2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 43, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Edith Iglauer

N. Simons

Introductions by Members

Statements

Response to bomb threat at Jewish community centre

G. Heyman

Hon. C. Clark

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Information Management (Documenting Government Decisions) Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill M237 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2017

A. Weaver

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Bomb threat at Jewish community centre

S. Sullivan

International Women’s Day and prevention of sexual violence

M. Mark

Russell Edward Cook

L. Throness

Gladstone Secondary students in robotics competition

A. Dix

Volunteerism in Shuswap

G. Kyllo

Legacy of Maple Batalia

B. Ralston

Speaker’s Statement

Rules for questions in question period

Oral Questions

Changes to property transfer tax and role of fundraiser

D. Eby

Hon. C. Clark

Action on housing affordability and role of fundraiser

C. James

Hon. C. Clark

Regulation of lobbyists and implementation of recommendations

L. Krog

Hon. S. Anton

S. Simpson

Case completion times at independent investigations office

N. Simons

Hon. S. Anton

Foster care case and support for youth transitioning out of care

G. Heyman

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

M. Mark

Tabling Documents

Public Guardian and Trustee, annual report, 2015-2016

Statement of 2015-16 borrowings, schedules A and B

MLA First Nations Stakeholder Advisory Committee report, August 2016

Petitions

K. Conroy

D. Donaldson

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

M. Mungall

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017 (continued)

L. Popham

Hon. N. Letnick

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Adoption Amendment Act, 2017

M. Mark

Hon. M. Polak

[ Page 14165 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2017

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: We’re delighted today to be celebrating…. Uh-oh, that could be a career-limiting move. I should have stayed down.

We’re delighted today to be celebrating B.C. Book Day today, and I know that members from both sides of the House joined Madame Speaker and the Lieutenant-Governor to celebrate the incredible book publishing industry here. I know that there may be some members of that industry in the gallery. We want to thank them for being not only job creators but creating incredible books.

Today we celebrated books written by women, for women, about women, and I should say that one little baby, a member of the opposition — the brand-new baby on that side — went home with a whole bag of new books for reading.

We want to welcome the book publishers to the gallery today, Madame Speaker.

Hon. C. Clark: Here on International Women’s Day…. By the way, congratulations and happy International Women’s Day to all members of this Legislature and yourself, Madame Speaker. I do note how many women of influence there are, including yourself, in our Legislature these days.

We are joined by some young women who want to make sure that their opportunities to succeed are even greater than ours have been. Caitlin Kingsmill and Juliet Watts are both here. They are grade 12 students at KSS in Kelowna. They’re co-chairing a WeForShe event where 250 young women — and boys — from around the district are going to be joining them to talk about how we can make sure young women get the same chances to get ahead that young men do, and to join them with mentors, men and women who are going to champion them in making sure that they get a chance to get ahead.

They are also joined by four women who are champions. Danielle Hofer from the Women’s Enterprise Centre is with us. Stephanie Baziuk from the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce is with us. And Lois Nahirney, who chairs the Premier’s Women’s Economic Council, and Jill Earthy, who is with FrontFundr, getting women into the finance sector — both of whom were the founders and drivers behind WeForShe, which welcomed 1,500 young and experienced women to Vancouver last year to be a part of making sure that young women have just as good a shot at success in our society as men do, no matter where they live.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia to the Legislature: President Bronwyn Barter, Sophia Parkinson, Bob Parkinson and Dave Deines. They have been very vocal, fierce champions for improving the ambulance service in British Columbia over many years. It’s been my great pleasure to work with them as the opposition spokesperson on Health.

I want to say thank you for the wonderful work that you and your members do every single day, and welcome to the Legislature of British Columbia.

Hon. T. Lake: It is indeed a pleasure to stand today in my capacity as Health Minister to again welcome some amazing paramedics to the gallery. Paramedics fight and save the lives of British Columbians on the front lines every single day.

I also wanted to introduce one of the most ardent advocates of paramedics. We know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week professional paramedics are ready to help those in need. When you call 911, highly trained dispatchers work with emergency responders to ensure you receive the help quickly and efficiently.

This morning we announced enhanced funding that will add new resources on the road for B.C. emergency health services, adding regular and part-time positions in rural and remote communities to enhance patient care and to continue to bring innovative paramedicine programs to 73 communities across B.C.

Joining us today in the gallery is someone who is here very often, of course, the chair of the Fallen Paramedics Memorial project committee and the author of the 40-year history of the B.C. Ambulance Service. Lynn Klein is here. We have from the Ambulance Paramedics and Emergency Dispatchers union Sophia Parkinson, Bob Parkinson and Dave Deines. And today, since it is International Women’s Day, I want to introduce the president of the Ambulance Paramedics and Emergency Dispatchers union, and one of the strongest women I know, Bronwyn Barter.

Will the House please make them all very welcome.

[1340]

Tributes

EDITH IGLAUER

N. Simons: On International Women’s Day and B.C. Book Day, I’m honoured to pay tribute to Dr. Edith Iglauer Daly White, one of British Columbia’s foremost journalists, who turns 100 on March 10. Born in

[ Page 14166 ]

Cleveland, she was a World War II correspondent and covered the U.S. first lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

A longtime staff writer for the New Yorker , she chose Canada as her beat and was instrumental in bringing recognition to Inuit art. She wrote on everybody from the first Prime Minister Trudeau to the renowned architect Arthur Erickson to an ordinary B.C. salmon troller in her classic book, Fishing With John . A B.C. resident for over 40 years, she still lives in her own home on the Sunshine Coast.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: Today I had a very enjoyable lunch with students visiting from the King’s School in Langley. They are led by their teacher, Laurena Hensel, and the students’ names are Evan Beier, Sarah Byrd, Seaon Han, Hannah Lim and Audria Linton.

Would the House please make them welcome.

C. James: I have a number of guests in the gallery today who are members of the Financial Advisors of Canada Association, the largest voluntary professional membership association of financial advisers in Canada. They’re here to talk about their work furthering the professionalism of their members and the best interests of the consumer.

I’d like to introduce Greg Pollock, Peter Tzanetakis, Andrew Kimber, Wade Baldwin, Rob Bauml, Steve Hammer, Michael Davis, Mark Schulhof, Bob Cowan, Dan Swanlund, David Webb and Jared Webb.

Would the House please make these guests very welcome.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Today the members might notice the guest sitting behind me on the Legislature floor. He was a member of this Legislature from 2001 to 2009. He served as Minister of Education, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Minister of Children and Family Development. Currently he is the board chair of Community Living B.C.

Would the House please make him feel welcome: Tom Christensen.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, we have a group of 30 grade 11 students accompanied by two adults and their teacher, Mrs. Brygida Reis. They are from Archbishop Carney, a fine school in my constituency, and they’re here to see the workings of the Legislature of B.C.

I hope everyone makes them most welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s quite fitting on International Women’s Day. My life is run by women. I have four at home that I can’t escape without wearing the right tie or the right suit, but even when I come here, my life is run by women.

I have three individuals to introduce from my office. First of all, I have Sarah Blonde — not Blondie, although I’ve heard her referred to as such. I have Alison Wensink, and I have my executive assistant, Jessica La Forge, as well.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

N. Simons: Colleagues, joining us in the precinct today are Margie and Mark Gray, the mother and father of Myles Gray, a constituent of mine who died during a police altercation with seven police officers in the summer of 2015. With them are Myles’s sister, Melissa Gray, and her son, Benjamin, along with a friend and supporter, Chanel Choquer, who was also a cello student of mine some years ago.

They’ll be meeting with the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice later on today on their ongoing quest to get answers about what happened to their son, who is deeply missed by the family and many friends on the Sunshine Coast.

Hon. S. Anton: I would like to make three introductions today. The first is a Canada 150 project. This is a team from Vancouver who is organizing a nationwide drumming festival that will be held on Canada Day to symbolize the unity of Canada, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation and to celebrate Canadian diversity. Of course, yesterday we had new legislation introduced by the Minister of International Trade and for Multiculturalism.

That ongoing interest in diversity, of course, is promoted by Richard Wong, chair of Canada 150 Atlantic to Pacific Celebration and the Canada 150 drumming project. He is joined by Howe Lee and Mrs. Sandra Sung.

[1345]

I’d like to introduce, as well, from my riding, Robert Seaman, from a company called NexGen. This is a Canadian company that manufactures environmentally friendly wood coatings that protect wood buildings from fire, mould, rot and insects. This is a product that he sells worldwide. It is the only wood protection product in the world with a third-party warranty for fire. Mr. Seaman is a third-generation wood industry executive whose family has been active in the wood industry in Canada since the 1940s.

I would like to join the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill in welcoming the people here from Advocis, which is the Financial Advisers of Canada Association. I, too, would like to share in the welcome of the representatives from that organization.

Would the House please make these visitors very welcome.

J. Shin: I’ve had the pleasure of serving the multiculturalism file through the whole of my four-year term and, of course, with the support of my colleagues. This House saw over 1,200 British Columbians visiting from 57 visible minority groups across the province.

Today I’m rising in this House, perhaps for my last time, to welcome the members of the Indonesian-Canadian

[ Page 14167 ]

community, led by the president of PERMAI B.C., Martin Prijatna. The members that he has on his executive with us are Adriani Tambunan, Tetty Simorangkir, Cynthia Manurung, Matthew Riyanto, Eduardus Pradipto, Jeany Indrawati.

I do want to take this opportunity to thank all the members and you, Madame Speaker, for your indulgence in my introductions over the years that read like two-minute statements, because the community members, as you know, like the Indonesian Canadians that we have in the gallery today, are the true VIPs and the rightful owners of this House who deserve no less than our most genuine welcome.

We are a province that speaks more than 120 languages, and there is no piece in our mosaic that’s too small to go unheard in this House. It’s been my privilege to serve alongside all of you, and my gratitude will be lifelong.

Would you please join me for one last time in welcoming our delegation to the House.

Hon. M. Bernier: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House Suzanne Hoffman, who fulfils the very important role here in British Columbia as the chief educator within the Ministry of Education. She is responsible for supporting the development and implementation of B.C.’s education transformation agenda on behalf of government and brings the perspectives of school districts to the ministry and government.

Prior to the current role as chief educator, Suzanne was a part of the ministry’s outreach team, where she travelled around the province providing teachers, administrators and parents with information on the redesigned curriculum and the transformation of education here in the province. Prior to this role, Suzanne worked in the Langley school district for the past 20 years, first as a teacher, then as an administrator and, most recently, as the superintendent of schools.

Please welcome yet another amazing woman to the House, Ms. Suzanne Hoffman.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure to introduce today two individuals from Vancouver Film Studios: Pete Mitchell, the CEO; and Alejandra Sorto, who is the CFO. They report, of course, that the film industry is thriving as part of our richly diversified economy.

Two other individuals serve as administrative people in my office: Chelsey Tank and Cindy Flesh. Chelsey joined us at the start of the session and has been awed by the efficiency of the machinery of government in my office.

Statements

RESPONSE TO BOMB THREAT AT

JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTRE

G. Heyman: Yesterday evening the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver received an emailed bomb threat. The Leader of the Opposition and the Premier have both issued statements decrying this action, speaking out against hatred. I think it’s important that we take a moment in this House to reflect on what it means and to add our voices to opposition to any act of hatred, any act of racism.

This particular bomb threat was a hoax, but it could just as easily have been real, as we’ve seen in Canada, as we’ve seen in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, some of us may have been lulled, for a period of time, into believing that hatred, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism were declining in our world.

[1350]

But we have seen in recent years, across the world, across North America, across Canada and here in British Columbia an increase, a recent emboldening of people who think they have licence — licence to express hatred, licence to cause injury, licence to threaten, licence to tell good Canadians that they don’t belong here.

The Jewish community today is understandably living in fear — just as the Muslim-Canadian community is also living in fear, just as others have lived in fear over the years. In the 1930s in Germany, we saw what happened when people treated acts of hatred, acts of racism, acts of anti-Semitism as isolated incidents. We know what happens when good people don’t do enough, when good people think it’s enough to simply express dismay to their friends, to their neighbours.

Today and every day it’s important that we reach out to the Jewish community, to the Muslim community, to any community in Vancouver, across B.C. or across Canada who have experienced hatred, who have experienced threats and who live in fear. It’s not enough to talk to our friends. Good people can make a difference by speaking loudly, by speaking publicly and by speaking often. I know that every member of this House joins me in doing so today.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to join with the member for Vancouver-Fairview and all members in this House in adding my voice. As he said, we must not just add our voices; we must add action in supporting those who feel anti-Semitism or any other kind of hatred in our society, in our community.

For the Jewish community, this has been an alarming time. There have been over 100 separate bomb threats in North America: 27 Jewish centres in 17 states — New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, Mercer Island just to the south of us; Toronto; London, Ontario; and now Vancouver.

This kind of hate is intended to instil anxiety and fear in the Jewish community. It should instil outrage in all of us. That our fellow citizens would be targeted because of their faith is unacceptable in our province.

My son attended the Jewish community centre as a student, before school, for several years. That is a commun-

[ Page 14168 ]

ity that is filled with love and laughter, people striving for something better. It’s a community that reaches out and welcomes everyone in. That is the last place that we would expect to be a target of hatred, yet after the vehement wave of threats that we’ve seen across North America, I suppose none of us should be shocked that it’s found its way here.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: It’s difficult to stand and make an introduction after the previous two speakers.

Thank you very much for reminding us of that importance.

On behalf of the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, it is my pleasure to introduce her wonderful constituency assistant, Sharon Crowson, who’s joining us here in the gallery, along with Nicolas Aguirre, who’s an exchange student in Canada through Rotary International. He is from Tarija, a small city in south Bolivia known for its wine industry.

[1355]

He is 17 years old, attending grade 11 in Elgin Park Secondary School in Surrey. Once he returns to Bolivia at the end of his school year, he plans to pursue a career in civil engineering. He has experienced snow for the very first time in his life, with which we have supplied him in abundance this winter. Please give him a warm, chill-thawing welcome to our Legislature.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

(DOCUMENTING GOVERNMENT DECISIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Information Management (Documenting Government Decisions) Amendment Act, 2017.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to introduce Bill 6. These amendments to the Information Management Act respond specifically to recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the former commissioner, David Loukidelis.

The amendments will enable strong oversight and consistent information management practices across government by, firstly, creating a legislative duty to document and, secondly, enhancing the oversight powers of the chief records officer. These amendments make British Columbia the first Canadian province to enshrine a duty to document in our information management legislation.

Public service employees are today very diligent about their responsibilities to create the right records. What this amendment will do is formalize this good practice and codify the requirement to maintain records of government’s decisions.

A number of Mr. Loukidelis’s recommendations also relate to a need for increased oversight and direction-setting by the chief records officer, and the amendments will also address those recommendations.

Those amendments will clarify the circumstances under which the chief records officer can access the information she needs to carry out her mandate. It will provide her with specific authority to undertake reviews of information management practices and to make recommendations for improvement. It will provide transparency for the public by requiring the preparation of an annual report to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

Taken together, the proposed amendments underscore the government’s commitment to improve the way we manage the information we hold on behalf of the citizens of the province, reinforce government’s role as a steward of the public’s information and enhance compliance. I believe that these amendments will reinforce B.C.’s position as a leader in information management in Canada and will ensure that the Information Management Act remains the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada.

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

Bill 6, Information Management (Documenting Government Decisions) Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M237 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2017, of which notice

[ Page 14169 ]

has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. This act amends the Workers Compensation Act to prevent employers from setting varying footwear and other requirements based on gender, gender expression or gender identity. As a result, for example, this act would prevent employers from requiring select employees to wear high-heeled shoes.

The Tyee ’s recent series on sexism in B.C.’s restaurant industry shone a spotlight on the harassment and sexist dress code policies faced by servers across British Columbia. Many employers require that female staff wear high heels. This footwear can be extremely uncomfortable and unsafe.

This week, the U.K. Parliament is debating a petition that would ban employers from requiring high heels at work. As Samantha Power, former U.S. ambassador to the UN, wrote, highlighting the absurdity of this law: “The next petition should be one requiring men to wear high heels for a nine-hour shift before they insist women do.” We are very far from an inclusive, gender-equal province, and today, International Women’s Day, seems an appropriate time to take this overdue step.

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

Bill M237, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2017, 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.

[1400]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BOMB THREAT AT

JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTRE

S. Sullivan: Last night the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver had to be evacuated because of a bomb threat. The Vancouver police department responded immediately and conducted a thorough search of the building. While it was later determined to be a hoax, we are treating this incident with utmost seriousness because of anti-Semitism and similar threats aimed at Jewish community sites across Canada and the United States.

I’m deeply troubled by this incident, hon. Speaker — not out of fear. This is just the work of one or, perhaps, a few individuals. Their message of hate does not resonate with the vast majority of British Columbians, who value their rights and freedoms in our country — freedom to follow their own religion, freedom to honour their own cultural heritage or to exercise their right to express personal views and opinions.

Diversity makes us strong. Let us remember Selim Franklin, elected to the B.C. Legislature in 1859, who was one of the first Jewish legislators to take a seat in British North America. David Oppenheimer, the second mayor of Vancouver and the man who arguably put Vancouver on the path to becoming a great city, was Jewish.

Incidents of this nature serve as a reminder that we must not allow hatred to become routine. Unfortunately, other communities in our province have also been singled out — some through anonymous pamphlets dropped in the middle of the night; others, more directly. In all instances, these individuals hide from view because they know British Columbians and Canadians across the country do not share in prejudice or bitter animosity.

We want to live in harmony with our neighbours, celebrate our diversity. We want our children to grow up in a community where they feel safe and a part of something greater. As the Premier stated this morning, we will not be divided. We will not change the values that define us.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY AND

PREVENTION OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE

M. Mark: Today, March 8, we celebrate the achievements of strong and powerful women across the globe on the 100th International Women’s Day. We celebrate our daughters, our sisters, our mothers, our aunts and our grandmothers. We celebrate the women doing the important work, the most important job of all: raising our children. We celebrate the women doing the heavy lifting at home and in the workplace; the women excelling at our colleges and universities; the women fighting for justice, respect and equality.

There is no question that women have achieved a lot, but we have a lot of work to do when it comes down to the safety of women and girls. This week is also Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week in B.C. We are reminded how vulnerable our children and youth are to sexualized violence on line, at school and throughout our communities. Let’s not forget that women and girls experience high levels of sexualized violence at home, at school, at work and in our backyards. When women and girls reach out for help, they need supports on demand to empower them to thrive.

It is my hope that we do everything we can to protect our children, youth and life-givers to be free from all forms of violence.

As we celebrate, I’d like to share some remarks my constituent Marion Pollack so eloquently made: “I cannot be free until women of colour and indigenous women are treated fairly and with respect. I cannot be free as long as Islamophobia exists. I cannot be free as long as trans people are being discriminated against. I cannot be free

[ Page 14170 ]

until violence against women is ended. I cannot be free as long as women with disabilities are treated unfairly. I cannot be free as long as many senior women continue to live in poverty.”

Hon. Speaker, let’s continue to lift as we climb and to do our level best to ensure that all of our sisters are free from sexualized violence and all forms of discrimination.

Happy International Women’s Day to all of the women in these chambers, watching at home, my mom and throughout B.C.

RUSSELL EDWARD COOK

L. Throness: I rise to pay tribute to a longtime friend and an important British Columbian. Russell Edward Cook passed away in Vancouver last Wednesday at 58 years of age following complications from a sudden brain injury, although he was an avid cyclist in otherwise excellent health.

I first met Russ in Sherwood Park, Alberta in grade 9. We attended the same church and found ourselves in the same class at school, too, and quickly became best buddies for the next four years. He introduced me early to politics by conscripting me to co-chair the campaign of a student council president. Russ was an enthusiastic, no-holds-barred kind of guy. I’ll never forget the pickle race we organized that helped to clinch the win for our candidate.

All through high school, we spent most of our time together. Russ was an inspiration to me, a deep thinker, committed, fearless and outspoken about his faith. We shared many hours of hilarious laughter and fun as well as many serious talks.

[1405]

Our paths diverged after high school, as he went on to more significant things. He volunteered in a refugee camp in Thailand. He studied at Biola University in California. He did commerce at U of A and McGill. I attended his wedding to Karen in 1984. Their marriage produced their beloved children: Alex, Liam and Amelia.

Russ served for many years in Toronto as a vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada before returning to Vancouver a decade ago. And now, all too young, suddenly this.

For centuries in our culture, sudden death has served as a moral reminder, a lesson that our time is short, and it is coming quickly. We need to be ready now, value what’s important now and seize this day to complete those things left unfinished in our lives. Russ has something to teach us all.

The condolences of this House go out to Russ’s wife and children, his parents, Paul and Martha, siblings John and Carol and so many others, including myself, who mourn the passing of a treasured friend — Russell Edward Cook.

GLADSTONE SECONDARY STUDENTS

IN ROBOTICS COMPETITION

A. Dix: Gladstone Secondary is an amazing and diverse school, with 1,100 students, located in Vancouver-Kingsway. Last year Gladstone students organized a remarkable campaign to save their school from possible closure, and save it they did.

One of the many things that Gladstone is justly famous for is its world-champion robotics program. The Robosavages are the New England Patriots of B.C. robotics, except that they always, always follow the rules.

This past weekend in Delta, the B.C. Robotics Championships were held, with eight teams from across B.C. qualifying for the world championships in Louisville, Kentucky. Three of those eight teams will be from Gladstone, including the B.C. champions in the Build Award category.

Congratulations to team leaders such as Shing How Li, Alex Yardley, Kelly Yee, Abenal Meganti, Joshua Choi, Zoe Sai and many others for another successful year.

Since 2006, Gladstone robotics have helped transform the lives of its students. This is a great public school program, and Gladstone has become a model for other schools across B.C. Last year, for example, the Robosavages brought three West Vancouver students to the world championships to show them how it’s done. In 2016, Gladstone reached sixth in the world championships with an all-girls team.

This year two teams from West Vancouver will join Gladstone’s three at the world championships. As my MLA colleagues from West Vancouver know, any time Vancouver-Kingsway can give a hand up to West Vancouver is a true win-win. Imagine what might happen if the Gladstone model was introduced across B.C. — the doors it would open, the dreams it could make real.

I know everyone in this House wishes the very best to Gladstone, West Vancouver and all the other B.C. teams heading to the VEX Robotics Championships in Louisville, April 19 to 22. We know they will do us all proud.

VOLUNTEERISM IN SHUSWAP

G. Kyllo: Today I rise to pay tribute to the volunteers that form the backbone of the Shuswap community. Shuswap volunteers support people from all walks of life and strive to make our community a better place to live. Specifically, I’d like to recognize the Fifth Avenue Seniors Centre in Salmon Arm.

Last Friday I attended the monthly gathering, where over 100 community members came out to celebrate birthdays. This month we celebrated the birthday of perhaps my oldest constituent at 108 years old, Lena Johnson. This amazing community event is made possible by John Thomson, Laura and Dennis Bennett and the passionate

[ Page 14171 ]

volunteers who administer and operate the Fifth Avenue Seniors Centre.

I’m also honoured to recognize the work of the Royal Canadian Legions throughout the Shuswap. Legions do everything from developing awareness about hospice to raising capital for enhancing programs and services in local communities. Every year volunteers help with the poppy campaign to foster remembrance. Last year the funds collected through the poppy campaign were donated back to Shuswap communities through bursaries and donations to the hospital foundation, the Salvation Army food banks, the women’s shelter, the Children’s Emergency Foundation, the Veterans Assistance Society and Relay for Life, just to name a few.

I would also like to recognize the countless community volunteers who organized the four stops in my region for the CP Holiday Train this past Christmas season and who worked hard to collect funds and food for the local food banks. Life in the Shuswap would be a lot harder and a lot less enjoyable without the selfless dedication of so many volunteers. I’m incredibly proud to represent a riding with such a strong focus on service, a desire to help others and a drive to support Shuswap communities.

[1410]

LEGACY OF MAPLE BATALIA

B. Ralston: Last Saturday, March 4, a candlelight vigil took place at Holland Park in Surrey-Whalley to honour victims of domestic violence.

One of the very poignant stories recounted was that of Maple Batalia. She was murdered at the age of 19 in the parking lot of Simon Fraser University’s Surrey campus on September 28, 2011. Maple was an extraordinary and vibrant young woman, an SFU student and also an aspiring actress and model. The murderer was a young man prosecutors described as a jealous ex-boyfriend. He ultimately pleaded guilty to second-degree murder with no eligibility for a parole application for 21 years. An accomplice was found guilty of being an accessory to the murder and was sentenced to 22 months in jail.

The Batalia family has responded to the tragedy in a strong and resilient way. Maple’s sister Roseleen has dedicated her life to ending violence against women. To honour Maple’s legacy, the Batalia family has established a bursary to support students in SFU’s health sciences department. Her mother, Sarbjit, told me on Saturday that as a result of her work, the fund now exceeds $100,000. A separate Maple Batalia Memorial Scholarship of the Arts was also established in partnership with Emily Carr University of Art and Design. The family continues to advocate publicly to prevent future cases of domestic violence.

Speakers at the vigil spoke of the important conversations that are required with both men and women to change attitudes to women and girls, and to act with respect for their decisions and their personal autonomy. Roseleen said that the warmth and strength of her younger sister’s spirit will never disappear. She says: “These people may take Maple away, but they will never take away her legacy. Even after her death, her legacy goes on.”

As we mark International Women’s Day today, Maple’s tragic death reminds us of the distance we still must travel to achieve true equality for women and girls.

Speaker’s Statement

RULES FOR QUESTIONS

IN QUESTION PERIOD

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, let me say that yesterday’s question period did not uphold the intent of Standing Order 47A, to which I refer all members. Broadly speaking, oral questions may be asked of ministers of the Crown relating to their responsibilities within their respective ministries or relating to a statute under their authority. Matters relating to caucus or party activity or the independent operations of a statutory officer, such as Elections B.C., are well outside the administrative responsibility of any ministers of the Crown.

Oral Questions

CHANGES TO PROPERTY TRANSFER

TAX AND ROLE OF FUNDRAISER

D. Eby: The week after realtor Bob Rennie told a reporter that he had advance knowledge of B.C.’s foreign buyers tax and people got upset, he said it was all a big mistake. Even though Mr. Rennie was chair of the Premier’s fundraising committee and had pledged to raise $10 million for the Premier through private dinner parties, he said he couldn’t possibly have known about the tax in advance. Why not? Well, according to Mr. Rennie: “I don’t speak to them about that because it’s my core competency.”

Both the Premier and her Housing Minister knew that their chief fundraiser’s explanation, about how he couldn’t possibly know, simply wasn’t true. To the Premier, why didn’t she set the record straight?

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I will do my best to observe your admonition of a few moments ago in my answer today.

Let me start by saying this. The tax on foreign purchasers in British Columbia has done exactly what the government and what citizens hoped it would do, and that is slow down the tremendous growth in the cost of housing in the Lower Mainland. We did it. The NDP opposed it. It turned out that it did exactly what we expected it would do.

The foreign buyers tax. The luxury tax on homes over $2 million. The almost $1 billion investment in affordable

[ Page 14172 ]

housing — the biggest investment from any government in a single year in Canadian history. The changes in the property purchase tax for first-time and new home buyers. The HOME program — again, one that the member of the opposition said he would scrap but one that is tremendously important for getting young people into their first home by helping them scrape together their first down payment.

[1415]

Housing is something we need to keep within the reach of middle-class people in British Columbia. Our government is taking action. We are going to make sure that we continue to take this action, because every British Columbian deserves the opportunity to own their own home.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: I know the Premier doesn’t want to talk about her cozy relationship with Mr. Rennie and how that led to two years of the opposition trying to get her attention while home prices in Metro Vancouver spiked over $600,000. But we’re going to talk about that, because the Premier’s relationship and her Housing Minister’s relationship with Mr. Rennie, as chief fundraiser, is very clear.

The Housing Minister exchanged multiple emails with Mr. Rennie in which he and Mr. Rennie discussed budget measures related to real estate and the environmental approval process in relation to a major housing development near Squamish that Mr. Rennie surely hoped to market. They also talked about classic cars.

As for the Premier, Mr. Rennie forwarded a proposal for the Metro Vancouver real estate market to Carole Taylor, the Premier’s special adviser, saying: “We need a very visible approach to curbing speculation and the optics of working towards affordability.” That email was forwarded by the Premier’s special adviser to the Premier’s director of policy. Mr. Rennie apparently forgot that he talks to the highest levels in this government about real estate policy.

Will the Premier now admit that Mr. Rennie — major fundraiser, dinner party host, B.C. Liberal Party insider and friend — had it right the first time when he talked to the reporter and said he had advance notice of the foreign buyers tax?

Hon. C. Clark: I’m sure a lot of developers and people in the development industry had a lot of feelings about the foreign tax. What we discovered after we introduced it is that almost to a person, they don’t like it. Just like the NDP, they oppose the foreign buyers tax.

We charged ahead with it anyway, because we want to make sure that housing stays affordable for middle-class British Columbians. It’s part of a long suite of changes that we’ve made. The member might be interested to know that the HOME program, that’s designed to help young people scrape together that first down payment — the program that he says he would like to see scrapped — has already had over 100 approvals from people buying homes in just the city of Vancouver.

I know the foreign tax was not popular with developers. But I do know that it’s popular with British Columbians because it did exactly what we had hoped it would do, and that’s slow down the explosive growth in the cost of housing in the Lower Mainland. It’s been popular because it works. It’s something that the government has supported because we believe in the right of middle-class British Columbians to be able to have a part of the dream of owning their own home.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a final supplemental.

D. Eby: I know the Premier doesn’t want to talk about her relationship with Mr. Rennie. Again, no answer to the question.

But it wasn’t just email access to the highest levels of this government that Mr. Rennie got for being chief fundraiser for the Premier and dinner host. It got him so much more. Mr. Rennie met with the Premier’s special adviser in April of 2016 and again in June of 2016, just weeks before the foreign buyer tax was announced.

Imagine Mr. Rennie’s joy when the Premier formally announced, a few weeks later, that she’d be bringing in a foreign buyer tax but that she’d be exempting the speculation on presale condos. Now, why would Mr. Rennie be happy about that? Well, selling presale condos is why Mr. Rennie is the Condo King. That’s his core competency.

How can the Premier defend giving her chief fundraiser access to the most senior policy members in her office weeks before the foreign buyer tax was introduced and then exempting his core business from that same foreign buyer tax and then, when he told the media that he never talked to the Premier’s office and never talked to her ministers about real estate policy in B.C., not setting the record straight, because it wasn’t true?

[1420]

Hon. C. Clark: Just like all the members of this House who, on that day when the legislation was introduced, were shocked because they had no advance notice, nor did anyone in the industry have any advance notice that this was going to happen.

Just to point out how silly the member’s argument is: after the fact, we saw all kinds of media coverage of developers and people who depend on the development industry complaining loudly and tenaciously, along with the NDP, that the foreign tax was exactly the wrong thing to do. Well, guess what. It turned out to be absolutely the right thing to do.

It slowed down the explosive growth in the real estate market — inflated prices — all of which benefit the

[ Page 14173 ]

people who sell homes professionally. We slowed that down exactly as we had planned to do. And in doing so, we are making sure….

I know the NDP don’t care if people get to own their own home. But on this side of the House, we believe that home ownership — the opportunity to wake up in a place you can call your own, a place that you can raise your children in, a place where you won’t have to move at the end of every month or that you know you can be in for the rest of your life — is an important dream for thousands and thousands of British Columbians.

On the free enterprise side of this House, we understand that that dream is real, we understand why it’s important, and we are going to continue to make sure we keep that dream within the reach of middle-class British Columbians.

ACTION ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

AND ROLE OF FUNDRAISER

C. James: For two years, the Premier said there was no housing crisis in the Lower Mainland. Not only did the government not have a plan; they refused to believe there was even a problem for two years. As the market got out of control, the Premier was quite content to collect billions in property transfer taxes while families looking for a place to buy or a place to rent got left behind.

What did the B.C. Liberals’ chief fundraiser tell the Premier to do? He told her to deal with “the optics of working towards affordability.”

My question is to the Premier. Why were the Premier and her chief fundraiser more interested in the optics of affordability than actually helping struggling families be able to find a place to live?

Hon. C. Clark: There is nothing optical about a 15 percent tax on real estate in the Lower Mainland. And because there is nothing optical about it, it had a very real impact on the incredible, distorted housing market and the growth that we’d seen in the price of housing.

There is nothing optical about the biggest budget for affordable housing — by the way, which the NDP have been set to vote against — in British Columbia’s history. There is nothing optical about a luxury tax on homes over $2 million, which again…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston.

Hon. C. Clark: …was contained in a bill that the NDP also voted against.

On this side of the House, we are committed to making sure we keep the dream of home ownership alive for the middle class. It may not be something the NDP cares about. It is certainly — some of these moves — things that developers have not liked. But my job is to represent citizens and make sure that the children of those who own homes today can have the chance to own their own homes when it’s their time to take the lead in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Two years. For two years, this Premier, her cabinet and the members on the other side said there was no housing crisis. The Minister of Finance said that the government would not make policy for B.C. based on “a few neighbourhoods on the west side of Vancouver.” The Housing Minister said: “I guess some people just have to get up and whine every day.” The Premier said: “The heavy lifting needs to come from the cities.”

Meanwhile, the number of affordable family homes across Metro Vancouver dropped, and rents across the region kept rising. And it’s not just the Lower Mainland. Affordable homes are out of reach for working families and communities across this province.

[1425]

My question again is to the Premier. Why does the Premier put optics in front of families?

Hon. C. Clark: If the member and her party would just once vote in favour of one of the bills that our government has introduced to make sure that housing remains within the reach of the middle class in British Columbia….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Victoria–Swan Lake.

Hon. C. Clark: The members voted against the 2 percent luxury tax. They voted against the budget that will provide for affordable housing, the biggest budget ever in British Columbia’s history. They voted against the property purchase tax changes. They spoke against and ultimately voted in favour of the 15 percent foreign tax. And their leader has said….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: A little sensitive, I notice.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Surrey-Newton.

Please continue.

[ Page 14174 ]

Hon. C. Clark: Our government has been working hard to make sure that we keep home ownership within the reach of the middle class.

While the Leader of the Opposition calls municipal mayors and councils “cowardly,” on this side of the House, we are committed to working with them to make sure that we can also — in addition to the many tax changes that we’ve made on the demand side — work with them to try and increase the supply of housing so that there is more supply out there for people to choose from, for people to bid on, which will, again, have an impact on making sure that we keep the dream of home ownership within the reach of the middle class.

We do need to work together on that. We’re looking forward to continuing that work with municipal councils and mayors. Frankly, I think that the Leader of the Opposition’s comment that they’re “cowards,” is entirely unhelpful.

REGULATION OF LOBBYISTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

L. Krog: Well, let’s talk about something we know the government is afraid of. It’s clear to everyone that the lobbyists’ rules in this province aren’t working. Indeed, Jay Fedorak, the deputy registrar with the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, says that the reason these rules aren’t working is due to lack of oversight and transparency.

Mr. Fedorak says one way to fix this broken system is to change the rules and make them stronger. He is calling on the government to require a lobbyist to register the meetings and interactions they actually had, instead of registering the ones they intend to have.

My question is for the Attorney General. Will she listen to Mr. Fedorak and make these changes and reforms today?

Hon. S. Anton: This government did establish B.C.’s first-ever lobbyist registry in 2002 to ensure transparency, so British Columbians could see who was lobbying and on what issues they were lobbying. That was new in the province.

In 2009, we updated the Lobbyists Registration Act, creating one of the strongest regimes in Canada. This increased the lobbyist registrar’s powers and duties so that they now have the powers to conduct investigations, compel testimony and compel documents.

British Columbians should have confidence in the commitments that we’ve made, the steps that we’ve taken, so that there is a strong lobbyist regime in the province so that people can know who the lobbyists are and who they are lobbying.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: The reforms that Mr. Fedorak is calling for shouldn’t be news to the Attorney General. It was part of a report the B.C. registrar of lobbyists gave to the Attorney General four years ago. Four years ago. That report made 13 recommendations to make lobbying rules stronger in this province. The Attorney General, it appears, has ignored all of those recommendations, or she’s afraid to implement them for harming the B.C. Liberal Party.

My question is to the Attorney General. Has she ignored the recommendations because the current system serves the financial interests of this government so well?

[1430]

Hon. S. Anton: I might have thought better of the member for Nanaimo than that particular question. I will go straight to what updates we did make in 2009, which were very significant.

Administrative penalties of up to $25,000 for contraventions of the act or its regulations. Increases up to $100,000 to the maximum fine for conviction of a subsequent offence. These are very significant penalties.

Power for the registrar to prohibit a person from lobbying for a period of up to two years if convicted of an offence under the act. A prohibition against lobbying on behalf of a client while under contract to advise the government on the same subject matter. A requirement for consultant lobbyists to name each individual they engage to lobby on behalf of the client. A requirement for lobbyists to disclose whether they are former public office holders.

This is

an act that has teeth. It is administered, of course, by an independent officer of the Legislature, and British Columbians are well served by it.

S. Simpson: Will the Attorney General tell us why she chose not to implement the recommendations of Mr. Fedorak’s report?

Hon. S. Anton: I think that through the last couple of answers, I have demonstrated the commitment of this government to registration and to a good lobbyist regime in the province, starting in 2002 with the first-ever lobbyist registry and continuing through to the very significant changes that were made in 2009 to give the lobbyist registrar authority and to give the ability to administer penalties. It’s a strict act. It has very strict penalties and a very strict compliance regime with it, and as I said, British Columbians are well served by it.

CASE COMPLETION TIMES AT

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE

N. Simons: Though their son died over a year and a half ago following an altercation with police, Myles Gray’s parents, family and friends are still awaiting answers from the independent investigations office, the

[ Page 14175 ]

IIO. This is one of a number of cases where loved ones of deceased have been left without any answers because of delays to the IIO investigation. It’s taking longer and longer for cases to be resolved. Based on recent figures, the average length for investigation is approaching a year and is longer for cases involving a fatality.

What is the minister going do to resolve this problem so that families, communities and police officers can get timely answers about tragic deaths?

Hon. S. Anton: I gather that the family of Myles Gray is here today. I haven’t had the opportunity to meet them, but I would like to say, on behalf of everyone in this House, the sympathy that we feel for their loss. It is a terrible thing to lose a son.

I appreciate the member from Powell River bringing this issue to my attention. Ten days ago or so he met with me in my office. My assistant deputy minister should, I hope, be meeting with the family today.

I really do think it’s important that we are all aware of the time that this has taken, but I will say that the independent investigation office is aware of it as well. They are working diligently to complete the investigation. It is taking some time. It’s taking longer than they would wish.

It’s certainly taking longer than the family would wish. I’m very sympathetic to them, and I can assure them that everybody is working very hard to get this investigation done as soon as it can be. There are some things…. Anyway, I won’t go into details on it, but certainly, everybody is very aware of the issue.

As I said, I do appreciate the member bringing it to my attention.

N. Simons: Thanks to the minister.

Reports say that the delays are related in part to increased workload, but the budget for the IIO has remained the same after being cut two years ago. Upon his departure, the former director urged this government to provide better resources to the office.

Again to the Minister of Justice. The IIO’s goal is to complete investigations within six months. It’s an acknowledgement that families need timely resolutions to their questions. What is the minister going to do to make six months the norm instead of the rare exception?

[1435]

Hon. S. Anton: The IIO is an extremely important office that was formed about five years ago in order to conduct investigations of police incidents involving death or injury where police are involved. It is extremely important that it be, of course, independent and that it be independent of police officers themselves, which is how the office is set up. They deal with complex investigations. Some of those investigations, necessarily, are very time-consuming. It is not a question of resources; it is a question of the complexity of the investigation.

As I said a moment ago, I am extremely sympathetic to the family. It’s tough to wait. It’s very hard to wait, and it’s painful to wait. Everybody involved is aware of that and is working hard to complete the investigation.

FOSTER CARE CASE AND SUPPORT FOR

YOUTH TRANSITIONING OUT OF CARE

G. Heyman: Last week a constituent contacted me seeking help for her former foster son, a young First Nations man, now 19, whom I’ll call K.C.

K.C. was prenatally exposed to drugs and alcohol, and at 16, he began self-medicating to deal with severe anxiety. At 19, MCFD said he had to move out of the foster home where he’s lived as part of the family since he was one month old. K.C.’s mom says CLBC told her they do not have any mental health or other services to help individuals with FASD or substance issues.

To the Premier: K.C. clearly needs help. That’s why he was in government care. Why didn’t her B.C. Liberal government support him with a solid transition plan?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: On behalf of the family that is involved in this situation, I can’t speak to the personal circumstances, of course, here in the House. It is an issue that CLBC is aware of, and we are working through the transition plan.

We have many individuals, through CLBC, who are working through their transitions as they age out of the care of Children and Families and into CLBC, and we will continue to work with this family.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: Hon. Speaker, we have a young man who is desperate. We have his foster mom who is desperate to help him. After being separated from the only family he’s ever known, K.C.’s anxiety escalated, and his mental health deteriorated.

His mom calls him “a very loved member of our family” and asks CLBC for more support for him. She says his caseworker told her it wasn’t any of her business. It wasn’t the business of the only mom that he’s ever known. This government consigned K.C., a young man on disability benefits because of the impacts of FASD, to an agency where he gets minimal supports.

Why does the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation continue to allow young people in government care to fall through the cracks of her broken system?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: CLBC has a careful process for assessing and determining the needs of the clients that we work with, for making the funding allocations.

That being said, this year CLBC saw a $510 million increase in funding over the next three years. It’s in addition

[ Page 14176 ]

to the $2.9 billion that my ministry sees to serve individuals across this province who need extra assistance.

CLBC is certainly committed to ensuring that we are supporting families, as they transition, as they need the supports to support them in their lives.

M. Mark: K.C. wants to go into treatment for his alcohol problems, and his mom has been trying to help him seize this opportunity. At a meeting they had with CLBC staff in mid-February, she says K.C. was told he would have to either live on the street, in a homeless shelter or couch-surf.

K.C. told his mom: “I just tuned everyone out because that made me feel like I am not important enough and don’t deserve a place to live.”

[1440]

Does the minister responsible for CLBC think it’s acceptable for a young First Nations boy who grew up in government care to couch-surf or live in shelters? Or does she, too, believe that he’s not important enough?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, I’d like to remind the member that in this House I can’t speak to specific cases and files that are within the CLBC mandate. There is a commitment by CLBC to ensure that we are working with families and individuals, whether they have developmental disabilities, FASD or autism.

There’s a transition process in place. We have the STADD program. We have seen an increase in the budget for CLBC, $510 million this year, to help fund the additional supports to serve those people. There are about 18,900 individuals that we care for under CLBC. We are committed to ensuring that we are providing excellent supports for those individuals and their families.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

M. Mark: With all due respect, Minister, we can hear all we want about budgets, but it’s not working for people like K.C. I know that we’re not supposed to be speaking about cases, but budgets that are a service for people really should be improving their lives.

K.C.’s mom asked if he could use his home-share money to help pay for his treatment centre. She says CLBC told them that he would have to get a job and figure that out for himself. She then asked, advocating for K.C., if he could use the rent portion of his disability cheque for a proper winter coat and boots. She says CLBC told her that it’s a natural consequence for him to be cold and that maybe he will get a job…

Interjections.

M. Mark: Pardon me?

…save his money and buy proper winter clothes. While K.C. may be an adult, he is with CLBC because he has a disability. His former foster mom is still standing up for him, while the government responsible is just shutting him…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

M. Mark: …and vulnerable young people down.

When will the minister stop stonewalling and ensure that K.C. and others have the resources and services they need, instead of ignoring them and leaving them to fend for themselves?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I can tell the member opposite that there are 3,500 service providers in this province that are helping assist the families and the individuals who rely on the supports from CLBC. To imply that they are not doing the work, that CLBC is not providing supports, is disheartening to me — knowing that those people, each and every day, are on the front lines trying to provide the best support possible.

There are staffed residential homes. There’s supportive living. There’s shared living. There are respite resources that are provided. There are incredible resources out there and people, each and every day, who work with those individuals with developmental disabilities, with autism, with FASD to ensure that we are providing the best outcomes we can for them.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the Public Guardian and Trustee of B.C. annual report, 2015-2016.

Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 — firstly, all amounts borrowed by government and, secondly, all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province’s borrowing activity in fiscal 2015-2016.

P. Pimm: I rise today to seek leave of the House to present a report entitled MLA First Nations Stakeholder Advisory Committee report.

Leave granted.

P. Pimm: I’ve had the great honour of chairing this non-partisan committee of Peace country residents for the past….

[1445]

[ Page 14177 ]

Madame Speaker: Member for Peace River North, you have tabled the report. Thank you.

Any other items?

Petitions

K. Conroy: I’d like to present a petition. I have a petition from over 2,400 residents in the Kootenays demanding that they need prosperity now in rural B.C. and asking the government to transfer immediately $100 million from its LNG prosperity fund to the public school systems across the province to increase levels of service to all students and to stop any further erosion of the same.

D. Donaldson: I rise to present a petition that was created by Kristin Spooner and her daughter Hailey. Hailey is a grade 12 student at Hazelton Secondary and was a member of the B.C. Youth Parliament. She drafted the petition. It’s a petition signed by 350 residents from the Hazelton area calling on government to fix the safety issues with the Highway 16 overpass crossing between New Hazelton and South Hazelton above the CN Rail line and Mission Creek.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

M. Mungall: I just want to reserve my right on a point of personal privilege, please.

Madame Speaker: So noted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 7.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO

ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 7; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

On the amendment to

section 1 (continued) .

L. Popham: There is an amendment on the floor. Just because we started so long ago, maybe I’ll remind the minister what it was.

[1450]

My amendment said I would like to move an amendment that adds a definition to

section 1(1) of the act, wherein “broker” will be used to describe pet stores or any individuals or incorporated businesses who purchase or acquire animals for the purpose of sale or distribution. So I was going to add the word “broker” into the

definitions. That’s the amendment that I put forward.

Hon. N. Letnick: As we discussed two days ago, the government does not support the amendment, for the reasons that are in Hansard .

Amendment negatived.

L. Popham: Well, maybe the minister could run through the

definitions for me that he’s accepted into this legislation — a complete list of

definitions that are added.

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the hon. member opposite for her questions.

I’d like to reintroduce the team. We have Derek Sturko, deputy minister, Ministry of Agriculture; Arlene Anderson to my left, manager of the legislation unit; and Lorie Hrycuik to my far left, executive director, corporate governance, policy and legislation.

It’s indeed a privilege to be here to discuss this important piece of legislation. I also have the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, who was a key and instrumental person in bringing this legislation to the government’s attention.

Section 1 of the act has five terms that are being defined: “‘designated agency’ means a person or body designated by regulation to establish, administer and enforce a licensing or registration scheme in respect of a particular regulated activity.”

We have “employee,” which includes a person providing services “(

a) under contract to an operator, or (

b) under the direction or supervision of an operator, whether or not for a fee.”

We have “licensing inspector,” which means “a person appointed as a licensing inspector under

section 9.98”; “licensing officer,” which means “a person appointed as a licensing officer under

section 9.98”; and “reviewing officer,” which means “a person appointed as a reviewing officer under” — you guessed it — “section 9.98.”

L. Popham: With regards to the designated agency, will the designated agency be considered a government agency and be funded accordingly?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question.

A designated agency does not have to be a government agency. It could be another agency — for example, the BC SPCA. As far as the costs go, if the legislation is passed and the consultations begin on the regulations, that will be part of the consultation process — to work out the right balance between taxpayer-funded services

[ Page 14178 ]

as well as some fee that’s not too high for those that are being regulated.

The reason why we don’t want to make it too high is that we don’t want people to try to avoid getting registered by making the fee so exorbitant that they decide they’ll go without being registered. So it’ll be a conversation that will happen, if the legislation gets passed, as to what the balance will be between taxpayer-funded versus user-pay.

[1455]

L. Popham: I guess, getting back to the

definitions, I’ve got some questions about the

definitions the minister has given me.

I’m just wondering, at this point, why a certain definition wasn’t added in to

section 1. Perhaps it already exists in legislation and I can’t see it. Is “commercial breeder” defined in this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: The term “commercial breeders” is not defined, but the activity will be defined and fleshed out through the regulations.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me why that’s not defined in this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: As per regular modern practices when defining legislation and regulation, rather than defining the term in the regulations, we would define the activity. So it could be breeding, but it could also include sale, transportation, boarding or any other activity that the government of the day deemed necessary to include under the regulations. That’s why it’s not one specific term that’s defined.

L. Popham: The reason I ask is because I’ve had quite a lot of correspondence over the last couple of days with breeders who consider themselves hobby breeders rather than commercial breeders. They’re very concerned that this isn’t defined.

When I was looking through the legislation, I did see that there is one reference to the activities that these commercial breeders, hobby breeders, backyard breeders might be doing. I think the word that’s being used is “operators.” Is that true?

[1500]

Hon. N. Letnick: We’re not defining the term. What we’re saying, by using the term “operator,” is: anyone that is doing a regulated activity. So through the regulations, as we decide what the regulated activities are, we have the term “operator” to capture that.

Now, the member opposite did bring up the question that she’s been getting some emails from people who are concerned as to whether or not they are going to be captured by this law and the regulations that follow. I know it’s been a couple of days since I read this, but just for their comfort, I’ll read it again.

The intent is to regulate people who regularly, deliberately and repeatedly breed or sell dogs and cats for some form of compensation, regardless of whether they produce pedigreed, purebred or mixed-breed dogs and cats. We will not be targeting individuals who are selling or adopting out their pets because they can no longer care for them or those looking for a home because of an unexpected or accidental litter of puppies and kittens.

Hopefully, that makes some people more comfortable.

L. Popham: As far as cats go, I think that we’re well aware of community groups and individuals who trap feral cats and then find homes for them. They don’t sell them; they adopt them out. Would that also be included?

Hon. N. Letnick: No.

L. Popham: Could the minister read out the first part of that statement that he read to me?

Hon. N. Letnick: Tell me when you want me to stop.

The intent is to regulate people who regularly, deliberately and repeatedly breed or sell dogs and cats for some form of compensation, regardless of whether they produce pedigreed, purebred or mixed-breed dogs and cats.

L. Popham: The wording “regulate people” — does this allow for people that incorporate their businesses to get around that?

Hon. N. Letnick: “Persons” include corporations under the act, so they won’t be able to get around it, as was postulated.

L. Popham: Okay, thank you very much.

The concerns that I’ve been getting are mostly around how, I think, that the breeders are defining themselves right now, the ones that are contacting me, so getting back to how either they consider themselves a commercial breeder or a hobby breeder.

Currently the responses that I’m getting are generally from people who are registered with the Canadian Kennel Club. These breeders in Saanich also register with the district of Saanich, so they have two levels of registration already. I’m just going to just read out one of the paragraphs from one of the emails that I have received.

“All Saanich licensed breeders have a very good working relationship with the local animal control.” We also have a CRD animal control working in our area. “Animal control officers currently enforce bylaws that deal with animal cruelty. Will these professionals not have a job when their function is replaced by the BC SPCA?” That’s a question from a constituent.

[1505]

[ Page 14179 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the hon. member opposite. Just a few points. In the statement, you alluded to the potential of the BC SPCA being a designated agency. Absolutely, there’s a potential, but there’s no agreement yet — so we can’t move forward, according to a letter — that they are. But I think everyone understands that there’s a front-runner here.

During the summer, as the ministry consults with stakeholders, of course they’ll consult with the Canadian Kennel Club and other breeders in the province, other organizations. The local governments, through UBCM, will also have an opportunity to provide their input to the process.

I appreciate that Saanich has a system that maybe not all parts of the province have. This legislation is to cover the whole province. So there will be some opportunities for communication between local governments, through their UBCM, and the ministry as proposed regulations are crafted for the next government to consider.

L. Popham: Yes, that would be great, and I hope that each municipality participates in that consultation, because I think we are seeing different situations in a lot of municipalities.

Getting back to the

definitions, again, I hate to harp on it, but I find it to be important to define the breeder or seller part of the equation. The reason is because after going through the legislation and after having many phone calls, I still don’t quite understand, without defining more of the terms for the legislation…. Perhaps they’re coming by regulation, but for me, I’m dealing with the legislation right now. So without being able to define those terms, I’m having a hard time understanding how we’re going to reach the goal that we’re looking for, which is to stop inhumane and cruel breeders from operating.

I’m getting emails from…. I’ll use the example from Saanich again, because that’s where I’ve been getting the emails from over the last 24 hours. There are 11 registered breeders, through the Canadian Kennel Club, operating in Saanich. I would assume that there are a lot more breeders than that in Saanich that aren’t registered currently. I don’t know what percentage of those breeders would be considered the type of breeders we’re trying to stop. I don’t understand….

The registration will be mandatory. If you don’t register, you’re breaking the law. But they found a marketplace. The breeders we’re trying to stop have a marketplace to sell their animals into. How will you ever stop those types of breeders? If they’re doing it in a way that’s illegitimate, what would make the minister believe that they would all of a sudden register their business? I don’t see any of their retail opportunities diminishing because of this legislation.

Hon. N. Letnick: Quite a number of topics. Let me say it for the fourth time that the intent is to regulate people who regularly, deliberately and repeatedly breed or sell dogs and cats for some form of compensation, regardless of whether they produce pedigreed, purebred or mixed-breed dogs and cats and, I guess I could add to that, whether or not they want to get registered.

The intent is to capture all people who fall under that definition in the legislation, if it’s passed, and the regulations. The thresholds will be something that the ministry will consult with, with the breeders and other associations and UBCM and SPCA, of course, over the course of the summer, if the legislation is passed. So there will be an opportunity there to say what that threshold is.

Again, I’ll give a shout-out to all the reputable breeders out there that are producing great dogs and great cats and taking care of them. That’s what we want. They will, I’m sure, want to be registered under this legislation and registration, and they’ll want to make sure that those businesses, those people that aren’t complying with the registration, are called out.

[1510]

That’s when compliance and enforcement comes in. I think we did discuss roughly what we think that will cost: somewhere around $550,000 a year the first year and then an estimated about $400,000 a year thereafter to do compliance and enforcement inspections.

I would say that given my 20 years of business experience and almost ten years teaching it…. People like to point out those that aren’t complying with the rules that they have to comply with. It gives people a competitive advantage if they can get away with doing things that are against the law, and it puts the reputable dealers in a disadvantage economically if they have to pay whatever the fee is, plus the administration of being registered.

I would suspect that if not the clients…. You’re insinuating that the clients won’t want to blow the whistle. I can certainly assure you that those reputable dealers out there will be calling whoever the designated agency is to point out that someone else is putting our pets in harm’s way.

L. Popham: What the minister is saying is that this will be a complaint-driven system. They will be relying on people who notice something that’s gone wrong and hoping that a neighbour might turn in the person who’s not running a reputable animal breeding business.

If that’s true, then it still begs the question, to me: why would we not be putting

part 2 in legislation, to make sure that the avenue where these animals who are being bred with not-reputable breeders are ending up…? Why would we not add

definitions and legislation regarding the retail of these animals? I don’t understand, at this point, how we’re going to catch the ones we’re trying to catch.

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, in several ways. One, there’ll be a requirement for breeders to show their registration number in the public space. Also, there’ll be proactive en-

[ Page 14180 ]

forcement based on complaints, as I’ve already said. This will ensure that those who do not initially comply will be visited by inspectors. There’ll be risk-based inspections that will be set up. This means that higher-volume, large-scale operations will be visited first. There’ll be random audits of those registered. They’ll be scheduled in order to ensure everyone is in compliance. And there’ll be public education as part of the process, telling people to look for a breeder registration number to help uncover breeders that are not in compliance.

I think that with all of these initiatives, including the fundamental desire for reputable breeders to point out the disreputable breeders, we should have a very good system. Of course, if something else is required, with the passage of time, because it is under regulation and not through the legislation, the government of the day can easily modify regs to make it even more difficult for people to get away without complying with the registration scheme.

I just want to add one more thing. The legislation is proposed to look at both registration and licensing. It does not presume one over the other at this point. We are, obviously, leaning towards a registration system first, because that’s the easier of the two options. It’s easier to get people to register rather than to go through the licensing. But I just want to make sure it’s clear that that option is still going to be part of the discussion this summer between the ministry and the stakeholders.

L. Popham: I guess my question right now is: why would a disreputable breeder register or apply for a licence?

[1515]

Hon. N. Letnick: In the regulations that, of course, we’ll be consulting with over the course of the summer — or the ministry will, anyway — there’ll be penalties associated with not being registered if you are found to be doing the service. Those penalties, of course, would be progressive. The amounts of those penalties will be determined after the consultation.

At the maximum end, it’s the same as what we have now for harm to animals, which is up to a $75,000 fine or two years in jail. I would imagine that the breeders who are trying to avoid getting registered…. Through this progressive amount of ticketing and then, eventually, potentially getting a $75,000 fine or two years in jail should a judge find them guilty of an offence under the act, I think that would be enough encouragement for them to get registered in the first place, or just get out of the business if they’re not going to be reputable breeders.

L. Popham: I guess I’m looking at it from a different perspective than the minister.

When I think about puppy mills or people that are breeding improperly and they’re trying to get rid of animals, they’re not selling them from their home. They’re advertising to get rid of these animals. The animals were most likely removed from their mothers at an early stage. They’re living in a different spot. They are being sold on line with no way of tracking the originating address. They’re being advertised in a classified ad, perhaps. And there’s no way, at that point…. That, to me, would be an obvious place to have to use your registration number.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m absolutely supportive of the idea of this legislation — absolutely. But I just think: why would we miss an opportunity by legislation? I know it can always be filled in by regulation, if it happens. But why would we not want to take an even stronger stand and make sure we don’t miss an opportunity?

In my view, to sell any pet, you should have a registration number. If you’re in a classified ad in the paper, that number should be registered. If you’re selling it through a pet shop, that number should be accessible with the animal. If you’re selling it on Kijiji, that number should be there. That’s the place where you catch the person who’s not registered and has never had any intent to register.

I think the people that register are probably, most likely, in the majority, running a reputable business.

[1520]

Hon. N. Letnick: I appreciate that the member is supportive of the legislation. I think and I hope that the legislation gets passed unanimously in the House, because it’s important legislation.

One thing, amongst many things, that I’ve learned in my eight years here, and more recently working on this particular file, is that I understand that 80 percent of animals are actually sold out of the home. That was news to me as well.

I remember when I purchased my dog, Nikki. I guess I’m going to get sentimental here. Jeez, that would have been 20, 25 years ago. Nikki was a show dog, a sheltie, and her ears dropped. After her ears dropped, they couldn’t use her as a show dog anymore. Standards are interesting.

So Nikki was for sale. Our family got Nikki. She was just an amazing companion for our family. Unfortunately, Nikki got ill around at around 14 years of age, just before I became an MLA, and was not able to stay with us after that. But Nikki was bred and sold through somebody’s home, and apparently, that’s about 80 percent of these animals.

Specifically to the question of promoting or advertising for sale an animal, with the legislation…. It’s not even in the regulations but right in the legislation, in

section 9.21. We’ll get to it later, obviously. If I may just allude to it here for a second.

Section 9.21(2)(ii) says that they must: “include the operator’s licence number or certificate of registration number on any advertising of animals available for disposition by the operator.”

So if you see something on Kijiji or wherever in the classifieds, they’ll need to put in their registration num-

[ Page 14181 ]

ber. If they don’t have one, then it will be quite obvious. If they’re forging one, that will be up to the compliance and enforcement officers that we contract with — if that is indeed a contract versus in-house in the ministry — to catch these people.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer, and that brings up two more questions for me. In that

section of the legislation — which we’ll be getting to later — again, the word “operator” is used. It bothers me that we don’t define that word “operator.” I know that we will at a later date over the summer, but I still think that we have enough information to be able to define that term.

The second part of it was that the minister has stated that if you’re going to be having an on-line ad, you will need to, by legislation, provide that registration number. Is that correct? Okay.

If on line, which is a reseller or a place of sales, retailer for animals…. At that point, you need a registration number. But you don’t need to do that if you’re doing it through a pet shop? To me, it seems like a very similar thing. Will pet shops be required to show their registration number, where the animals originated from?

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer to the second question is yes. And “operator” is already defined in the existing legislation. Maybe that’s why we don’t see it here. This is text to amend the existing legislation.

In the existing legislation, “operator” means “a person who engages in a regulated activity, and includes any person who assists, directs, supervises or employs that person for the purpose of doing the regulated activity.”

L. Popham: Brokers of animals will have to provide a registration or a licence number of where the animals are obtained. Is that correct?

[1525]

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes. The proposed changes will impact any establishment — pet stores, for example — where the regulated activity of breeding and selling dogs and cats occurs. The proposed amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act have been drafted to allow flexibility to regulate other activities in the future if other issues are identified, including the sales, for example, of hamsters, gerbils and snakes. So the answer is yes, the proposed changes will impact those places.

L. Popham: But it’s not in the legislation. That’s to be worked on later, but I think it’s really clear that there are only so many avenues that these animals can be sold through. Why would the minister choose not to define those right now?

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, just like pollsters can’t get elections right, it’s very difficult to know exactly what the avenues of distribution will be tomorrow. It’s much easier just to have the flexibility in regulations and let the government of the day put in the appropriate avenues.

L. Popham: Well, that’s not the answer that I really wanted, but I guess I’ll have to accept it. The minister does refer to the fact that this is a modern way of doing legislation. I guess I’m an old-fashioned girl, then, because I really like to see what we’re agreeing to before we vote on it.

I think it’s modern right now because we know this legislation is going to pass regardless of what we bring forward from the opposition. We’ll never win a vote in this chamber. That’s why I think it’s especially important, when you put forward legislation, that we know what we’re voting on. I may vote yes for this legislation, and then something is going to pop up in regulations that I never agreed to or would never agree to. That’s why I think it needs to be more clear.

Anyway, I’ll move on. I think I’m done with

section

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain

section 2 to me, please?

Hon. N. Letnick: Before I explain or read out the explanation for

section 2, I just want to make sure that I remember correctly…. You know, I am approaching 60 years of age this year.

A. Dix: You’re kidding.

Hon. N. Letnick: No, I’m not kidding. I am approaching 60 this year. I’m 59.

I know the member opposite is considerably younger, and her memory is far better than mine.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: I don’t believe that she’s going to be that age. I’m glad that we didn’t get that on Hansard .

But if I remember correctly, the FAPCA legislation, which we actually debated not too long ago in this House, there were some amendments proposed by the hon. member that I accepted.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

So if the hon. member brings good, worthwhile amendments, proposes those amendments, I’m totally open to accepting them on behalf of government if it’s going to make the legislation better. I just wanted to put that clearly out there — that I think, even with my lim-

[ Page 14182 ]

ited memory at almost 60, that there was an opportunity for amendments for this legislation as well.

I would imagine that there will be other amendments proposed by the member on this legislation, and again, if they are appropriate and in the best interest of the legislation and the people that we serve, then, of course, we’ll look at that carefully.

[1530]

Amending

section 7, powers of society, is what

section 2 is about, and the amendment expands the power of the society.

As a statutory body, the society’s powers are set out in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The amendment will allow the society to perform the duties of a designated agency if it is appointed as one by regulation. It is intended that the society will be the body designated to administer the licensing and administrative scheme contemplated by these amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

L. Popham: That gives me great hope that my amendment, which I’ll be proposing, might be accepted. Thank you to the minister. I think it’s probably worth accepting. I’ve given him previous notice of that amendment. Maybe he’s just foreshadowing that he’s going to take my suggestion.

Getting back to

section 2. Obviously, this legislation and regulation, at a later date, will increase the responsibility that the BC SPCA has if they are chosen. We’re going to assume at this point that they will be the chosen ones. Because of the increase in responsibility, I would like to know: is there assurance that the funding for the BC SPCA will be increased?

Hon. N. Letnick: Hon, Chair, good to see you, sir, in that position, as always.

Again, as I read out the definition of

section 2…. It’s the intention that we will be working with the SPCA. There’s no guarantee right now, obviously, but that’s the intention. First, the act needs to pass. Then the government needs to negotiate with the SPCA on what a reasonable amount would be for the work that’s being done.

As far as the amount is concerned, the estimates, as I’ve said before, are…. First year would be $550,000 and $400,000 a year thereafter. That will be partly tax-funded compensation and partly user-pay. That balance will be reviewed in consultation with the industry and other key stakeholders over the course of the summer as the ministry consults on the regulations.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me…? If it is the BC SPCA that’s chosen, is the BC SPCA a charity?

Hon. N. Letnick: To the best of my knowledge, they are a non-profit society.

L. Popham: As a non-profit society, does the SPCA require public funds, public donations to operate?

[1535]

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, the SPCA does rely on donations for a lot of its work.

L. Popham: That’s what I understand as well. But I have noticed that there are a lot of legislative responsibilities that they have which are legislated by government and tasks that they are, by law, to carry out. I know they get some funding from the government, but as the minister will know through meetings with the BC SPCA, their workload is huge, and they are constantly looking for ways to increase the money that they have to operate on.

Now, one of the things that the minister, I am sure, understands is that with this new legislative responsibility comes a huge portion of public education. That portion must, in my view, be funded by government. I don’t think going out and asking the public for donations in order to successfully run a program that they are legislated to carry out would be a good way of doing business. For one thing, you may not be able to get the level of education that you would need to have a successful program.

From what I understand about what the BC SPCA would need financially to undergo these legislative changes and then operate at the level that would be effective to stop puppy mills and kitten mills, I think it’s between $750,000 and $1.8 million. Some of that is education. Some of that is a brand-new computer system. They need a year to get that up and running, and then they need an annual budget. Does the minister understand this as well?

Hon. N. Letnick: I think, hon. Chair, you and the member opposite recognize that we have a great working relationship with the BC SPCA. Successive governments, I imagine, over 100 years, including during the ’90s, the ’80s, the ’70s and before that…. Government has had a great relationship with the BC SPCA and really believes in their mandate and the support provided to them by citizens all across our province, including taxpayers.

Not only do we support the BC SPCA in some of our properties that we provide them leases on at a nominal rate, but thanks to the Minister of Finance, over the last three years in our balanced budgets, we’re able to provide them with two contributions of $5 million each, for a total of $10 million, towards their capital campaign, which I can assure you — and I know the member opposite agrees — they’ve been very appreciative of and have made significant investments, thanks in part, to that $10 million contribution from taxpayers.

The relationship that we have with the SPCA…. You can see it all the time with dogs in hot cars — how we want to make sure that people don’t leave their animals in hot cars and how the SPCA has had a great oppor-

[ Page 14183 ]

tunity, a great program, to promote the care of dogs in hot cars with the citizens. Again, something that they get a lot of attention for from the media which costs no one any money and gives the media a good story to tell. Something public to improve the care of our animals. We can do that with the BC SPCA as our partner.

[1540]

I’m not too sure if the media would be as interested if it was just a government initiative, but being with the BC SPCA and their wherewithal with making sure that the right people hear the right message about taking care of their animals I think is a great partnership.

The cost of education that we are talking about here is something that is included in that estimate of $550,000 in the first year and $400,000 going out. That estimated cost was calculated in collaboration with the BC SPCA.

L. Popham: I’m sure the SPCA is completely appreciative of the money that was given to them for their capital projects, but capital projects are completely different than operating budgets for legislative responsibilities.

The $550,000 commitment. Does the $550,000, in the minister’s mind, include the computer system and the year of getting the system up and rolling?

Hon. N. Letnick: Actually, before I answer this question, it did bring to mind something that happened yesterday.

Yesterday morning the Minister of Finance was answering questions regarding his bill, and there was a $500,000 capital expense that he was asked for. It just so happened that I happened to be here, so he looked over to me for the answer, and I unfortunately gave him the wrong answer. I told him that this was for computers. I’d like to clear the record now on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

The actual reason for the $500,000 was mostly for vehicles for the ministry staff and for the land commission. So if I can record that — which I guess I just did — officially so that everyone understands what the money was for.

Over the course of the summer, as we work through the regulations, the ministry staff will be working with the BC SPCA to iron out exactly the details as to what this relationship would look like, how much exactly would be required for operating and capital. The initial estimate we have from the BC SPCA, working with the ministry, is $550,000 in the first year and $400,000 going out. But that can change, as they get right down to the table and start looking at their Excel spreadsheets to really see what the intention is.

At the end of the day, if the BC SPCA doesn’t want to do the job, they don’t have to. There’s nothing in the legislation that says: “It shall be the BC SPCA, and they have no choice.” That’s obviously not the intent. The intent here is that it could be the BC SPCA. Our hope is that it is and that we can have the two willing partners, the government and the BC SPCA, come to an agreement as to how they would go about doing the job and how much they would need financially from taxpayers.

L. Popham: If it is the BC SPCA and they decide to take this on and an agreement is made, is the minister assuring me that the amount of money required to operate this program at the highest level will be given to the BC SPCA?

[1545]

Hon. N. Letnick: I don’t want to repeat my whole answer from before. To achieve brevity, I’ll just say that we’ll do the best we can. We’ll sit down with the BC SPCA. We’ll identify what exactly is required. We’ll obviously negotiate with them and come to some agreement as to what amount of money is necessary to do what’s required, according to the act and the proposed regulations, if the act should pass.

L. Popham: Over my eight years, and I’m almost 50, so you know, I’ve….

Interjection.

L. Popham: Yeah, it is.

I’ve got some experience as well. It’s been my experience that there always seems to be a little bit of a disagreement on what the BC SPCA needs and what the government thinks they need to operate their programs. I also support the funding that they get. But education, enforcement, compliance — it does take financial support to do that right, and I think the choice the government will have in its consultation is to figure out at what level they want to come in and support legislation like this.

You can choose, as a government, to go after breeders at a certain level — a minimum level or a maximum level. You can go after the highest-risk offenders only and leave the smaller bad breeders out of the question. I think that’s where it’s going to be very important to figure out what our end goal is with this legislation. If we’re just going to go after high-risk breeders, because it will be less expensive to just focus on the higher-risk bad breeders, then I’m not sure we’re going to capture the whole problem.

I would encourage the minister…. If we’re going to be spending the time in this chamber to bring in legislation with the intent of making sure that animals aren’t suffering in breeding businesses, then I think we need to make sure we’re listening very carefully to the BC SPCA on the level of enforcement that’s needed. That’s not a question; that’s just a statement.

E. Foster: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 14184 ]

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: On behalf of Madame Speaker, I am pleased to welcome students from the Az-Zahraa Academy — according to Madame Speaker, this is one of the finest group of students she’s ever met — accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Jaffer and parent volunteers. Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. N. Letnick: Just for one of the best groups of students that we’ve ever met, for your edification, we are debating a bill that would protect puppies and kittens in our province from disreputable breeders. The member opposite is my critic. She’s asking me tough questions, and as the Minister of Agriculture, my job is to defend the legislation and explain it so that we can later vote on it. That’s what we’re doing here today.

With that, I think we’re ready to move onto the next section.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain

section 3 to me?

Hon. N. Letnick: The amendment adds an obligation for operators to keep and produce records to licensing inspectors and authorized agents. An existing

section of the act allows for the inspection of records kept by operators, but there’s no explicit requirement on operators to keep records — for example, breed, sex, death, breeding frequency, etc. An explicit requirement for operators to keep records will facilitate monitoring for compliance and enforcement of a licensing or registration scheme.

L. Popham: Can the minister repeat that, please?

[1550]

Hon. N. Letnick:

Section 3 of the act amends

section 9.2, “Duties of operators.” The amendment adds an obligation for operators to keep and produce records to licensing inspectors and authorized agents.

An existing

section of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,

section 15.2, allows for the inspection of records kept by operators, but there’s no explicit requirement on operators to keep records — for example, breed, sex, deaths, breeding frequency, etc. An explicit requirement for operators to keep records will facilitate monitoring for compliance and enforcement of a licensing registration scheme.

L. Popham: What kind of recordkeeping will be prescribed? Is it records that will need to be on site upon inspection? Will these be on-line records that will be submitted annually? Does the minister have any idea?

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer to the question by the hon. member is that that will be determined through consultation and be part of the regulations.

L. Popham: Does the minister have any examples of the types of recordkeeping that might be most effective in this situation?

Hon. N. Letnick: Assuming I understand what the question means, it could be computers, it could be recordkeeping on index cards — things like that. But that will be determined through consultation with the industry and then decided through regulation.

L. Popham: I actually was thinking more along the lines of: will you be submitting records on line? Will breeders be required to submit their records on line so that the database for breeders is kept with the BC SPCA or with the government? Are there any other jurisdictions who have brought in legislation like this that would have a database where they keep their breeders, in B.C.? Or would it just be written documentation that the breeder would look after themselves?

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, through consultation and then in regulations, the prescribed method will be identified. New Brunswick is another province, another jurisdiction, that does this.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain

section 4 to me?

Hon. N. Letnick:

Section 4 is a new section, to be numbered 9.21 — “Operators who must be licensed or registered.” The amendment adds a new

section to establish that if a licensing registration scheme for a regulated activity is established, there is an obligation on an operator to be licensed or registered to engage in the regulated activity and to display the licence or certificate of registration and provide copies and information as required.

[1555]

The act already provides for certain activities described as regulated and allows for standards to be prescribed for these regulated activities, but there’s no licensing registration scheme that requires operators to be licensed or registered to engage in the activity.

The amendments create the ability for government to require operators to be licensed or registered to engage in certain regulated activities like the ones we’re talking about here. It also imposes duties on a licensed or

[ Page 14185 ]

registered operator to display evidence of their licence or registration, and to share prescribed information and records — for example, vet care records — to a person acquiring an animal or to the public at no cost.

The amendment also prohibits an operator from holding themselves out as licensed or registered if they do not hold a licence or registration or if their licence or registration has been suspended.

L. Popham: What types of activities, specifically, are going to require the licensing and registration? Did I understand that there are a lot of different activities that this

section entails, but only some of them are going to be licensed and registered?

Hon. N. Letnick: The types will be whatever the government puts in regulation after consultation this summer, if the legislation passes. And the intent right now is to regulate the breeding of cats and dogs.

L. Popham: But what other activities are included in this section? What other activities currently?

Hon. N. Letnick: None.

L. Popham: Okay. I have an amendment that I’ve tabled for

section 4.

SECTION 4 by adding the following:

Commercial Engagement with Operators

9.22

(1) A Broker must do the following:

(

a) ensure that all animals within their care are purchased or obtained from licenced or registered operators;

(

b) maintain records of how all animals offered for sale or consignment were acquired, including:

(

i) name, physical address and telephone number of the licensed or registered operator from whom the animal was acquired; and

(

c) produce records referred to in paragraph (

b) on the request of, and within the time requested by a licensing inspector; and

(

d) provide written documentation of records referenced in (

b) to the purchasers of animals.]

On the amendment.

L. Popham: It adds

section 9.22 to the act, under

section 4 of this bill. This amendment would also make it so that brokers can only buy or obtain animals from licensed or registered breeders. It would also set up provisions that would require pet stores to keep records of how they obtained animals that they wished to sell; would mandate that they provide, in writing, acknowledgment to consumers that animals to be purchased have come from registered or licensed breeders; and would enable inspectors to access records regarding how animals are obtained.

That’s my amendment. I’ve been alluding to the fact of how important I think this amendment is to this legislation. I have stated previously that I support the legislation, but I think it’s incomplete, and I think this amendment completes it.

I think that breeders who are not doing the job that they should be doing and are bringing harm and cruelty to animals in the breeding process, specifically cats and dogs…. I don’t think asking them to register or to have a licence is going to be a way that we’re going to catch people trying to do something that’s not right.

I think that this specific amendment allows a place where consumers would have the ability to track the…. And if it’s the BC SPCA who is doing enforcement and compliance, this is a specific place where they will be able to track animals coming in from bad backyard breeders, where there would be no other avenue that these people could be caught. It may be a small percentage of people that are doing it badly in their backyard, but there is absolutely no incentive for them to register or get a licence.

I think that the minister’s example of how this will be a complaint-driven system, depending on good breeders or neighbours to turn somebody in…. I don’t think that’s an effective way of handling this legislation. I think that the recordkeeping needs to be 100 percent, and this completes the process.

I’m going to sit down, and I’d like the minister to explain to me why he may or may not accept this amendment. But if he’s going to tell me that he’s not going to accept it, I don’t think brushing this off to the next step of consultation is where to put it. I think this makes this legislation extremely strong.

[1600]

There’s support for it. I haven’t got a formal letter of endorsement from the BC SPCA, but I know that they would like to have the checks and balances in place as well, although they would most likely be okay having this done over the summer to make sure it’s done right. I have consulted, myself, and I do think that this amendment at least is the skeleton legislation in order to make this legislation stronger.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the amendment is in order.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for her proposed amendment. The question was: if the government’s not going to support it, why?

[1605]

What’s being proposed is inconsistent with the framework of the act. The framework of the act provides for the vessel, which then goes to regulations to see what activities would be regulated and how they’ll be regulated. So I cannot accept it into the framework of the legislation, but should the legislation pass and then we go out to consultation on the regulations, I can assure the member opposite that we are sympathetic with the principle, and we will try to achieve that principle within the regulations.

It’s not a no. It is: let’s work together through the regulations, if the act passes, through consultation with the

[ Page 14186 ]

stakeholders, and move towards what both sides are trying to achieve here.

L. Popham: The minister has said that it’s inconsistent with the vessel of the legislation. I don’t really know what that means, but I’m going to go through my amendment point by point, and the minister can explain how each point is inconsistent and how it wouldn’t fit within this legislation.

The amendment is in

section 4, and it adds the following section: “Commercial Engagement with Operators 9.22.

(1) A Broker must do the following….” And “broker” is a term that’s already in the legislation. Or it’s not. Maybe we could change that to “operator”. But I think broker…. Everybody understands what that means.

“A Broker must do the following: (

a) ensure that all animals within their care are purchased or obtained from licenced or registered operators.”

How is that inconsistent?

Hon. N. Letnick: For example, “all animals” would include livestock.

L. Popham: Okay. And (b): “Maintain records of how all animals” — and I guess the minister is going to say “animals” again — “offered for sale or consignment were acquired, including: (

i) name, physical address and telephone number of the licensed or registered operator from whom the animal was acquired.”

How is that inconsistent?

Hon. N. Letnick: “All animals” would include livestock.

L. Popham: And (c): “Produce records referred to in paragraph (

b) on the request of, and within the time requested by a licensing inspector.” How is that inconsistent?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m looking at the proposed amendment, and if we define this activity as a regulated activity in the regulations, then all these other things — the recordkeeping and everything else — will be captured.

L. Popham: And (d): “Provide written documentation of records referenced…to the purchasers of animals.” Now, I’m going to ask, “What’s the inconsistency,” and the minister is going to say “animals” again. But I would ask the minister: what would the minister use instead of the word “animals” to make this consistent?

[1610]

Hon. N. Letnick: The interesting

part is that if this was accepted, then all the other provisions of the act and the regulations that come if the act is passed would no longer apply to brokers. It would limit what happens to brokers to only these four sentences that the hon. member has proposed. It actually won’t achieve what the hon. member wants to achieve, with all due respect.

The best way to go forward is to do the regulations and look for the principle that the hon. member is trying to achieve — as I said, I’m sympathetic to it — as we work through the regulations. That way, everything would be covered. For example, if we accepted this, then the administrative penalties wouldn’t cover brokers. Brokers could get away with doing whatever they want without penalties, because the rest of the provisions of the act wouldn’t cover them. It would be overwritten by this. So I cannot support the proposed amendment.

L. Popham: Okay. Well, that would be a consequence that I wouldn’t intend, then — if it would make brokers not accountable or the rest of the act to apply to them. I’d still like an answer to my question, regardless of if the minister is going to accept this amendment or not. What word would the minister use instead of “animals”?

Hon. N. Letnick: I wouldn’t use any word instead of “animals.” As I said before, I think the amendment that’s being proposed would actually be counterproductive. It would actually make it more difficult to get what we want out of brokers than what’s being proposed through the legislation and the subsequent regulations if the legislation passes.

L. Popham: All right, then it’s not going to pass. But I’d still like to make a comment on it.

This legislation that we’re passing today is really focused on the breeders. To me, it’s saying that brokers — if we’re going to use that term, if that’s allowed at the moment — don’t have a responsibility in this equation. In my view, they have as much of a responsibility as the breeders.

So the focus is on the breeders. We are going to deal with brokers at another time. Perhaps my amendment wasn’t well written, and perhaps it’s not good enough to be accepted by the minister. But I still think — and I’d like it on record — that the minister has missed a huge opportunity to complete this legislation and make sure that brokers carry just as much responsibility for supporting bad breeding as the bad breeders who are doing it.

[1615]

If this legislation goes into place…. I know the regulations have to be drawn up, but it becomes a law in British Columbia. I would hope that the minister…. It’s going to take a year, possibly, to draft these regulations and put them in place. That’s another year that we’ll have lost. I assume that if we were able to get this skeleton legislation in with at least some stipulations that brokers would have to adhere to, we would be seeing less opportunities for bad breeders to have an opportunity to sell their animals in a way that I don’t believe, at this point, will be regulated at all.

[ Page 14187 ]

I will accept the fact that the minister won’t accept this amendment, and we’ll move on to the rest of

section 4.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for her passion for agriculture and for the companions that we have in our province.

I just want to repeat, for the benefit of the member opposite and so that I’m also clear…. I did say before that these proposed changes will impact any establishment where the regulated activity of breeding and selling of dogs and cats occurs. Brokers will be covered. We just have to work through the regulations to get there.

L. Popham: Where does it say that?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’ll be part of the regulations they will be consulting with us on.

L. Popham: That’s my whole point. It doesn’t say that anywhere that I can see, but I’m going to have to just have faith that this will happen in regulation at some point. If it’s in legislation, then I know. So when I vote on it, I know that I’m voting on legislation that I can completely support. Now I have to vote on legislation that I just hope will end up being what I want at some point in the day. But I think that’s the state of the way we do legislation right now.

Okay. I think I’ll accept that the amendment won’t pass.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Popham: Can the minister please explain

section 5?

Hon. N. Letnick: In

section 5, new

section 9.4 is “Licences.” The amendment adds a new

section to establish a framework for the licensing scheme. As you can imagine, I have quite a bit of notes explaining all of

section 5. I’ll just hit the highlights. If the member opposite has specific questions on a specific subsection of

section 5, I’d be happy to hit that as well.

New

section 9.5 is “Variation of licences.” This amendment adds a new

section to allow for — you guessed it — a variation of licences.

Section 9.6 is “Registrations.” The amendment adds a new

section to establish a framework for a registration scheme.

Section 9.7 is on licences and certificates of registration. The amendment adds a new

section to outline matters a licensing officer may consider when deciding whether to issue a licence or certificate of registration.

[1620]

Section 9.8 is a new section. The amendment adds a new

section to permit administrative actions being taken against operators for particular contraventions.

New

section 9.9. The amendment adds a new

section to allow reconsideration of decisions of a licensing officer if additional relevant information is made available.

New

section 9.91 adds a

section to allow review of decisions of a licensing officer following a reconsideration. New

section 9.92 establishes the circumstances in which a licensing inspector may inspect premises. New

section 9.93 outlines the powers of a licensing inspector when conducting an inspection. New

section 9.94 establishes conditions for a licensing inspector to enter premises or a vehicle for inspection purposes.

New

section 9.95 establishes conditions for a licensing inspector to obtain a warrant to enter a private residence for purposes of inspection or search and seizure. New

section 9.96 requires a licensing inspector to identify themselves as such when conducting an inspection. New

section 9.97 defines the role of an agency designated to administer a licensing or registration scheme. New

section 9.98 authorizes the minister to appoint licensing officers, reviewing officers and licensing inspectors.

New

section 9.99 — reminds me of Gretzky — respects to training, qualifications and standards that may be established for licensing officers, reviewing officers and licensing inspectors. Last but not least, new

section 9.991 creates a process to deal with complaints against licensing inspectors.

If the member opposite wishes me to get into a fuller explanation of any of those, I’d be more than happy to do so.

L. Popham: I guess I’ll start with

section 9.8. My question: is it standard process for there to be four opportunities for a licensee to challenge a decision made by the licensing body?

Hon. N. Letnick: You get a decision. If you don’t like the decision and you have new information, you can get a reconsideration. In either case, if you don’t have new information and you want to get it reviewed, you can then get it reviewed. Or you can through with reconsideration if you have new information and then go and get it reviewed. Then, last but not least, you also have the opportunity for judicial review.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me a real-life scenario where this would happen?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m a registered person. I’ve done something that is in contravention of the regulations. My person has come in and inspected me — potentially the SPCA, for example — and issued me a ticket for something. I disagreed with the ticket, because there was some new information that they didn’t have.

I then ask them to reconsider that. After looking at the new information, they decide that the ticket still stands. I still don’t like the answer, so then I have some-

[ Page 14188 ]

one who is superior in authority review the situation. As long as there’s no new information, they can do that. I still don’t like the answer. I can then, of course, avail myself of the court.

L. Popham:

Section 9.94. This

section deals with the authority that a licensing inspector has to enter premises without a warrant. Are there certain ordinary business hours that would pertain to this section?

[1625]

Hon. N. Letnick: The actual law says, under 9.94(2)(b), that entry is during ordinary business hours.

L. Popham: Does the minister happen to know what those are?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s not defined. It would be, typically, the regular business hours of the establishment that’s conducting the business.

L. Popham: I’m thinking, as an example, of somebody who’s breeding dogs, but they’re not really a business that’s open to the public at all. There are no business hours, so how would we do that?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question. So 9.94(2) says: “Entry under subsection (1) may be without a warrant or the consent of the person responsible for the premises or vehicle if (

a) the premises or vehicle is not used as a dwelling house” — so it can’t be used as someone’s home — “and (

b) entry is during ordinary business hours.”

In the case of using someone’s home…. Actually, it would come under the next section. They have to provide consent. If they don’t provide consent, then the inspecting officer can, of course, ask for a warrant — it doesn’t mean they will get one, but they can always ask for a warrant — and then inspect at that point.

If they believe asking for consent would tip off the operator, they could just ask for a warrant without asking for consent in the first place. But again, it would be up to the court to determine whether or not they would get that warrant.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

L. Popham: Actually, I would like the minister to explain

section 6.

Hon. N. Letnick:

Section 6 amends

section 13 of the act, “Authority to enter with a warrant.” The change amends the existing

section to clarify that it does not apply to the new offences in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act related to the licensing and registration scheme.

Existing provision,

section 13, provides authority for authorized agents to enter any premise, with a warrant, to relieve an animal in distress and to search for and s