2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Shooting at Virginia Tech

Hon. M.

Coell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Penticton ValleyFirst Vees

Hon. R.

Thorpe

L. Krog

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Penticton ValleyFirst Vees

Cantelon

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Resource Road Act (Bill 30)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Environmental (Species and Public

Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)

Hon. B.

Penner

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Cythera Transition House Society

Sather

Port Moody Festival of the Arts

I. Black

Len Shepherd

H. Bains

Women of Excellence award

recipients

M. Polak

Burnaby Children's Centres

Society

Chouhan

Tai chi

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Funding for child protection

services

C. James

Hon. T.

Christensen

L. Krog

Simons

Victim services in domestic

violence cases

Trevena

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Thorne

Hon. W.

Oppal

Handling of domestic violence

cases in justice system

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

Bountiful and polygamy issue

C. Evans

Hon. W.

Oppal

Tabling Documents

Chair of the board of directors

of ICBC, letter

Petitions

R. Chouhan

N. Simons

Committee of the Whole House

Public Safety and Solicitor

General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 17)

Gentner

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Farnworth

L. Krog

Karagianis

H. Bains

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Public Safety and Solicitor

General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 17)

Second Reading of Bills

Transportation Investment (Port

Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14)

Hon. K.

Falcon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

Cubberley

Hon. S.

Bond

Simpson

J. Brar

Chudnovsky

[ Page 11439 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Statements

SHOOTING AT VIRGINIA TECH

Hon. M. Coell: One year ago today 27 students and five

faculty members lost their lives on a campus at Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Campuses across Canada and the

United States and around the world are today mourning the terrible and tragic

loss of life on April 16, 2007. Students, faculty, university administrators and

all citizens mourn this senseless incident of violence on a campus.

We have come to know campuses of higher learning as safe havens

against threats from the outside. We know that in this day and age, that is not

necessarily true. We as communities must do everything in our power to keep our

campuses safe. I ask all members of the House to join me in reflecting upon

those lives lost and to commit to maintain our efforts to ensure a safe

education system for all our citizens.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: From the best constituency in the province,

Surrey-Newton, there are 31 students from Cornerstone Montessori joined by their

teachers Jenny Petropoulos and Catherine Mahoney. They are visiting this hall

here to watch us and see how we do our business. I ask this House to please

extend our warmest welcome to them all.

M. Polak: Today in the gallery we are joined by my

constituency assistant from Langley, Cathy Gibbs, and her parents Roy and Doreen

Purssell. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

H. Bloy: It's my pleasure to make an announcement to the

House today. My wife and I became grandparents for the first time earlier this

morning. I do know my wife's name is Anita, but they haven't named the baby boy

yet. He weighed in at 10 pounds, 7 ounces.

Hon. G. Campbell: It gives me great pleasure to introduce

Roy and Doreen Purssell of Hope, who are visiting the Legislature today. It's a

very auspicious day for them, and their behaviour is exemplary. They are

celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. I'm sure today they will be

reflecting on 60 years of experiences with their family. They'll be sharing

stories — most of them they won't share with us in the Legislature — but we hope

they have a great day and have many, many more days of celebration like this.

Congratulations.

Hon. C. Hansen: I had the pleasure this morning of meeting

with 26 students from the Anchor Point Montessori School on the front steps.

They had some great questions and some great ideas. They are joined by several

of their parents and also two of their teachers, Victoria Lowry and Heidi

Wilson. Will the House please make them welcome.

J. Yap: It's a real pleasure to introduce a wonderful group

of British Columbians who are visiting Victoria from various parts of Metro

Vancouver. Many of these fine people were close colleagues of mine in my past

business career.

Today in the gallery are members of the TD Bank retirees

association. They are in Victoria for their regular retirees luncheon meeting.

With us today are Jack and Donna Savenye, Bill and Marnie Hennan, Joan and

Richard Whitman, John and Yolande Fulton, Sheldon and Diane Johnson, Duncan and

Lorraine Humphries, Lee and Anne Atwater, Les and Beatrice Starheim, Ward and

Norma Redditt, Dan and Marion Gallant, Gloria Sweeder, Judy Smith, Dave

Ballentine and Herta Krause. Would all members extend a warm welcome to all of

them.

Hon. B. Penner: It's my pleasure today to introduce Craig

Daniell, Laurie Chortyk and Sara Dubois from the BCSPCA. They're joined in the

gallery, I'm told, by Chris Hamilton and Scott Black of the Ministry of

Environment, who collectively have provided valuable input as we've worked to

update the Wildlife Act over the last year. I will have more to say about that

in a few moments. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. McIntyre: I also enjoyed a school visit today with the

students from Myrtle Philip Community School in Whistler. They've actually been

here since Monday, having a wonderful tour of Victoria. They had a great tour

this morning of the building. Same as the Minister of Economic Development, I

had excellent questions, including questions about my earrings.

It's always a great, great privilege to have the students here to

learn more about the history and what we do as MLAs. I hope the House will make

them welcome too.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have five visitors from the

Taoist Tai Chi Society of Canada. They are the director of Pacific region, Rod

Edwards, and also the director of the Victoria branch, Lesley Davies, and

members Miles Ostler, Arthur Bates and Grace Bates. Will the House please join

me to give them a very warm welcome.

K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, I am pleased to

welcome and introduce 17 teachers from across British Columbia who have been

selected to participate in the sixth B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary

Democracy. They are with us today in the gallery. They will be with us for the

remainder of this week, expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary and

political systems. They are joined by three of their peers who are acting as

facilitators: Ms. Beverley McEwan, Mr. Kirk Longpre and Ms. Erika Moser.

[ Page 11440 ]

I trust that many of you will have the opportunity to meet with

them during the institute, specifically at a luncheon hosted tomorrow by the

Minister of Education. Would you all please join me in making them feel very

welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: We're joined in the gallery today by Jennifer

Burnett, who is the CEO and registrar of the College of Dental Hygienists. I

would ask the House to please make her welcome.

[1340]

B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce to the House two

gentlemen who are here from the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association: Jim

Hackett, who is the executive director, and Mark Semeniuk, who operates in the

West Kootenay. I don't know if Mark is the president or not. If he's not, he

should be.

This is an industry association made up of the little guys, mostly

value-added operators from the southern interior of the province. They're great

people, and we're glad that they come and visit us every now and again. So

please help me make them feel welcome.

Tributes

PENTICTON VALLEYFIRST VEES

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to rise in the House today, on

behalf of the Speaker and myself, to acknowledge the rich hockey history in

Penticton. Penticton is the home of the B.C. Hockey Hall of Fame and is well

known for its 1955 world hockey champions, the Penticton Vees. Adding to this

rich history is their recent victory over the Nanaimo Clippers. The Penticton

ValleyFirst Vees Junior A hockey club is now the Junior A British Columbia

champions.

This week they will be facing the winners of the Alberta Junior

Hockey League. I would ask all members of this House, including the members from

Nanaimo, to join with the Speaker and myself in wishing Penticton ValleyFirst

Vees the best of luck in their quest for victory at the Doyle Cup.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Nanaimo like to comment?

L. Krog: In the spirit of great sportsmanship that

characterizes the Nanaimo Clippers and on behalf of the member for Nanaimo-Parksville,

we congratulate the Penticton team and wish them well.

Introductions by Members

L. Mayencourt: I, too, would like to welcome the 30

students and six adults that are here from Anchor Point Montessori under the

direction of Miss Aubrey. This is a very wonderful Montessori in my riding, and

I'm very glad that they could join us today.

I look forward to meeting with you folks a little bit later today.

Tributes

PENTICTON VALLEYFIRST VEES

R. Cantelon: I, too, would like to congratulate the team

from Penticton. They wrested the championship from the Nanaimo Clippers, and as

the famous sports words say: wait until next year.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

RESOURCE ROAD ACT

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Resource Road Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 30 be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce the Resource Road

Act today. This act will enhance the safe use of resource roads for workers in

all industrial sectors by developing common standards for road construction,

maintenance and deactivation. The act will encourage resource road permit

holders to communicate with each other about their use of resource roads and

will enable restrictions on high-traffic roads.

This act will also provide a standardized, consistent approach to

regulating resource roads across the province using results-based regulations.

Right now operators in different industrial sectors such as forestry, oil and

gas, and mining comply with five different acts and regulations. Given that

these industries often use the same roads, there has sometimes been conflict and

confusion.

To address this, the Resource Road Act consolidates road-related

provisions into a single statute and will result in a single permit system for

industrial users. This act will also support our industries with a predictable,

fair and cost-effective framework.

Finally, the act will preserve the public's right to use resource

roads on Crown lands.

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 30, Resource Road Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

ENVIRONMENTAL (SPECIES AND

PUBLIC PROTECTION) STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Environmental (Species and Public Protection)

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

[1345]

[ Page 11441 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 29 be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to introduce the Environmental

(Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. This bill contains

amendments to the Environmental Management Act and to the Wildlife Act.

I'll begin by noting a few of the amendments to the Wildlife Act.

Amendments to that act will provide the government for the very first time with

new authority to regulate the possession of alien species such as large

carnivores, venomous snakes, primates and other animals and fish that can harm

British Columbians and our native wildlife and wildlife habitat.

In addition, authorities in the Wildlife Act are amended, along

with consequential amendments to the Park Act, to increase the number of

wildlife officers protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat in British Columbia.

Park rangers will be given new authority to authorize and monitor hunting and

fishing activities to ensure those activities are being done in compliance with

the act.

Other amendments will provide improved authorities concerning the

feeding and attracting of wildlife, doubling the fines for most offences — in

fact, raising the maximum penalty up to $250,000 for a fine and two years in

jail on first convictions and up to $500,000 and three years in jail for

subsequent convictions for illegal activities such as poaching. There will be

additional changes to regulations in terms of authority for the guide-outfitter

industry and changes to hunting rules and regulation-making authority for

limited-entry hunting and other issues.

This bill also contains amendments to the Environmental Management

Act. These amendments include confirming the government's authority to respond

to spills that can affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in the short or long

term and recovering costs associated from the party or parties responsible for

the spill. Other amendments to the act concern improvements to regulation-making

authorities to enable comprehensive codes of practice and other results-based

regulatory regimes under the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, 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 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008, 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 25

B) CYTHERA TRANSITION HOUSE SOCIETY

M. Sather: Abuse is not simply physical violence, and it is

not just a conflict between two people. It is a systemic pattern of behaviour

used to establish power and control over another person. Many women and children

are not abused in just one way. They are physically, emotional, sexually and

economically abused over and over again in many different forms.

Cythera Transition House Society is a non-profit organization

providing services to abused women and children in Maple Ridge and the

surrounding area. Established in 1983, Cythera House provides the basic

necessities for up to 30 days, with staffing 24 hours a day, and provides

emotional support in a safe, secure and non-judgmental environment.

Residents of Cythera House are provided with practical help and

information, linking them up with services such as housing, legal rights, income

assistance, child care and other community resources. In addition, a children's

support worker is available to assist children in dealing with the very

traumatic changes in their lives. Cythera House also offers an off-site

counselling centre, second-stage-housing program and thrift store.

Women who seek out the services of Cythera House are survivors of

trauma, sometimes with a lifetime of abuse issues. Very early in life they have

learned that it is not okay to have needs and feelings and end up focusing on

the needs of their abuser at the expense of their own identity.

Funding for programs and places of refuge is imperative for women

and children to transition out of the cycle of abuse. With support, women and

children will have a place to go to heal like Cythera House.

PORT MOODY FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS

I. Black: One of the four municipalities that I so proudly

represent is Port Moody, which prides itself as City of the Arts. Today I

congratulate the work of the Port Moody Arts Centre Society, specifically for

last week's 11th annual festival of the arts.

Led by society president Lynne Murray, executive director Brenda

Finlayson and festival chairman Darryl Tolentino, the festival offers a spectrum

of visual, media and performing arts and a variety of forums for participation.

The festival allows Port Moody to proudly showcase its belief that arts, culture

and recreation are integral to creating healthy communities.

[1350]

I've received a lot of letters from artists across B.C. since our

government announced the $150 million arts endowment fund, which stands to take

the B.C. Arts Council up over 50 percent. We celebrated this yet again last

Friday, when I helped open the festival, and the Tri-Cities arts community is

thrilled. Moreover, one of the e-mails I received, thanking us from the bottom

of her heart, was from a terrific young Canadian singer–guitar player, Nelson's

Aspen Switzer, who also performed at the festival.

The festival also allowed the community to tour studios of 33

artists and experience music ranging from Canadian soul singing sensation Divine

Brown to Will Millar, founder and lead of the legendary Irish Rovers.

I attended the sold-out Will Millar show. He has not lost any of

his charm, wit or showmanship. When

[ Page 11442 ]

you reflect, as many of us here can, on the magic of Will and The Irish

Rovers, their top CBC television program and their famous unicorn song that we

still sing to our children and grandchildren, you can appreciate the depth and

diversity of the talent that the festival attracts.

Thanks to Port Moody for once again playing host to emerging and

established talents alike and for reminding us of the timeless lessons of our

youth: "There were green alligators and long-necked geese, some humpty-back

camels and some chimpanzees, some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as

you're born, the loveliest of all was the unicorn."

Thanks, Will.

LEN SHEPHERD

H. Bains: For me, every trip to the Newton Seniors Centre

is a learning experience. My last trip was no exception. I've had many

conversations with Connie Cleaver and her husband Al over the years. The other

day in conversation, I was absolutely astonished to hear that Connie's father

was Leonard Alec Shepherd.

Len Shepherd was a Surrey municipal council member from 1932 until

1937. In 1937 he was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly serving the

Delta riding, covering the area of Richmond, Delta, Surrey and Langley. In his

very first term as MLA, Len Shepherd presented a petition to this very House

with over 3,100 names from the people of the Fraser Valley, asking that the new

Pattullo Bridge be free of tolls. Very quickly, he became an avid advocate for

the working people.

I'll read some quotes from the daily press of the day. The

Province read: "This government's budget may be good for the bond holders

but is billed largely at the expense of the municipalities and the misery of

people." The Times reported: "Shepherd wants aid for municipalities and

said the Fraser Valley farmers are working themselves to death trying to pay

their taxes."

Watching this House operate for the last three years reminds me of

the French proverb: the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Len Shepherd was awarded Surrey's first Good Citizens Award. Len

Shepherd Secondary School and Len Shepherd Lions Manor were named in his memory.

It is an absolute pleasure for me to remember Len Shepherd's contribution to our

province and to the cities of Surrey and Delta and pay tribute to a local son

who played his part to make this province a better place to live and work.

I would like to thank Connie and Al Cleaver for the informative

conversation we had a couple of weeks ago.

WOMEN OF EXCELLENCE

AWARD RECIPIENTS

M. Polak: Last Wednesday the 11th annual Women of

Excellence Awards were held in at Newlands Golf and Country Club in Langley.

Organized and sponsored by the Valley Women's Network, the awards recognize

outstanding women in a variety of categories: in the arts and culture category,

Marika Siewart, CEO of Emerton Records; in the sports and recreation category,

Sheryl McIntosh, founder of the Fort Langley Canoe Club; in the community and

humanitarian service category, Marilyn Piticco, coordinator of the Stroke

Recovery Association; in the women of vision category, Rachel Cram, director of

Wind and Tide Preschool.

Woman of the Year 2008 was awarded to Dr. Karen Parmar. Karen,

along with her husband Gurdev, is a co-founder of the Integrated Health Clinic

in Fort Langley. Karen was recognized for her tremendous commitment to her

practice as well as her volunteer work in Thailand. Together the Parmars have

established a foundation in support of a health clinic in Thailand, where she

travels annually to volunteer.

But the most important winner is a person who is close to my heart

and well regarded throughout Langley. She is known for her office skills and her

sense of humour, her strength of character and her easygoing manner, her ability

to speak in public and her unflappable nature in the face of sometimes troubled

constituents.

[1355]

Cathy Gibbs is the Women of Excellence Employee of the Year. The

fact that she is also my constituency assistant makes me one of the world's

luckiest employers. I'd ask this House to please join me in acknowledging these

incredible women of excellence.

BURNABY CHILDREN'S CENTRES SOCIETY

R. Chouhan: On Thursday, April 10, I had the pleasure of

accompanying my colleague the member for North Island on a tour of child care

centres in Burnaby as part of her Raising B.C. child care tour. Included in the

tour were the two centres run by the Burnaby Children's Centres Society.

BCCS was created in 1995 in partnership with the city of Burnaby

to provide child care in two facilities. The Hanna Court facility was built by

density bonus funds, an initiative that was pioneered by the city of Burnaby,

while the Taylor Park centre was built by B.C. Hydro, which gave it to the city

of Burnaby in 2003.

For the past 13 years, the BCCS has maintained a high level of

child care services, having serviced upwards of 800 families. Currently, the

BCCS services 94 infants, toddlers and three-to-five-year-olds. However, despite

maximum capacity at the two current facilities, the ongoing wait-list between

the two facilities is over 400 children.

Another issue facing the BCCS is a space issue in regards to

transitioning children. Currently, children turning three and moving from the

toddler room to the three-to-five rooms are unable to be accommodated. This

problem may directly affect 25 families and may result in families losing their

child care. This situation could become critical as soon as September of this

year.

The BCCS is looking towards the future and their role in providing

child care services to Burnaby fami-

[ Page 11443 ]

lies. Currently, the board is pursuing the building of the third facility to

address the three-to-five space issue while addressing wider child care. This

proactive planning will alleviate current wait-list needs as well as expected

community needs due to the increased population in the area. The BCCS is excited

about this prospect and welcomes any new partnerships.

TAI CHI

R. Lee: Last Saturday I attended the Festival of Health and

Longevity organized by the Taoist Tai Chi Society of Canada, Pacific region. In

attendance were representatives of other levels of government, including

Secretary of State Jason Kenney, Vancouver city councillor Suzanne Anton and

Prof. Jean-Paul Collet of the department of pediatrics at UBC and the director

of clinical research at B.C. Children's Hospital. Attendees of the festival were

treated to a vegetarian meal, tai chi demonstrations and a free lesson in tai

chi.

Tai chi as a form of soft martial art has a long history in China.

The ancient Taoists were renowned for their study of the arts of health and

longevity. The founder of the Taoist Tai Chi Society of Canada, Master Moy

Lin-shin, introduced tai chi to Canadians in 1970. This society has since

developed into an international organization with member associations in 25

countries. People of all ages can learn and benefit from the gentle turning and

stretching movements of this art, and the form can be adapted to match any level

of ability.

It's a self-regulated form of exercise that lends itself to the

needs of all participants. Tai chi is becoming recognized in the medical

community as an important complementary therapy for people with multiple

sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, head injuries,

strokes as well as other chronic illnesses.

Events like the Festival of Health and Longevity provide valuable

outreach to the community to make tai chi available to all and to spread the

knowledge of the many associated health benefits. Would the House please join me

in acknowledging the efforts of the Taoist Tai Chi Society in promoting health

and well-being through tai chi.

[1400]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

C. James: Today B.C.'s Representative for Children and

Youth released a devastating report into the government's progress to protect

vulnerable children. The report comes after the representative reviewed the

tragic deaths of four very young children in northern British Columbia. This

report is about seven years lost — seven years of lessons lost, seven years of

children at risk being put more at risk, seven years of front-line workers

having to face constant reorganization while dealing with cuts to services,

seven years where services could have been improved and weren't because this

government failed.

My question is to the Premier. Will he commit after seven years of

neglect to actually provide the resources, the supports and the leadership to

help front-line workers do their job that they want to do?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the Leader of the

Opposition's question. Government welcomes this report from the child and youth

representative. I think it's important that we have critical analysis of the

child welfare system in the province and that we learn from reports such as

this.

This report did review four historical deaths in June of 2005,

August of 2002, January of 2001 and November of 1999. I think we need to

remember that in each of those cases, a family lost a very young child, and that

this report will bring back a good deal of the emotion and, hopefully, will help

to answer some questions for those families. Our thoughts and prayers need to be

with those families today.

As I said, government looks at this as a learning opportunity. We

welcome the report, and I would remind members that in the province we have

thousands of employees in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They

have committed their professional lives to helping children and families, and

they, too, very much look forward to how this report will help us to improve the

system.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: The minister talked about learning lessons.

Sadly, this government has had many opportunities to learn lessons. They've had

many opportunities to improve services for children and youth in this province.

The Hughes report was the most recent report, and this report today says that

the government has made very little progress in supporting child protection

workers who work on the front line.

It was the Premier who called for transformational change. That

was his big idea, and it's very clear from this report that it has failed. The

result is a troubled disconnect between the ministry and front-line workers. The

system is plagued by high levels of secrecy, a lack of training and a lack of

support for front-line workers. Those very workers who are doing an

extraordinary job aren't getting the leadership that they need.

My question, again, is to the Premier. When is he going to get the

social workers the real resources and the real supports they need to do this

very difficult job?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think it is important that we learn

from history. I think if we look at what has changed in the north, in

particular, over the course of the last number of years since 1999, we see

significant additional resources and significant improvements.

In 1999 only 59 percent of the ministry employee positions in the

north were full; 40 percent were vacant. Today we're at a 98 percent complement.

We have increased from 187 social workers in 1999 to 243 today. We have

increased from 43 supervisors in 1999 to 53

[ Page 11444 ]

today. We have three newly developed clinical supervision positions to

provide additional support to team leaders across the region. Those are all

steps forward.

That is not to say there is not more that can be done. We look at

the representative's report as a basis for additional learning. We welcome the

recommendations, and we look forward to working with the representative and the

select standing committee on how it is that we can continue to improve child

protection practice in the province.

[1405]

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

supplemental.

C. James: The minister said we need to look at history.

This report is a very important piece of history — history around how child

protection has been dealt with. We must remember that this is the first report

on child deaths since the Liberals shut down the Children's Commission in 2001.

It's the first comprehensive child death report that we've had in this province

since 2002 — seven years lost of lessons we could have learned, of history that

we should have learned from to protect children at risk.

The government threw all of that away. They had to be dragged back

to this point to actually put back an independent voice for children once again

in this province — all those years wasted. Again to the Premier: will he admit

that his cuts, his decision to shut down the Children's Commission and to shut

down the child death reviews, are a wasted opportunity to improve lives for

children at risk?

Hon. T. Christensen: I know that the opposition leader

wants to characterize everything as cuts. The budget for the Ministry of

Children and Family Development today is 30 percent higher than it was in

2000-2001. The number of staff in the north is dramatically higher. We know that

you actually have to have staff on the ground in communities if you're going to

make a difference for children and families. We have focused our efforts on

ensuring that we get a full staff complement.

We have heard, through a series of reports, that

information-sharing is a critical issue. We are investing $107 million over the

next number of years in a fully integrated case management system so that

information-sharing is as active and robust as possible, so that our front-line

social workers have the tools they require — information being the first one —

to do the best possible job.

We have appointed a new assistant deputy minister for quality

assurance, in March, to focus on the types of issues that are raised by the

representative in this report, so that we can all be confident that we have the

most robust and rigorous child protection system available.

L. Krog: I want to remind the minister that he can brag

about an increase, but this government started its term with a 23 percent cut to

the ministry. They introduced significant policies and shut down the Children's

Commission.

The report points out what the Liberals were told for years. You

cannot cut services to children and expect improvements. Government cannot bring

forward massive change without providing new resources, but that's exactly what

this government did.

My question to the Minister of Children and Family Development is

simply this. What did this government think would happen? Did they think they

could actually slash programs and maintain adequate service levels for children?

Hon. T. Christensen: Actually, the member should read the

report, because it makes no mention of resources. The report is focused on the

events in terms of these four deaths and what we can learn from those.

What the ministry has focused on, I would say to the member, is

actually filling the staff positions in the north so that we have people on the

ground that can do the work. We have focused on a very significant discussion

with staff within the ministry about how we can improve practice and how the

ministry can better support them.

There's more to be done there. I will be the first to admit that,

but we see this report as a tool that will assist us in that work. We welcome

the recommendations. We look forward to working with the select standing

committee so that we see these recommendations actually make a difference in

improving services to children and families across our province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Changes this government, this Premier, brought

forward drained resources from the front line, from the social workers and

communities who were trying to protect children. The Premier pushed massive

change. He called it transformative change, but he didn't provide the resources

to get the job done. It was another failed attempt at sloganeering and no

resources — in fact, and indeed the minister knows this, fewer resources.

[1410]

Will the Premier admit that it's time to put the slogans away, get

the front-line workers the resources they need to do their important work, and

protect children?

Hon. T. Christensen: I would remind the member that he was

a member of a government that thought that a 59 percent staffing level seemed to

be appropriate. We have addressed that most fundamental of needs. The most

fundamental thing that any vulnerable child or struggling family needs is the

ability to have a social worker available to meet with them. You do that by

ensuring that you have full staffing.

That doesn't mean there won't be recurring challenges in the

north. I think all members of this House, particularly those from the north, are

aware of the challenge of recruiting and retaining staff.

I believe that the representative has made some helpful

recommendations about how we can focus

[ Page 11445 ]

some of our human resources planning on ensuring that we are retaining the

people we have and recruiting more, particularly more aboriginal social workers,

to be working in the north. We're committed to following that path. I would hope

that the members opposite would join us in that commitment.

N. Simons: There are social workers across this province

today that are hoping — they are hoping against hope — to finally hear a

commitment from this government that they will resource the ministry properly so

that children across this province get the services they need when they are in

vulnerable situations. All we hear are numbers that are picked out of thin air.

Talking about positions in the ministry is not talking about child

protection social workers in the ministry, and this minister needs to make that

distinction. There are social workers in this province right now who are

concerned because they are not even getting to the investigations within two

weeks. They're being referred to a caseload called triple-zero — no social

worker available.

What's the minister going to do today to put exactly the right

number of social workers in every office so that children and families are

properly served?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't doubt the member's passion

about these issues, but passion alone doesn't get the job done. We have added

315 FTEs over the last two years to child and family services. Those are

positions that are being filled around the province so that we are increasing

the human resources available to children and families. We've seen a 30 percent

increase in the ministry's budget since the year 2000-2001 so that resources

have increased and are available to serve children and families around the

province.

We're going to work hard to keep children with their families and

to address those vulnerabilities early. We're going to provide the resources

necessary. We're going to ensure that we're improving in sharing information.

We're going to ensure that we are adding staff, as we have over the course of

the last two years in particular.

We're going to support children and families to build on their

strengths and ensure that we have the most robust and effective system possible.

Is it going to be there next week? No. It's going to be a continuous process of

improvement that engages communities and that engages our service providers. We

have set forth a framework to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: The reason that it's not going to be there next

week is because the ministry has wasted seven years. Seven years — and this

minister knows very well that the needs in that ministry have been outstanding

for those seven years. It's about time they quit blaming situations beyond their

control.

This is about social workers, and it's about children they serve.

Their social workers go home late at night; they get to work early. Many of them

can't sleep because of the workload that this government is imposing on them.

On behalf of those families, of those children — on behalf of all

the children who've suffered in this province because of this government's

irresponsible and ill-conceived cuts — will the minister commit to the social

workers in this province today that he will fund and adequately resource their

offices?

[1415]

Hon. T. Christensen: I do wish that the members opposite

would actually listen to the answer. We have, in a very concerted way, been

adding FTEs to the overall numbers that the ministry employs. We have been

working hard to fill vacancies to ensure that there are people on the front

lines to do that work. That will be a continuing effort. We have hired more, and

we have added resources.

As I said at the beginning of this line of questioning, we welcome

the representative's report and look forward to working with her and with the

select standing committee to ensure that the recommendations she has made assist

the ministry in improving services to children and families across our province.

VICTIM SERVICES IN

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

C. Trevena: Another report was issued today. The critical

components project advised by Judge Josiah Wood issued a report on the toll of

domestic violence. It's sadly timely, after the killings in Oak Bay and Merritt.

The report has more than 60 recommendations but one simple

message. The cuts and attacks on women's services and the community-based victim

assistance by this government are hurting women and are dangerous for families.

I'd like to quote from the report. It says: "Closely related to

lack of coordination is a lack of government leadership. There is no lead

ministry at the provincial level and no government coordinating body to ensure

provincial leadership." This is dangerous.

I would like to ask the Solicitor General when he will reverse his

government's decisions to cut back on community-based victim services to ensure

there is protection for women and all victims of domestic violence.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for the question. I

confirm that we did receive the report today. In fact, my ministry funded —

substantially — the report, and we welcome the recommendations. The

recommendations are detailed and comprehensive.

We will be reviewing the report, working with all of the

stakeholders in the justice system — the police, Crown counsel, judges and

community organizations. I confirm to the member that we will take all of this

under advisement and work together to build a better system to protect victims

of domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 11446 ]

C. Trevena: There was a system in place that tried to

protect women from domestic violence and tried to protect families in situations

of domestic violence. Sadly, that system was cut to the bone in 2002 by this

government — as it cut victim services, as it cut women's centres, as it cut all

the aspects that women could go to.

There are just 62 community-based victim assistance programs for

the whole of the province. These are the programs that have a special mandate to

deal with violence and sexual abuse. There are only 62 of them, but the victims

of crime surcharge fund has approximately $35 million in it.

I will ask the Solicitor General: why will he not prevent more

abuse now, prevent the dangers now, and put some of that $35 million into the

system that so sorely needs it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I confirm that this issue is a serious

issue for our government. I don't accept the characterization by the member

opposite of the changes that were made in 2002. There were a number of changes

made that integrated the work of the various victim services organizations, and

we continue to put more money into supporting victims of domestic violence.

Just recently we announced and confirmed $17 million in additional

dollars over the next three years, and the Attorney General and I announced $1½

million targeted specifically to the victims of domestic violence.

[1420]

D. Thorne: My question is for the Attorney General. Today's

report from the critical components project team on domestic violence has

reported that incidents of spousal assault have risen 9 percent between 2004 and

'05. Spousal assault has accounted for more requests for victim services than

any other offence in British Columbia, and domestic violence accounted for one

in eight prosecutions in B.C.

This government has dealt with this growing problem by cutting

services and programs that deal with domestic violence. Most dangerously, the

government has abandoned the previous mandatory zero-tolerance approach to

domestic violence.

I ask the Attorney General today: when will he take this problem

seriously and provide the proper funding and top priority for domestic violence,

as called for in today's report?

Hon. W. Oppal: I thank the member for raising that

question. I don't think there's any more compelling issue in the criminal

justice system than the issue concerning violence against women. I know that

because I've been there. I was on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal for

23 years. I dealt with these cases. I dealt with the cases as a Crown

prosecutor. I witnessed evidence concerning acts of violence against women. I

know how serious this issue is.

This is not a new issue. It's been with us, regrettably and

tragically, for many, many generations. It's a societal issue that we all have

to deal with. Regrettably, there are no easy answers, but I think that we as a

society have to take these issues seriously.

I can tell you that one reason I came here is to work on these

issues, and I can tell you that we as a government are committed to working on

these issues, because they mean a lot to us.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: I thank the Attorney General for the work he has

done in the past around domestic violence as a Crown prosecutor, and I take very

seriously his promise to do the same kind of good work in his current job as

Attorney General of the province of British Columbia. But I would just like to

read a couple of the serious omissions in the Attorney General and the justice

department that were mentioned in the report today.

The report is recommending that the government must enhance their

efforts to address systemic factors that affect victim safety, and these kinds

of factors include the lack of timely justice system responses, the lack of

interpreters and services in immigrant women's own language — and this includes

police services — the lack of resources and training that we have for people who

are dealing with victims and offenders with mental health issues, and the total

lack of enforcement of protection order breaches.

The Attorney General obviously knows what I'm talking about. We

definitely need a whole new approach. We need a major change in policy. Little

one-time grants and funding $1.5 million into Lower Mainland services…

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose the question, please.

D. Thorne: …will not help British Columbia. When will the

Attorney General take a major move to help the victims of domestic violence?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we commissioned this report. We

commissioned this report because we care about what's happening to victims. I

can tell you that the criminal justice branch is now involved in a creative,

innovative approach wherein Crown prosecutors are working with the police, with

social workers, with community outreach workers, with corrections officers and

with judges so that we can have a coordinated approach.

[1425]

You see, historically, the criminal justice system has worked in

silos. That's regrettable. But I can tell you that we as a government are taking

this issue very, very seriously. The criminal justice branch, with its

coordinated approach of sharing information so that victims can be assisted, is

a route that we're taking now.

HANDLING OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

IN JUSTICE SYSTEM

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General says that he attaches

great importance to this issue and that every-

[ Page 11447 ]

one must do their part. Well, government must do their part.

My question to the Attorney General is this. Does he not now

recognize that there is an opportunity here, today, for him to recommend that

it's time we have a full review of how the justice system deals with issues of

domestic violence in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I appreciate the interest of the

Opposition House Leader on this issue. It's an important issue, but it's

somewhat regrettable that he's politicizing this. It doesn't need to be

politicized. I think we need to deal with this matter on a particularly higher

level than he suggests.

I can assure the member that we are reviewing these matters. We're

reviewing them on an ongoing basis. We continue to do that. This issue is

important to us.

You know, it might interest the member to know that spousal

violence was with us in the '90s as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I didn't realize that asking a question

around a serious generational problem was politicizing an issue. I'll ask again

to the Attorney General….

He said that he believes very strongly in this issue. One of the

things we need to recognize is that there are times to look at an issue on a

broad basis, in depth, and that now is one of those times. So will he commit to

this House that now is the time to undertake a broad review of the justice

system and how it deals with issues of domestic violence in the province of

British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I think that's what this report does.

We commissioned the report; we wanted the report. The report does deal with

these issues on a systemwide basis. That's the advice that the report gives to

us. We'll seriously consider those recommendations and all the advice that the

authors of the report have given to us.

BOUNTIFUL AND POLYGAMY ISSUE

C. Evans: My question is also for the Attorney General.

This theme today of accusation and blame and going back to history seems to be

endemic here. I've been reviewing the questions last week about Bountiful, and

it seems that the opposition says: "Can we now do something about Bountiful?"

The Attorney General has a report asking for a referral. The Attorney General

says: "Well, these problems were made worse in the '90s."

I understand the principle of political accountability that works

here. I was the MLA in Creston in the 1990s — and in 1993 when the RCMP asked

for a referral, and the government's lawyers said that was the wrong thing to

do. Let me say here that I accept responsibility for everything that's gone

wrong in the past.

It's a brand-new slate. There is now someone who is responsible.

Could we start from today and actually ask for the referral of the legality of

polygamy in Bountiful? I've read the Attorney General saying: "I would rather do

something tougher and have a criminal charge."

That's fine, but in the absence of a complainant willing to

testify, a criminal charge has been unable to go forward for 20 years. We now

have a report asking for a referral to a court to find out if what's going on in

my constituency is legal. I beg the Attorney General: start from today and ask

for the referral.

[1430]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I think we've made it clear that this

matter is of considerable importance to us. The issue regarding the abuses that

are alleged to be taking place in Bountiful is something that should concern all

British Columbians. That's why we sought the advice of two different lawyers,

Mr. Peck and Mr. Doust. I have a meeting scheduled with Mr. Doust at the end of

next week. I want to assure the member that we will do something, but I need to

talk to Mr. Doust one more time.

[End of question period.]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to table a letter from the chair

of the board of directors of ICBC, which I received earlier today. This letter

is in response to a request that I made to the board for a

summary of the

investigation into the operations of ICBC's research and training facility. The

letter reaffirms my belief that the board and the executive of ICBC take this

matter seriously and acted expeditiously to deal with the unacceptable situation

at the facility.

I know that the public continues to have questions, as do members

of this House, on this matter. Accordingly, I am tabling this letter so that

this information is available to the public and all members of this Legislature.

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, seeking leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Chouhan: Nine hundred seniors in Burnaby have signed

this petition to restore the funding for Burnaby Partners in Seniors Wellness

now.

N. Simons: I'd like to present a petition on behalf of

residents of the Gibsons area who are concerned about the misguided policies

with respect to B.C. Ferries.

[ Page 11448 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate in this

chamber on Bill 17, Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty)

Statutes Amendment Act. In

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information

of members, we will be continuing with the debate on the estimates of the

Ministry of Education.

Committee of the Whole House

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(GIFT CARD CERTAINTY) STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

section 1.

G. Gentner: Just very quickly, under

section 1, relative to

"prepaid purchase card" and its meaning,

definitions, etc. To the minister: can

he explain to the House the consultative process to arrive at this? Was it

through the B.C. retail association? Or was it through the B.C. Business

Practices and Consumer Protection Authority?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question,

the consultation was done by the ministry. There were responses from

approximately 30 consumers, and consumer organizations included the Consumers

Council of Canada. Business organizations that responded included the Retail

Council of Canada, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, British

Columbia and Yukon Hotels Association, Retail B.C., Better Business Bureau of

Mainland B.C., Telus and the Multi-store Gift Card Coalition.

G. Gentner: I understand that there was a survey conducted

up until the early part of last summer and that that survey was on line. How

many actual consumers were consulted — not just retailers, etc., but the public?

And did the public engage in this process?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The 30 consumers that I mentioned have

responded to the on-line survey. Then there were approximately ten further

consumers that contacted the ministry to make their views known about the issue

of gift cards.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Farnworth: I wonder if the minister could comment as to

why funeral contracts and interment right contracts or preneed cemetery or

funeral services contracts were not included in the changes there.

[1440]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised, in response to the

member's question, that funeral contracts, interment right contracts or preneed

cemetery funeral services contracts are dealt with in another part of the

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. They're dealt with specifically

in another section. So it was felt that to avoid confusion, it not be included

in these amendments.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Gentner: On subsection 3, subsection 56.1, just on the

definition "prepaid purchase card." This is all-encompassing, I'm assuming? This

includes phone cards and gas cards?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that the telephone cards

are under federal jurisdiction — telecommunications is federal jurisdiction —

and that these amendments do include gas cards that are being given as gifts.

G. Gentner: What other cards are under federal jurisdiction

that will be exempted from the ministry's definition of prepaid purchase cards?

[1445]

Hon. J. van Dongen: The main other area that is not within

the jurisdiction of this legislation…. They are things like preloaded credit

cards issued by the financial services sector, most of which are under federal

legislation as well.

G. Gentner: So all telephone cards are exempt, and of

course, what the credit card companies do…. I'm assuming we'll maybe reach that

in a subsection relative to the user fees, etc. — service fees.

What about gift cards that have been purchased out of province?

There are expiry dates there, but someone wants to redeem. This could be a

franchise in the province. How will that system work? Will the retailer of that

chain have to honour the fact that, even though there is an expiry date on the

card, that gift or that purchase will be honoured?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The law in the province where a gift

card is issued would apply to that particular card because the jurisdiction

would be the province of issue.

I can say to the member that there are a number of provinces that

have already implemented gift card legislation and made expiry dates illegal,

Ontario and Manitoba in particular. Also, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and

New Brunswick are working on legislation. The Retail Council of Canada has

worked actively with its members to seek a harmonized approach across Canada on

this.

So I think that the prospects are good, through the consultations

that have taken place between provinces and through organizations like the

Retail Council, that

[ Page 11449 ]

we will be moving towards a harmonized system across Canada on this

legislation.

G. Gentner: It brings to mind…. We're now well into the

Internet on-line purchasing, and a consumer may believe that he or she is buying

a prepaid purchase card with no expiry date, but of course, the head office at

the other end could be somewhere else. I was just curious as to what the answer

would be here. In particular, I am somewhat buoyed by the fact that the minister

is looking at encouraging a harmonized approach throughout the country on this

issue.

Under the provision 56.2, "issued or sold with an expiry date in

contravention of subsection (1) is redeemable as if it had no expiry date." I

just don't know when or how to introduce this. I know that the minister has made

mention through the press that this would come into effect probably at the end

of this year. Could he explain when that is and why that is?

[1450]

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is

that, subject to passage of this legislation through this House, the ministry

would embark on further consultation with all interested parties and draft the

regulations that are enabled by these proposed amendments. As a ministry, we're

targeting the fall of 2008 as a target implementation time.

G. Gentner: I'm a little confused by that. Last year at

this time we — this side — proposed a private member's bill. We're happy that

the side opposite picked up our good intentions and came forward with a bill

similar to ours.

However, a year has transpired since then. I believe that probably

the fourth-busiest retailing season is Father's Day, believe it or not. I hate

to tell you that it takes precedence over Mother's Day, but flowers don't seem

to be as expensive as drills and tools and everything else that dad needs. It

would have been a wonderful opportunity to have had this ready at least by

Father's Day — all due respect to moms.

I just don't understand how it is that there has to be further

consultation. The bill is coming forward here today. It should be ready and up

and running very shortly, yet we're going to wait until before Christmas. There

will be some hope for consumers then, but some people do their Christmas

shopping well into fall.

I don't understand it. This is free money. Gift cards with expiry

dates were really gift cards for retailers. It's now part of their bottom line.

There are accounts set aside, either in reserves for that retailer to come

forward and spend it…. That money is already sitting aside. I don't know why the

ministry…. Could the minister adjust his time line, streamline it somewhat, so

that this legislation could be effective immediately — if not, let's say, with a

time frame of this summer?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the member's enthusiasm

and share his enthusiasm for getting this legislation implemented as soon as

possible in the interests of consumers.

A couple of comments. It is important that regulations be drafted

appropriately and correctly and in consultation with stakeholders. I think

that's an important principle.

I can confirm that a number of retailers have started to move

forward and are going through the necessary changes to remove expiry dates. At

the same time, there is a need for government, in a timely way, to provide

appropriate notice to all of the retail sector as to the implementation date for

this legislation and to allow sufficient time for conversion of, possibly,

programming and cards, equipment, etc.

My commitment to the member in this House is to implement

expeditiously but in a way that gives appropriate consideration to the matters

of consultation and notice to the sector and those sorts of things.

[1455]

G. Gentner: Well, I appreciate the minister's response. I

suppose that at this time half a loaf is better than no loaf, so to speak.

I'm also interested to know what notice to consumers there will

be. Many consumers have heard this information. They're quite excited about it,

and maybe they're not able to read the fine line or understand that full

implementation of this won't happen until maybe Christmas.

What is the ministry doing to let consumers know that there's

still an expiry date in effect until maybe Christmas?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Authority will be administering this act. This is an independent

authority charged with responsibility for these types of consumer protection

initiatives, and they will be providing information and notice on their website

for both consumers and the business sector. They will also have additional

information explaining example questions and answers and explaining some of the

details of these changes.

G. Gentner: I'm wondering exactly how the retroactiveness,

if you will, of this card is going to work. For example, let's suppose that a

person bought a card on January 1, 2008, and doesn't want to redeem it until

January 1, 2009. The bill is totally in effect as of December '08, yet there's

still an expiry date. Will the merchant or retailer have to honour that card?

[1500]

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question,

the critical date will be the day that this legislation is enacted. Again,

subject to approval by this House, it would be enacted once the regulations are

drafted and enacted by order-in-council.

Further, any cards issued after that effective date will have to

be in compliance with the new law. Any cards issued prior to that, as part of

the transition provisions of these amendments to the act, will be subject

[ Page 11450 ]

to the requirement, the law, that the issuers of those cards cannot change

the provisions of those cards. So in other words, if a retailer issued a card

before the effective date of this legislation, once this legislation is enacted,

the retailer could not change the provisions of that card. That would be part of

the transition provisions.

M. Farnworth: I just want to follow up on this. I just want

to make sure we're clear. So what I heard the minister say was that once this

act and the regulations are enacted by order-in-council, it then comes into full

force. So any gift card after that date is governed by this act, and there's no

expiry date on it.

But prior to that, like today, what I hear the minister saying is

that if a gift card does not have an expiry date on it, you could not put one

on. You could not change those conditions of it not having the expiry date. You

couldn't put one on. If that's correct, then, what I'm hearing is that the

converse of that is true — that is, if there is an expiry date on today, then

that expiry date continues to stay in place. Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to quote from

section 4 in

response to the member's question, which is a good question. If a card has no

expiry date, it must remain valid until it is "…fully redeemed or replaced." So

if it has no expiry date, it can't be changed. After the effective date of this

legislation, a retailer, an issuer, can't change the provisions.

The question he asked is: if a card issued prior to the effective

date of this legislation has an expiry date, can the retailer remove the expiry

date? The answer is yes, they can. So they can voluntarily choose to remove the

expiry date. They can change that condition, but they can't do it the reverse

way.

M. Farnworth: But the other question, then, that comes in

is that again…. After the regulations and the order-in-council are passed is one

thing. But prior to that, then, if a gift card has an expiry date on it today,

that expiry date remains in force even after the new regulations are brought

into effect by the order-in-council. Is that correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can confirm that the member is

correct in that scenario.

G. Gentner: Regarding 56.4, what must be on the card

of use, redemption or replacement of the prepaid purchase card, including,

without limitation, any permitted fee or expiry date."

I'm wondering at this time: what has to be on the card that you

purchase? What are its limitations? What is the retailers' responsibility here?

[1505]

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question, I

want to confirm that everything is set out in 56.4(1)(a) — that the terms and

conditions, any restrictions or limitations have to be shown either on the card

or the packaging material that the card is attached to at the point of sale. So

any conditions, any fees as set out in the

section have to be disclosed there,

and they can be on either the card or the packaging material.

G. Gentner: Well, I asked the question because there's a

standard practice now in British Columbia where the restrictions and limitations

of a card are provided on the website of the retailer. So the minister is

assuring us that the details of the card you're purchasing will, hopefully, be

just strictly on the card itself and/or the packaging, and that does not include

the website. I see a yes-and-no head nod that that's correct. Okay.

What also concerns me is that we're providing this provision here,

which is a good thing, but it also again mentions any permitted fee or expiry

dates. Well, we're getting rid of expiry dates, so why are we suggesting we're

going to put that on the card?

[1510]

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue of a possible permitted fee

or expiry date…. I'll deal with the issue of expiry date first. The regulations

may allow the expiry dates on promotional cards. For example, cards that are

issued as part of a promotion would be issued free to the consumer. So the

legislation contemplates the possibility of allowing cards issued in that way or

for charitable purposes to have an expiry date, the principle being that the

consumer did not lay out any dollars of any kind for that card.

Similarly, the legislation enables the possibility of

consideration under the regulations for a small fee for something like providing

a customized card that may have the picture of the holder of the card on it —

that would be one example that is being contemplated — or the possibility of a

small fee to replace a card, for example, that has been lost by the consumer. So

if the consumer has a gift card and they've lost it and they're seeking a

replacement from the retailer, the legislation would allow us, in designing the

regulations, to contemplate the possibility of a small fee in a situation like

that.

G. Gentner: I ask the question again, because under the

definitions…. Maybe the minister could shepherd me along here.

Section 56.4

specifically talks about prepaid purchase cards, and sub-subsection (

a) refers

to prepaid purchase cards. Does that also mean a promotional card that isn't

paid?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I would refer the member to the

definition under

section 56.1, where it gives a specific definition of a prepaid

purchase card. I think the operative word there, which is also repeated in

section 56.4, is the word "issued" followed by "or sold."

I can appreciate the member's question because of the use of the

word "prepaid," but that is intended to denote the fact that a card is being

issued in a promotional situation to a consumer with a prepaid value of, let's

say, $10. That card will have been issued at no cost

[ Page 11451 ]

to the consumer. So the definition here does include both cards — promotional

ones and ones that the consumer actually laid out their own money for.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell me how the legislation

deals with the issue of fees and fees being charged on gift cards?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I would refer the member asking the

question to subsection 56.3(1), which is entitled "Fees prohibited except as

permitted by regulation." This

section sets out that: "A supplier must not

charge a fee to a consumer for anything in relation to a prepaid purchase card,

except as may be permitted by the regulations under

section 56.5…."

Section 56.5

is the one that sets up the authority to provide the exemption for a fee.

[1515]

M. Farnworth: I just want to make it clear. That's

important, because one of the things that can happen is that you could do away

with an expiry date. Let's say you bought a $100 gift card at, I don't know, one

of my favourite stores, Holt Renfrew — not that I get to go there that often. A

hundred bucks probably wouldn't get me that much, in fact. Okay, let's make it

$500, because we're talking about Holt Renfrew.

You could have a series of fees that would come in. Let's say that

after a year it might lose half its value. In a subsequent year it loses half

its value. I want to make sure that what we're not going to allow is a sort of

backdoor expiry date by a sliding scale of fees coming in that would render a

gift card useless.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure the member that if he

wants to offer me a $500 gift card to Holt Renfrew, I would be happy about that.

The issue that he raises is one that is being directly addressed

in this legislation, and the technical term for it is "dormancy fees." It is

certainly our full intent through this legislation to ensure that those cannot

be applied.

I think his question strikes at the heart of the intent of this

legislation — that that kind of backdoor erosion of the value that the consumer

put up in terms of buying the card will not be able to happen. That will be

illegal under this legislation.

G. Gentner: In the same vein, where does that put us with

credit cards like Visa, which are regulated federally? They tack service charges

on buying purchase cards. Or it could be TicketMaster. What happens then?

Hon. J. van Dongen: If I understand the member's question

correctly, I think we have dealt with that in the answer that I gave — that Visa

cards and bank cards are generally all federally regulated, and they would not

be captured by this legislation.

G. Gentner: Well, I raise it because I think we have this

sort of counterculture when every time we go to an ATM machine, we pay $1.50.

You're going to buy a purchase card, a gift card, which is for a friend, and

here we're going to go again. I had to raise it for the record.

The minister mentioned earlier about how we're going to regulate

this. We're going to regulate it through the Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Authority, which I think now is a little more arm's-length than it

used to be, when it used to be called…. It was changed under this government.

Can the minister explain to me how this will be enforced?

[1520]

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question,

the compliance and enforcement provisions are already built into the existing

act. It does involve a progressive approach to achieving the proper outcome for

consumers under the act.

If consumers can't resolve complaints directly with the businesses

themselves, they can contact the Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Authority. The authority will, in the first instance, assist them with mediation

and referrals. They will investigate the consumers' complaints. They will seek

redress for consumers who have been treated improperly by a business, and they

will work to ensure that businesses are complying with the consumer protection

legislation.

The act then further establishes a number of enforcement

mechanisms available to the authority, including some of the following. They may

investigate complaints about violations, including enter a business, take copies

of documents and hear witnesses. They may, under the act, request written

undertakings to comply, to make compliance orders, leading in some cases to

freezing property or injunctions. They may impose progressive administrative

penalties up to $10,000 for an individual and larger penalties for business, and

they may recommend charges in criminal courts.

So there's a whole progression of services and enforcement that is

available to consumers in the event that they feel there's non-compliance by an

issuer of these gift cards.

G. Gentner: So the short of it is that compliance is dealt

with sort of on a complaint basis, I guess.

My next question there is: who can issue a card? Do you need a

business license? Are there going to be permits issued by the province? Is there

going to be some type of inventory? How is this going to be regulated? Can I,

tomorrow — I have a fruit stand — issue out certificates and say there's no

expiry date? Can the minister explain how this is going to occur?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for his question.

This is consumer protection legislation, so it is by nature consumer-driven. If

consumers feel that they've been inappropriately treated under the law, then

this provides the redress mechanism for them.

[1525]

[ Page 11452 ]

These amendments do capture not only cards but also other

documents. Whether it's a certificate or a letter — the common element being any

document that promises a future good or a service to a consumer for dollars laid

out by the consumer today — that would be captured by this legislation.

If it's a paper certificate issued that promises something in the

future, a good to be available, then it is included in the legal scope of this

legislation.

G. Gentner: Well, it's a recent phenomenon in many ways. I

understand that the way to find your patronage and get people into your business

was the reason why we had gift cards. But here we are today. These intricacies

are certainly technical in nature, but they do have vast implications, because

again we're talking about a multitude of millions of dollars in unredeemed cards

per annum.

I just need a little further explanation on renewal fees. You can

join a membership for, say, Costco, and there could be a gift card attached.

It's not promotional, but you can belong to clubs, etc. Will this legislation

deal with any type of renewal fee necessary to update your gift card?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The legislation is enabling and will

provide the authority to consider the kind of circumstances that the member

raises, where a consumer buys a membership in a buying organization such as

Costco, for an example, where it may be time-limited. There may be a gift card

issued with that membership, which may or may not be part of the fee.

The legislation may be used — and I stress "could be used" — to

allow a card that is deemed to have been issued free for promotional purposes….

It may allow a small fee. On the other hand, it allows government in drafting

regulations to not allow a fee on that card. So there may be a range of

circumstances that the regulations will attempt to deal with and ensure that the

consumer gets a fair treatment from the issuing retailer.

M. Farnworth: We're just about finished, I think, on the

issue of gift cards. But I do have a question, and that is around certificates.

If one were to attend, for example, a charity auction or a benefit

auction…. Quite often in silent auctions you bid on an item. For example, it may

be dinner at a restaurant. It could be Ducks Unlimited. It could be any number

of great events — right?

I do it on a regular basis, and sometimes I take them home and I

say: "Hey, why don't we go for dinner here?" And it's: "Nah, not tonight." Then

it gets stuck in a drawer, and you forget about it. Then later on, you're going:

"You know what? I'm going into Vancouver-Kingsway, and I should take my

colleague the member for Vancouver-Kingsway out for lunch. This restaurant is

near there." I go, and I find the….

A. Dix: I always pay.

M. Farnworth: Okay, maybe that's the wrong member to use.

That's right. He always pays.

[1530]

You get the gift certificates. In the case of charitable, will it

allow expiry dates, or does the legislation cover that? When you get something

at a charity auction, and let's say it's a gift certificate at a restaurant,

will it not have an expiry date into the future?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The regulation-making authority, under

the amendments being proposed, will allow consideration of a possible expiry

date where something is issued by a charitable organization. So the scenario

that the member mentions can be dealt with under the authority of this act.

Again, he raises a good example of where due consideration needs

to be made as to what is the appropriate action in the kind of scenario he

mentions. We're certainly open to advice from the member on those types of

situations. I've had the same experience at fundraisers for charitable

organizations. Whether or not it's appropriate to require them to not have an

expiry date is a valid consideration to be made under the legislation.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: I had to ask that question. It is a reality

of our occupation and many others.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: There are days, hon. Member, where you may

well think that.

I wonder if the minister can outline exactly, in terms of

section

5, how that changes from the current definition and, in particular, deal with

the issue of including property that is likely to cause serious bodily harm —

how that has changed — and the issue of removing the element of intention.

[1535]

Hon. J. van Dongen: If we start in responding to the

member's question with

section 5(a), the change is the addition of the words "or

was likely to result in."

This is really dealing with past behaviour that's already proven,

but the intent of this amendment is to ensure that the act will apply to actions

that have occurred — crimes that have been committed using these particular

assets or property — where not only did it "result in," but it would also widen

the scope to include "likely to result in" certain outcomes.

Again, under

section 5(a)(ii) the addition was "or was likely to

cause" serious bodily harm to a person.

What it means is that in the new draft, the actual bodily harm

would not have had to happen for the act to apply. It would apply even if it was

only likely to apply. That amendment is being made so that — in the example of a

street racer — the act would not only apply if someone actually caused bodily

harm, injury or death by street racing, but it would apply if the actions

[ Page 11453 ]

of that individual in operating that vehicle were likely to cause serious

injury or death.

It clarifies and widens the legislation a little bit so that it

still applies when there's dangerous behaviour that didn't necessarily, at that

particular event or particular incident, cause bodily harm. Then, in answering

the member's question fully, under

section 1(

b) there's a slight change where

we're removing the words "is intended to" and substituting the word "may."

[1540]

This is simply to ensure that we're not treading on a test that

really involves criminal law, that it simply reflects a person's actions without

trying to ascertain the intent — which is really one of the key elements of

criminal law as opposed to civil law.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation. I

would want to look at it from two perspectives, and I think the street-racing

analogy is a very good example of one.

Is it the minister's intent that this

section is…? Is it a

discretionary

section in the sense that if you are caught street racing and it's

your first time, then your car automatically will be seized? Or is it the

minister's intention that this is an option — to seize a vehicle?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to respond to the member, first

of all, by explaining the process. Under the act, the director of civil

forfeiture, who is an individual with responsibility for this legislation in the

ministry….

He or she would make a determination, first of all — under the

specifics of the act and what the ministry has learned through previous cases

and in consideration of the specific facts of any individual case — whether or

not it's appropriate to make application to the court for a decision to seize

the vehicle and have that individual forfeit that vehicle under this

legislation.

What I want to stress is that in any decision around forfeiture,

the actual decision is the decision of an independent judge in our court system.

The decision to move a particular case forward would depend heavily on the facts

of the case and on what we've learned through this legislation to date.

[1545]

It's possible, based on what we've learned, that on a first

offence with a certain fact pattern, the director might decide it's

inappropriate to forward a request to the court for consideration of forfeiture,

simply because the experience has shown that that would be inappropriate use of

public resources. Or it's possible that the actions of an individual, even in a

first offence, are so horrendous and created such a risk for the public that the

director may decide to put the case forward to a judge for consideration.

It would be up to the director to act in a manner that he or she

feels is in the public interest, with due consideration to all the issues that

I've mentioned.

M. Farnworth: So what I can take from the minister's

explanation is that yes, that discretion or that ability is there.

Can he also confirm that one of the effects of this particular

change — and I'll give you an example — is that if someone was street racing and

killed someone, it would be easy under the old act to seize the vehicle — to

forfeit the vehicle. If they were repeatedly caught street racing but did not

injure anybody, it would be very difficult, or more difficult, to seize a

vehicle. I'll let him answer that first.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think the member raises a relevant

question in that under the old act, if there was no serious injury or death

caused by the actions of that individual, then the director would not be able to

make an application. But that's the heart of the amendment — if it's likely to

cause. If in the director's judgment — based on the reports from the police and

all the information from the police — the actions of the owner of the car were

such that the public were at risk, then under this new act the director has full

option, full scope, to take that forward for a court decision by an independent

judge.

M. Farnworth: I think this is a really important point that

I want to make sure is absolutely right, and I want the minister to know that I

think this change is important. One of the things we're concerned about and one

of the things where I think there has been a weakness in the past has been that

inability to target a repeat offender who is engaged in dangerous behaviour that

is likely to cause injury or death to other people, because of a narrowness of

the act.

What I hear the minister saying is that if someone is a repeat

offender when it comes to street racing, for example, and they've been caught a

number of times but haven't done any death yet, this act will allow for a

process for that vehicle to be seized and for it to be confiscated from that

individual, who clearly has a reckless disregard for the rest of the general

population.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is absolutely correct. That

is the intent of the legislation — to provide the opportunity to present to a

B.C. Supreme Court judge a situation where, in a repeat offender situation, the

actual serious injury or death hasn't occurred.

I'm advised that this legislation, this amendment, was developed

in consultation with the superintendent of motor vehicles. It is clearly the

intention of the government to be in a position to allow the director of civil

forfeiture to use this

section more aggressively to deal with the kind of

conduct he describes by an owner of a motor vehicle. This will be part of our

overall street safety program.

[1550]

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I'll take this opportunity to

raise one of the questions that I asked in the second reading debate. If this is

not quite the right section, you can tell me what the appropriate

section is.

But I think this is the appropriate place to raise the issue, which is: if a

vehicle is seized, then how is it disposed of? Is it sold at auction, or is it

destroyed?

[ Page 11454 ]

This is one of the questions I had or one of the issues that I

want to flag for the minister. I think it's important. How does the minister

intend to deal with…? A vehicle is used in street racing, and then it's sold.

I mean, it may be one thing for a standard, regular vehicle that

has been driven at a high speed and ends up being confiscated. Then it could be

sold to a responsible driver. It's quite another if the vehicle that has been

seized has been modified specifically for street racing. Really, the only person

who would buy that would not be a regular driver but rather someone who would be

using it for street racing themselves.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the example that the member has

given of a vehicle that was seized under the Civil Forfeiture Act on an order by

a judge, our branch would sell that vehicle. But any vehicles that are sold can

only be sold lawfully in the province of British Columbia if they are in

compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act.

Where a vehicle has been modified to such an extent that it is not

in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act at the time of seizure, then it would

be…. The consideration or the duty of our ministry would be to decide whether

that vehicle can be economically reinstated to a legal condition under the act.

Where that cannot be done at a cost that is recoverable through the ultimate

sale of that vehicle, then that illegal vehicle would be crushed. That vehicle

would go to scrap.

I think the member raises a very valid question, and there are

provisions under the law to deal with that situation. If it can be modified

appropriately and economically, then it would be the decision of the director to

make those modifications and sell that vehicle to recover the cost and for some

additional dollars that would go into the fund.

[1555]

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the response of the minister. I

understand what the minister is saying about modifications and the vehicles that

are modified outside of what the act allows, but there are modifications that

are allowed within

an act. They're legal, but they clearly take a vehicle from

what may be just driving to and from work or for pleasure to where the primary

focus of the vehicle is a different use. You know, it's designed for speed.

There's nothing wrong with that if it's used in the legal way. But

what about those vehicles that are within the law and…? In essence, what you're

doing by putting them up for sale is basically inviting somebody else who wants

to use them for a street-racing purpose. How do you deal with that situation, or

do you?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think the member, in raising the

question, may be getting a little bit beyond the scope of the Civil Forfeiture

Act. I will confirm to him that the legal test for the director is that if he or

she decides to put up that vehicle for sale, it has to be in compliance with the

Motor Vehicle Act.

Having said that, the director has discretion, if they feel it's

in the public interest and appropriate, to make any other changes to the vehicle

that they think may be appropriate and that may in fact contribute to the

ultimate proceeds from the sale of that vehicle. So there is discretion that the

director could apply in other changes they may make to the vehicle, beyond what

is legally required in the Motor Vehicle Act, for it to be in full compliance.

M. Farnworth: The question may be beyond the scope of the

act, but I ask it for a specific reason. That is, we're widening the scope of

civil forfeiture. We support that, and we think that's a good thing,

particularly when it comes to dealing with issues such as street racing.

Also, I think it can apply to other types of vehicles that may be

captured by this legislation — for example, vehicles used in gang violence or by

criminal gangs. A lot of those vehicles tend to be high-end vehicles, so there

is a real incentive to look at being able to buy those vehicles when they come

up for sale.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we need to recognize

that this will be one of the consequences of expanding that, and it's something

we need to pay attention to. I don't want to see us in a situation where we are

either putting vehicles back on the street to be bought by people engaging in

illegal street racing or where high-end vehicles can be seized and then sold and

put out on the street for people engaged in criminal activity to pick up at a

lower price and be able to continue their illegal activity.

[1600]

One of the questions I have is: when property is disposed of, has

the minister looked at…? Do we, for example, do background checks on

individuals? A vehicle that has been used in street racing may be legal. It has

been modified legally. It could still engage in that activity. Do we do anything

to ensure that the prospective owner…? Do we check their background to ensure,

for example, that they have not been charged nor have a record of street racing

— or with vehicles that have been seized in relation to the illegal drug trade,

that we're not, given the nature of those vehicles, selling them to people who

have a criminal record engaged in, for example, illegal drug activity or gang

activity?

[1605]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think I understand the member's

concern in raising the question, where he's suggesting the possibility of a

vehicle that has been modified for a specific purpose may be legal under the

Motor Vehicle Act but may be modified in such a way that would predispose the

use of that vehicle to commit another crime. I think that's the scenario that he

is speaking to.

In answer to that, the director of civil forfeiture has full

discretion to make a determination, if a vehicle is legal under the act, whether

or not it is in the public interest to sell a vehicle with certain

modifications. It is certainly my view that he would make that consideration if

that possibility existed.

The disposal of assets that are seized under court order through

the Civil Forfeiture Act is done through the asset investment recovery branch of

the provincial

[ Page 11455 ]

government. This is an on-line auction to sell to the public surplus

government assets, and all of the normal rules would apply there.

I think the member was asking whether or not under the system we

have we could do background checks on people bidding through that system. I

think that all of the normal legal constraints we operate under through that

system would be applicable for assets seized under the Civil Forfeiture Act, in

selling through that asset investment recovery auction.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

M. Farnworth: I'd just like to ask the minister for the

specific reasons for changing this. Is it on the basis of court decisions that

have already come down, or is it some concern on the part of the ministry that

there is an area of the legislation that needs to be strengthened? If he wishes

to take his time in consultation on this particular question, I'm more than

happy. If he were to take two or three or four minutes, I think it would be most

appropriate.

The Chair: We'll declare a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is

that the basis for these changes comes from comments made by judges and legal

advice from our own legal counsel. I want to be clear that the basis for these

changes did not come from legal decisions of the courts.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm the response of the

minister. There have been no court decisions that have impacted on

section 8(5)

as it exists that has led the government to bring forward

section 6, which will

have the effect of repealing

section 8(5) as it exists? Is that clear — that no

judge has said: "This is what I think. This is a case I've heard. These are the

facts"?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can confirm for the member that there

have not been decisions by judges that have caused us to make these changes, but

there have been comments in the courts by the judges about this section. These

changes are simply intended to clarify

section 8(5) to ensure that the original

intent of a civil test is met for this legislation.

L. Krog: If I can remember, I think, what I learned in law

school, this is what we call obiter dictum as opposed to ratio

decidendi, or whatever it is. I'm sure the Attorney General remembers his

Latin better than I do. He was in court more often.

Is that what we're talking about? In other words, the comments

that are not central to the decision of the court in a particular case?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I didn't even go to law school, but I'm

advised that the answer to the question is yes.

L. Krog: I want to congratulate the minister, because I

understand tuition is up to about eight or nine grand a year, so he saved

himself considerable expense and trouble by coming to that conclusion without

the necessity of law school.

[1615]

With respect to this section, I'm very curious to know…. As the

minister well knows, the Hell's Angels clubhouse in Nanaimo was seized, so to

speak, and is the subject of an ongoing action. I'm not asking the minister to

comment on that case. I appreciate that this is before the courts, which I will

cheekily say is an answer we've heard many times from the government benches in

the last year or two.

What I'm getting at is: are the comments of the judges such that

they don't believe the

section will be effective or that they can enforce it? Is

it lacking in clarity, per se? Exactly what is the problem that has been

identified by judges speaking about this section?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The comments by judges that we

considered are not considered huge issues but relevant to the legislation. It's

our judgment that we wanted to make these relatively minor changes to clarify

the original intent of the legislation.

L. Krog: The phrase that commences both the existing

subsection 8(5) and the new section, which is

section 6 of this bill, talks

about: "Unless it is not in the interests of justice…." I'm just wondering. Has

the court interpreted what that phrase means within the context of this section?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Could I just ask the Chair to confirm.

Are we on

section 5 or

section 6?

L. Krog: What I'm referring to is…. We are on

section 6 of

Bill 17, which has the effect of repealing existing subsection 8(5). What I'm

talking about is that subsection 8(5) as it exists now commences with the

phrase: "Unless it is not in the interests of justice…." Likewise, the new

proposed subsection 8(5), which replaces the old one….

I'm just asking: has the court provided any

interpretation of what

is a circumstance that would be not in the interests of justice?

Hon. J. van Dongen: No, the court has not given any

indication of the nature that the member requested.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the minister can outline what

advice he's received from ministerial staff or the Attorney General's ministry

or lawyers. What is the situation or an example of a situation where it wouldn't

be in the interests of justice to make the preservation order?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that this

section in the

amendment is drafted in such a way to ensure that

[ Page 11456 ]

it respects the ultimate authority of the court to make the decision. That's

the way this is designed and intended to respect that authority.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

M. Farnworth: Under

section 7, the change, as I understand

it, is that it clarifies that indirectly engaging in unlawful activity includes

having knowledge of the unlawful activity and receiving a financial benefit from

the activity. I just want to outline a scenario for the minister and see if my

understanding of what he's intending to do, or what this legislation will do,

under what I'm about to outline to him….

[1620]

You are a criminal gang member; you're a drug dealer. You're

living at home, and you just tell your parents that you're a business person.

That's why you seem to be flush with cash. Your parents are asking questions

about your business or what have you. You decide…. "You know what? I'm going to

buy my parents a BMW or a Mercedes — buy them a nice, brand-new car." You do

that; you buy them the car.

This individual has not told the parents that they're engaged in

illegal activity, and the parents have not asked. I mean, one would think the

parents might ask where…. Or if they did ask, it's that "clearly your business

is being successful." No one has mentioned or talked about the fact that it is

an illegal activity that this individual has been engaged in.

In subsequent criminal proceedings, would this

section apply to

that? That vehicle that was given to those parents is, in fact, the result of

criminal activity and could therefore be seized under the act.

Hon. J. van Dongen: First of all, in the example that the

member raises, there would have to be evidence that the parents knew of the

unlawful activity.

This amendment is designed to deal with the kind of a situation

where a landlord is knowingly allowing illegal activity to take place in a house

that they have rented or leased to tenants, who may be growing illegal plants.

There are those situations. That's what this amendment is intended to deal with.

M. Farnworth: I think that's a great example, and I would

support the minister's explanation as a reason why this

section should be here

and changed.

So then, this brings me back to my question. What about that

circumstance, that example that I just shared with you? In other words, that

proceed of criminal activity, which was a gift, would then be outside the bounds

of the legislation — would not be able to be seized. Is that correct?

[1625]

R. Sultan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: It gives me great honour to introduce three

great British Columbians who are in the galleries today. We have Margaret

Birrell, who's the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with

Disabilities, and she's accompanied by Jane Dyson, who is president of the

Coalition of People with Disabilities. Accompanying Margaret and Jane is Gordon

Adair, FCA, one of British Columbia's most distinguished accountants and the

chief financial officer of the first SkyTrain, which he says really did come in

on budget and on schedule. Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can advise the member that in the

circumstance he described, where an owner of a vehicle that was used in a crime

that would be under the scope of the Civil Forfeiture Act transferred it to his

parents, the director of the civil forfeiture office could still make

application to a court for the possible seizure of those assets under another

section of this act. So that decision would depend on his assessment of all of

the facts of the case. But he has the avenue to make application to the court

even in that circumstance.

M. Farnworth: That wasn't quite the question I asked. I

guess the example I'm using is that this vehicle, for example, was a gift, not a

transfer. It was a gift to the parents. The point I was getting at was: is one

of the intended consequences of this particular

section that it puts an onus on

individuals, in this case parents, for example, to ask questions about the

origin of property such as an expensive vehicle, for example? Does it put an

onus on parents to ask more questions of the type of activities their kids may

be engaged in? So one of the results is the potential to lose property that you

may have obtained from a family member who's engaged in criminal activity.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the scenario that the member

mentions, he distinguishes a gift from a transfer. In fact, whether or not the

vehicle in his example is a gift or a transfer, the director of the civil

forfeiture office, both under the previous legislation and under the legislation

as amended, could still proceed to a court to seek a seizure order for that

vehicle under the proceeds-of-crime section.

I'm advised that that does not necessarily depend on whether or

not the parents knew or didn't know. That particular property is considered

proceeds of crime under another

section of this act, and the director could act

on that to make an application to the court.

M. Farnworth: One question before we take a five-minute

break at 4:30, and that is: has that ever happened? Has that circumstance

occurred, and has that ever happened under the act?

[ Page 11457 ]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am advised that that has not happened

with cars but that it has happened with other property, where assets or property

has been transferred and the director was successful in getting a decision from

a court to seize those assets.

The Chair: We'll call a five-minute break.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: I just want to explore this particular

section a bit further, because I think one of the issues…. I want to make sure

that the minister fully understands the point I'm trying to get at, and I want

to make sure that I get this on the record.

I've accepted and understand the minister's explanation about the

grow op and the use of premises for illegal activity, but in terms of expanding

this definition…. What I read is that it clarifies that indirectly engaging in

unlawful activity includes having knowledge of the unlawful activity and

receiving a financial benefit from the activity. Does it also include the

conflict of wilful blindness to an illegal activity? Is that captured by the

change in this section?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member asks whether wilful

blindness would be intended in this section. The finding of wilful blindness

would be up to the judge. But the director, in making their decision to move the

application forward to a court, would simply ask themselves if, in presenting

the evidence, they believe they can prove knowledge to the judge.

Wilful blindness is one potential finding that the judge could

make, which may or may not reflect on the ultimate decision by that judge of

whether or not the seizure would be granted. So that is a specific that the

judge could find.

[1645]

Obviously, the director would make best efforts to make the

determination that he or she had a prospect of getting a supportive decision

from the judge, but ultimately it would be the judge's decision.

M. Farnworth: What I hear from the minister is that this

section is not specifically intended for that particular situation.

I'll just outline again how I see the scenario and why I'm focused

on this, because we're expanding the definition of unlawful activity so that it

includes having knowledge. I guess the focus is on that question of having

knowledge.

If you're the parents of a kid who's working at a minimum-wage job

or of a young adult who's at home and working at a minimum-wage job in a

restaurant, for example, and he gives you either an expensive car or a very

expensive watch or some other expensive item that common sense would tell you he

clearly did not buy this on the wages at this minimum-wage job. Does this

section capture that type of activity — which is, in essence, wilful blindness?

Does this

section capture that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to confirm for the member, in

answering, that this

section is not intended to deal with a gift or any other

type of transfer, as we discussed in the earlier questions. The example that he

raises can be dealt with and is dealt with under another

section of the act.

This amendment is intended to deal with a situation where an

individual both had knowledge and derived financial benefit from the use of

property in the committing of a crime. It is quite specifically intended to deal

with the kind of situation which has come up a number of times, in the original

implementation of this act since 2005, where landlords clearly had knowledge and

clearly derived benefit in the way of increased rents from illegal grow-op

situations. That is the intent of this section.

The gift section. While it's actionable by the director, it's

actionable under another section.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's explanation. I

ask the question because whenever we're expanding the powers of a section, I

want to make sure exactly what it is able to catch. And is it able to do more?

Are we sure that we're looking at all of the potential consequences of it? So I

thank the minister for that clarification.

[1650]

I would ask the minister: what

section would deal with the

situation I described? I believe that type of activity occurs far more than most

people would expect.

While he's getting me the information on that section, I just

wonder if he could also answer this question. How would that

section come into

play? For example, could a member of the public contact the director, who would

be able to launch proceedings that might result in that

section coming into

enforcement? I'll wait for the minister's answer.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm going to take the second question

first. The civil forfeiture office does not deal with members of the public. It

takes its advice from the police and other regulatory bodies, regulatory

agencies. If the public has information about a criminal activity, then we would

advise them to take those to the police.

In terms of the member's first question, which is again dealing

with which

section of the act empowers the director to apply to a court to seize

gifts that are the proceeds of unlawful activity…. The applicable sections

really are

section 1, which is

definitions, where it defines "proceeds of

unlawful activity" — in his example, we would presume that the car or the watch

would be proceeds of unlawful activity — combined with

section 3, which is the

general

section that empowers the director to make an application for forfeiture

to a court. So those would be the two sections that come into play in his

question.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

[ Page 11458 ]

section 10.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister clarify…? Where it says

"bestows immunity on the director…." By that, does he mean the director of a

civil forfeiture, or is that a reference to directors of organizations, for

example?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is

in the

definitions directly in the act. "Director" means a person who is

designated as director under

section 21(1). By advice from the legislative

counsel — that includes staff of the director.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

[1655]

section 13.

M. Karagianis: I would ask, first of all, why this

recommendation has come forward — it is in this bill — to list these particular

exclusions from the bill. Can the minister please explain why we are laying them

out? What is the difference between this and the previous existing language in

the bill?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The basis for the changes proposed here

in the Commercial Transport Act is to align the legislation with longstanding

licensing practices and ensure that owners of recreational trailers are

safeguarded against higher fees and regulatory requirements that are designed

for commercial trailers.

The amendment will also align the definition of "house trailer"

with that provided for in the Motor Vehicle Act regulations. It is intended to

align the law with what has become a longstanding licensing practice, in the

interests of citizens who own recreational trailers.

M. Karagianis: In subsection (

b) where it says "a trailer

that is (

i) designed, constructed and equipped for human habitation…." I think

that is what the minister has referred to. Point (ii) under this: "designed,

constructed and equipped for human occupancy for industrial, professional or

commercial purposes…."

Could the minister explain why those particular commercial

applications or commercial uses are being excluded from what is ostensibly the

Commercial Transport Act?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The basis for the inclusion is the

common element of trailers that were designed and constructed for human

occupancy. So the actual use of the trailer is for someone to live in, and the

actual use of the trailer itself is not for a commercial purpose.

M. Karagianis: In the case of a construction site where

they might be using a recreational vehicle to house workers or to enact business

throughout the day on a construction site, would they be then considered

excluded from being considered as a commercial vehicle?

[1700]

Hon. J. van Dongen: The decisions around what was included

here, in addition to what I've mentioned about human occupancy on a construction

site, were already based on a definition in the regulations under the Motor

Vehicle Act. This same definition applies there.

It's intended, as I understand it, to distinguish between a

trailer that is being used for human occupancy, which may be moved from site to

site on an occasional basis, as opposed to a trailer that is constantly on the

road for commercial purposes.

M. Karagianis: I think earlier the minister mentioned that

this is really putting in clear language what already exists in the way of

action or the way these vehicles are treated right now.

Is this going to cause any specific change in insurance premiums

or insurance and licensing on any of these vehicles? This is the first time this

has really been enacted and specified in the act. What are going to be the

consequences of that for licensing and insurance?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is

that we wouldn't expect any change in the practices around licensing and

insurance, because this amendment is really intended to reflect what has been

common practice based on existing regulations under the Motor Vehicle Act.

M. Karagianis: Just one final question. In the case of a

business or an individual who is using a recreational vehicle as their

commercial transportation, both to live in and perhaps to travel around the

country or to do business — do trade shows or things like that — does this

actually alter their designation from a commercial business use for their

vehicle to a recreational use for their vehicle?

[1705]

Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding is that if a

recreational trailer is being used for commercial purposes, then it would still

be licensed under the Motor Vehicle Act as a recreational trailer, but the

insurance would have to reflect the commercial use of that trailer. It's

licensed as a recreational trailer, but if there's any commercial use of it,

that would have to be reflected in the insurance that owner would get for that

trailer.

M. Karagianis: The subsection here that says this act does

not include "a trailer that is designed, constructed and equipped for human

occupancy for industrial, professional or commercial purposes…." In fact, that

particular exclusion under this does not apply through to its licensing and

insurance. Is that what I'm hearing the minister say?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The inclusion of the trailer under (b)(ii),

"designed, constructed and equipped for human occupancy for industrial,

professional or commercial purposes" — which is the member's question

[ Page 11459 ]

— doesn't affect the licensing. The licensing is under the Motor Vehicle Act

as a recreational trailer.

The insurance for a trailer like that, which is being used

commercially and is going to be insured by the owner through ICBC, will probably

fall in a different class because of its use. So the licensing is consistent

under the Motor Vehicle Act with similar trailers that are being strictly used

personally. But if a trailer is used commercially, then that affects the

insurance side of it, and that owner would have to reflect that in the insurance

they get from ICBC.

M. Karagianis: Then perhaps I don't understand why,

specifically the language here…. It does say, under this section, "does not

include" these following categories. It very specifically spells out here

trailers that are designed "for industrial, professional or commercial

purposes."

I'm not entirely sure if I understand why this is being spelled

out here if, in fact, it doesn't have any kind of reflection on insurance on any

of these vehicles. If they are used for commercial purposes, either they're

included under the Commercial Transport Act or they are not, it would seem to

me. I'm a bit confused by the answers that the minister has given.

Hon. J. van Dongen: If we focus on the licensing issue, the

way this

section is drafted — and as amended — confirms that these types of

trailers are not captured under the definition of trailer under the Commercial

Transportation Act. They are in fact captured under the definition of trailer

from a licensing perspective under the Motor Vehicle Act.

[1710]

So this simply confirms that these types of trailers do not come

under this act, but they're already captured under the Motor Vehicle Act from a

licensing perspective.

M. Karagianis: Just to clarify for the purposes of

insurance. A vehicle that could be used for commercial purposes, which is a

recreational vehicle that an individual lives in and perhaps travels around in

and does business from, is excluded from being considered a commercial vehicle

under this act and the amendments here today, but is considered a commercial

vehicle for the purposes of insuring. It's really up to the owner then to

determine….

Is there a way for someone to determine that their vehicle is not

a commercial vehicle and that, therefore, they should not pay commercial vehicle

insurance because, in fact, they're excluded very specifically under the

amendments to this act? They could then determine that they don't have to pay

commercial insurance, which I would expect is slightly different than just

standard personal use of a recreational vehicle.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In my earlier answers I was attempting

to be broad in scope, but I want to confine my comment to this specific

legislation. This legislation does not deal with insurance. The issues of

insurance raised by the member come under a separate act, which I'm told is the

Insurance (Vehicle) Act. So the insurance questions would come under that

legislation.

M. Karagianis: Therefore, could my previous question be

determined as an unintended consequence of the changes here — that an individual

could certainly make a valid argument that they are not a commercial vehicle if

they fall within the definition laid out here?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that there is no connection

between insurance and licensing. Hence, we believe there would not be any

unintended consequence from this change.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

M. Farnworth: I would ask the Chair that we stand down

section 16 for a few moments, which deals with liquor control and licensing, as

well as

section 17, and that we would continue to deal with sections 18 through

23 inclusive, which also relate to Motor Vehicle Act issues. That would allow

for a very speedy resolution of the bill, because we have the critic here who

can deal with that section.

The Chair: Sections 16 and 17 are stood down.

Sections 16 and 17 stood down.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

M. Karagianis: In this

section it stipulates that

registration number plates are not required to be displayed on towing dollies

from jurisdictions that do not issue registration number plates for that type of

trailer. Could the minister inform the House how many jurisdictions this

includes?

[1715]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that about half the

provinces in Canada do not require licences on tow dollies. Alberta is one of

those. It's about half and half, and Alberta does not require them.

M. Karagianis: So in this case this very specifically

addresses out-of-province vehicles. Towing dollies — is that what I'm to call

them?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is correct that if the tow

dolly originates from a province that does not require a registered number

plate, then it would not be required in British Columbia under the law. If the

tow dolly comes from a province where it is required, then it would also be

required, under this law, to have it on in British Columbia. So the legislation

or the act supports whatever the law is in the originating province, or the

province of origin, of the tow dolly.

[ Page 11460 ]

M. Karagianis: The oversight of this is provided by

regulation? How is this provided, and how is notification sent out on this for

oversight for those who are doing the towing?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The oversight for this is provided

under the regulations of the Motor Vehicle Act in the normal course of events,

which would involve police checking the compliance issues.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

M. Karagianis: This lays out that henceforth anyone who has

changed their name needs to make that known to the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia in person. Can the minister explain what has triggered this

specific change in the process for ICBC notification?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This change will ensure that the

legislation is consistent with established business practices which require

information to be provided to ICBC in person. These practices have been

implemented in order to help prevent fraud and to improve accuracy and

reliability of drivers' licences.

The government is engaged in initiatives to really deal with fraud

issues and identity theft and these sorts of things. This is part of an overall

effort to improve the reliability of drivers' licences that are issued.

M. Karagianis: Have there been some issues where there has

been a loss of identity through this process, which have actually triggered

this? Have there been any incidents of notification by letter or otherwise that

have resulted in any kind of loss of privacy information or stolen privacy or

stolen identification?

[1720]

Hon. J. van Dongen: This change is being made not as a

result of any specific incidents that we know of but to reflect in the law what

has already been an established practice for a significant number of years. It's

consistent with initiatives that our province is working on with other provinces

to improve the general standard of practice with respect to the issuance of

drivers' licences.

M. Karagianis: One final question. The in-person submission

of this information can be done at any ICBC outlet, any insurance or Autoplan

outlet anywhere in the province, so it's not causing undue stress on someone who

lives out in the country or in a rural area or perhaps in a more remote

location. It's fairly easy for them to access Insurance Corporation of B.C.

agents.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The points of access would continue to

be any place where a citizen could get their driver's licence renewed. That

would include all existing driver's licence service centres. In more remote

areas in rural British Columbia, government agent offices also currently can

renew drivers' licences. That would be the point where they would have to go to

present themselves and their information in person.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Now we return to

section 16.

section 16.

M. Farnworth: I understand the zeal for some people to pass

the section, but we do have a few questions that we need to ask.

Can the minister explain the gene