Canada?

[1430]

Hon. C. Hansen: The position we are taking today on this particular issue is the same position that we as a government have taken for the last number of years, so there is no change in policy as a result of this.

[ Page 984 ]

The member may be referring back to a discussion paper that was put out in 2007. That was not reflecting the views or opinion of the Minister of Finance of the day, nor was it reflecting the views of government, but rather was a discussion paper and was meant to stimulate discussion and input back to government.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer and that clarification.

The insurance industry seems to be suggesting that the suggested framework, where insurers would be statutorily required to cover the fire peril in situations where the cause is linked to circumstances prescribed by regulation, would introduce substantial contractual uncertainty that could undermine market stability in the province. Does the minister share that concern or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated this morning, we do plan to engage in consultations with the industry and others with regard to the regulations before they're put in place. That would be the time when there would be an opportunity for that kind of input and discussion.

B. Ralston: I want to turn now to

section 28.5. This appears to be a new definition of causes of fire. It doesn't include damage caused by contamination of radioactive material caused by fire or any other cause excluded under regulation authorized by

section 28.4(1). Can the minister explain why damage caused by contamination of radioactive material caused by fire was not included?

Hon. C. Hansen: The amendments here do not change the intent of the legislation. What it does is basically clarify some of the wording, but there is no change in application that would flow from these amendments.

Insurance coverage for radioactive materials is a very difficult area in which to insure. There are obviously federal guidelines that apply with regard to how radioactive material can be used and how it needs to be cared for. Therefore, there is nothing in terms of application that changes as a result of these amendments.

B. Ralston: Dealing with

section 28.6, 28.6(1)(

d) speaks of an exclusion that would apply to a person who is in a class prescribed by regulation. Can the minister advise who might fall into that class or what is contemplated there?

[1435]

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, we see this as part of the consumer protection measures that are being introduced in this bill today. This is a fairly significant measure which will increase the protection for a non-culpable person or parties who may otherwise be denied insurance coverage because of the wrongdoing of another. So it is merely there to protect the interests of a party to an insurance policy who is non-culpable in terms of an offence or an action.

B. Ralston: Thank you to the minister. I think I understand the general explanation.

In describing members of that class…. How would that be done? It seems that in the discussion paper there's a reference to innocent co-insured, and I think there are two examples given in the paper — a child causing damage and, I think, an abusive spouse. It says that in Washington State, a co-insured spouse cannot be denied coverage if they file a police report. Given that those were raised in the discussion paper, are those the sorts of examples that are contemplated might be included in this class prescribed by regulation, or am I completely off base?

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of the regulations that may flow from this section, we'll certainly be open to input that will come from the industry as to whether or not there should be exclusions or what those exclusions should be, if there are exclusions. But none of that has been determined at this point and would certainly be a subject of the consultation process leading up to the regulations.

B. Ralston: Well, I certainly appreciate all of that. But surely, by including this provision that offers the prospect of consultation, there must have been something that is contemplated and some — if I can put it this way — occupants of the class, or prospective occupants of this class prescribed by regulation.

Can the minister, without obviously binding himself to doing this or not, give some sense of the thinking of the government and the legislative drafters in including this

section (

d) in this amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: At the time of drafting there are certainly some of the obvious classes that would benefit from a provision like this. An example might be a wife or a husband in an abusive relationship who would be a co-insured yet may be totally non-culpable to

an act that may be perpetrated, as well as children who may have a benefit or financial interest in property that would be impacted.

[1440]

But in drafting, rather than being that specific in terms of how this might be applied, it was felt that by giving us the powers in regulation, we would certainly leave the opportunity open for us to explore other areas, as well, and other classes of individuals or entities that should be excluded under these provisions.

B. Ralston: Given that this

section is about recovery by innocent persons, I suppose the concern would be: given the length a consultation might take, is there any sense of

[ Page 985 ]

a timeline? This act does appear to leave a lot to regulation. So it seems that when the statute comes into law, the work will begin again on another round of consultation about the shape that the regulations might take.

I'm not saying that consultation isn't required, but it does seem that the opportunity to have something definite — particularly on this

section where it does concern innocent persons at law — might take an unduly long period of time.

Can the minister give — I understand you can't give a firm commitment — some sense of where it might be in the list of priorities for the drafting of regulations which will flow from the passage of this statute?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the absence of a specific regulation that would flow from this section, the provision is provided for broadly. Once this legislation is brought into force and this

section is brought into force, that provision will be there unless there is a regulatory decision made to prescribe a particular class in the future. But should that be required, at least the legislative authority is there for it. In the meantime the provision would be there and would be in effect even prior to any regulations that may be drafted pertaining to other particular sections.

So there is not a specific timeline that would apply to any particular class that would be designated under this section.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that response. On

section 28.7, subrogation — does this amendment change any of the traditional legal operation of subrogation or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: Under the previous wording, the provision applied only to fire insurance. Now it applies more broadly to all classes of insurance that are covered under this legislation.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

B. Ralston: This

section adds some

definitions. Are there any unusual features that the minister wishes to highlight here, or is this all relatively routine? I understand that much of the purpose of these amendments is to bring the act, which was originally drafted in 1926, up to contemporary business standards in the insurance industry. These

definitions appear to fall into that category. But I'd just like the minister's assurance that that's what is being done here and nothing else.

Hon. C. Hansen: That is what's being done. These changes really are just a part of the modernization of the act and trying to ensure that

definitions are in accordance with contemporary understanding.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

[1445]

B. Ralston: This

section makes what appears to be a minor amendment, striking out the words "rights and status of beneficiaries" and adding "the rights and status of beneficiaries and personal representatives as recipients of insurance money." Is that a reference to the wills and succession process or something else?

Hon. C. Hansen: The net effect of this amendment is to add the words after beneficiaries "and personal representatives as recipients of insurance money." This is really meant to just reflect the fact that it could be individuals other than specifically beneficiaries. It could be, for example, executors. But the term "personal representatives" is defined in the

Interpretation Act and therefore is just meant to broaden the scope of individuals to which this would apply.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to

section 32. It requires the insurer to issue a copy of the policy and application to the insured, and that's to be defined in distinction to the person who bought the policy.

I'm advised that this is designed to cover the situation where many people have, for example, group life insurance that's paid for as a benefit at work through their employer. Is this then a requirement that although they didn't pay for it, they're entitled to a copy, and a requirement that a copy of the policy be given to them? Is that what this is intended to do?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is yes.

B. Ralston: Then

section (

b) of the same proposed amendment sets out conditions under which the insurer is required to provide a full copy of the policy to the insured. I did refer to group insurance previously. It does then refer to it in, I think, subsection (b)(5).

I take it that's consistent with what we've just discussed in subsection (a) — that there is a requirement to provide an individual who is a subscriber to a group life insurance with a copy of the policy. And it says "any written statement or other record." I'm not sure quite what that might be, but presumably something to do with the conditions on which the policy was issued. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, under subsection (5) that pertains specifically to group insurance. Information that

[ Page 986 ]

may be requested, for example, may be a medical report from a medical doctor or other information that may be necessary.

[1450]

B. Ralston: Just so that I'm clear. There are obviously many of these group life insurance policies, and they're a common feature of conditions of employment. Many people have them as part of the benefit package they get from their job.

It would appear that it's not mandatory for the insurance company to issue a copy of the policy. It's just available on request. In subsection (7), the insurer is entitled to charge a reasonable fee to recover its expense in furnishing copies other than the first copy furnished. Is it intended to set those fees by regulation as well then?

Hon. C. Hansen: It would be the insurer that would determine what a reasonable cost would be to cover those expenses. If there was a dispute, then certainly the insured would have the ability to go to the regulator.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

B. Ralston: This proposed

section amends

section 33 and strikes out the words "the circumstances in which the contract lapses and…." I understand that is information that was required to be stated in the policy. Can the minister explain why it's proposed to strike out that phrase?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is part of the process that we've gone through in trying to make sure that our legislation is harmonized with that of Alberta. This actual change allows us to be consistent with the two provinces. It was deemed that that particular portion of the sentence was not relevant and not necessary in this legislation. Therefore, the easiest solution to making sure that the two pieces of legislation were consistent with each other was to remove that particular

section out of this section.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate that the goal is consistency. But if the provision in the other province is not particularly helpful or well written, it would seem not really worth the effort to make it consistent with something that's not doing the job.

I suppose what I'd seek from the minister is that not only is it consistent with Alberta, but that the Alberta provision that consistency is aimed with is clear and achieves the legislative purpose.

I understand that the second part of the paragraph will read: "the conditions on which the contract may be reinstated if it lapses." That will be required to be stated in the policy. Is that the ultimate grammatical result — that the legislation in both provinces will say that then?

[1455]

Hon. C. Hansen: As was pointed out to me, in the case of life insurance, there are many policies which in fact do not and cannot lapse if they were for policies that would not have circumstances where they could be terminated or allowed to lapse. So by having this reference in the legislation, it was indicated that that could lead to confusion over its

interpretation. Therefore, it is felt that that particular portion of the sentence was not necessary as it pertained to this class of insurance.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

B. Ralston: This provision requires that group insurance contracts set out provisions that would remove or restrict the right to designate beneficiaries. Can the minister advise of the circumstances where that might arise and why it's necessary to advise in writing of that?

Hon. C. Hansen: One example would be an insurance policy for a key person in a company's organization. It could be a senior-level executive where the company would actually take out a life insurance policy, but it would be payable to the company. Therefore, in circumstances such as that, it would be appropriate to limit the ability to change a beneficiary of an insurance policy because of the basic purpose and intent of the policy in the first place.

B. Ralston: Sometimes examples are much more helpful to understand the point, although I would think that in that case, that would be an individual policy rather than a group insurance policy, given that it would be crafted to ensure the life of a single individual rather than a group of individuals that are typically covered by a group insurance policy.

In

section (

g) it speaks of contracts replacing each other and whether the beneficiary designations in the old contract would apply in the new contract. That would be required to be set out in writing. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: The final subclause here. This appears to follow the general scheme of the legislation that speaks of limitations by referring to the Insurance Act rather than to a specific limitation period, such as two years. I think that's fairly apparent, but I just wanted to confirm that.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is totally consistent with the other

section that we discussed earlier this morning, and the wording is the same.

[ Page 987 ]

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

B. Ralston: This is a requirement of group insurance certificates requiring the major terms and coverages of the policy but not a full copy of the policy. Can the minister advise why he's decided not to require the provision of a full copy of the policy?

[1500]

Hon. C. Hansen: In some cases providing every member of a group plan access to all of the paper document could be a fairly substantive piece. In the case of group coverage, what we're saying is that they would have access to the group certificate, and then, as is provided for in one of the other sections we discussed, would have access to the overall policy as it pertains to them. But it's not necessarily the whole policy if there are sections of the group policy that would not necessarily pertain to, say, that particular group of employees.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

B. Ralston: This proposed amendment contains a very interesting term that calls for the termination of the contract by the court where a person believes that their life or health is at risk by the life insurance remaining in place. Can the minister perhaps give an example where such an application might be made to the court? I can imagine a few, but I hesitate to suggest them without the benefit of the kind of advice that perhaps the minister has access to.

Hon. C. Hansen: This

section provides for a new mechanism to protect insurance persons in some very rare circumstances. Currently a life-insured individual who is not the policyholder cannot cancel the life insurance policy even though the policy owner may no longer have an insurable interest in that person's life. This situation may arise, for example, upon termination of employment or upon a divorce. The person whose life is insured may feel uncomfortable or even at personal risk knowing that their death will benefit another individual.

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

B. Ralston: This is the issue about duty to disclose to an insurance company on a medical examination. It sometimes arises in litigation where the insurance company will claim that the lack of full disclosure by the person who bought the insurance should lead to the insurance company not being obliged to pay on the policy.

Can the minister explain what the consequence of these changes is? This would seem to be a relatively important amendment given that it concerns, ultimately, the validity of the policy that the insured is purchasing.

[1505]

Hon. C. Hansen: This is to bring greater clarity to the language that currently exists in the statutes. For example, if the misrepresentation only occurred with relation to an application for extra coverage, then that misrepresentation should not negate the entire policy but rather should impact on the extra coverage that was being applied for at the time. So what this is doing is making it clear and ensuring fairness to consumers.

B. Ralston: Perhaps if I might try an example, just to make sure I've understood this. If a person, say, had some term insurance on their life and they wanted to increase it from — I don't know — $250,000 to $500,000…. They underwent a medical examination. It was deemed that they didn't make full disclosure of a pre-existing medical condition during that examination. That might negate the increase in the value of the policy from $250,000 to $500,000, but the original policy would still stand. Is that what's intended?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is right.

Sections 27 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

B. Ralston: This amendment allows someone's coverage to be reinstated automatically if they make a premium payment within 30 days after their 30-day grace period. I understand that's in

section 68 of the bill. Is that what this is intended to clarify?

Hon. C. Hansen: That certainly is part of this particular section, but it also, in addition, clarifies that the

section does not apply to a creditor's group insurance. It also limits the maximum interest that may be charged by an insurer to the amount determined in accordance with the Court Order Interest Act. So the member is right. Part of it does pertain to automatic reinstatement within a 30-day grace period.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

B. Ralston: This

section deals with the termination and replacement of group policies, and that would appear

[ Page 988 ]

to be a circumstance where the employer might change insurers for the purposes of providing group insurance. I understand that it prohibits exclusions based on non-attendance and work on the date the replacing contract comes into effect. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

B. Ralston: This is something that we'd referred to earlier — insurers' right to restrict the designation of beneficiaries. This

section appears to contemplate regulations that would limit that ability of an insured to restrict the designation of beneficiaries. Again, this is an area that I presume there would be some consultation with the industry and consumers' associations, presumably.

Can the minister advise what the thinking of the ministry is on the direction that these regulations might go?

[1510]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as the member noted at the outset of the discussion, that this changes some legislative provisions that go back three-quarters of a century. So while we are trying to put in language that deals with some specific issues — and we talked earlier, again, about the key person insurance within a corporation — we want to ensure that the language is broad enough that it would give us flexibility in the future to deal with changing circumstances, should they arise.

B. Ralston: On this section, as I read subsection (6), it requires an insurer to tell the member of a group contract whether their designated beneficiaries are still eligible under the replacement contract. So if the change is made, and there is a change in beneficiaries, that has to be communicated to the insured. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

section 34.

B. Ralston: This probably involves some overlap with the statute that my colleague from Nanaimo was discussing, the wills and succession act. It appears to deal with wills that designate a beneficiary but are declared invalid. Can the minister explain the effect of this amendment? Is it a change in response to litigation, and what ultimately is the legislative goal here?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is no substantive change as a result of this. It is really just to make sure that the wording is clarified. The only change is actually under subsection (4) where the word "subsequently" has been…. It used to say: "…purports to be a will and subsequently the instrument if valid as a will…." So this change is simply to strike out the word "subsequently" and insert the words "if it were valid as a will." So it's a very minor change that has no substantive change and is really just to make sure that it is clearer than was previously worded.

B. Ralston: Just confirming, then, that this is something that's a drafter's choice rather than something that's arisen out of litigation that generated an ambiguous

interpretation.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

B. Ralston: This section, looking at it, appears to clarify how insurance money payable to a beneficiary cannot be claimed by creditors to pay off the debts of the insured. Is that the purpose of this amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct. That is the intention of this entire section. The amendment that is being made is simply wording in subsection (2). Again, like the previous

section that we discussed, it is not a substantive change, but rather, as the member rephrased it, it's a drafter's choice in terms of appropriate language that would ensure more clarity.

Sections 37 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

B. Ralston: The only substantive change that I'm able to locate in this is in subsection (3.1) that says that if an interest in a contract is assigned to a person, that assignment takes precedence over beneficiaries that were designated before the assignment except if the beneficiary is designated irrevocable. Is that correct?

[1515]

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. It is simply to clarify the existing

interpretation.

Sections 41 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

B. Ralston: This

section 45 amends

section 63 and appears to establish that the payment of insurance proceeds must follow the law of the jurisdiction in which the

[ Page 989 ]

insurer was resident on the date of their death, even if it is outside British Columbia and even if their beneficiaries or representatives are resident in British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is a relatively minor change, and it's simply to make it clear that the payout is in terms of where the individual is resident as opposed to where the individual is domiciled, so it is to provide that clarity.

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

section 47.

B. Ralston: This concerns the issue of limitation of actions. It increases various limitations from one to two years, and there appear to be some changes in the language describing the commencement of a limitation period. Can the minister confirm that that is the intention and effect of these proposed amendments?

Hon. C. Hansen: The original language that exists now actually goes back in the context of simply life insurance where the commencement of the period is usually determined, whether the person is alive or not alive. In the case of things like disability insurance, then obviously commencement can become a different issue completely, so this is to provide that clarity.

Sections 47 to 50 inclusive approved.

section 51.

B. Ralston: This clarifies the language of

section 72, and I think this is something that was dealt with in the revisions to the wills and succession act. When simultaneous deaths occur, there's a deeming provision as to which death is presumed to have occurred first. Does this bring about any substantive change in

section 72? In my reading, it doesn't, but I just wanted to confirm that.

Hon. C. Hansen: No substantive change.

Sections 51 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

B. Ralston: This

part changes a number of

definitions relating to accident and sickness insurance. This appears to be consistent with the general thrust of updating the language and

definitions in contrast to the previous act and make it consistent with modern insurance products.

[1520]

Other than that wish to update the

definitions and provide new ones where they're required, is there anything else that is achieved in this proposed amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is to ensure that it's consistent with the life

section

definitions that we had covered previously. But there is no substantive change that comes out of this other than a modernization of some of the language.

B. Ralston: Perhaps it's worth noting and just confirming that the more expansive and modern definition of "spouse" that's included here, et al. "means a person who (

a) is married to another person, or (

b) is living and cohabiting with another person in a marriage-like relationship, including a marriage-like relationship between persons of the same gender" — which would appear to be consistent with contemporary practice. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Section 56 approved.

section 57.

B. Ralston: It creates a new subsection 81.1, which says: "Sections 10 and 11 apply to contracts of accident and sickness insurance." Other than that, is there any other change that's included in the proposed amendments in this section?

Hon. C. Hansen: No.

Sections 57 and 58 approved.

section 59.

B. Ralston: This is a very detailed

section giving details on issuing a copy of the full policy to people who are insured, including under group policies in which the person who has purchased the policy is different from those who are covered.

In the discussion paper there was some substantial discussion, and proposal 7 set out some recommendations. In my reading of it, these proposed amendments appear to be consistent with proposal 7. These provisions are, of course, consistent with what we've discussed previously on this topic elsewhere in the act. Is there anything else that the minister wishes to add by way of comment on this amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is actually quite a significant expansion of the rights of the insured when it comes to the accident and sickness sections. Previously it had simply just said that an insurer entering into a contract must issue a policy. Now it clearly sets out what the rights of the insured are and what they can expect. Also, it makes this particular

section and this language totally consistent with the language that was in the life insurance

section as well.

[ Page 990 ]

Section 59 approved.

section 60.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to confirm and draw to the minister's attention that there's a reference to limitation periods, but the formulation — the one that appears elsewhere in the act that we previously discussed — refers the reader to the Insurance Act rather than stating what the limitation period actually is. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. I hope we get full marks for consistency here.

Sections 60 to 64 inclusive approved.

section 65.

B. Ralston: I'm advised that in the revisions that have taken place here, condition 12 is omitted. I'm wondering if the minister can advise why that might be so. That is a reference to limitation of actions.

[1525]

Hon. C. Hansen: This provision actually gets replaced by other provisions, one of which we have already come to. There's another provision that comes up later in the bill that replaces this provision that is being eliminated.

Sections 65 and 66 approved.

section 67.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to confirm that

section 91.1 refers to limitation periods much in the same manner as elsewhere, which we've discussed previously, and also defines the commencement of limitation periods for the same reasons that the minister set out earlier in relation to another section.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Sections 67 to 70 inclusive approved.

section 71.

B. Ralston: This

section appears to mirror the one we discussed previously, where there's a provision to apply to the court where a person may believe that the continuation of the insurance policy may endanger their health or life. Is that intended as a companion provision in the case of this type of insurance?

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is yes.

Sections 71 and 72 approved.

section 73.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to confirm that this change parallels the previous one we discussed about the duty to disclose and that it's included for the same reasons. This is for this type of insurance as well?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Sections 73 to 76 inclusive approved.

section 77.

B. Ralston: This relates to group policies, termination and replacement. It appears to mirror the same provisions in the life insurance section. Other than that, I don't see any other differences. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, this is intended to parallel the provision that's in the life section.

Sections 77 to 83 inclusive approved.

section 84.

B. Ralston: We'd spoken of these parallel provisions earlier — the priority of an assignee over an irrevocably designated beneficiary. I just wanted to confirm. In my reading, it parallels the amendments proposed in the previous section. I just wanted to confirm that that was correct.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Section 84 approved.

section 85.

[1530]

B. Ralston: This

section appears to describe insurance money that's exempt from seizure. Can the minister explain how this

section would operate in practice?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is to protect from seizure payouts that would be designated specifically to a spouse or a child or another family member, for example. This is not a substantive change from the previous wording, but rather, there are some very minor wording changes that are really just meant to clarify.

Section 85 approved.

[ Page 991 ]

section 86.

B. Ralston: These changes relate to the assignment of insurance contracts. They appear to parallel amendments made to sections 55 and 57 of

part 3 by sections 38 to 40 of the bill in every respect. I just wanted to confirm that that is the case.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Sections 86 to 90 inclusive approved.

section 91.

B. Ralston: This

section relates to minors, authorizing the insurer to pay money to a minor's trustee or to a public trustee or guardian unless the minor has reached 18 years of age. I take it that's an amendment, given the age of the previous act, that changes the age of majority. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member is referring to subsection (5), this is not a new provision to the legislation. It's a new location within the legislation, so it is being moved to this section.

Really, the intent, the substance of it is not a change. It still allows for a person at the age of 18 to provide a discharge, and that is a current provision. It's just a new location within the act.

Sections 91 and 92 approved.

section 93.

B. Ralston:

Section 93 amends

section 113 by striking out $2,000 and substituting $10,000. That would appear to be simply a case of inflation. It concerns the amount an insurer can pay out to someone, such as a relative or caregiver, who has incurred expenses caring for the insured.

Other than that, is there anything else contemplated here?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is simply to reflect the fact that a certain amount of inflation has occurred since the original $2,000 provision was put in the act.

Sections 93 and 94 approved.

section 95.

[1535]

B. Ralston: This appears to be a clarification, striking out the words "or at the time the action is brought" for "is so authorized at the time the action is brought." Can the minister explain what the intent of this proposed amendment is?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is not a substantive change. It is merely a clarification. It is to provide that an action on an insurance contract with a British Columbia–regulated insurer may be brought in the province regardless of where the contract was made. The only thing that has changed is the addition of the words "is so authorized." They are new to the section, but it is not a substantive change.

Section 95 approved.

section 96.

B. Ralston: This is what's described as a presumption against agency. Can the minister describe what the purpose of this amendment is? It appears to be clarifying the language. I presume that this might well have been the subject of litigation and appears to provide a defence to the insurance company against the actions, or not, or advice of certain employees or officers. Is there anything major contemplated here, or is this just clarification?

Hon. C. Hansen: The purpose of this change is to clarify that this consumer protection rule also applies to a debtor insured. What it does is fill a gap to ensure that this protection applies to consumers of creditor's group insurance as well as consumers of other products.

Section 96 approved.

section 97.

B. Ralston: And just to clarify, this deals with, I suppose, the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in KP Pacific Holdings, which gave rise to the two limitation periods in separate sections of the old act.

Presumably these amendments, given that they're now in the general insurance provisions, will put to rest those problems and all the comments that the Supreme Court of Canada said about the litigation that resulted. I think the quote was: "Surely there can be little which is less productive or more wasteful than litigation about such technicalities." This will lead to perhaps the end not of litigation but certainly litigation about these provisions.

Hon. C. Hansen: That is the intent.

Sections 97 to 99 inclusive approved.

section 100.

B. Ralston: This appears to give broad powers in terms of regulation. Again, this seems to be a theme of the act. Is there anything new in terms of the regulation power that the minister wishes to draw attention to in

section 100, which amends

section 192?

[1540]

[ Page 992 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as was indicated, this is legislation that goes back many decades. This is to modernize the bill but also to modernize the regulation-making powers. So this actually gives us the regulation powers necessary to ensure that the consumer is protected properly.

Sections 100 to 103 inclusive approved.

section 104.

B. Ralston: This is a consequential amendment to the Financial Institutions Act. Can the minister explain what the effect is of these proposed amendments?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's been determined that this definition is no longer required. Instead, each statute will have its own classes of insurance set out in regulation for its own purpose. Allowing the classes to be determined by regulation will enable the adoption of a nationally harmonized set of classes for regulatory purposes.

Section 104 approved.

section 105.

B. Ralston: I propose to deal with

section 80.3, "Complaint resolution." This is something that I hope I had alerted the minister to in my discussion at second reading.

Section 80.3 imposes on insurers a mechanism for dispute resolution in dealing with complaints. It's not clear from the definition what type of complaints it might deal with, but it does leave discretion as to how the complaint is to be handled in the hands of the insurer, as I read it. There's no reference in the legislation to an independent third-party ombudsman.

In my discussion at second reading, I made reference to the body that is established by the Canadian insurance industry, which is the GIO — the General Insurance OmbudService. Its goal is to provide consumers of car, home and business insurance in Canada with a cost-free, independent and impartial process to resolve their complaints. It's an independent organization and have set out there that they appear to be able to deal with most of their complaints within a very brief period of time, and anything I've been able to find out about it is that it works well.

Now, what I understand from this legislation is that it is not going to prescribe the dispute resolution process. I think, in particular, the president of the consumer association expressed concern about…. The legislative choice that's being made here, in his view, doesn't provide sufficient protection for consumers who want to have a complaint decided or dealt with by the insurance company in a fair and efficient manner. So I think there's an opportunity for the minister to respond here and to deal with those concerns.

I have heard variously, occasionally in the constituency office, where disputes arise with insurance companies…. I'm sure the minister and other members have heard that. The ability to resolve disputes varies very much from one insurance company to another.

[1545]

This mechanism, the GIO, appears to offer an avenue which would, I think, satisfy most people and would be effective and particularly cost-effective for individual consumers.

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member actually looks forward to

section 106, where there are amendments to

section 289, and if you look at (p.3), which is a new provision, it says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the power to make regulations "requiring an insurer to be a member of a prescribed organization to deal with complaints that are not dealt with to the satisfaction of complainants under

section 80.3," which is the one that the member was just referring to. So there is that subsequent avenue of appeal.

There are actually two bodies in Canada that provide an ombuds service pertaining to insurance. The General Insurance OmbudService — the GIO as it's referred to — is a well-respected and effective consumer complaint resolution organization. The federal government requires federally regulated insurers to belong to the GIO. I understand that Alberta is actually also considering the GIO as an ombuds service provider for its local insurers.

However, the GIO has been established to resolve disputes only relating to property and casualty insurance. A parallel organization, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance OmbudService, assists consumers with concerns and complaints about life and health insurance products.

There are other dispute resolution services available as well. If there are several qualified organizations providing similar service, it is possible that they will all be prescribed. The regulation powers provided for in

section 106 would allow for that.

B. Ralston: If I could just summarize what I take the minister to be saying. I want him to correct me if I'm wrong, obviously. No choice has been made as to which agency will be selected. There may be a number of agencies that would fall into the category under the succeeding

section — I think,

section 106 — about being a prescribed organization.

I suppose I want to express the concern that if there's a plethora of organizations or an organization springs up to deal with the disputes that arise in this jurisdiction, it may be unnecessary and redundant, given that there appear to be organizations that are very effective and are already in existence.

From the perspective of the consumer, I suppose that what one would want would be one place to go with one

[ Page 993 ]

speedy, effective and particularly cost-effective method of resolving disputes. That would certainly be in the interest of the consumer and, I suppose, ultimately in the interest of the insurance company in that fewer disgruntled customers probably means more business in the long run.

So besides offering the prospect of some consultation and some powers under regulation that may be exercised at a future date, what commitment will the minister make to consumer protection in this area now as opposed to down the road?

Hon. C. Hansen: Our commitment is to ensure that there is solid consumer protection provided in this legislation, that there are avenues to resolve disputes between the insurers and the insured, and that there are appropriate avenues to resolve disputes that could arise.

This provision in the legislation gives us the flexibility to make sure that we pick the best organization or organizations to ensure that those objectives can be met. But at this time, no precise determination has been made as to which organizations would be called upon to provide that service.

B. Ralston: I understand the flexibility that regulation confers upon the government, and it enables perhaps a more measured decision about choice. But by not making a choice now, I'm not sure that the signal being sent is a very reassuring one.

[1550]

I accept that the minister is concerned in a general sense about consumer protection, but this is an opportunity to designate a couple of organizations — the most effective ones — in the legislation. That opportunity is not being taken.

I suppose the assurance that I would look for would be: what is the reasonable time frame that the minister expects to come to a decision to designate an organization, or more than one, to deal with consumer complaints arising against insurance companies?

Hon. C. Hansen: We feel that the flexibility that this provides is important. I think if we were to name a specific organization in the legislation, we might find ten years from now that either that may not continue to be the most appropriate organization or there may be a better one. So it gives the ability to make those changes as may be necessary in the future.

In terms of timing, we will be going out consulting on these, as I indicated. My hope is that we would be able to have regulation in place that would pertain to this certainly within the next 12 months. But I think a lot depends on what kind of feedback and timeline would come out of the consultation process and how soon we could put this in place.

B. Ralston: Will the minister then confirm a commitment that every provincially incorporated insurance company under the changes incorporated here and operating in B.C. and Alberta or incorporated in Alberta and operating here will be required to be a member of a prescribed organization to deal with complaints?

If the minister can give that commitment, I think it would be an important one to give while we're discussing this legislation.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is certainly the intent that there would be that kind of consistency. But in addition, if I could point out that the requirement for a complaint resolution process or procedures is not…. There are exceptions. For example, a mutual company where you've got a group of farmers who are providing insurance. They meet regularly, and it is a cooperative decision process. We would not necessarily require a specific complaint process where there's that kind of structure.

B. Ralston: Just another comment on the GIO that was referred to, the General Insurance OmbudService. The minister said that it was designed to deal with federally chartered and regulated companies.

I understand — and I'm looking on their website — that in Alberta only the GIO helps policyholders resolve complaints about auto premiums in accordance with provincial legislation. Obviously, Alberta is very frequently a touchstone here.

The GIO has come to an agreement, apparently, with the province of Alberta to deal with complaints about auto premiums pursuant to provincial legislation. So it would seem that the advice that the GIO would not be appropriate may be…. Certainly in the case of Alberta, there appeared to be an exception, and there may be an opportunity to designate that here.

[1555]

I'm wondering if the minister has any comments or whether he'd simply like to take that under advisement based on what I've said about what's on the GIO website.

Hon. C. Hansen: This legislation that we have before us in this House is the same as has been tabled in the Alberta Legislature. So the provisions are the same. Just as we will be looking for the appropriate organization or organizations to handle consumer complaints, Alberta will be going through the same process, and an organization like GIO would certainly be one of those potential organizations.

Sections 105 to 112 inclusive approved.

section 113.

B. Ralston: This says simply that the act will come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-

[ Page 994 ]

Council. Is there a target date for the coming into force of this legislation given that it's about to pass?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is no. There is not a target date at this point. The industry has indicated that they feel there is considerable work that needs to be done with regard to the regulations that need to be developed and other aspects of this. So we are not anticipating that this would be brought into force in the near future because of the amount of work that would still need to be done on the regulatory side.

B. Ralston: I appreciate it's difficult to give an estimate, but I'm going to ask anyway. Prospective date within a year, 18 months, two years…? In the minister's mind, what's the realistic target that the ministry has set in its workplan to achieve this?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think in the member's question he indicated a year to two years, and I think the appropriate answer is thereabouts.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Insurance

amendment act, 2009

Bill 6, Insurance Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate of Bill 8, intituled Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — Strata property

amendment act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 4:03 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what kinds of resolutions or expectations there are that would need to be adopted before that first annual general meeting, which would require this particular amendment?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, to my left — just so I introduce my staff — is Jill Sinkwich, the manager of financial and corporate

section policy branch, and on my right is Molly Harrington, one of my assistant deputy ministers in the Ministry of Housing and Social Development.

Section 11 provides that in the period before the first annual general meeting — and this is the

section we're amending — which, with some exceptions, a resolution that could otherwise require a three-quarter vote may be passed if it receives unanimous support…. What this does is reword the

section to clarify the application of the revision with no substantive changes.

Basically, it clarifies the manner in which the resolution requiring a three-quarter vote may be passed before the strata corporation's first annual general meeting. That would be with regards to things like definition of limited common property, special levies, things like that.

[1605]

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what was the determining factor to decide it would be a three-quarters vote?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was already in the act before, the three-quarters, and there was no substantive push from anybody to change the three-quarters. This also clarifies that anything before the first annual general meeting…. It's there now, but it's just clarity of language to make sure everybody understands that it has to be a unanimous vote for any changes prior to that first annual general meeting.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Simpson:

Section 3 of the bill puts limits on the ability of strata owners to pass resolutions that restrict the strata council from taking certain actions in regard to members who have to pay remedial costs or in exempting people from some bylaw considerations.

Could the minister tell us what the thinking is on the bill that you would restrict owners from being able to direct their council on this matter?

[ Page 995 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Presently

section 27 of the act enables owners to direct or restrict strata councils in the exercise of their powers of duties. Subsection (2) of that

section limits the ability by providing that the owners may not interfere with the council's discretionary jurisdiction over bylaw infractions and punishments.

The proposed amendment provides that the strata corporation — i.e., the owners — may not direct or restrict the council if the direction interferes with the strata council's discretion to determine, based on the facts of a particular case.

The case of this is where a strata council has made the determination on a fine, whether it's because of parking issues or whatever the case may be. Then it's whether the person should be required to pay the cost of remedying a contravention of bylaws and whether a person should be granted or denied an exemption from a rental restriction bylaw.

The reason for the amendment is that these are other discretionary sort of quasi-judicial decision-making powers of council, which should, for consistency, also be immune from owner direction. So it's basically adding a couple of sections to that discretionary ability for the strata council not to always have to go back to a meeting when it comes to something that's basically an infraction that already exists under the bylaws of the strata corporation.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

S. Simpson: In

section 4 — and I'm sure the minister has probably heard this from others — there has been some particular concern raised about whether there may be unique conflicts for owner-developers who continue to own a portion of a building as developers in addition to individual owners.

[1610]

Was there any consideration given for that — whether there's particular or unique conflict-of-interest considerations for owner-developers? And if so, what were they?

Hon. R. Coleman: This applies to both owner-developers and owners. If you look at the present section, it says that a council member "has a direct or indirect interest in (

a) a contract or transaction with the strata corporation" and basically sort of stops there. What we're adding is a

section that says: "(

b) a matter that is or is to be the subject of consideration by the council, if that interest could result in the creation of a duty or interest that materially conflicts with that council member's duty or interest as a council member."

Basically, it requires that a council member disclose if they have an interest in any matter being discussed — which would include anything to do with owner-developer, obviously — at a council that could result directly or indirectly in a conflict with their duties as a council member.

It didn't exist before. The reason for the amendment is to extend the requirement for disclosure with similar requirements regarding disclosure in other corporate statutes, similar to what would be applied elsewhere in other corporate statutes. This is in keeping with the standard of care of the council member, which requires the council member to act in good faith in the best interests of the strata corporation and not their own individual interests.

S. Simpson: Is there any penalty here for somebody, whether they be an individual owner or an owner-developer, regardless of who…? But is there any penalty here for an owner who does not fully disclose a conflict — a direct or indirect conflict?

Hon. R. Coleman: If it was a contract, that contract, if they were in a conflict, could be ousted by the courts just by the fact that they had a conflict of interest. They could be removed from the council by the members because they had a conflict.

It's not about actually putting penalties in this particular act for a punitive relationship in what is basically a group of volunteers that actually manage strata corporations as volunteers.

There are provisions for arbitration, mediation and obviously legal consequences for conflicts of interest that you can take to the courts. But it is not the intent to put some punitive thing within the act that then would probably change that entire relationship between the volunteers who are sitting on these boards and trying to run these strata corporations.

S. Simpson: Maybe I'll just pursue this a little bit more here, and then we won't have to deal with it later on. It is one of the areas where there is an omission in this, which is around offences and penalties — which is something that other strata acts, whether they be in other jurisdictions, have in place that puts some consequence in — and that determines a level of accountability.

[1615]

I appreciate the minister's comments around volunteers. I've spent enough years in volunteer organizations to know that you don't want to create a situation where you discourage volunteers from giving their time.

What we have here, though, is not just those volunteers. Potentially, we have a situation with owner-developers who have a different relationship from a kind of strata owner, a more traditional strata owner. We also, obviously, have management interests and other interests that work for the strata.

In those cases, it's not about volunteers and discouraging volunteers. So is there any thinking here that there

[ Page 996 ]

are penalties of any sort? Or are there clear offences that are identified around these conflicts? I don't know whether the minister wants to speak to this now or will engage this in other parts of the bill — the whole question of having some consequences for breaching the intent of the Strata Property Act, which currently doesn't seem to have any of those offences or penalties in place.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad to hear the member's opinion on this. Obviously, it comes down to where this actually evolved from day one — through the relationship with strata properties. But the intention of the Strata Property Act has always been one that is a regulatory….

It's not a regulatory statute with a bunch of offences in it. It's actually intended to be a statute that's rather a framework for governance of legislation for the people that are being governed. It's a framework for the governance of strata corporations. So there is a difference between that and maybe some other more punitive acts.

It is not the intention to do that with this piece of legislation. I'm glad to hear the member's opinion of it. I'm not going to enter into debate on the value of it one way or the other, because it's really following on what has been the historical relationship within this particular piece of legislation as a governance framework for strata corporations — trying to establish a bit more clarity with this particular section, because there was no clarity before with regards to conflict of interest.

As we go through it, you'll find that this isn't

an act that's about penalizing somebody but rather a framework for governance that will lead to people being able to have their legal relationship under their bylaws with regards to management of individual stratas.

The Chair: Before you proceed, I'd like to remind members to turn the sound off of any electronic devices. Please have them on mute for the rest of the committee meeting.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments, and we'll talk about this a little bit more, I'm sure, as we proceed through this in terms of whether there are requirements for some consequences to some actions.

As the minister says, though, if this is about governance and about improving governance…. I think everybody wants to do that, and Bill 8 is intended to do that. Under

section 6, it identifies the right of an owner to request and receive a hearing before the council and embeds that in the act, which is a good thing.

But what isn't embedded in the act — and the question I would have for the minister — is that there is not a requirement that any member of a strata council by right can attend meetings of the strata executive — that they have the right to go to those meetings. Now, it's written into many bylaws, but it's not an obligation of the bylaws that it be there and can be excluded from the bylaws.

Was that a consideration of the minister in preparing this legislation — that members of a strata have by right the right to attend the meetings of their strata council, even just as an observer?

[1620]

Hon. R. Coleman: It's not intended at this point to hard-wire that into the act. It's contained in most bylaws. What this amendment does is…. The act actually contains a set of standard bylaws that provide procedural and operational guidelines for strata corporations.

The standard bylaws include some provisions that contain fundamental democratic rights for owners, including the right to be heard at council meetings. Because the bylaws can be amended, strata corporations can and sometimes do remove these rights. So moving this provision from the bylaws to the act will ensure that these important minority rights cannot be intentionally or inadvertently removed. That's basically for an individual who has an issue that they want to bring to a council.

At the same time, as we looked at this…. My understanding is that the decision to leave the rest of it in the bylaws versus putting it into the legislation was done that way.

S. Simpson: I think the minister to some degree makes my point — that there is a standard, boilerplate set of bylaws there for stratas to adopt. But as the minister quite rightly points out, there's nothing to stop a strata from amending those bylaws and excluding some of those democratic rights that the minister has spoken about.

I know that with most organizations — not all, clearly, but with the vast majority of organizations, particularly ones where people have a financial interest, like owning a portion of it…. There is usually some right for those members to participate or at least to observe and be able to access information. We'll talk about minutes of meetings in a little while.

I guess the question I have is: if the minister felt that it was critical to entrench the right to request a hearing, why was it not critical to entrench the right to attend the meeting?

Hon. R. Coleman: As we talked to folks about this, this was the balance we struck. Basically, by application in writing, a person can request a council hearing.

[ Page 997 ]

"

(1) By application in writing stating the reason for the request, an owner or tenant may request a hearing at a council meeting.

(2) If a hearing is requested under subsection (1), the council must hold a council meeting to hear the applicant within 4 weeks after the request.

(3) If the purpose of the hearing is to seek a decision of the council, the council must give the applicant a written decision within one week after the hearing."

That was what we put in to strike that balance. I'm not going to enter into a debate whether that's all the way we should have gone, but that's what we've done in this particular section.

In our conversations with those who are in the business in and around stratas and strata corporations, there was, quite frankly, a division of what they wanted on this. Some said: "Don't, because it's logistically impossible in a large strata to know how many people are going to attend a meeting at any given time, if we don't have some way to manage our corporation." In the smaller ones, they thought they probably could manage it.

In between was this conflict between the groups where they couldn't really give us, quite frankly, a clear answer, which isn't unusual in the whole Strata Property Act stuff. We tried to strike a balance so that an individual would be able to at least ask for a hearing, come to a council and then get a response.

[1625]

Section 6 approved.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

section 7.

S. Simpson: I know that we'll get, a little later on in a subsequent section, to some more specifics around the reports. But it is my understanding, at least under this section, that there isn't a requirement necessarily in this

section that depreciation reports have to be produced or obtained by the strata corporation. Any reports may need to be available, but there's not an obligation that those reports be produced. Would that be true, as well, under

section (n.2) regarding repair and maintenance of items?

The question here is: what is the obligation for those reports to be produced and available?

Hon. R. Coleman: This provides that a strata corporation must retain certain records, and this is really an update on what that should be. The proposed amendment basically updates the records that a strata corporation must retain to include depreciation reports and auditor reports, "any reports obtained by the strata corporation respecting repair or maintenance of major items in the strata corporation." It rewords the existing obligations to keep documents handed over by the developer to clarify its scope.

The reasons for the amendment, quite frankly, are that it updates the records that the strata corporation must retain, given the proposed amendments to sections 94 and 103 in the act, to require a strata corporation to obtain depreciation reports and audit reports. It increases the accountability of a strata corporation to ensure those records of importance are retained.

The most important piece of this is that if somebody that is purchasing, particularly, a used condo or…. Obviously, the scope of work that would be included, even with the as-builts and that sort of thing, with regards to the construction needs to be retained by the strata corporations in a place that they'll always be there.

But the other reports, whether they be with regards to major maintenance and those sorts of things…. There has been some wash and some concerns of some people purchasing as far as being able to get all the information they felt they should be allowed to have with regards to making a decision to purchase. So this upgrades the requirements of what records must be kept in addition to, which would be the normal two years of minutes and that sort of thing.

S. Simpson: In regard to that list of requirements, one of the things — and I may have missed it here — that I don't see on that list of requirements is the minutes of strata meetings. I know, as somebody who has purchased a condominium in the past, that it was an important thing in my due diligence to be able to get a couple of years of those strata meetings and have my realtor or myself look back through them and see if issues were raised about things that might raise flags for me. I'm not sure that I see in here where those minutes would be made available in the same way that some of these other reports are. Could the minister comment on that?

[1630]

Hon. R. Coleman: Right now

section 35 says that you have to prepare and keep minutes as a strata corporation. The regs actually identify different reports, other than these ones, and how long they have to be kept with regards to the minutes. A purchaser coming in to…. They have to keep six years of minutes, under the regs. That was the note I just got. I thought it was five, but six sounds fair to me.

Basically, the person that doesn't have the right to that information is the purchaser. The owner has a right to that information. So as part of their contract of purchase and sale, the minutes are requested as part of the condition of sale. They have to be produced — otherwise, the sale's not going through — and that owner then requests it.

I know when I've done sales of condos of my own, I had to phone the property management company or the strata council and say that I'd like the minutes back to X and give them a little note saying: "I authorize this to be given to X real estate agent so that it can be transferred over to the other real estate agent so that the purchaser has the opportunity to read them."

[ Page 998 ]

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

S. Simpson: Just one quick question on this: are there any time limits on this requirement? It says here that a former tenant has a right to request information on the period of time that they were a resident in a strata, either as an owner or a tenant. They can request information for that period.

After they've left the strata, is there any time limitation there — a couple of years; whatever it is — before they can no longer request that information?

Hon. R. Coleman: It basically provides owners and tenants the access to strata corporation records. Obviously, if it's gone beyond six years and the records have been destroyed, they wouldn't have access to those. So there would be a period of time that this would….

The proposed amendment is to give former owners access to information pertinent to the time they owned the strata lot and is also consistent with the current access provisions of former tenants who have been assigned a landlord's right to access information. Persons authorized in writing by the former tenant would also have this right. Basically, it could be a long-term lease where rights have been sublet over by agreement by parties. Those folks may have a legal reason for needing to have information down the road.

The reason for the amendment is that it's important for the owners to be able to access and review information that may impact their legal and financial rights and obligations, sometimes even after they no longer own the condo. This amendment is consistent with other corporate statutes. So it gives them the right to go back and have a look.

If I could use an example of one particular unit that I actually owned at one time. The previous owner was entitled to whatever would have been left over from the remediation of the building. So they all paid in, and then when the remediation was done, the previous owner, in a contract of purchase and sale, had in there that they would be able to access their portion of whatever was returned to the owner.

So in this case, let's say that there was a $50,000 repair bill, and it would only cost $40,000, but they'd paid $50,000. In their contract of purchase and sale, the purchaser assigns — in this case, it was myself — if there is money coming back, like the $10,000, that it would go to them. So they need the right to know from the corporation when this thing is complete, because sometimes if there's legal action or whatever case — it could be two or three years — and then they can make a request of the corporation: what is the status of this particular remediation amount of money that I may be entitled to?

[1635]

Then, because the new owner has made it in the contract of purchase and sale, they also have to know that the new owner, when the money can be paid out, has signed the declaration saying it can be given to X, who is the previous owner of this particular product.

That's a rather long explanation. Because of the multitude of rights that could exist under certain aspects of ownership over a period of time, there could be, because of subletting or other tenancies and leases and what have you…. That's why it gives that sort of broad flexibility.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

S. Simpson: Could the minister provide us some insights as to why he chose 20 percent as the new standard versus 25 and not, say, 10, for example?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm familiar with this one. Over the years there's been a lot of discussion about this one.

Basically, if you want to do it, we sawed it off to what we thought might be reasonable. A lot of people felt 10 percent was too low and that, therefore, a lot of time and excess effort would be spent on things that weren't relevant.

The reason for this amendment is basically that the 25 percent thresholds are difficult to attain and are considerably higher than any other modern corporate statutes. As a result, issues are not easily brought forward for the strata corporation to consider. At the same time, if you go too low in your threshold, you get the reverse.

The amendment will improve democracy within the strata corporation by ensuring that issues of importance will come forward, because with the 20 percent threshold, although not unachievable, at least you have to have a good reason to achieve it to bring the issue forward. Given the time and cost associated with holding special general meetings, it was felt that the amendment should still retain somewhat of a reasonably high standard to achieve its objectives.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer and certainly know from involvement with organizations that this is a question that often gets raised.

I'm wondering if the minister considered percentages that might be a little different. If I own a condominium in a building that has 14 units, then 20 percent might make sense. If I can get two of my neighbours, along with myself, to agree that we should be talking about something, then we get our 20 percent and we go and talk about it. But if the building is 150 units, 20 percent becomes a different story.

I'm wondering whether there was any consideration given to the size of developments in terms of what's a reasonable number to expect — those volunteers, who

[ Page 999 ]

the minister and I have talked about before, and people who are living their lives and have a concern or an issue or whatever it is and want to get it onto an agenda and get it dealt with.

Maybe the idea that you've got to get 30 of your neighbours to sign doesn't make as much sense as 15 if the building is bigger. I just wonder whether there was any thought given to minimum numbers or some consideration of the size of the condominium developments when this decision was made.

Hon. R. Coleman: There was some but, to be honest with the member opposite, not a lot. It's the age-old adage. You described the problem yourself, actually. If you have a strata of 14, 20 percent is easy to achieve. The guy at 15 says, "Well, why can't I have that same threshold?" and then the guy at 50 says, "Why can't I have a different threshold than the guy at 100?" and vice versa.

To try and get a mean average that made some sense is why we went to 20 percent. That's why we're there.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

The Chair:

Section 11 pass?

S. Simpson: With this

section 11….

Actually, my apologies to the Chair. But I would, with the Chair's indulgence, go back and ask one question on

section 10.

[1640]

The Chair: Continue.

S. Simpson: Thank you, hon. Chair, and my apologies for the mess-up.

One of the issues…. I think it's a good thing to involve the Provincial Court in the decisions to take matters out of the Supreme Court to the greatest degree possible and put them in the Provincial Court. It is cheaper, clearly. It is less litigious in many ways and may be a good place to put those matters that relate to stratas.

One of the concerns that has been raised to me about this, which has nothing to do with stratas so much as it has to do with the Provincial Court, is the backlogs in the court — a year and a half, two years in some cases, of backlogs in the court.

Has the minister given thought to that as to how we deal with that matter in terms of trying to expedite what was intended by this to get at a cheaper way to resolve things, when you have these problems of these long backlogs?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the first comment I'd make is that it's certainly less than Supreme Court.

This really grants the concurrent jurisdiction of the Provincial Court to get us to small claims court. Basically, small claims court doesn't have the same backlog and is actually moved along pretty quickly, usually. I don't know what the actual wait times are. But I know from experience and from talking to people with other sorts of administrative justice issues and other areas of the ministry — like residential tenancy, what have you — that they don't say a year and a half to us when we're talking about that particular piece on small claims.

What the

section is, is just to get us out of that sort of expensive, difficult process that goes with having to probably have legal counsel, in many cases, to go to Supreme Court versus getting us to where a lot of these smaller disputes can be resolved in small claims court. A person can actually do their own paperwork on small claims court and file it. So it's easier for the strata council to file or vice versa.

Oftentimes it's actually resolved as a result of the application by the two parties on a quicker hearing basis than going to some punitive or lengthy court proceeding. That's why we're doing it.

I wouldn't be able to answer the member's question with regards to what the time of wait would be for small claims court at this point in time, but we could try and get him that information.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Hastings on

section 11.

S. Simpson: I have one more question. The minister has prompted one more question on

section 10.

The Chair: Please continue.

S. Simpson: Just a clarification here. My understanding from the reading of this — to be correct, though — is that if a strata council, a strata operation, was looking for injunctive relief from something somebody was doing, a member was doing, and wanted to injunct that so that they in fact could deal with something relatively quickly, hopefully, while they dealt with the litigation or whatever…. I'm to assume that they would then just move around the Provincial Court matter, go to the Supreme Court, which has the ability to deal with an injunction,

whereas obviously the Provincial Court doesn't. Would that be their route?

Hon. R. Coleman: Good question. It was one that I wasn't until now actually in full understanding of. Basically, this act gives us the ability to do injunctive relief. We are now able to give…. Our legal opinion indicates that these matters can be dealt with in small claims court, although they may have to change their procedures to accommodate non-claims action. But we can actually give to that court the power to do the injunctive stuff as well as the small claims.

[1645]

[ Page 1000 ]

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer. Just to follow