2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jim Waardenburg

J. van Dongen

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Shachi Kurl

Hon. G. Abbott

J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2011

Hon. B. Penner

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Child care providers and early childhood educators

M. Elmore

Vancouver Public Library and literacy awareness

M. Stilwell

'Ksan Performing Arts Group participation in cultural exchange project

D. Donaldson

Child and Youth in Care Week

G. Hogg

Community theatre groups in Coquitlam

D. Thorne

Surrey Canadian Baseball Association

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Pricing model for prescription drugs

A. Dix

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Ferry fares

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

C. Trevena

Camping fees

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Impact of harmonized sales tax on families

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Rate changes for seniors in residential care

S. Hammell

Hon. M. de Jong

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint a Chief Electoral Officer, report

J. van Dongen

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Chief Electoral Officer

J. van Dongen

S. Hammell

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Annual

Summary of Activities

B. Ralston

D. Horne

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. K. Falcon

B. Ralston

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

Hon. B. Penner

L. Krog

Hon. B. Penner

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

Hon. D. McRae

L. Popham

Hon. T. Lake

B. Ralston

M. Farnworth

Hon. B. Penner

D. Thorne

R. Cantelon

S. Fraser

R. Hawes

J. Brar

J. Thornthwaite

J. Kwan

V. Huntington

N. Simons

L. Krog

Hon. D. McRae

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)

Hon. N. Yamamoto

M. Mungall

C. James

M. Sather

M. Elmore

K. Corrigan

C. Trevena

H. Bains

S. Chandra Herbert

D. Thorne

[ Page 7243 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have a school group visiting us in the Legislature today from my community. St. Andrew's Elementary School is here, the grade 3 class, with their teacher Mrs. Bella and two parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: It's a real pleasure for me to introduce three members of the First Nations Tax Commission that have been meeting in the precinct today.

[1335]

One of my heroes and mentors, someone who has devoted his entire life to public service, as his father before him did, Chief Manny Jules of Kamloops is here. I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

With Manny today is David Paul, who is the deputy chief commissioner and who hails from Atlantic Canada, and Ken Scopick, who is the chief of operations. Would the House please make them welcome as well.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to introduce Mr. Barry O'Neill, my former employer and the president of CUPE British Columbia.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm very happy to welcome some very special guests in the B.C. Legislature. We're delighted to have a number of children and youth in care watching in the gallery today. I'd also like to introduce some of the adults accompanying them: Jocelyn Helland, executive director of the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks; Gary Mavis, executive director of the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents; and two representatives from the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations, Jo Axe and Russel Pohl.

They are joined by four ministry staff: Christine Kapoor, Michele Haddon, Sobhana Daniel and Chuck Eamer. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth, as well as Andrew Robinson from the representative's Prince George office and Wilma Clarke from the representative's Lower Mainland office.

The reason they are here is the celebration of a new week that is being created in B.C. today. It's called the B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week, and I will wear their button "Notice. Listen. Respect" with pride. Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

D. Black: I'm delighted to get up today to introduce a friend and neighbour from New Westminster, Tania Jarzebiak, who has worked with me in my past life as a Member of Parliament. I know that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville would also join with me, because this woman worked as her campaign manager. I ask all members of the House to please make Tania Jarzebiak welcome.

Tributes

JIM WAARDENBURG

J. van Dongen: I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding British Columbian whose life we will celebrate tomorrow in Abbotsford. Jim Waardenburg came to Canada in 1953 from Holland when he was 17 years old and was hired almost immediately by the Royal Bank because they needed someone who could speak Dutch to serve all the new Dutch immigrants moving to the Fraser Valley.

After 16 years with the bank he started dairy farming with two brothers in Matsqui and ran for office in a number of dairy industry organizations. Over the next three decades he rose quickly to the most senior positions in the dairy industry, including the board of directors of Dairyland, the executive of Dairy Farmers of Canada and a number of farm industry advisory committees. He also ably served for ten years as the federally appointed chairman of the B.C. Farm Debt Review Board, and in his community Jim served for over 20 years as director and chair of the MSA Society for Community Living.

Jim was an absolute gentleman and a skilful, dedicated leader. Underneath his dignified, courteous and friendly demeanour was a man with tremendous capacity, knowledge, and communication and negotiation skills. He provided outstanding leadership and was highly respected in provincial farm meetings all across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as a colleague and as friends and neighbours of Jim Waardenburg, the MLA for Abbotsford West and I request that you send a letter of condolence to his family on behalf of the members of this House.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Diane Bernard. People will know her as a former electoral area representative for the Juan de Fuca district. They'll know her as a former school board trustee, and they'll know her, of course, today as the president and CEO of Seaflora, a wild organic seafood skin care product line which is thriving and creating jobs in my community of Sooke. Would the House please make Diane very, very welcome.

[1340]

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a big believer in peaceful and civil debate and good behaviour

[ Page 7244 ]

in this House. In the gallery today we have our constituency assistants from all across the province visiting us.

Rather than allow each of our MLAs to introduce their CAs individually and tell us that they have the best constituency assistant in the province of British Columbia, which would lead to some discourse on my side of the House, we've decided to welcome as a group our constituency assistants from across the province. Would the House please make them all welcome.

G. Coons: In the precinct today and the last couple of days is a good friend, ex-colleague and teacher from Charles Hays Secondary School in Prince Rupert, Dianne Rabel, who's here with the teachers institute. Please make her welcome.

R. Cantelon: I have three constituents in the House today: Don Campbell and Don Stewart, long-term employees with Mac and Blo and then Pope and Talbot after that. They continue to pursue the benefits and rights of the retirees of those firms very doggedly. They are to be congratulated for that.

Also in the House is a person I know well, Ed Mayne, the former mayor of Parksville, who used to share the office next door to me. I miss him there. Let's wish them all a good welcome to our House.

D. Thorne: It's truly a pleasure for me today to introduce two of my constituents for their very first time in the precinct, Coun. Selina Robinson from the city of Coquitlam and her daughter Leya.

B. Stewart: I know last evening many of us from both sides of the House had a chance to celebrate some of British Columbia's finest wines at an event called Bloom. I saw many on both sides there. More importantly, the people who do that every day for a living are represented by the British Columbia Wine Institute, which was created under the B.C. Wine Act in August of 1990.

We have here today the chairperson, Josie Tyabji from Vincor International, and Miles Prodan, the new executive director of the British Columbia Wine Institute. I'd like the House and members of it to welcome them here to Victoria.

S. Simpson: I'd ask the House to make welcome Bill Pegler, who's with us today. Bill has responsibility for providing education services to the many thousands of members of CUPE in British Columbia as the education coordinator for the union. Please make Bill welcome.

Tributes

SHACHI KURL

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is one of the very esteemed members of the press gallery, Shachi Kurl.

Hon. M. de Jong: Where?

Hon. G. Abbott: Shachi is right up there in the gallery.

I say this with great regret. Shachi is going to be moving on to other enterprises and leaving the gallery. It is notable that in a gallery that is noted nationally, if not internationally, for its fair, balanced and accurate reporting, Shachi has so far set that high benchmark that others could only strive for.

I'd also note, as we mourn the passing, so to speak, of Shachi from this place, that Shachi has been here for six years. To me it was forgivable that for five years I called her Sachi because it always constantly reminded of Versace and the very high quality of style that she brought to a gallery that so often falls short in terms of fashion sense. Let's wish her the best in her next career.

J. Horgan: Normally, when we're marking the passing of a member of the press gallery, there would usually be enormous applause at the departure of one from what Mike Harcourt used to call the scrum of the earth. But of course, with the passing of Shachi, we all feel a little bit of sadness.

[1345]

She taught me what has become known as the Horgan hop in my stance before the camera. Everything I know about media presentation I learned from Shachi Kurl, so I suppose I will miss her more than anyone else. She's moved to tears, hon. Speaker.

But I think we need to add, on this side of the House, to the testimonials from the Education Minister. Shachi was formerly with CBC television. She was formerly with the Canadian Press in Toronto and in Vancouver. She did a stint as an associate producer on Global National and of course has been here as the anchor, the pillar, of A-Channel in Victoria for a number of years.

She is the recipient of a Webster Foundation award and participated in the Edward R. Murrow Award to A-Channel. The accolades go on and on and on.

To all of those assembled, to those watching at home, this is Shachi's last day at the scrum of the earth.

We're going to miss you. Thank you very much, Shachi.

Would this side of the House join with that side of the House to give one round of applause to Ms. Kurl. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: Visiting the Parliament Buildings today are over 100 Alpha students from Burnaby North, my riding. Alpha School just celebrated its 60th anniversary. Would the House please join me to give the students, the parents and the teachers a warm welcome.

[ Page 7245 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2011

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011. This bill amends the following statutes: Child, Family and Community Service Act; Clean Energy Act; Environment and Land Use Act; Forest Act; Forest and Range Practices Act; Law and Equity Act; Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act; Medicare Protection Act; Milk Industry Act; Ministry of Forests and Range Act; Motor Vehicle Act; Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; and Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act.

In case I missed any, the bill also makes consequential housekeeping and clarifying amendments to a number of other statutes.

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 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS AND

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS

M. Elmore: May is Child Care Month, and today, May 19, we celebrate Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. It's a great time to recognize the value of child care and those who work in the field. I'd like to thank all child care providers for their hard work, dedication and commitment to nurturing and educating our children in their most crucial stages of growth.

Child care providers provide quality early learning experiences that build a foundation of success for families and children in B.C. They don't only provide services, but they also provide that comfort and sense of security for parents when they have to drop off their children at their child care space to ensure that they're well cared for. They also often become known as a part of the extended family in the provision of their care.

We currently have 11,900 actively licensed early childhood educators and more than 4,000 early childhood educator assistants in the province. Licensed child care operators are highly skilled but also steeply underpaid professionals for, arguably, doing one of the most important jobs in our society.

Wages are comparatively very low for early childhood educators, on average $17 an hour, which makes staff recruitment and retention extremely difficult. Early childhood educators need a living wage. It's a priority to support their professional development and their efforts towards establishing a bachelor's degree for early childhood education.

[1350]

In addition, only 20 percent of B.C. children have access to regular child care. While public spending on child care in B.C. is low compared to other countries, we need to support child care providers and implement a provincial early care and learning plan provides affordable, accessible and high-quality care to children and families.

Child care builds communities, creates jobs and supports the economy. Investing in child care is investing in the future of our society. I ask everyone to please join me in thanking child care providers in B.C. for their exceptional work.

VANCOUVER PUBLIC LIBRARY

AND LITERACY AWARENESS

M. Stilwell: The Vancouver Public Library Foundation was set up in 1997 to raise funds to enhance Vancouver Public Library programs and services. Their goal is to enhance literacy in Vancouver with innovative library outreach programs and resources aimed at children and families, people with disabilities and new Canadians.

Nationally 48 percent of Canadians aged 16 and over have inadequate literacy skills. That's close to 12 million people. It is a shocking fact that many Canadians lack the necessary literacy skills to succeed in today's economy, a situation that is eroding their standard of living. Almost four in ten Canadian youth lack adequate literacy skills. This increases to almost five in ten Canadian adults and six in ten immigrants who have inadequate literacy.

This poses a serious material cost to the individuals, businesses, the economy and all of society. Did you know that a 1 percent increase in literacy produces a 2.5 percent increase in level of labour productivity and a 1.5 percent increase in output per capita? The implication is that every 1 percent improvement in literacy would boost the national income by $32 billion. Illiteracy is costing Canada billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Literacy materials, programs and resources are essential to keep our community healthy and vital. The reality

[ Page 7246 ]

is that publicly funded institutions such as the library continue to be faced with making tough choices among competing priorities. With libraries now providing more than books, these tough decisions are not getting any easier.

The library provides residents of Vancouver and beyond with universal free access to learning in person and on line; expert help in connecting people with information, knowledge and inspiration; places and spaces for people of all ages to learn, socialize and dream; a home away from home through the branch system; a place where children and their families can learn together; and important contributions to the social and economic health of Vancouver, the region and the province. Strong libraries build strong communities.

'KSAN PERFORMING ARTS GROUP

PARTICIPATION IN

CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROJECT

D. Donaldson: Simigigyet, sigidim hanak, gan kubawilsx — "Chiefs, princes, princesses." Those are the Gitxsan words that will ring out in Chengdu, China, next week when the 'Ksan Performing Arts dancers begin their cultural exchange project in that country. The performing arts group is based out of the 'Ksan Historical Village and Museum in Hazelton and Gitanmaax. Its members are from many of the Gitxsan villages in the Upper Skeena region.

'Ksan Performing Arts has been undertaking these international initiatives for almost four decades. It develops understanding and relationship-building between cultures. That is one reason why supporting the arts is so important to building an economy for the well-being of all. A successful market economy between cultures is based on trust that is only built through understanding and knowledge best conveyed through our stories.

'Ksan Performing Arts conducted fundraising locally to help pay for the trip and are still awaiting word on a B.C. Arts Council grant. I attended a fundraising feast known as a Gwee-ii-a at the Skeena ice arena in Hazelton earlier this month. The songs, dances and regalia were outstanding. We also learned at the Gwee-ii-a that part of the May 23 to June 9 itinerary in China will be to meet up with another aboriginal matriarchal society, the Mosuo.

Trip organizer and Gitxsan performer Shirley Muldon said that one of the potential benefits is to link with Chinese tourist agencies to bring more Chinese visitors to Hazelton and the northwest. But above all, it's about raising spirits and doing something positive. As Muldon said: "You have to have a good time, be happy, and you need to smile."

So good luck, Shirley and the other 17 members leaving on Monday. Keep on smiling. Safe journey. Have a good time, and thank you for being our cultural ambassadors.

CHILD AND YOUTH IN CARE WEEK

G. Hogg: As the Minister of Children and Family Development mentioned, we have guests in the House here to celebrate Canada's very first Child and Youth in Care Week.

[1355]

This week was the idea of youth in care. They wanted a week to call their own. They wanted a week that would recognize and celebrate their resilience, their accomplishments, their talents and their dreams. Their message to us all is: "Notice. Listen. Respect."

They wanted a week that recognized the importance of community support for kids in care — community support provided by such organizations as the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks, the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents, the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations and the Representative for Children and Youth.

There are 8,400 children in the care of the province, and they are raising community awareness about their contributions. They are shifting the negative perceptions that some have of children in care. They want and they deserve — indeed, we all want and we all deserve — to be recognized not for the weaknesses that each of us has but for the talents and gifts that each of us brings.

As former foster parents, LaVerne and I were fortunate to have youths live with us. We learned from them, and we learned from each other. We have made lifelong friends. One of them is now using his experiences, education and talent to work in the field of child care. He, like so many children in care, is now a wonderful, caring and contributing citizen of our province.

These youths inspire us with their contributions, with their resilience and with their vision. They help to make our communities better for everyone. Please honour them, and honour their message to us: "Notice. Listen. Respect."

COMMUNITY THEATRE GROUPS

IN COQUITLAM

D. Thorne: Today I pay tribute to two special community theatre groups that have been presenting quality productions in Coquitlam for more than 20 years. Stage 43, named for the school district that serves the Tri-Cities, was formed in 1982. One of the best community theatre groups in the province, last year Stage 43 won the prestigious Theatre B.C. Best Production award. The company offers traditional mysteries, dramas and delightful comedies.

[ Page 7247 ]

are written and performed by the children themselves, and they are delightful. I know because I have enjoyed many of them myself.

Earlier this month Stage 43 and Theatrix sponsored the Theatre B.C. Fraser Valley Zone drama festival at Evergreen Cultural Centre. I had the pleasure of helping to open the festival and attended the Stage 43 production that evening.

I offer my congratulations to all of the volunteers who perform, direct and make up the backstage crew, and the executives of the two companies. Without these volunteers, community theatre would not be able to carry on in these tough economic times, especially with the recent loss of gaming grants to the arts.

Community theatre brings the magic of live theatre to men, women and children, with productions that are affordable, close to home and warmly received. They love to play, and it really shows.

SURREY CANADIAN BASEBALL ASSOCIATION

D. Hayer: Spring has finally sprung, and with it comes baseball season. I had the honour of attending opening day of one of the major volunteer organizations in my city of Surrey, the Surrey Canadian Baseball Association. The association is not only well known in Surrey; it is recognized across North America as a development ground for highly skilled baseball players, some of whom have gone on to play at the highest professional levels.

The association is made up of countless volunteers and parents dedicated to enriching the lives of youth and providing mentorship, coaching and guidance towards successful professional careers and healthy professional lifestyles. In addition, the association's volunteers freely contribute their time to maintain Surrey's baseball diamonds and parks, keeping them in top-notch condition.

[1400]

Today I would like to thank them for their hard work: association president Steve Cramer; vice-presidents Rob Masson and Kevin Phelan; past president Brian Davis; secretary Lynn Legris; treasurer Silvana Dodd; umpire-in-chief Frank Love; commissioners Trevor Haqq, Bruce Lawson, Don Schwartz and Jennifer Kingwell; parent coordinator Sandi Phelan; equipment manager Rick Hunter; game scheduler Vito Musso; tournament director Petty Aulenback; uniform manager Julie Love; bingo coordinator Cathy Farmer; sponsorship and fundraising chair Tommy Lowry; concession manager Pat McHugh; website manager Al Taylor; and directors-at-large Bob Petersen, David Breen and Dale Baxter.

I ask all the members of the House to join me in congratulating and thanking the hundreds of volunteers who work so hard in the Surrey Canadian Baseball Association and all the youth who help to make them so successful.

Oral Questions

PRICING MODEL FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

A. Dix: I'd like to ask today why the Minister of Health thinks it's okay that B.C. families' drug plans and our PharmaCare program pay 30 percent more for prescription drugs than in Ontario.

Hon. M. de Jong: What I am actually gratified to have confirmed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, independently, is the fact that in British Columbia our per-capita cost for drugs is the lowest in the country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: What I am also gratified to learn is that if Ontario were to follow a similar overall policy to that which is employed in British Columbia, they would save a billion dollars, and if we were to follow the advice of what I think I am going to hear next from the Leader of the Opposition, you could add an additional $3 billion to the cost that British Columbians pay.

We're proud of the fact that we were able to negotiate an agreement that respected the unique circumstances that rural pharmacists face and that we have the lowest per-capita drug costs in the entire country.

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

A. Dix: That's about the sorriest set of excuses I've heard for spending…. They're spending $157 million too much, and they put forward that list of excuses.

What are the reasons? What are the reasons why we spend less on prescription drugs in British Columbia? Might it be referenced-based pricing? They were against it; we were for it. Might it be the Therapeutics Initiative? They just cut it by 30 percent; we introduced it in British Columbia.

Those are the reasons why we spend less on prescription drugs, but it is not an excuse. It's not an excuse to set prices 40 percent higher in British Columbia, then spend 30 percent more on prescription drugs here — $157 million.

Every day they stand up and say that we can't afford something, and then they negotiate an agreement. I know it's the Minister of Finance that they put in charge. He wrestled them to the ceiling. Just wait for those HST negotiations.

Why, hon. Speaker? What possible justification is there for not going to the Ontario model, when they can save taxpayers money, when they can save drug

[ Page 7248 ]

plans money and when they can save families money in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, what's illuminating and enlightening, in fact, from the Leader of the Opposition today is that under his leadership, he would have no qualms about unilaterally legislating his version of a solution. That's what they did in Ontario.

[1405]

Folks in rural pharmacies across British Columbia should know this. If given the opportunity, the Leader of the Opposition would not have sat down and negotiated the kind of agreement that actually respects the fact that we have the lowest per-capita drug costs in British Columbia, that takes us essentially to where they are in Ontario but does so on the basis of a negotiation, as opposed to the unilateral imposition of legislation in this chamber.

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

A. Dix: Well, I know who had no place on the government side at the negotiating table. That's B.C. families — let down again. MSP premium increases, Hydro rate increases, ferry rate increases, the HST — the list goes on.

What possible reason? We're talking about people with type 2 diabetes. For what possible reason would their interests not be at the bargaining table? Why did the government fail British Columbia so badly? Why doesn't it do what Quebec does and join Ontario and reduce costs for B.C. families?

Hon. M. de Jong: I generally don't ever try to impugn the motives of any member when they pose a question or engage in debate, but through technology, I had something very interesting land on my desk this morning.

It's interesting, because it actually comes from a journalist, one of the anchors for one of the networks in this province. Here's what it says, following a newscast: "NDP flak calls, complains leader didn't get face time in our News Hour coverage of hallway health care, tries to influence News Hour Final coverage." Then from a reporter from the same network….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Then from another reporter from the same network: "B.C. NDP…."

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: No, you're going to want to hear this. You don't want to hear this on the news, do you?

"B.C. NDP offered up health story details, didn't like 6 p.m. version, wants leader included, asked for recut of the story."

It would be funny if it didn't demonstrate how this Leader of the Opposition is prepared to manipulate the sufferings of others for no other reason than to try to score political points.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member for Port Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: I hear the Minister of Finance say: "Cue outrage." I'd just like to point out to him that whenever the next election is called, there will be a queue, all right — of voters waiting to cast their ballot to turf him and his government out.

The bottom line is this. I know it's not the current Minister of Health's fault. The fact of the matter is the former Health Minister, the current Minister of Finance, got schooled by the province of Ontario when it comes to striking a good deal for the families of their province, and they didn't do that in this province.

[1410]

The bottom line is this: $157 million could have been saved here in the province of British Columbia that could have gone to improving services at Royal Columbian Hospital, that could have gone to providing cheaper drugs for families in British Columbia, who don't buy things on the basis of per-capita cost but on the basis of actual cost.

Once again to the Minister of Health: why did that government fail families of British Columbia, and how is that deal putting families first?

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that the hon. member, the Health critic, would have reviewed the agreement in detail, and he would know and would want the rest of the House and British Columbians to know that at the conclusion of the third year on the term of this agreement we will have saved almost $400 million….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We would have done so on the basis of an agreement that was negotiated.

But fair enough. The NDP have staked out a new position. It is revealing, and it is instructive. It is the message that says that when they have decided upon a course of action, if they were ever in the position to act on that, they would simply unilaterally legislate. They would not sit down. They would not negotiate. They would not discuss. That is not the approach this government has taken, nor is it the approach we intend to take in the future.

[ Page 7249 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: What this side of the House has decided to unilaterally do is put families first in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: When the province of Quebec had the opportunity to look at what Ontario did to protect its families versus what the former Minister of Health did to not protect British Columbia families, which way did they go? They went with the Ontario model. They recognized that cheaper drug costs are better for families, as opposed to the agreement that this government came up with, which cost us an additional $157 million a year. That does not help families in this province.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: It's $157 million. That's what jumps out of the report, Minister.

The question, again, to the Minister of Health is: why should B.C. families pay for this government's and that former minister's incompetence in a deal?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I guess while we're doing a comparative survey on the performance of Health ministers and former Health ministers, it is worth observing that at the time that the hon. member was the Minister of Health, B.C. was paying 60 percent. As a result of this agreement, we will be paying 30 percent.

It is a negotiated agreement. It is an agreement that respects the fact that there are a variety of differing circumstances confronting pharmacists across British Columbia. They do not all operate in the Lower Mainland. They do not all operate in large urban centres. They also operate in small rural settings. This agreement was structured in a way that respects that uniqueness and also protects the interests of British Columbia families by ensuring that we have the lowest per-capita drug costs in all of Canada.

FERRY FARES

G. Coons: Well, it's a long weekend, and ferry users are paying more. Fares are up 3.8 percent on major routes and 6.7 percent on minor routes. And next long weekend families will be paying even more — another 2.5 percent on majors and 5 percent on minors.

The new ferries commissioner announced a review of fares, but this review should have been started years ago, when this side of the House and families up and down the coast told the B.C. Liberals that fares were too high.

[1415]

To the Transportation Minister: will he commit to freezing fares until the review is complete?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I am very pleased today to know that the independent ferries commissioner is embarking on an independent review to talk about what's going to take place for B.C. families.

The issue is — and I think the member would agree…. I think I've heard him say that we have one of the best ferry systems in the world, and I agree with that. What we have is a challenge, and the people I've spoken to and had the opportunity to hear from are worried about the sustainability and affordability of that system.

I'm looking forward to the results of this report that the independent commissioner is going to bring forward to me. He's going to have recommendations. We're going to have a look at that, and my commitment is the same as it has been from the first day I took this job. I'm going to ensure that we do have an affordable, sustainable ferry system for everyone in our province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: The only challenge is B.C. Ferries under this B.C. Liberal government. In the last eight years fares have more than doubled on some routes and ridership has dropped by a million people. It's already obvious. Coastal families and small businesses simply cannot afford this.

Again to the Transportation Minister: will he commit today to freezing fares until the report is done?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's interesting. Something that most British Columbians are going to look forward to is this review. I do want to point out…

Interjection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's interesting. The member for North Coast….

...that we have just had a 50-year anniversary at B.C. Ferries, and we have the best ferry system in the world. Apparently, a lot has changed in the last two months for the member.

The commitment that I gave earlier is what I stand by. I'm looking forward. The independent ferries commissioner is going to do his job. We have one of the best ferry systems in the world. We want to ensure that what was asked of B.C. Ferries in the Coastal Ferry Act from 2003 is meeting the needs and meeting the public interests of this province.

C. Trevena: The minister said that he wants an affordable ferry service. The Alert Bay run — up 102 percent, serving

[ Page 7250 ]

quite a vulnerable, poor community. The Campbell River to Quadra run — ten-minute crossing, up 124 percent.

The Transportation Minister represents a rural community. How would his constituents feel if they had to pay a toll like that to use Highway 97? I'm sure they wouldn't be happy, so why would my constituents and other coastal families have to pay these rates to use their highways?

Minister, will you rein in the fares?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We've had the opportunity to speak. I've spoken with a number of people on the opposition side. I think it's fair to say that we would all agree. Are the fare increases a concern? Most definitely, they are. I stand here and tell you that. So 8.23 percent — is it sustainable for families to see that kind of increase year over year over year? I don't believe it is.

I do want to point out that fare increases are not new. Between 1991 and 1999 ferry fares in this province increased by 70 percent. So to indicate that it's a new phenomenon…. It's not. Not only did ferry fares increase by 70 percent, but the debt of the ferries increased by 1,800 percent, a pretty substantial increase.

Do we share the concern about rates going up and the impact that has on the families of British Columbia? We share that. Am I looking forward to the independent ferries commissioner's review and report that's coming back? I most definitely am. Hopefully, all together we are going to find a solution to this.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I think the minister forgets the history of his own government in the past eight years. It was his government that took ferries out of the highway system under the B.C. Coastal Ferry Act. His government actually promised that when they did that, there would be stable fares.

[1420]

What are we seeing? Well, we've seen another broken Liberal promise. There's no question about that. We've seen skyrocketing fares. We've seen communities that are being crippled and families that are being forced out of their homes because of this. So much for B.C. Liberal promises, Minister.

If the minister says, as he keeps professing in answer to these questions, that he is so concerned about what's been happening, why will he not today stand in this House and say that he will freeze fares until the review is complete?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I guess when we look at our ferry system — which is a world-class ferry system, agreed by the member for North Coast — I think we do have the opportunity to look at some opportunities to enhance the Coastal Ferry Act.

I've heard the opposition talk about that. I just recently met with the ferry advisory committees — the chairs of them. They talked about, actually, both the things that are working and the things that aren't.

What I have heard loud and clear is that people are proud of the ferry system. They think we have good service. We have good vessels. What they're concerned about is the affordability and sustainability of this system. I share that concern.

We are going to have an independent Ferry Commission report put forward to the province of British Columbia. We will look at that, and we will do what we can to ensure that this meets the needs of British Columbians.

But we want to be very clear. This is not about freezing rates or rolling back. I could put quotes on. You have to be responsible. If what I heard the member say is that the opposition is going to make ferries free in British Columbia, stand up and make that your new policy, Member.

CAMPING FEES

R. Fleming: The May long weekend traditionally begins camping season in communities across B.C., but it too is an activity under the B.C. Liberals that's become far too expensive for many B.C. families. Annual visits to B.C. parks are down in the millions of overnight stays and day visits. Camping fees have increased by a whopping 75 percent under this government.

My question is to the Minister of Environment — some good news going into the long weekend: will he stand up in this place, stand up for B.C. families and announce that camping fees will be rolled back in British Columbia? Give them some good news, for once, going into the long weekend.

Hon. T. Lake: I was happy to stand beside the Premier when she announced some very good news for B.C. families, when parking fees were removed from B.C. parks, celebrating their hundredth anniversary.

I will be in Wells Gray Park in the beautiful North Thompson Valley this weekend, celebrating Parks 100. As the unofficial start to summer, many, many families across British Columbia will be enjoying our beautiful parks here in B.C. We'll be announcing lots of activities to celebrate a hundred years of a wonderful park system, the third-largest in North America.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I think we were all pleased that the Deputy Premier, now Premier, reversed the error of her ways. That was the disaster that was parking meters slapped on B.C. parks. I want to encourage the government to keep going, because this government has increased fees in places where British Columbia families actually want to camp by 75 percent.

[ Page 7251 ]

It is the hundredth anniversary of B.C. Parks, as everybody knows, in 2011. But for the last ten years this government has done nothing but gouge people on camping fees across B.C.'s parks. Will the minister stand up today, and will he use the occasion of the May long weekend to give B.C. families a break?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, B.C. families know one thing — that we have a first-class park system in this province, over an 80 percent approval of our B.C. parks.

Our new reservation system has been very successful. Our reservations are up quite remarkably this year. We look forward to celebrating the unofficial start of summer with young families across this great province of British Columbia. I'll be happy to be in Wells Gray celebrating with many of those families this weekend.

[1425]

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON FAMILIES

B. Ralston: Prescription drug costs, ferry costs, camping fees — there seems to be a theme in these responses from B.C. Liberal cabinet ministers. They're trying to save us from themselves.

The HST is a perfect example. The B.C. Liberals will do anything or say anything to try and save it. This long weekend families will be paying the HST on activities that are supposed to be fun, but there's always the ching of the cash register in the background charging the HST.

Is the Minister of Finance so out of touch he doesn't understand the impact of the HST on real B.C. families?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, thank you, Mr. Premier. I hope no one….

Oh, Mr. Speaker. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Your authority sometimes affects me in very strange ways.

It is sometimes uncanny how…. I just heard a question suggesting — and, apparently, some insight into NDP policy-making.... A long weekend approaches, and just make no reservation costs on our parks — a fascinating insight into how the NDP apparently makes public policy.

What I can tell the Finance critic — happily, as I have always said with respect to the HST — is that 80 percent of consumer spending does not change at all. It either had no PST or GST, or it had the same 12 percent that is currently applied to 80 percent of consumer spending under the HST. We have always acknowledged that on 20 percent of consumer spending, there is the additional provincial sales tax.

But as I and more and more British Columbians are realizing and recognizing, as the invisible PST that is passed along to consumers in all of the purchases they make is removed, there are benefits to consumers. We recognize, overall, that that is good for the economy. That is good for the future of this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the government's spending $5 million of taxpayer money in order to convince us of that very neutral message.

The government's own report admits the average family is spending $350 a year minimum more on the HST. That money is being spent for things like summer camp, tourism, recreation, bicycles, dance lessons, sports fees, restaurant meals and even prepared food at the grocery store.

This B.C. Liberal assault on families from all sides has one common goal: to benefit the Finance Minister's big-business friends. When is he going to give B.C. families a break?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member would know…. I'm sure by now he's read the independent panel report, which has received very wide recognition for being a very balanced report into both the pros and the cons of the HST. As it pointed out very clearly and as we acknowledge, there is for the average family about a $350 additional cost annually as a result of HST.

We acknowledge that, and one of the things we are doing — and one of the reasons why we have engaged in the largest listening exercise in the history of the province, with 275,000 British Columbians participating in telephone town halls — is looking for ways that we can improve the HST.

As our Premier pointed out last week, we intend to do just that. We intend to improve the HST and recognize that we are going to have an improved HST that lightens the load for families in British Columbia.

RATE CHANGES FOR

SENIORS IN RESIDENTIAL CARE

S. Hammell: The seniors who built this province and the families who care for them are amongst the hardest hit financially by the B.C. Liberals, a 30 percent increase in long-term-care facilities this year alone. That nearly doubles the maximum fee since the Liberals took office, the highest in the country.

[1430]

The Minister of Health claimed that all the money from the increase in fees would go to improve services, but now we find it's to offset previous cutbacks. Question: why are the B.C. Liberals clawing more and more money from seniors through exorbitant increases and forcing them and their families to pay more?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question, because it does speak to a change that has taken place.

[ Page 7252 ]

But I have to correct the member. The objective, one that I think has largely been realized, is to have a fairer system in which, yes, people are asked to contribute up to a certain percentage of their income, but they are left with at least $275. Despite what our friends across the way might think, when you are a low-income, fixed-income senior, actually $275 is a lot of money.

We asked them to contribute, but as a result of the change, thousands of seniors in British Columbia actually pay less and keep more money in their pockets. So before the member makes the assertion that she has in this chamber, she should do her homework. She should get the facts, and she should understand this. All of the savings that are accrued are being put back into residential care for seniors in British Columbia. We have a system of which we can be very proud.

[End of question period.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a late introduction. The students from Huband Park Elementary School were here and enjoyed all of question period. They came after we started and left before we finished, but I'd like to say a welcome to them. They are led by their passionate and long-serving teacher, Valerie Sherriff.

I also want to extend a very special welcome to a young woman who I've known all her life, Sarah Rebet. Please make them welcome.

Reports from Committees

J. van Dongen: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Chief Electoral Officer.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. van Dongen: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

J. van Dongen: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a further motion requesting the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint Dr. Keith Archer as the Chief Electoral Officer for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

J. van Dongen: By leave, I move:

[That this House recommend to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor the appointment of Dr. Keith Archer as a statutory Officer of the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Chief Electoral Officer for the province of British Columbia pursuant to the Election Act (RSBC 1996 c. 106).]

Motion approved.

J. van Dongen: In conjunction with the moving of this motion, I would like to provide a brief profile of the committee's unanimous selection for the position of Chief Electoral Officer.

Dr. Keith Archer brings excellent experience in a variety of areas relating to election administration, from development of electoral reference materials to providing expertise and advice in assessing the practice of election administration in Canada. He is a leader in the field of electoral administration.

Keith Archer is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary and also the director of research at the Banff Centre.

[1435]

In addition to his academic appointments, Dr. Archer held senior positions in post-secondary administration, where he served in senior roles relating to board governance, budget management, strategic planning and program delivery. With this background and knowledge, the committee is confident that Dr. Keith Archer will contribute to the tradition of excellence established by his predecessor, Mr. Harry Neufeld.

As well, I would like to note the appreciation of the House for the exceptional service of Mr. Craig James, who has served in the role of acting Chief Electoral Officer since last June.

In closing, I would extend my sincere appreciation to all members of the committee for their dedication and contribution to this excellent selection process.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I rise to concur and also to say to the House, as Deputy Chair of the committee, how delighted we are to have Dr. Archer take over the role as Chief Electoral Officer. He has outstanding leadership abilities and huge communication skills, which I know will serve all of us in the House and our province well. We are delighted to support this appointment.

Reports from Committees

B. Ralston: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the current parliament.

[ Page 7253 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, Member.

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. Ralston: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

B. Ralston: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I wish to make a few brief comments. This report, entitled Annual

Summary of Activities , summarizes the committee's activities during the second session of the 39th parliament.

The committee held ten meetings, and for the first time in many years the committee also succeeded in eliminating the backlog of audit reports requiring review. During the second session the Public Accounts Committee received and reviewed 24 full-length reports, two follow-up reports, a

summary report, two best-practice guides and a management letter.

The completion of this considerable work was made possible through the cooperation and hard work of all committee members — particularly the Deputy Chair, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, to whom I am indebted — and the support of the offices of the Auditor General and the comptroller general. I also wish to acknowledge the contribution of the former comptroller general, Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, who left her position to take up new responsibilities in October 2010.

As Chair, I extend my personal appreciation to all committee members as well as the staff of the Office of the Clerk of Committees for their assistance with this report.

D. Horne: I just wanted to add to the member for Surrey-Whalley in his comments and thanks. I think this is an example of how our committee system, with collaboration and working together, can accomplish great things, and I think this committee did great work over the last little while. I thank all the members of the committee, and I thank the Chair, the member for Surrey-Whalley, for all of the hard work.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will be debating in second reading, to start with, Bill 8, intituled International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act. If there's time, we will then continue on to Bill 10, which is intituled the Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011. If there's time after that, we would then try to do second reading of Bill 9, intituled the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011.

In the little House this afternoon, in Committee A, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — International Interests in

Mobile Equipment

(Aircraft Equipment) Act

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 8, International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, be read a second time.

This bill is necessary to implement two important international aviation agreements in British Columbia when Canada ratifies them. They are the convention on international interests in mobile equipment and the associated protocol on aircraft equipment, which have operated internationally since 2006.

[1440]

The convention and protocol establish a framework for registering and enforcing security interests in aircraft equipment and an international registry. Aircraft equipment includes aircraft frames with eight or more seats, aircraft engines, and helicopters with five or more seats. The aircraft equipment is used as security for payment in the same way that a car is used to secure a car loan.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Registration will be in the international registry instead of the provincial personal property registries. Registration determines the priority of the security interests of competing lenders based on the time of registration.

This modern asset-based framework significantly reduces the risks in international aircraft financing. This makes financing more available and affordable for companies in convention member states. To date 43 countries are members, including the United States and the European Union. The federal government and all provinces except British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and P.E.I. have enacted their implementation legislation. The major Canadian airlines and aircraft manufacturers are asking the federal minister to ratify the convention and protocol soon, because they are seeing increased economic activity in their industry.

It is important for British Columbia to participate in this modern aviation financing framework, because it will support the competitiveness and the economic growth of the British Columbia aviation and aerospace industry. For example, B.C. aviation companies can benefit

[ Page 7254 ]

from lower interest rates offered by lenders to countries that are members of the convention and protocol.

I move second reading of Bill 8.

B. Ralston: I wish to address this bill. Contrary to what the Government House Leader said, I doubt we'll take the entire afternoon on it. But I do want to address this bill briefly.

It arises out of the obvious necessity that given that aircraft by their very nature are highly mobile, in order to secure an interest in a loan on such a mobile piece of property, this treaty has come about. It's global in scope and will afford companies and financial institutions that participate in the treaty the opportunity to reduce costs and carrying charges of loans for individual aircraft. So we on this side of the House support that intention.

The minister does raise issues of competitiveness. I suppose the question would be, like some other international treaties or legislation that promises increased competitive benefits to business…. One might well ask — if, for example, one were working as a maintenance operator for Air Canada — how that reduced cost of operation might actually benefit that person and the willingness of that company to keep their maintenance jobs in Canada.

Air Canada a couple of years ago spun off one part of its operation conducting maintenance repair and overhaul to a firm called Aveos Fleet Performance. It was formerly a part of Air Canada and spun off. The workers there, notwithstanding the commitments made some time back, are properly concerned that this company may move the entire operation of maintenance of Air Canada aircraft to low-wage countries such as Guatemala. Indeed, the International Association of Machinists has expressed that concern very recently. The current agreement expires in 2013, and after that, there is a concern.

While we on this side of the House are prepared to agree that the aviation business receive the benefit of the reduction in their business costs by reducing the cost of loans, we are concerned about the reciprocal commitment by Canadian companies in this industry to hiring and maintaining jobs here in Canada. That isn't part of the agreement, but one would think that it's part of an important social contract between business and the country in which they operate, particularly Air Canada, which is sometimes referred to as Canada's national carrier.

[1445]

The other aspect of international competitiveness and the reduction of business costs — this legislation, if individual companies are able to take advantage of it, would reduce some of their costs — is the commitment from those airlines that transport passengers to stable prices in their fares or indeed lower fares.

We've heard famously in the HST debate that the price reductions will be passed on. But I'll tell you, when I have conversations with people in my constituency or throughout the province, no one discerns that alleged reduction of price that supposedly was passed on.

So we support the legislation, but I do want to note that caution — that reduction in business costs, when conferred freely, one would expect that companies would make those similar reciprocal commitments to hiring Canadians and keeping operations here in Canada where possible and to keeping their fares, if they're commercial carriers, low or at least keeping the rate increases minimal.

With those brief comments at second reading, Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

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

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for…. Oh, excuse me. I apologize.

I move a motion for ending second reading debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 8, International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Falcon: Madam Speaker, I would ask for a five-minute recess so that we might have the Attorney General prepare for the next session.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the House will stand recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:47 p.m. to 2:52 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: I confirm that we have called second reading on Bill 10, the Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act.

Bill 10 — Wills, Estates and

Succession Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. B. Penner: I move second reading and will proceed accordingly. I move that Bill 10, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011, be read a second time.

The amendments to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act ensure that the act meshes with the Nisga'a and treaty First Nations laws regarding land. For example, it

[ Page 7255 ]

will address situations where a member of a treaty First Nation who owns treaty land dies without a will.

There are also some housekeeping amendments. For example, we've updated the legislation to refer to the new Supreme Court civil rules. There are also provisions that ensure recently passed legislation will correctly refer to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act when it is brought into force.

I look forward to the always interesting comments from my friend on the other side.

L. Krog: I have to rise with some sense of amusement. I thought that, given the length in committee stage that I spent on this bill with the former Attorney General — if you will forgive me for saying this, hon. Speaker — it was well and truly buried on the legislative agenda. But clearly this has arisen once more, I might add with some amusement, before it's even been proclaimed. I think the hope of the British Columbia bar is that this legislation will in fact be proclaimed this year.

In the meantime, we have a fairly significant number of amendments. I have tried to review them as best I can, and I think it's safe to say that the Attorney General can rest easy. This will not be the subject of a long debate in second reading, I assure him, and probably committee stage will only require some fairly straightforward questions surrounding this.

I do want to put the Attorney General on notice, however, and I'd ask him to take a look at

section 18. I myself am having some difficulty understanding

section 18, which reads — and I read it quite literally: "Section 32 is amended (

a) by striking out 'the purchase of the spousal home' and substituting 'the purchase of the spousal home,'." Now, I've been reading it and reading it and reading it, but I cannot see a difference between those phrases.

I see the Attorney General looking very excited. We finally brought him to his feet with interest in this bill. I know he's excited about it, and I'm sure he's going to be able to explain that during the course of committee stage, but for me it's a bit of a problem at the present time.

I am also somewhat concerned that it appears we may be requiring an application now for small estates that wasn't necessary before. I thought the whole purpose of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act was, in fact, to simplify the process and make it more user-friendly if you will. Apart from that, I don't think there are significant issues with this bill.

[1455]

It does a number of things, as the Attorney General pointed out. It appears we're improving wording now, dropping the term "jointly owned" to "owned in common," which is an interesting turn of phrase. And I do understand that there's a clarification that a will is invalid if the witness that signed is under 19, in fact.

Now, apart from those comments, I am happy to see the second reading of this bill approved by the House, and we can move on to things that will require more interest.

Clearly, what we have before us — I mean this not disrespectfully, of course — is what happens when you pass complex legislation. You discover that in fact, the reason this House exists is to scrutinize legislation. So for whatever fault I may have had in this undertaking by not going through this bill even more thoroughly than I did in committee stage, which leads us to this stage that we have to make all of these amendments, I do apologize.

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

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Member. Certainly, the apology is accepted, although I'm not sure it's entirely necessary. The member can breathe a little easier. He won't have to live in suspense over the holiday long weekend wondering what the answer is to his question about what exactly is the difference that we're correcting in

section 18.

It did take me a little while, but I'm pleased to demonstrate that my eyesight is still maybe just a little better than the critic's, because we're adding a comma to the end of that phrase. "The purchase of the spousal home" will now include a comma. I was able to stump a number of my staff with that question, and I was able to pick that out, surprisingly, during scrutiny of this legislation a number of weeks ago.

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

Motion approved.

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

Bill 10, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: As House Leader, I call Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011, for second reading.

Bill 9 — Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. D. McRae: I move Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011, be read a second time.

This bill originated from the reported mass killing of sled dogs that generated global attention and condemnation for B.C.'s sled dog industry. The report of the

[ Page 7256 ]

provincial Sled Dog Task Force brought forward recommendations to update the animal protection laws in British Columbia and ensure that offences under the act were subject to severe penalties.

Although the focus of the task force in its report was on sled dogs, the public consultation process brought forward concerns for animal welfare in general. With a total of over 40,000 people making submissions in various forms to the task force, it is clear that the public interest in this legislation is very strong.

Our review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has resulted in improvements in three key areas: deterrence of future crimes, including higher penalties with maximum fines of $75,000 and up to two years in jail; holding owners and others more accountable for causing distress to animals; and new ability for government to regulate specific activities pertaining to the use and care of animals.

These changes are needed not just for the sled dog industry but for the well-being of all animals in British Columbia. In terms of sled dogs specifically, government will introduce this regulation shortly, pertaining to all aspects of care for sled dogs from birth through training, career, retirement and death.

In developing the proposed amendments, the ministry recognizes that many animals are raised for food consumption and that different standards may apply to those animals. It is therefore recognized that generally accepted practices of animal management, particularly in the livestock industry, would not be considered an offence under the act. That's the situation currently, and it would continue to be the case should these amendments be passed by this House.

April 23 was recently proclaimed Animal Abuse Prevention Day. These proposed amendments will create the changes in law needed to help prevent animal abuse every day.

I am hopeful that the opposition will support this bill. I know that animal welfare is an issue that touches all of us and that we all want to see a greater accountability for law. The proposed amendments demonstrate that B.C. is reacting quickly and decisively to show that acts of cruelty against animals will not be tolerated in this province.

As an animal owner myself, I welcome these changes and look forward to speedy passage of this legislation.

[1500]

L. Popham: It's a pleasure to stand up and respond in second reading of this bill. Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, came about because of a horrendous situation that happened in British Columbia this year. We all woke to the news that 100 sled dogs had been destroyed in Whistler, in most likely a very inhumane way. It caused a lot of grief and sadness in people who live in British Columbia.

Animal cruelty does resonate very deeply with people. I have to say that I'm glad the situation caused the government to act quickly. This is a debate that we've probably had over the years regarding the treatment of animals in general. I'm going to get into the different aspects of this bill and some of the amendments that have been brought forward, even as early as today.

It really brings up the question…. We spent $100,000 on the task force, bringing forward this new legislation. Although it pertains to sled dogs, I question the reason why we didn't go a little bit further and allow it to look into the millions of animals that are used for food production and food consumption in this province.

The treatment of animals for food production is something that is controversial. When we look at the agriculture industry, there's a big debate over how animals should be treated. The images that come to mind for me are the feedlots in Alberta and how the livestock is treated in that way. I am heartened to know that the situation around the sled dogs was taken very seriously as well as other animals that are in service, but I really wish, with the money that was spent, that we could have gone a little bit further and looked at animal husbandry, as far as agriculture goes.

I have a very soft spot in my heart for animals, and I've always been an animal welfare activist. I own two rescued dogs myself. Animals give you basically all of their trust. When they're mistreated, they are put in a situation where humans are the only ones that can step in and help them.

So when we see that animals were treated as basically used equipment in the situation with the sled dogs — a business plan failed, and the animals were thrown away like used photocopiers — it speaks to the idea that perhaps there should be a business plan, a business requirement for an exit strategy for animals that are used in businesses such as dogsledding or horse-and-carriage rides.

Perhaps there should be a requirement that with your business licence you show what would happen to those animals if your business did fail. Putting them down in an inhumane way and discarding them is not the direction that I think is acceptable. I think that's something that we could have also looked at a little bit more carefully.

The idea of animal cruelty resonates because we see something that's very, very helpless. When we see these animals in distress, we want to call somebody in that will take a look at the situation.

When we look at the legislation that's being brought in and the penalties that now will arise from being caught…. I think the penalties have increased to a level where they're quite good, but we are going to be putting our already very stressed court systems into even more of an overloaded state.

I'm not sure how the government side of the House expects us to carry out this legislation by having these

[ Page 7257 ]

stiff penalties. I don't know how that will happen when we can't get cases regarding humans through the court system right now. I am in support of having these stiff penalties, but I'm not sure how we're actually going to carry that out.

[1505]

The BCSPCA is required by legislation to carry out animal cruelty prevention and investigations. It's a legislated responsibility that they have. When you look at that legislation and the funding for it, there isn't any funding in place. There isn't wholesome funding in place from the government to carry out what they're legislated to do. It seems to me that if we actually want to prevent the cruelty to animals, we don't just want to convict people for doing it. We want to prevent it. So funding a prevention program properly is probably what we should have addressed.

The $100,000 was given to the task force to spend to try and come up with these recommendations. I know the BCSPCA is pleased with them. They're happy this was done, but the $100,000 is actually a one-time offer to carry out this investigation. It's not $100,000 a year to help them prevent animal cruelty. I think the funding is in question.

I know that this bill was actually put together quite quickly. When I look at the amendments that were put forward today on the orders of the day, I'm sort of wondering, sort of questioning if this was not rushed too much. Although I'm generally in support of what I see here, the amendments that are proposed do bring up quite big questions in my mind.

One of the examples is in

section 7. I'll just read it out here. "A person must not be convicted of an offence under this Act in relation to an animal in distress if (

a) the person is (

i) a registered veterinarian...." It used to say: "...or acting under the supervision of a registered veterinarian...." That was crossed out, and added instead was: "an employee of a registered veterinarian who is acting under the supervision of the registered veterinarian...." In that case you cannot be convicted.

There's another part of this amendment that brings up questions about: can anybody actually fall under this part of the bill? A person must not be convicted of an offence under this act in relation to an animal in distress if "the person is practising veterinary medicine in accordance with the standards of the profession." I guess I wonder if somebody would just pick up the book of standards and read it and then practise in a way that they think they're in accordance, are they exempt from being convicted under this offence.

I'm not sure who we're exempting from being convicted here. That's something that was added in as an amendment today, and I think that's pretty big. We've only tabled this bill as of last week, and already such amendments are coming forward. I guess that's one of the things that comes to mind, and we'll get to that when we debate that next week.

The increase to the penalties and the fines. The maximum jail time, I think, is quite good. But as I alluded to before, we've already got a court system that's quite jammed up, so I can't see that we're going to be able to use these penalties to the best of our ability.

The BCSPCA is legislated to carry out these investigations and prevention programs. The budget for that…. Although it was funded a lot more over the beginning of the last eight years, the funding has been slowly whittled away. We see that there are other groups in B.C. — other animal activist groups, animal rights groups — that are also trying to fulfil some of the same things that the BCSPCA is doing. The funding for those groups…. They fight for every penny, and often it's given by donation.

The BCSPCA runs most of its services on donations by the public. I think $25 million is the annual budget for the BCSPCA, and from 2001 to 2009, the government provided an annual grant of only $71,000. The cost of the prevention and investigation program is quite substantial. In fact, I believe it's $2.3 million. So when you look at a gaming grant of $71,000, this hardly addresses the concern there.

[1510]

The BCSPCA opted out of getting gaming grants because they're now participating in a lottery system where they sell tickets to raise money for their society. The programs that they fulfil with that money are the spay and neuter program, the adoption program. Those programs are funded by donation, but they're not legislated. That's a service that they're providing, that the community wants. They really do add a lot to our communities.

Without that work being done by the BCSPCA and other animal welfare groups, we would see a lot more animals that are neglected and abandoned. It's funny, because it's really a human-caused problem, and we are really the only ones that can solve this problem as well. Unfortunately, it does take money. Most people realize that, and they're very generous to the BCSPCA and other animal groups.

But when a service is legislated like investigation and prevention, that means to me that the government thinks it's quite important. It's important enough to be legislated. In that case it would mean to me that the government would find it important enough to fund properly. And it's not.

That's basically the problem with this legislation as it stands now. We still don't really address the situation of preventing it altogether. I know that the minister is happy with the work that was done. As well, the BCSPCA is quite happy, but I think there's still such a big gap in this legislation.

I've got a list of speakers that are going to be speaking. As we go through the points next week, point by point in this bill, there will be questions. I think that some of the legislation is quite vague. It really needs to be addressed, and questions need to be asked. At this point I'm going to ask my colleague to stand up and speak to this.

[ Page 7258 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to speak to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, to the amendments to that act that are introduced today. I commend the member opposite for her dedication and contribution to animal welfare issues in the province of British Columbia, something that is in fact extremely important to all British Columbians.

We certainly saw a demonstration of that earlier this year with the news of the reported killing of sled dogs in the province of British Columbia in a manner that was described as what can only be termed extremely inhumane circumstances.

At the time of the news I was on a volunteer vacation in Sri Lanka. Part of the project there is to put together a sterilization program for the dogs and cats of the community of Tangelle, where feral dogs are numerous and not well cared for due to the lack of ownership and the lack of sterilization procedures which are very common in the western world. So I was very dismayed to hear the news coming from my home in British Columbia about this incident.

Upon arrival back in B.C. I received a call from former Premier Campbell asking me to chair a task force to look into this reported event and to have a very short time frame of 45 days in order to come up with recommendations to ensure that this type of incident never happens again here in B.C.

On that task force was the executive director of the BCSPCA, Mr. Craig Daniell, and the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Coun. Barbara Steele from Surrey. We quickly came together, with the support of the Ministry of Agriculture and also some support from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, to determine a terms of reference and seek guidance on the scope of the task force and the stakeholders that we would bring together to provide information which would inform the work of the task force.

[1515]

In short order we found representatives, and I must say very willing representatives. There were offers of help from all over North America from experts in the field — from those in veterinary medicine, those in the sled dog industry, those in the animal welfare organizations throughout North America. We brought several groups together in about three different forums, one in person and several by teleconference, to discuss the situation and to look at ways and means of making sure this type of situation never happens again.

The member mentions that this legislation may be a little rushed, and I would say that the public was not in the mood to wait for action. We were given a very short time frame in order to come up with suggestions that the government could respond to. We did that, and I am very indebted to the people working for our public service and the volunteers who came forward from different organizations to help us do that.

One of the issues that we dealt with was, in fact, the practice of sled dog operations and whether or not there is a standard, voluntary or otherwise, that these operators adhere to. While there is a voluntary standard with an organization called Mush with PRIDE, these standards are not necessarily applied equally by all operators throughout British Columbia and the rest of North America.

I can say that there is a range of quality of operations in the sled dog industry. By and large, I would say that our work showed that the vast majority of operators are extremely responsible. The animals working for them as part of their operations are not just work animals. They're companions. They're their best friends, and they're treated much like we would treat our pets in our homes.

There's a huge bond between the handlers and the animals in these organizations. That is true for the vast majority of sled dog operators in British Columbia, but it was clear that that was not the case in every situation and that there was a need to develop a code of practice which we could suggest to the government be made mandatory so that we know that animals used for sled dog operations are cared for in a way that British Columbians could be proud of.

The working group that is putting together the code of practice is currently meeting to develop a code of practice that, by regulation, can be attached to the amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. That provides the flexibility the member opposite was referring to when discussing the nature of these changes and future ways to address animal welfare issues that British Columbians, we know, find so important.

One of the positive qualities, I think, of approaching the amendments with regulation to provide for codes of practice means that as British Columbians decide that other areas of animal welfare issues need to be addressed, they can be addressed through a regulation of codes of practice.

While these amendments refer to service dogs as well as sled dogs in British Columbia, certainly the future opportunities to include other activities involving animals are there as the public and the government looks at those issues and addresses the needs in a consultative way.

I think that is extremely important. We spent a lot of time talking to stakeholders in the industry and, in consultation with them, developed the approach to a code of practice. I think that as we address other issues of animal welfare, we should be as consultative with other organizations and stakeholders that may be involved, may be affected by those changes.

The member referred to our domestic animals that we raise for food production. Canada is certainly a leader in terms of animal welfare for food-producing animals. There are national farm codes of practice across Canada

[ Page 7259 ]

that have been developed with assistance from our federal government and organizations across Canada.

[1520]

We have worked extremely hard in Canada to develop practices that are considered humane, that develop a way of raising animals that British Columbians and the rest of Canadians can be proud of. Are there ways and means of exploring opportunities to improve the welfare of animals, those raised for domestic food production and those that we use for companion purposes? Absolutely. We always want to improve the way we look after our animals. As I mentioned, the structure of these amendments allows for that to happen in the future.

The issue of animal welfare is one that's extremely important to me. I've dedicated much of my adult life to looking after animals. I was very proud, as a veterinarian working in Coquitlam, to lobby the local government there to ban the use of exotic animals in circuses and, upon moving to Kamloops, accomplish the same bylaw in that community as well.

For me, working on this committee was extremely rewarding, knowing that I was improving the lives of animals all over British Columbia. I want to commend the Minister of Agriculture and the government for taking the recommendations that were put forward by this Sled Dog Task Force — in fact, adopting every one of those and, in fact, going further in terms of implementing the strongest penalties for animal cruelty in all of Canada.

Some of the amendments that the member referred to in terms of veterinarians I can speak to, and I know that she will probably want to canvass these further in the next stage of this bill. But the language in

section 7 is lifted from the Veterinarians Act and is more specific to ensure that those veterinarians and employees of veterinarians, including registered veterinary technicians or students of veterinary medicine, are not encumbered, if you like, because the act refers to causing an animal distress.

I can tell you, from my experience as a veterinarian, that neutering and spaying animals does cause them a little bit of distress, but it is, of course, done in a way that minimizes that. But we wanted to make sure that the modern practice of veterinary medicine would not be subject to be considered cruel. The normal practice of raising food animals to the standard that we are accustomed to in Canada would not be included at this time as well.

Again, in closing, I want to commend former Premier Campbell and the current Premier of British Columbia for taking this incident so seriously, understanding the passion that British Columbians have for the welfare of animals and acting quickly to enact the toughest penalties for animal cruelty in all of Canada; for agreeing to put a working group together to develop a code of practice for sled dog operators; and for allowing the flexibility to address future animal welfare issues through regulation.

I'm extremely proud of this work, Madam Speaker, and I will urge my colleagues to put their full support behind these amendments.

B. Ralston: I rise to address this bill. This is a response from the government to what took place at Whistler, and I do have a few brief comments that I want to make about the bill. The issue here is enforcement and the effectiveness of enforcement, or not, and some of the consequences of enforcement of the investigations that relate to the cruelty of animals.

There's no doubt that many in the province, if not the majority of citizens, view animals either as companions or pets, as an important ingredient in their daily lives. Indeed, for many, life would be unimaginable without the comfort or the companionship of a family pet. So these are important, deeply felt issues, and I understand that this bill is brought forward in that spirit, and I speak in that spirit.

[1525]

But the issue of enforcement just referred to by the previous speaker, referring to

section 8 and talking about increased penalties, one wonders…. I suppose one can contrast that statement with what the Attorney General said here in this House just Thursday, May 10, referring to impaired driving investigations, on the policy of the ministry. He was putting this forward as something that he was proud of. "In the first few months several thousand cases fewer have been approved to go to court because we're dealing with them quicker on the roadside."

The thrust of the Ministry of Attorney General is, if I can paraphrase what he's saying, in order to control what are referred to as climbing court costs — the costs of hiring judges, prosecutors, sheriffs, court clerks and of running the court system — legislation has been devised specifically to divert cases from the courts.

Although the penalties, nominally in this case, are increased dramatically, given the constraints in the court system, one wonders whether any of these investigations will ever result in a prosecution that gets placed before a judge and that judge comes to a conclusion that requires the imposition of a sentence in accordance with these new provisions. In effect, I'm suggesting that it's a hollow remedy, given the practicalities of getting to court in British Columbia these days.

The issue of enforcement is one where there is some sharply divided opinion. When the initial legislation creating this act was passed, there was discussion about the unique role of the Society for the Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals, its unique role as a private society in enforcing what I think we would all regard as important societal concerns about the cruelty to animals.

Indeed, the now Minister of Health, then a member of the opposition, said in 1994 in that debate, expressing some concerns: "Not least of these is the dangerous precedent in endowing any private organization, no matter

[ Page 7260 ]

how benevolent, with police powers bolstered by statutory immunity from damage claims."

I raise that in the spirit in which it was given, not to cast any particular aspersions upon the society but to point out the structural problem with this act that is not dealt with by these amendments. Indeed, there's very divided opinion upon the efficacy of this organization in the way in which it handles these investigations. Some of that is due to the funding that is not provided.

Again, one talks about tougher enforcement, stricter penalties, but if the organization isn't given the financial support to do those investigations, to take those cases to Crown counsel and to get them to court, it's a very hollow remedy indeed.

On the other side of those issues of investigation — and this is not raised directly by the Whistler events — there is the issue that arises about effective remedies for those owners who do have animals who are seized as part of an independent cruelty investigation.

When one's automobile is seized under the Motor Vehicle Act, in many circumstances there is resort to an independent review, an adjudicator whom one is entitled to make some arguments to. It's a fairly

summary process — it's in the Motor Vehicle Act — in a number of instances where automobiles are seized. Yet when one's pet is seized, there's no similar mechanism to afford that measure of, I suppose, independent review of the decision.

There are cases where that decision is not always one that most people would support. At least it's arguable. Now, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, in response to someone who has addressed some correspondence to me, did say, and I think in fairness I should….

[1530]

This is Mr. W.H. Shoemaker, Deputy Minister of Agriculture. He did say — and I quote from the letter: "The task force was not tasked with a broader investigation into animal cruelty investigation systems in British Columbia. However, as we effect changes to increase the fines and penalties for animal cruelty offences, we will consider the approach taken in other provinces with respect to the establishment of review boards."

That would appear to be a commitment that the deputy minister was, perhaps, recommending to his minister. It doesn't appear to be reflected in this set of amendments, but given that the commitment that has been made on the other side is to an ongoing review of this legislation, and given the high level of public concern about animal welfare, I would commend that to the minister and to the government to consider just how that might be best effected and also to bear in mind the comments of the now Minister of Health in deciding how those investigations might be conducted.

I also will address at committee stage some of the amendments, in particular the proposed amendment to

section 9. There are some drafting concerns that I think make it a particularly problematic proposed amendment, but I'll argue that or suggest that at committee stage.

In conclusion, then, I want to urge that at least the opening suggested by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, that there be an independent review board, a statutory mechanism for the review of the seizure of animals, be considered, much along the lines of perhaps….

I'm not attempting to trivialize this, but something along the lines of what's in the Motor Vehicle Act, in the sense that it appears that there's a sharp contrast between seizing an animal and seizing a motor vehicle in terms of statutory review available under a provincial statute — and that the efficacy of enforcement be considered in a real context, rather than the notional context that appears to be being urged upon us by members of the government. The reports of the court system and, indeed, the policy of the Attorney General appear to militate against more aggressive investigations and prosecutions.

With those comments, I'll conclude my remarks.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to take an opportunity to speak on Bill 9, the amendments, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011.

This is a very important issue for many British Columbians. We all saw the horrible scenes of the sled dog slaughter, which triggered this piece of legislation — the outrage that occurred within the province, within the country and internationally. It was very much a black eye for British Columbians. Many British Columbians were demanding, and in fact Canadians were demanding, tougher and stiffer penalties when it comes to animal cruelty here in our province.

I am glad to see these amendments here before us, because I think they're long overdue and they're much needed. This House has made changes before to animal cruelty legislation, supported by both sides of the House. What this does, I think, is respond to the public demand that we give it an even higher priority than this Legislature had done in the past.

As my learned colleague from Surrey North indicated….

B. Ralston: Surrey-Whalley.

M. Farnworth: It's Surrey-Whalley. That's right. I do not wish to downgrade him by elevating him to the federal House.

My colleague the member for Surrey-Whalley said the majority of British Columbians view animals not just as pets but as companions and can't quite…. You know, they're an integral part of their household.

I look at my own situation, Madam Speaker. We have three animals in our house, two dogs and a cat. They've arrived in my house over a number of years. The first one is a dog called Rex, who is almost 14 years old. He came from a pet shop.

[ Page 7261 ]

What was really interesting is that he'd been there for six months, as it turned out. I remember wondering: "God, this is a really attractive, really cute dog. Why is he still here?" When I purchased him, they stamped "As is" on the bill of sale and said: "If you bring him back, we'll put him down." It turned out he was deaf. In fact, when we went back to the pet store and said, "By the way, the dog is deaf," they said: "Oh, bring him back, and we'll put him down."

[1535]

The idea of doing that after this wonderful dog being in my house for three weeks was just incomprehensible. Some people said: "Well, how can you have a deaf dog? What use is a deaf dog?" But the fact is that 14 years later Rex is still at home. He can still jump up on the bed, and he gives so much in terms of love and affection and companionship, unconditional, and all he asks for is some attention, some food, some water and a little bit of love. That's what animals do in households right across this province.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: And walkies twice a day. Though I must say Rex has really got it down to now Saturday mornings, if it's raining — no. The couch is where he wants to stay. But the other dog we have in our house….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: And you're getting white, just like Rex.

The other dog that's in our household — her name is Sophie. I brought her back with me from Bulgaria — I was there for two years — and I still remember that. I saw her mother outside on the streets when I lived there. There were 70,000 unwanted dogs in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, at that time. You see them everywhere.

They rely on people to give them food. In many cases it's seniors, like in the building that I lived in. They'd come down, and they didn't have…. They are living on $150 a month Canadian. Yet they still found time to go down and take some of their food and share it with these dogs that have nothing.

But you would see people who would try and kick them. You would have patrols that would come around and shoot them, and people would get upset and outraged. Well, Sophie's mother was a pregnant dog, just after I moved into the building I was living in. One day she came around the corner, and she had eight little puppies in tow. Little bundles of fluff, and they're coming along.

Anyway, over time I would take down food for them and feed them. I got attached to one of them. They would disappear, but there was one that was smart enough not to go out in the street. She stayed around the building, and I got attached to her. I'd phone home, and my partner would go: "No, we already have one dog. We don't need another." But sure enough, I got attached to her. When I came back to Canada, back to British Columbia, Sophie came with me. That's the second dog in our household.

She is an amazing guard dog. She's an amazing animal. I still remember coming home one day to a house we lived in that had a glass front door. There was a big chisel in front of the door where someone had tried to pop the door, and then the glass told the rest of the story.

The paw prints and dog slobber down the glass said everything. Whoever was trying to break into my house, 85-pound Sophie had come flying down the stairs and launched herself full bore at the glass. Whoever was trying to break in left the chisel, left the property, and Sophie demonstrated: "Hey, it didn't matter — the fact it cost $500 to bring you back from Bulgaria. You proved your worth right then and there."

We also have a cat.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Someone says uh-oh, and that's probably a good segue. The cat's name is Ajax. Ajax is also a rescue cat. He showed up at a vet's office, having been found in a sack in a bush. Someone's idea of dealing with an unwanted animal is to put it in a sack and throw it in the street. Unfortunately, that symbolizes the attitude of people towards animals — that they're disposable, that they're just a commodity. They're not.

Ajax came into our house 13 years ago, and he's still with us. He's getting old, but he still has the ability to catch mice and the occasional rat. He earns his other name, which is Darth Ajax, when he does that.

[1540]

They are animals that are part of my house, and I could not imagine not having them, not being there. Like tonight when we leave this place and go home, I open the door and the dogs will be there. I can't imagine that. But that's the depth of feeling that we have towards the animals in our lives. And I contrast that with an event that happened…. I don't want to talk about the sled dogs. Well, I won't, because I think that is an extreme that galvanized and captured this province and this country. I want to talk about other examples.

Last summer — it was about seven o'clock in the morning — there was a noise outside. I heard my neighbour yelling. I looked out the window, and there's a car parked by the side of the road. I could see this guy going like this with his legs kicking, and I could hear a howling. He was yelling at his little dog, and he was kicking it. Then all of a sudden he opened the door, he got out of the car, and he picked up this little Jack Russell and slammed it down on the pavement.

The dog tried to get away. It was howling, and the guy grabbed it and threw it inside the car. My neighbour is

[ Page 7262 ]

screaming. I went running down to get the licence plate, but he took off. But to me it was…. You know what? That guy should be subject to the penalties of this piece of legislation.

People like that are not responsible pet owners; they're not responsible individuals. That's why we need legislation like this and the changes that are contained within this piece of legislation so that there are tools in place to ensure that individuals like that (1) are punished and (2) cannot own or have animals in the future.

People who do those kinds of things demonstrate they're not fit — a lack of judgment — to have animals like that. When you see people like that, you also wonder: "If that's how they treat animals, how do they treat kids? How do they treat each other? How do they treat other people?"

This is an important piece of legislation, because while its design and its response are to the sled dog slaughter, which horrified everybody, its intent and practical use are to deal with what happens far too often in this province — and not just here in British Columbia, but in other jurisdictions as well — by people and individuals who view animals as a commodity to be dealt with as they see fit. There was a case a number of years ago of someone who took a golf club to a mother raccoon and her babies here in Victoria that shocked and horrified everybody.

This is a good piece of legislation. It's a good piece of legislation that will be supported by everybody on this side of the House. It deserves the scrutiny that a good piece of legislation should get in terms of clause-by-clause examination to make sure that when we pass it, it's able to do the job that we fully intend it to do, that I think all of us in this House want it to do.

My colleague from Surrey-Whalley has raised, I think, some good points, some important points about due process. I think we need to ensure that they are addressed and that we are able to show it not only to supporters of the legislation but to those who have valid questions about how legislation will work and the rights that individuals do have in terms of due process to make sure that that takes place.

My colleague from Saanich South, who's been very much a strong proponent of these amendments, again rightly, points out that in our rush to do the right thing, we're seeing amendments in here…. There's nothing wrong with amendments, but it does raise issues around how the legislation is drafted. Again, we want to make sure that it does what it's supposed to do.

[1545]

I hope the minister takes those comments not as a criticism but rather an effort by the opposition — and I think speaking for all British Columbians — to make sure that we get it right and that we are not having to come back into the chamber in the future to make further amendments or changes because we didn't do it properly this time.

Having sat on that side of the House and knowing how difficult it can be — I see the current Health Minister and former House Leader — knowing full well that bills often take a long time to get to the floor of the House….

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, they do.

M. Farnworth: The current Attorney General says yes, they do.

We want to make sure that we get it right so we don't have to go through that type of process.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Absolutely. We don't want a dog of a bill. We don't want a rat of a bill either. We want a bill that will stand the test of time.

We want a bill that will be a model for other jurisdictions within Canada, that other provinces will look to and say: "You know what? This is the model that we want to see take place in our province." I think British Columbia has set a standard of which all of us in this province want to be proud, and as Canadians when people raise questions around the issue of the sled dogs, people can rightly say: "You know what? That was a terrible tragedy, what happened, but some important changes came about as a result of it."

And increasing penalties to $75,000, I think, is one of the key changes. Depending on the severity of the offence, for some people jail time is an appropriate response. For other people, it's hitting them in the pocketbook — it's hitting them financially, where it hurts — that makes a significance and is an appropriate punishment.

I think that one of the other important aspects of this particular piece of legislation that we have to keep in mind is that once it's passed, it can't just sit on the books. It has to have the resources to be enforced. Again, as some of my colleagues have said, dealing with the court system…. I think that's an important point that's been raised and that the government needs to be aware of and ensure that there are resources in place.

But I think just as important is the educational aspect. You know what? We want to stop the abuse of animals before it gets to an enforcement point. We want people to understand that there are laws there for a reason and that animal cruelty is not acceptable, that kicking a dog or putting kittens in a sack or what have you is not acceptable. Education has got to be one of the key components.

Parents do it at home, teaching their kids respect not just for other human beings and people but also respect for animals and for pets. Education is a key part of, I think, one of the things that government has to do with the passage of this legislation: make the public aware that there are important changes that have taken place in our animal protection laws in this province and that

[ Page 7263 ]

there are important consequences, severe consequences, both financial and punitive, for people who do engage in cruelty towards animals.

This is a piece of legislation that all of us in this House will be supporting. This is a piece of legislation that I think British Columbians will be pleased to see as being introduced and passed. If they could speak, I know that Rex, Sophie and Ajax would add their…. I know it's not a leadership contest, so where Ajax was able to vote….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I couldn't resist.

But I do know that if they could speak, they would definitely join with everybody else in this House in wanting to pass this particular piece of legislation.

[1550]

I look forward to committee stage. I look forward to standing with everybody else in this House and passing this piece of legislation. I think it's an important step in British Columbia and in Canada in terms of dealing with animal cruelty, which all of us find unacceptable.

Hon. B. Penner: As someone who does own a pet, which was interested potentially in seeking the leadership position — Ranger the cat — I would too like to join this debate in support of Bill 9, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011.

Just before I get into the substance of the bill, I just want to address the comments from the member for Surrey-Whalley, who I think rather incompletely summarized my comments from just over a week ago in relation to what the government's objectives are in terms of the new penalties for drinking and driving under the Motor Vehicle Act, in particular what's known as the .05 penalties.

The member suggests that our primary motivation is to take matters out of the courts or to avoid unnecessary court time. The member is only partly right because, in fact, our number one priority and objective with the new penalties is to reduce fatalities and injuries.

Just in the last week British Columbians have been sadly reminded of the unnecessary carnage that continues to take place on our highways and roads in British Columbia as a result of irresponsible drinking and driving. With the long weekend approaching, I think it's important that the Legislature continues to affirm the new policies that we've adopted to reduce the unnecessary deaths that are taking place in British Columbia.

We do have some good news, and I'm pleased to report this publicly, I think, for the first time. According to the most recent statistics that I've been provided with, as a result of the first five months of our new penalties being in place for drinking and driving with a blood level of more than .05 in your system, there's been a decrease of approximately 50 percent in the number of fatalities compared to the five-year average in the first five months. That's a remarkable achievement.

That information is preliminary, so I'll put an asterisk here. This is according to preliminary information provided from police sources to government. But the five-year average would have indicated that we could have, sadly, expected 45 people to have died in the five-month period, where under this policy, 22 people have lost their lives. That means that today about 23 people are alive in British Columbia — 23 families have not had the tragedy and heartache as a result of an unnecessary loss of life due to drinking and driving — as a result of the policy that's been put in place.

Looking back over a ten-year average, it looks like about a decrease of 19 fewer deaths compared to the ten-year average of 41 deaths in that same period. While clearly any death is unacceptable and tragic, it's important to note, just before the long weekend, that we do have the toughest penalties in Canada for drinking and driving.

If you're thinking about having a good time this weekend, be my guest, but don't think you're going to get behind the wheel of a vehicle after you've had too much to drink and take a chance with somebody else's life and put innocent people at risk. That's totally unacceptable, and I hope I speak for all members of the Legislature in support of keeping our streets and highways safe and to prevent unnecessary deaths.

Just as passionately as people are speaking in support of preventing cruelty to animals, I hope we'll all remember that we need to also keep drunk drivers and people who are not even completely drunk but have had too much to drink, more than .05, off the road.

I continue to look forward to getting more information about how the new policy is working in practice, but the most recent statistics, as I indicated, show an approximately 50 percent decrease in the first five months compared to the five-year average. So more work to be done, but we're making progress.

Now, specifically about this bill…. Speaking about Bill 9, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, I've already referenced Ranger the cat, who has some notoriety. For the school students that are here with us today, if you're on Facebook, feel free to go onto Facebook and search for Ranger the cat. He's already got about 560 friends, but he would like to have many more friends.

If you go to his page, click "like" if you like Ranger the cat, and he would appreciate it. He'd like to stay in contact with you and get your input. Please remember that. Ranger the cat — he's on Facebook, and he's looking for you.

[1555]

More seriously, though, what we're talking about here today are amendments to the law in British Columbia so that if people are found guilty of treating animals inappropriately, in a way that violates the law, there will

[ Page 7264 ]

be the biggest penalties in Canada right here in British Columbia if people do that — a maximum fine of up to $75,000 and possibly up to two years in jail. In addition to the fine, you could also go to jail if you're treating animals inappropriately.

I think all of us recoil in horror at the thought that people would torture or unnecessarily harm pets that give so much joy to us in our lives and that are in many cases our very good friends. It baffles the imagination how this can happen sometimes, but sadly, some people do that to animals, and it's tragic that they do.

Because some people do and we want to discourage them from doing it again, our government has brought in this legislation, this bill. It's called Bill 9, and it's got a bunch of rules in it. It says that if you're found guilty of doing that here in British Columbia, you'll have a fine of up to $75,000 and could go to jail for up to two years if you're unnecessarily hurting animals.

I think it's just important that we recognize the importance that pets play in our day-to-day lives. I think there's been considerable research done, not just here in Canada but elsewhere in North America and around the world, that for many people, having a pet in their home actually assists in their well-being, in their mental health and even their physical health. Having that pet around, something that they can look after and focus on, can actually be helpful to people's health, including seniors or people that are ill.

I know of some health facilities where they allow animals to come in. In fact, in Chilliwack there was a program where a person that has a farm would bring their llama — yes, a llama — into a seniors home because the people would respond. The seniors that were in the home and maybe getting a little bored with just playing checkers or reading books or talking to each other or watching television would get a weekly visit from a llama, and it was a highlight of the week.

You can imagine how exciting it would be if we had a llama walking across the aisle here right in the middle of the Legislature. It would certainly take our attention off of some of the other things that we focus on most of the time.

I certainly support these new penalties as proposed, and the member for Port Coquitlam, the opposition Health critic, is correct that usually it does take a lot longer than this to bring in new legislation from when government makes up its mind it wants to do it. Quite often it can take years to develop new legislation through the policy process, consultation with the public and then getting lawyers that work for government to draft out every word and make sure every comma and semicolon and dash is in the right place.

But this law was done, really, within just a couple of months. It's probably about the quickest response that I've seen in the 15 years that I've served as a member of the Legislature here — to go from an idea to policy to legislation and hopefully, if the Legislature passes it, to law just in about two months. That's very quick by government standards. Government normally works a bit slower than that sometimes, unfortunately.

That's not all we're doing. I'd like to also advise members today that earlier today myself and my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who introduced this bill, Bill 9, wrote a joint letter to the federal Justice Minister in Ottawa. We're calling on our federal counterpart to make some changes to the national law.

In British Columbia we can control what happens in the province, but we can't pass a law that applies to the rest of the country. So I've written today, along with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, to the Hon. Rob Nicholson, who just yesterday, I believe, was confirmed by our Prime Minister Stephen Harper as Canada's Justice Minister — my counterpart, the equivalent to the Attorney General for Canada.

In the letter, which I'll read into the record, you'll see that we're asking for more penalties in the Criminal Code, which applies across the whole country for people that do bad things to animals. I'll start reading.

"Dear Minister:

"British Columbia urges you to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that animal cruelty offences are no longer classified as property crimes. Animals should be treated as creatures that deserve protection in their own right because of their capacity to suffer and feel pain. Those who inflict unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal should be held accountable and face serious penalties.

[1600]

"On February 2, 2011, British Columbia initiated a special joint task force, chaired by the person who is now our Minister of Environment to review the killings of 70 sled dogs in Whistler. The Sled Dog Task Force...included the chief executive officer of the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities."

That's the organization that represents local governments — your mayors and so on.

"The task force received petitions involving 42,000 participants and thousands of pieces of correspondence from the public offering direction to the task force on a number of issues related to the sled dog industry and animal welfare. Of the submissions made to the task force, 113 were notable for their specialized expertise provided, unique perspective and the involvement of a large number of individuals expressing support.

"As a result of the task force recommendations, British Columbia has pledged to develop the toughest animal cruelty legislation in Canada."

I deviate from the letter for a moment. That's what this bill does here.

"While this will be useful, Canada has a patchwork of provincial legislative approaches to regulating animal welfare standards and humane animal euthanasia. Clarifying the Criminal Code to

[ Page 7265 ]

address animal welfare and euthanasia of animals will assist in ensuring that a uniform approach is taken across this country.

"At a recent meeting of federal, provincial and territorial senior justice policy officials British Columbia raised the issue of animal cruelty and urged other provinces and territories to work with us and the federal government to address the basic flaws in the current provisions of the Criminal Code, which currently treats animals as property rather than beings that endure suffering and pain.

"This has been a longstanding issue, with many attempts on the part of the federal government to institute the types of reforms we are currently requesting. Several of the past bills, such as C-50 from 2005, contain the reforms that reflect the policy direction that we wanted to see enacted.

"As you know, this issue is not limited to the inhumane slaughter of 70 sled dogs. Cruelty to animals occurs regularly and needs to be addressed at a broad level. It is time that we give up the antiquated view that animals are to be protected simply as property, with greater protection given to more valuable property, such as cattle.

"We invite and encourage you to work with us to develop reforms which will meet these concerns and look forward to hearing from you on this issue.

"Sincerely,"

It's signed by myself and the Minister of Agriculture. Again, that letter went to the federal minister early today.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Now, I've just been handed a note, Madam Speaker, and I'll look to the gallery. I believe that the students that I'm looking at may be here from.… Is it San Francisco? Wow. So we have some people from the great state of California we would love to welcome to the Legislature. I believe it is Presidio Middle School.

I don't know if you came up on the cruise ship. There are a couple parked outside just a short distance from the Legislature. I hope that the House will extend a warm welcome to all of you here as you listen to our debate in the Legislature.

Now, there are a couple of other things. Speaking of California, I'm not above borrowing a good idea when I hear of it. This year it was missed in all of the excitement around Christmas and some of the exciting political things that were happening, with the two major parties in our province both going through a leadership change.

One of the things that were overlooked was that British Columbia became the first province in Canada, in January, where it became illegal to sell antifreeze for your vehicle unless it had something added to it which tastes very, very bad, even to a dog.

The reason why I mention California is because California has already implemented this policy, and when I was looking around for ideas, one of the places we turned to was California. So California, Oregon and Washington have already put in place this policy, and B.C. has now become the first province in Canada.

But in terms of the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, I'd also like to recognize the contributions of the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, who brought the issue forward a number of years ago through a private member's bill. The bill itself did not become law, but the spirit of his intentions, I believe, are encapsulated in the regulation, the rule that I was able to put forward as Minister of Environment before I became Attorney General.

[1605]

In this policy it says you have to have this bittering agent added. So what is this bittering agent? Well, it's sold under a trade name called Bitrex or Aversion. The reason they call it that, I think, is it's easier to pronounce than the scientific name, which is denatonium benzoate.

What's significant is that denatonium benzoate is the most bitter chemical compound discovered to date. For years this s