2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 7

[ Page 7243 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes

JIM WAARDENBURG

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

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

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

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

Introductions by Members

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

[1340]

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a big believer in peaceful and civil debate and good behaviour
[ Page 7244 ]
in this House. In the gallery today we have our constituency assistants from all across the province visiting us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes

SHACHI KURL

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

Hon. M. de Jong: Where?

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

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

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

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

[1345]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: Visiting the Parliament Buildings today are over 100 Alpha students from Burnaby North, my riding. Alpha School just celebrated its 60th anniversary. Would the House please join me to give the students, the parents and the teachers a warm welcome.
[ Page 7245 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

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

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

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

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS AND
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS

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

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

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

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

[1350]

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

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

VANCOUVER PUBLIC LIBRARY
AND LITERACY AWARENESS

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

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

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

Literacy materials, programs and resources are essential to keep our community healthy and vital. The reality
[ Page 7246 ]
is that publicly funded institutions such as the library continue to be faced with making tough choices among competing priorities. With libraries now providing more than books, these tough decisions are not getting any easier.

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

'KSAN PERFORMING ARTS GROUP
PARTICIPATION IN
CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROJECT

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

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

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

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

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

CHILD AND YOUTH IN CARE WEEK

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

[1355]

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

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

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

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

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

COMMUNITY THEATRE GROUPS
IN COQUITLAM

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

Theatrix Youtheatre Society celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. Its mandate is to ensure accessibility to the performing arts for all children, regardless of age, culture, ability and family income. Theatrix productions
[ Page 7247 ]
are written and performed by the children themselves, and they are delightful. I know because I have enjoyed many of them myself.

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

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

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

SURREY CANADIAN BASEBALL ASSOCIATION

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

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

[1400]

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

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

Oral Questions

PRICING MODEL FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why, hon. Speaker? What possible justification is there for not going to the Ontario model, when they can save taxpayers money, when they can save drug
[ Page 7248 ]
plans money and when they can save families money in British Columbia?

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

[1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Minister.

Continue, Minister.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member for Port Coquitlam.

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

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

[1410]

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

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

But fair enough. The NDP have staked out a new position. It is revealing, and it is instructive. It is the message that says that when they have decided upon a course of action, if they were ever in the position to act on that, they would simply unilaterally legislate. They would not sit down. They would not negotiate. They would not discuss. That is not the approach this government has taken, nor is it the approach we intend to take in the future.
[ Page 7249 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

FERRY FARES

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

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

[1415]

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

C. Trevena: The minister said that he wants an affordable ferry service. The Alert Bay run — up 102 percent, serving
[ Page 7250 ]
quite a vulnerable, poor community. The Campbell River to Quadra run — ten-minute crossing, up 124 percent.

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

Minister, will you rein in the fares?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

[1420]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAMPING FEES

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I think we were all pleased that the Deputy Premier, now Premier, reversed the error of her ways. That was the disaster that was parking meters slapped on B.C. parks. I want to encourage the government to keep going, because this government has increased fees in places where British Columbia families actually want to camp by 75 percent.
[ Page 7251 ]

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

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

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

[1425]

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON FAMILIES

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATE CHANGES FOR
SENIORS IN RESIDENTIAL CARE

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

[1430]

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

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question, because it does speak to a change that has taken place.
[ Page 7252 ]

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

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

[End of question period.]

Introductions by Members

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

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

Reports from Committees

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

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

J. van Dongen: By leave, I move:

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

[1435]

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

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

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

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

Reports from Committees

B. Ralston: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the current parliament.
[ Page 7253 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, Member.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

B. Ralston: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I wish to make a few brief comments. This report, entitled Annual Summary of Activities, summarizes the committee's activities during the second session of the 39th parliament.

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

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

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

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

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Second Reading of Bills

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

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

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

[1440]

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

[L. Reid in the chair.]

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

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

It is important for British Columbia to participate in this modern aviation financing framework, because it will support the competitiveness and the economic growth of the British Columbia aviation and aerospace industry. For example, B.C. aviation companies can benefit
[ Page 7254 ]
from lower interest rates offered by lenders to countries that are members of the convention and protocol.

I move second reading of Bill 8.

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

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

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

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

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

[1445]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move a motion for ending second reading debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

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

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

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

[L. Reid in the chair.]

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

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

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

The amendments to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act ensure that the act meshes with the Nisga'a and treaty First Nations laws regarding land. For example, it
[ Page 7255 ]
will address situations where a member of a treaty First Nation who owns treaty land dies without a will.

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

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

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

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

I do want to put the Attorney General on notice, however, and I'd ask him to take a look at section 18. I myself am having some difficulty understanding section 18, which reads — and I read it quite literally: "Section 32 is amended (a) by striking out 'the purchase of the spousal home' and substituting 'the purchase of the spousal home,'." Now, I've been reading it and reading it and reading it, but I cannot see a difference between those phrases.

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

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

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Member. Certainly, the apology is accepted, although I'm not sure it's entirely necessary. The member can breathe a little easier. He won't have to live in suspense over the holiday long weekend wondering what the answer is to his question about what exactly is the difference that we're correcting in section 18.

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

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

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

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

This bill originated from the reported mass killing of sled dogs that generated global attention and condemnation for B.C.'s sled dog industry. The report of the
[ Page 7256 ]
provincial Sled Dog Task Force brought forward recommendations to update the animal protection laws in British Columbia and ensure that offences under the act were subject to severe penalties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure how the government side of the House expects us to carry out this legislation by having these
[ Page 7257 ]
stiff penalties. I don't know how that will happen when we can't get cases regarding humans through the court system right now. I am in support of having these stiff penalties, but I'm not sure how we're actually going to carry that out.

[1505]

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

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

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

One of the examples is in section 7. I'll just read it out here. "A person must not be convicted of an offence under this Act in relation to an animal in distress if (a) the person is (i) a registered veterinarian...." It used to say: "...or acting under the supervision of a registered veterinarian...." That was crossed out, and added instead was: "an employee of a registered veterinarian who is acting under the supervision of the registered veterinarian...." In that case you cannot be convicted.

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

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

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

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

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

I've got a list of speakers that are going to be speaking. As we go through the points next week, point by point in this bill, there will be questions. I think that some of the legislation is quite vague. It really needs to be addressed, and questions need to be asked. At this point I'm going to ask my colleague to stand up and speak to this.
[ Page 7258 ]

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

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The member referred to our domestic animals that we raise for food production. Canada is certainly a leader in terms of animal welfare for food-producing animals. There are national farm codes of practice across Canada
[ Page 7259 ]
that have been developed with assistance from our federal government and organizations across Canada.

[1520]

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

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

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

Some of the amendments that the member referred to in terms of veterinarians I can speak to, and I know that she will probably want to canvass these further in the next stage of this bill. But the language in section 7 is lifted from the Veterinarians Act and is more specific to ensure that those veterinarians and employees of veterinarians, including registered veterinary technicians or students of veterinary medicine, are not encumbered, if you like, because the act refers to causing an animal distress.

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

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

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

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

Indeed, the now Minister of Health, then a member of the opposition, said in 1994 in that debate, expressing some concerns: "Not least of these is the dangerous precedent in endowing any private organization, no matter
[ Page 7260 ]
how benevolent, with police powers bolstered by statutory immunity from damage claims."

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

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

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

When one's automobile is seized under the Motor Vehicle Act, in many circumstances there is resort to an independent review, an adjudicator whom one is entitled to make some arguments to. It's a fairly summary process — it's in the Motor Vehicle Act — in a number of instances where automobiles are seized. Yet when one's pet is seized, there's no similar mechanism to afford that measure of, I suppose, independent review of the decision.

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

[1530]

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

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

I also will address at committee stage some of the amendments, in particular the proposed amendment to section 9. There are some drafting concerns that I think make it a particularly problematic proposed amendment, but I'll argue that or suggest that at committee stage.

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

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

With those comments, I'll conclude my remarks.

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

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

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

As my learned colleague from Surrey North indicated….

B. Ralston: Surrey-Whalley.

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

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

I look at my own situation, Madam Speaker. We have three animals in our house, two dogs and a cat. They've arrived in my house over a number of years. The first one is a dog called Rex, who is almost 14 years old. He came from a pet shop.
[ Page 7261 ]

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

[1535]

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also have a cat.

Interjection.

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

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

[1540]

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

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

The dog tried to get away. It was howling, and the guy grabbed it and threw it inside the car. My neighbour is
[ Page 7262 ]
screaming. I went running down to get the licence plate, but he took off. But to me it was…. You know what? That guy should be subject to the penalties of this piece of legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, they do.

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

Parents do it at home, teaching their kids respect not just for other human beings and people but also respect for animals and for pets. Education is a key part of, I think, one of the things that government has to do with the passage of this legislation: make the public aware that there are important changes that have taken place in our animal protection laws in this province and that
[ Page 7263 ]
there are important consequences, severe consequences, both financial and punitive, for people who do engage in cruelty towards animals.

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

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I couldn't resist.

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1555]

More seriously, though, what we're talking about here today are amendments to the law in British Columbia so that if people are found guilty of treating animals inappropriately, in a way that violates the law, there will
[ Page 7264 ]
be the biggest penalties in Canada right here in British Columbia if people do that — a maximum fine of up to $75,000 and possibly up to two years in jail. In addition to the fine, you could also go to jail if you're treating animals inappropriately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dear Minister:

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

[1600]

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

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

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

"The Sled Dog Task Force has submitted ten recommendations in its report that focus on enhancing the health, welfare and protection of sled dogs in British Columbia, strengthening animal protection practices and advancing communication and awareness of animal abuse between agencies and the public. The task force recommends that the government of Canada give consideration to strengthening the Criminal Code provisions to animal cruelty.

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

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

"While this will be useful, Canada has a patchwork of provincial legislative approaches to regulating animal welfare standards and humane animal euthanasia. Clarifying the Criminal Code to
[ Page 7265 ]
address animal welfare and euthanasia of animals will assist in ensuring that a uniform approach is taken across this country.

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

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

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

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

"Sincerely,"

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

[D. Black in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1605]

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

What's significant is that denatonium benzoate is the most bitter chemical compound discovered to date. For years this substance and other similar bittering agents have been used effectively in human and animal taste behaviour modification products such as nail-biting remedies and anti-chewing or -licking products for pets. Bittering agents have also been used to prevent accidental poisonings from some toiletry items, household cleaners and pesticides.

We know that in the past, animals would sometimes find antifreeze that had been spilled. If you've ever seen it, it's green in colour. I certainly hope you've never tasted it, but I'm told that to the human taste bud or to animals, it tastes very sweet.

Sadly, as I was considering this issue, I came across a newspaper article about a number of young teenaged boys in eastern Canada that were on a weekend outing. They were hiking in the woods, and they came across an old cabin. The cabin door was open. They opened the cabin door and found on the shelf in the cabin a bottle of Mountain Dew. That's a soft drink. The bottle was open, but it looked like it was full. In it was a substance, a liquid, that looked like Mountain Dew or something like 7UP. I think it was two or three boys who took the bottle down, took a sip, and they passed it around. One of those children died, and others were, tragically, very seriously ill.

So antifreeze, if it's not treated with this bittering agent, can be fatal not just to pets and animals — that's bad enough — but it can kill human beings. I just wanted to pause and reflect on that because it didn't get a lot of attention earlier this year — that this new regulation is in place.

Today if you go to a major department store, a hardware store, a Canadian Tire or Sears and you buy antifreeze, they may not be bragging about it much. On the outside of the labels apparently they've decided not to tell the customer that it's got this bittering agent because they're afraid people will be concerned that it won't work as well for their vehicle. By the way, that's not true. I checked, and auto manufacturers will honour the warrantees of any vehicles using this antifreeze with the bittering agent in it.
[ Page 7266 ]

But for marketing reasons, I'm told, they haven't changed the label on the bottles sold in B.C. So as a consumer, you can be forgiven for not knowing the difference, except this: it is now safer.

You should still be careful with antifreeze. We've introduced a recycling program now for antifreeze in British Columbia. That happened, I think, in the last year, as well, when I was Environment Minister. You still have to handle it appropriately, because it is toxic if spilled into the environment, but at least now it doesn't taste good. It actually tastes horrible even to dogs. So that's a step in the right direction.

Speaking a bit more about some of the recent changes in the law here in British Columbia…. Traditionally, provinces in Canada could regulate wildlife, and we defined wildlife as the kind of animals that you would naturally find occurring living in this area. So in British Columbia we have, I think, more species than virtually anywhere else in North America, when you include birds and other forms of wildlife like grizzly bears, black bears, deer, moose, mountain goats, big horn sheep, moose, cougars, wolves, coyotes. All of those animals are native to British Columbia. They live here naturally, so they're defined as wildlife.

What we didn't have was authority to regulate animals that people brought from outside of the province but that were kind of like wildlife — like snakes from the Middle East or from India, or leopards or even birds that are similar to the ostrich from places like Australia. Some people, believe it or not, were bringing these animals to British Columbia, and we didn't have legal authority to regulate who could own these animals or what they could do with them or what the standards of care were.

We changed that in 2008 with amendments to the Wildlife Act and when I introduced the then Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Amendment Act. So now today, for the first time in British Columbia, there is a regime in place where….

I see our friends from California are leaving us so soon. I hope you have a great time in our provincial capital. Just remember: the weather's always like this here. Please come back and visit us again. We really like having you here.

[1610]

Just to discuss a little bit more about the amendments…. When we're speaking about animals, I know that a number of people have taken up the practice of keeping some of these exotic species as pets in their homes. If they're properly cared for and they're not a risk to others, then maybe that's okay. But we felt it was necessary to put in place a regime where we could regulate certain hazardous animals.

For example, there's an individual who was bitten by his own snake that was imported from outside of the country. I believe he was living in the Surrey area. He went to Surrey Memorial Hospital and expected to be treated with an antidote for the venom that he received from a snake from outside of British Columbia. Well, surprise. Our hospitals, our medical system can't possibly stock venom, which only has a limited shelf life, for every conceivable venomous species from around the world that somebody might think is cool and import into British Columbia.

Sadly, that individual, I think, lost a portion of his hand. It had to be amputated. He then complained to the media that the government wasn't supplying antivenom for a snake that I think, in this case, came from southern India or somewhere in the Middle East.

Well, I have a very different view. I think it is appropriate that our hospitals in certain regions of the province, such as the Okanagan, stock antivenom for the western rattlesnake, which is a resident species in British Columbia. It belongs here. It's probably been here since before we were, so it has every right to be here. We do, through our medical system, supply antivenom to hospitals.

I know of someone whose daughter was bitten by a rattlesnake near Penticton a couple years ago and, upon presenting to Penticton Hospital, was properly treated, and she's fine. Her daughter was about 11 years old at the time. I've had a chance to meet her, and she's fine, but she's got a great story to tell and a scar to go with it.

Because some people were importing these kinds of animals, and they posed a risk — if not to others, then even to themselves — we have taken it upon ourselves to give the government the legislative authority to regulate certain exotic species that potentially can be harmful to humans.

That's just another measure along the path of bringing extra protection to animals and people in British Columbia. Bill 9 is a further step in that regard for the more conventional type of pets that people have and service animals as well.

I know much of the debate has been around protecting sled dogs, and that's appropriate given what took place in Whistler just over a year ago. But from time to time we also hear concern about service dogs — for example, those dogs that work for the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies. Occasionally they do get harmed in the line of work. This bill has some provisions that can apply greater protection for service dogs as well, which I think most members of the public will see as commendable.

That's a bit of an overview of the various things that we've been working on. I do, again, want to just acknowledge and thank the staff within the legislative counsel branch of the Ministry of Attorney General for doing the drafting work to get this bill ready for the House on short order, as well as the policy work that went on in the Ministry of Agriculture and the people that served on the Sled Dog Task Force.
[ Page 7267 ]

All of this happened with remarkable efficiency and speed, and I think it's a good result ultimately coming from a very sad and disturbing incident. Hopefully, that sad and disturbing incident will actually be put to good use in terms of changing public policy and resulting in a law that I hope other provinces will emulate.

D. Thorne: Of course, I agree with the last speaker from the other side of the House. I, too, hope that this new bill, Bill 9, will improve the lives of all kinds of animals and all animals in British Columbia. Considering that we're talking about investigations of cruelty, I don't think we're only talking about service animals or pets. I think we're also talking in some cases about wild animals, which haven't been mentioned.

I just thought I would mention that because I happen to live on a ravine, and my backyard is full of bears and cougars and all kinds of wild animals — far too much of the time for comfort.

[1615]

I'm not going to talk, like some of my colleagues on both sides of the House, about my own pets. I could probably talk until Sunday about my pets, but I'm not going to do that. I, too, have some really interesting pet stories.

Interjection.

D. Thorne: No, I'm not going to do that. I know there's a list of speakers wanting to speak to this on both sides of the House.

I just want to say that I am looking forward to third reading because that's when we will discuss amendments. I'm sure that we will have amendments, as well, and lots to say about amendments and to discuss clause by clause.

But I did just want to bring up a few things. Some have been mentioned by my colleagues. They probably don't fall within the narrow mandate of this bill, although I think they could perhaps be seen as part of it.

One of the first things I would like to say is that even though any bill is a step in the right direction if you're talking about creatures that can't speak for themselves, I think often a bill or a law, as we all know, is only as good as the resources that we have to make it work — in other words, enforcement of a bill, enforcement of a law, if you will.

We have had good laws in British Columbia around a lot of these issues in the past, maybe not as much specifically around service animals and service dogs as we will have after Bill 9, but we have had good laws. As in every jurisdiction, even municipal and federal, if we can't enforce the law, then bringing in new laws…. How will we be able to enforce those? I'm sure the minister would share my concerns around that, because it always comes down to the enforcement. The law is great, but if it just sits on the books, even if it's at city hall, it doesn't do much good — right?

I'm looking, for instance, at the amount of money that was spent last year — or the year before last, I think it was. It's listed in the BCSPCA annual report. They spent $250,000 on inspections and investigations. That happens to be exactly the amount that they received in gaming grants from the province, which, as I'm sure the minister is aware as well, have declined over the years every single year.

They are no longer even getting any money to train special constables, which we're very short of in many parts of the province and perhaps even in the populated parts in the Lower Mainland. I'm not so sure about that. So I think resources are a huge issue, and we have to remember that when we're bringing in new laws.

Now, I know that some of that might be balanced off by the tougher penalties, higher penalties. That will obviously bring in more money that, hopefully, will be put back into inspections and investigations of cruelty specifically.

I think, though, along with the higher penalties, because the government is utilizing a private organization to operate the investigations of cruelty and the provincial cruelty act, we have to look very carefully at the consumer.

I think my colleague mentioned this, and I think the minister across the street also said the same thing — that we have opportunities for people who have a seized automobile or who get stopped by the police for possibly drinking and driving. They have the right to have a review done. They can do that. But when it comes to my pet, for example, being seized by the people that are operating the provincial cruelty act for the province, I have no recourse.

[1620]

I think that as we raise penalties — and we're talking about including jail time and things like that — I must have the right to demand that I can speak to the charges against me. I believe that this has to be included.

I would hope that there'll be an amendment to the recommendations that will include some kind of…. You know, it's been discussed. As I think the first speaker said…. There is a letter that I have here from the deputy minister, who has said that with the higher penalties we will be for sure looking at having an independent review board for the very reason that I'm talking about.

This would go a long way, I think, to alleviating the concerns of many, many people across the province that they have no right to speak for themselves when they get charged or get their pet taken away from them — or their service animal or whatever — that there is some board in place, independent.

Of course, you would have appropriate people on that board who understand the situation. I probably wouldn't go on the board, wouldn't be appointed to the board, but
[ Page 7268 ]
the minister that's a veterinarian would be a perfect person on the board, and people like that.

I think that it's very, very good news that we have now in writing from the deputy minister that this is something that will likely happen. Many other provinces have this type of review board, especially if they have a similar kind of enforcement agency — like we have in British Columbia, where it's a private organization which essentially polices itself.

I mean, this is something that's very big in the news and very big on our minds here in the Legislature this week: agencies and police forces that police themselves. The BCSPCA is endowed with policing abilities. So in a sense, when we're talking about police or RCMP not being able to police themselves, having an independent board to look at issues that arise, many different kinds, we would have the same thing. We would have an independent review board that would be able to do the external policing of the particular case or issue at hand.

I think that if that was in place, if the resources were there to enforce the new bill — resources that weren't there with the old legislation — if we had some kind of an independent review board that would balance out the higher penalties, it would make animals safer, and it would give the owners of the animals, whether they're pets or service animals or whatever, the opportunity to defend themselves.

I'm sure that in all cases the person needs to defend themselves, because sometimes these — what would you call it? — seizures, I guess, of animals can happen because it's a bit of a vendetta by a neighbour who doesn't like something that's going on. You're not always guilty, as in every area of life. But in this instance, the person whose animal is seized has next to no opportunity because the agency that does the seizure polices itself.

You have to go through several channels. You have to then go to Supreme Court, and if you have the funds to do that, it's too late, usually. By the time the court makes a decision, the animal has already been put down. This is heartbreaking for many, many people. So we have to have that.

The other thing I would just like to mention, and I'm sure it has been mentioned, is that one of the reasons, besides resources, that these bills are so tough to enforce is getting into the court system. We all know what that means. I mean, that's a nightmare. It's a morass — right? — the court system, because most of these things will fall off the table before they go through. What difference would it make anyway? Your pet has already been put down. So you prove your point, but you've lost the thing that you love, part of your family.

[1625]

Those were the main things that I wanted to say. Oh, one more small thing. I do think there's a bit, at the moment, of a lack of transparency around the act. It pertains not just to the general public, and I'm speaking now, I guess, as a voter as much as I am a member of the Legislature. But the BCSPCA is not…. The FOI does not apply to them, so there is no transparency. They not only police themselves, but…. And they may do a good job of that. I wouldn't know. None of us would know, because we're not involved in it.

Even government is not able to get information on what happens during those investigations. There's no transparency at all around it. That may not have anything to do with Bill 9, but I think it's something that we need to look at very, very soon.

Now, many provinces that do give more resources to an agency, a private organization like the BCSPCA, balance that with not just the independent review board–style board, but they also balance it with more transparency so that if an agency, an organization, is policing itself, at least the government can find out what's going on in certain circumstances.

I think we need more transparency, and we need the ability to have our case reviewed before our animal is put down. In other words, we're assumed guilty because we don't have the time, the resources or the ability to show that perhaps in this instance we are not guilty. So it's a bit of a travesty of justice if you look at it from that point of view.

I think that covers for now everything I wanted to say, and I do look forward to the clause-by-clause next week.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nanaimo-Parksville? Parksville-Qualicum. Sorry, Member.

R. Cantelon: Quite all right. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's confusing to me sometimes as well.

I join in the support for Bill 9 as both sides of this House do, and I think the member opposite made some very reflective and thoughtful comments on how to proceed with this, because this is not a bill to be taken lightly. I think this very tragic event with the sled dogs brought it to everyone's attention.

It was certainly an event that was very highly regrettable but brought to everyone's attention their concern, their love for animals and the effect that animals have on humans and our health and our well-being and the need that we have to take care of the beasts that can't take care of themselves, that are lesser and in fact depend on humans for their food, for their lodging and so forth.

I'll spend only a brief time on personal pets. Like the member opposite, I could probably go on constantly and ad nauseam for several days and hold the House over the long weekend to talk about this, but I won't. But I do want to make a couple of points that I think illustrate the benefit that we as humans derive.

It's well known, of course, that having a pet around and petting a dog can actually lower your blood pressure. There are immediate benefits to us as human
[ Page 7269 ]
beings just by the very presence that an animal brings to us. Animals have an uncanny sense — a different sense than people have — of connecting with human beings. Every animal is different. Dogs are well known for their loyalty and fealty and protection. I'm very happy for that ability in the dogs.

My 16-year-old daughter was walking along, going to a drugstore nearby. She previously, with a previous dog, had had a very unfortunate incident where someone had actually grabbed the dog, literally kidnapped the dog, threatened to kill the dog if my daughter didn't go to the hospital and insist that so-and-so person be released. It was a very unfortunate circumstance. It had a happy ending.

The current dog we have, though, is not quite so tolerant of strangers. She was walking in a similar circumstance. A young man with a hoodie, which can look a little frightening to a young girl…. The hackles went up on this dog, he bared his teeth — he has this massive jaw which could carry away a small person, I think — and completely caused the man to back off and retreat quite quickly. So I'm very happy for that ability. Dogs are protective, too, and very loyal.

[1630]

Cats can be different, and we have a cat too. Zipper, the cat is known as. I say it's our cat, but it's not really just our cat, because cats are very independent-minded. They come and go as they please. I think the expression is that dogs have owners; cats have managers. I think that's really it — house managers for them.

Well, our cat goes next door, and next door is a lovely woman who lives by herself. The cat has decided that he kind of likes her as much as he likes us and visits with our neighbour. When our neighbour, Reia, goes out to garden in the yard, the cat accompanies her every step to watch what Reia is doing and bring comfort to her. And he stays with her a lot. As a single woman, it's a great comfort to have our cat, which she feeds and adores, to comfort her. The cat somehow senses that in its own feline way. We don't quite know.

We tend to often associate, and this bill associates, with household pets, but I think there's a much broader application and, of course, a much broader scope of species in the animal kingdom.

I want to talk briefly about horses. My daughter, too, now has a great affection for horses. She rides and jumps, much to her peril and my discomfort, but seems to be doing quite well with it. She's got a beautiful horse called Kasey, and Kasey has good moments and bad moments. Sometimes he likes to do things and sometimes not.

Horses, of course, are an entirely different species. Horses are designed to react, when threatened, with flight. They run, so you've got to be careful, yet they are very sensitive animals. We often forget that they are often regarded simply as pets and, unfortunately, aren't always well-kept.

The owners of the stable, Pyramid Stables, where my daughter rents Kasey and rides him…. She's doing quite well with him, by the way. She won reserve winter champion in her horse-jumping competitions, which I gratuitously mention. She's to be congratulated for that.

So Kasey has his good days and bad days. The owners, Howie and his wife, have taken in horses, and recently they acquired a very unfortunate horse. When you think of a dog or cat that often you might see in an animal shelter, it's quite a different thing when a horse has been neglected. It's a large beast.

We were in the stable the other day, and my daughter was grooming this poor pathetic animal that had grown over and was literally quite shaggy and bushy. It had no muscle tone. As I mentioned earlier, a horse's defence is to run, to flee, but if a horse isn't able to run, if it's kept in a stall, it deteriorates tremendously. As she groomed this horse, you could see the flesh in its neck and its shoulders just vibrating because there was no muscle tone whatever. Its back was swayed.

It was a very, very good-natured horse. My daughter saddled him up and took him for a ride — a walk, really — to see how stable the horse was. It was really quite sad to see the condition that a large animal like that can get to if not properly cared for.

That's why I think this bill will hold owners accountable and provide considerable penalties should horses, or any animal, become neglected. I speak here particularly of horses. I think it's extremely important for that.

The regulations, I think, have a broad enough scope. I accept the member opposite's comments that there will be committees, that these regulations need to be defined to cover a wide variety of situations, and the application of them, therefore, can have a much greater use and effect in taking care of the animal kingdom.

Once again, I think I would close by saying it's unfortunate that this had to come to our attention through such a tragic episode, but I look forward to both sides of the House's guidance in developing regulations and perhaps looking at how this bill can be interpreted and put into effect. Certainly, it's going to be great news for the animals. They can't understand us, but in a way, they will be the beneficiaries of this business we're doing today.

S. Fraser: I rise today in this House to take my part in the debate on Bill 9, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011. I will be supporting the bill. It's been a healthy debate so far. Debate's maybe not the right word. The discussion has been, I think, free-ranging, and the Chair has always allowed a lot of latitude here. I think, actually, we're covering a lot of issues, because this act dealing with cruelty to animals shouldn't be looked at too narrowly.

[1635]

Before I begin my formal discussion, I need to respond to the former Minister of Environment, the current
[ Page 7270 ]
Attorney General, who was just up speaking a couple of speakers ago. He referred to the changes being done with antifreeze in the province in 2011.

I appreciate the Attorney General citing the private member's bill that I introduced back in 2007 now. It was called the Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act. But the Attorney General did make some factual errors that I need to correct in his statements. So for the Hansard record, I think it's important, in the public interest, to correct those mistakes.

My private member's bill was not involving adding the bittering agent to antifreeze. Antifreeze is a lethal poison. A teaspoon will kill a cat. A couple of tablespoons will kill a dog. Children have been poisoned, as the Attorney General did rightly point out.

My bill was about promoting the use of safe antifreeze, which is an antifreeze that contains propylene glycol not ethylene glycol. Ethylene glycol is lethal and tastes like candy. Propylene glycol is not lethal and is not a very good taste.

The changes that have been made, I think, have been pretty weak. All they have done is add a bittering agent known as Bitrex to antifreeze in British Columbia.

The factual error, one of them, that the Attorney General made when he spoke was that "antifreeze is safer." It is not. It is a lethal poison. The changes made under the regulations did not change the lethal nature of the antifreeze. A teaspoon will still kill a cat. A couple of tablespoons will still kill a dog.

Arguably, where some benefit could be made to the Bitrex being added — that's the name of the product, the trade name — is that if it is in the bottle still, unused in a car, and it is mistaken for something to drink. A child would be more likely to spit it out and not succumb to the poisoning. Just for Hansard and for the record, that would be the only benefit.

The other factual error is that it tastes bad even to dogs. Actually, the American SPCA argue that strongly. They believe that there is no evidence to show that a dog would still not detect the underlying sickly-sweet taste of the poisonous antifreeze, and there was no evidence to suggest that this would deter them. Also, cats, no matter what they step in, will lick their paws to get them clean no matter how bad that tastes. Again, a teaspoon will kill it, so antifreeze would still be lethal to dogs and cats as it stands now in British Columbia, even with the adding of the Bitrex agents.

This is key. There is one condition in which the bittering agent would break down almost immediately and cease to be a bittering agent in antifreeze. That one condition is known as heat. So once the antifreeze is installed into the radiator of a car and the car is used, the heat generated in the radiator will dissipate all of the effectiveness of the Bitrex agent. So once the car is driven….

Most of the antifreeze that enters the environment that kills, certainly, our companion animals — dogs and cats that are attracted to it by its sweet taste — but also birds, fish, ducks in rivers…. Anywhere it goes, it will attract and kill. That will continue because the Bitrex agent ceases to exist once it is used in the car. And most of the entering of the environment is caused by a leak, an accident, a malfunction of the radiator or improper disposal of that.

So for the record, we are not very much safer. The bill that I introduced in 2007 has had the support of tens of thousands of B.C. residents and also many more than that if you include the organizations: Western Canada Wilderness, the Sierra Club, the guide dog associations. The BCSPCA helped me draft that private member's bill and certainly ran the petitions on their website. So this change was woefully inadequate, comparatively.

[1640]

The benefit, though, would be children that might encounter it while still in its container originally. If it has not been used, there may be some poisoning that does not exist there. It is important, though….

There is a link to this in the actual Bill 9, because Bill 9 does refer to cruelty to animals. Certainly, there's no crueller death than antifreeze for an animal, whether it's a domestic animal, a companion animal or wildlife. It attacks the kidneys, destroys them very quickly — a very painful death for an animal.

Knowingly causing painful death of an animal is one of the descriptions in our own legislation around cruelty. I would suggest that we're on the edge, as a province here, of not dealing with that. Knowing that, as the BCSPCA has done good work on this, thousands of animals every year die a horrible death from being attracted to and ingesting antifreeze…. Us knowing that as legislators — by omission, we have some responsibility, all of us in this House, to correct that properly.

By knowingly allowing this lapse in legislation, animals are suffering. The suffering, distress and death caused by that is certainly tragic to families, but to the animal it is cruelty. The whole intent of Bill 9 is to address cruelty.

The graphic example that has led to the drafting of Bill 9, the horrible incident with the sled dogs in Whistler in April 2010, is one form of cruelty in its most graphic form. But it does not mean that we should ignore cruelty that happens in other forms. Cruelty is causing distress to animals and pain and agony to animals.

I would suggest that in keeping with the broader theme of this discussion on Bill 9, we cannot ignore the fact that there are other forms of cruelty to animals that are not captured in this amendment.

It was pointed out by our critic — rightly so — in her opening comments about this that there were…. Bill 9 is an amendment itself, an amendment act. There have been amendments to the amendment, which were just introduced, I believe, today. It makes it somewhat complex, and it seems to me that there may have been a
[ Page 7271 ]
more fulsome way to deliver this bill, considering there are omissions. The one I've mentioned with antifreeze, certainly.

It's different than the sled dog issue, but it is not different in the sense that the prevention of cruelty to animals defined in the act includes causing animals distress. Certainly, causing them a horrible death by allowing a product to be released into the atmosphere, into the environment, is something that should have been, I believe…. We had an opportunity to capture that here.

The fact that there were amendments to the amendment act today indicates to me — I think the critic pointed out, rightly so, that maybe we're sitting here for another two weeks — that further work could have been done to try to capture all aspects of cruelty to animals or many more that this House is already aware of from private members' bills and from other means.

The bill itself, though, moves in the right direction. As I mentioned, I will be supporting it. The public in British Columbia does not support, certainly, weak cruelty legislation. Arguably, that was on the books for a long time. I do applaud the work of the task force for trying to close that gap and make sure that the penalties befit the crime. I think the public in British Columbia need to know that cruelty to animals must not be tolerated in British Columbia.

The bill, at least in spirit and intent, does go a long way towards that. I think, arguably, the issues were there long before the horrible incident in April of last year. The BCSPCA was calling for support and assistance in trying to address cruelty for many years since I've been in this House.

[1645]

I've certainly attended many events. I've been to many of their lobby efforts — attended fundraisers, supported fundraisers, contributed to fundraisers — to try to make up the meagre amount of money they've been receiving from the province to deal with cruelty. In British Columbia, that has been dwindling over the years. Certainly, the needs as identified by the BCSPCA have not been dwindling. They have been increasing.

The costs, as has been pointed out by other members on both sides of the House, of addressing the legal costs associated with prosecutions and the investigations involved are high. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the cost of dealing with the horrible incident with the sled dogs in Whistler is going to be a big burden on the BCSPCA despite the fact that $100,000 was brought to bear by the province.

At the most, it will cover half — I suspect much less than half — of the total costs of what's required to do the investigation and proper prosecution that Bill 9 is intended to address.

This bill could have gone a lot further towards bringing the resources to bear that are actually necessary to do the job of the bill. Other provinces, Ontario amongst them, certainly provide much better resourcing for addressing cruelty issues through their provincial SPCA.

I think it's important that we look at that. Maybe we can effect changes as we take this through committee stage and point out…. Hopefully, members from both sides of the House will join in that discussion, ensuring that the bill actually addresses the needs in spirit and intent, yes, but that the resources are adequate for doing the job.

A law is no good if the ability to do the investigations and the enforcement is not there because the resources aren't there. It renders the bill less effective at the very best.

I would suggest that the expectations from the public in the broader sense, as we deal with Bill 9 dealing with cruelty to animals…. What's expected by the people of British Columbia is that we as legislators will ensure that those responsible for animals — whether they be our companion animals, working animals, domestic or farm animals, food animals or wildlife — do not succumb to cruelty.

There are responsibilities for all involved, whether you're an animal handler, a professional working with animals or a pet owner. If, for instance, I as a pet owner do not provide the basics of life for the animal, if I starve my animal — my dog, my cat, my pet, my companion animal — if I don't provide adequate shelter, if I do not provide it with clean water, I can and should be rightly charged.

Rightly so, Bill 9 provides for stiffer penalties there. I have a responsibility as an owner of that animal, as a steward of that animal, to ensure that it has the best quality of life possible. If I do not provide that, the might of the law should come down on me, and rightly so.

The province has a role in dealing with wildlife, the animals in the province that are not companion animals. Under the Wildlife Act, property is considered. "Ownership in all wildlife in British Columbia is vested in the government." We in this House actually have a role to make sure that cruelty — whether it's to domestic animals or working animals, which is largely the intent of this bill — does not occur in the wildlife.

We are the legislators. Government has that responsibility as the stewards of our wildlife. With that in mind, I attended the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre in Errington on Sunday before coming to this place to start our week. I've raised this issue in many ways in this Legislature, behind closed doors many times. The province — which is responsible for wildlife and is the steward of the animals that belong to the people of British Columbia and is responsible certainly to make sure that no cruelty occurs — is failing.

[1650]

The spirit and intent of this bill to prevent cruelty to animals is not being met across the board, certainly with wildlife. In this case, a lactating mother black bear was
[ Page 7272 ]
shot near Campbell River. The cubs were discovered in a tree, obviously terrified. They left…. These are little cubs, six-pound baby bears. They were in the tree for four days.

The operator, Robin Campbell of the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre, went there and, in cooperation, I must say, with the conservation officer…. There aren't many conservation officers anymore, so this is tough, and they don't have adequate resources, in my opinion, to live up to the responsibilities that they do have, to make sure that….

Certainly, in this case, cruelty to animals would be not providing for the basics as stated in this bill that we have before us today — the basics being causing distress, depriving of adequate food, water, shelter. So these weeks old cubs were suddenly separated from the mother and four days in a tree with no food, no water and no mother. The operator, Robin Campbell, arranged — I believe on his own dime because there were not sufficient resources from the province — to get a climber to get those cubs out of the tree.

I was able to handle those cubs on Sunday. I wanted to bring them home. They are beautiful, cute baby bears without a mother now. The responsibility of government is to make sure that they don't suffer. Suffering would be an understatement. It would have been a cruel death to die, without a mother, of starvation and dehydration in a tree. So luckily that's not going to happen. The good news is that those orphan cubs are being rehabilitated.

I did speak earlier, when I came in here on Monday, with the minister responsible. I must admit that he was very sympathetic and was looking to try to help, I think. I appreciate that, and I certainly applaud any help that can be brought forward, because the last of the meagre gaming grants, which was the only money that the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre was getting to effectively do the job that the government is responsible for, was removed this year.

These bear cubs now make No. 10 and No. 11. That's ten and 11 cubs that the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre is trying to address and save their lives, trying to give them another chance and trying to make sure that they don't suffer, which is what the intent of the bill is here — about preventing suffering and distress of animals, as identified in the bill's very intent.

I would suggest that the province needs to look broader. It has been pointed out it does not cover farm animals. It specifically does not. Fair enough. I would hope other legislation would be brought forward if necessary, if it's not going to be captured in this legislation, although the opportunity was there to do so.

Wildlife. I'm getting more frustrated. I'm hoping that…. I've invited ministers and the new Premier to visit the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre while they are doing the job that the province is responsible for, and with no funding.

I would hope that that would come to the attention of all in this House as being a glaring gap. It would not be living up to the spirit and intent of this bill to prevent cruelty to animals — whether they be domestic animals, our companion animals, farm animals, food animals or our wildlife — that they are not subjected to cruelty.

This is the beginning, the very beginning of the spring hunt for bears. They are already trying to sell bricks at the Wildlife Recovery Centre to get money from the public to try to build the expansion necessary to handle these baby bears that have been brought in orphaned.

[1655]

Again, I would encourage all in this House to reflect that it is our responsibility collectively as legislators under the Wildlife Act, which must reflect the spirit and intent of this Bill 9, which is to ensure that animals are not treated cruelly, that there are penalties for not treating animals appropriately, for not providing them with the basics that they need.

So as long as we allow a spring hunt in this province, there will be collateral damage, and the ministries know that. The Minister of Environment knows that; Natural Resources know that. So there must be resources to deal with those animals, too, to make sure that they do not die a cruel death. I would hope that that would be reflected, possibly, in this bill. It is not, but maybe we can be making suggestions of such a thing as we go through it at committee stage.

If not, I'll certainly be raising it with the minister responsible. I realize it's not the Minister of Agriculture's responsibility in this particular bill. But as we've seen, the conversation has certainly been a fruitful one, which has expanded far beyond the narrow confines of what happened with those sled dogs, which I think tragic.

The tragedy of that must be reflected in fixing the problem, and hopefully, Bill 9 goes a long way towards that, with the proper resourcing. Hopefully, it also opens our eyes in this House to the need for legislation that the public, the people in British Columbia, expect from us. Whether it's a companion animal, a dog or a cat; whether it's a working dog, a sled dog; whether it's domestic livestock; whether it's our wildlife — the public, the people of British Columbia, expect that there are laws in place to protect them from cruelty.

Currently those larger laws do not seem to be working or seem to be absent, and the public still, while they expect that, many people still believe that if they turn in a wild animal to a conservation officer, the government has some way, some mechanism, some means for ensuring that that animal can be given a chance. That's often the reason that people turn those animals in, whether they're baby cubs or an eagle that has a broken wing or something, wildlife that's been shot.

The fact is that the province provides for no such facilities, and those non-profits that were doing that work have been stripped of the last of their funds from the
[ Page 7273 ]
province, which I believe is an injustice and needs to be addressed.

I know I diverged to some extent from the specifics of Bill 9, and I do not mean to detract from the importance of Bill 9 in dealing with the issues that were so tragically and graphically highlighted by what happened with those hundred sled dogs.

I'm very hopeful that this bill will go a long way towards raising attention to the public that we need to make the changes here to make sure that that never happens again, and if it does, that the force of law can come down severely on whoever perpetrates that.

R. Hawes: It's my pleasure to stand and speak to this bill, as all of my colleagues here have done before. There's no one here in this House that's going to oppose this bill, especially when we think about the images that we sometimes see on TV.

It somehow seems that it's on an increasing regularity where we see TV news footage of puppy mills or emaciated animals and some of the horrible things and the horrible treatment of animals that we see on TV. There are no people that want to see that kind of thing go on.

Stiffer penalties and trying to eradicate that kind of treatment of animals is something we should all aspire to, and I know we do.

[1700]

At the same time, there are other considerations here. There are voices that would say what one form of cruelty…. What they see as cruelty to animals, another group will argue is not cruelty to animals. My colleague that just spoke, spoke about the spring bear hunt. There is a big constituency in British Columbia, particularly in the urban areas, I think, that would say all bear-hunting should be ended because it's cruel to the bears. Yet in rural British Columbia there's a huge constituency who would say: "No, hunting has formed a part of our culture for years." There is another side to this debate that isn't being talked about here.

There is a group out there that would say — well, PETA is a good example — that no animals should be eaten and no animals should be raised for food. Their way of expressing their beliefs sometimes is a little bit over the top, where they have in some cases even poisoned things like turkeys in grocery stores. But in many people's minds there are different definitions of what cruelty is.

I'm quite happy that there are tougher regulations for things like the sled dog incident and the way that that occurred, yet I once lived in the Yukon. When I lived there, sled dogs were a way of life for many of the people in the Yukon. Working dogs have been a fact of life, definitely, for many, many decades, probably way over a century in parts of Canada, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Those dogs, I think, love what they do. We target cruelty to those animals, yet for animals that are bred to actually work, I think they love that kind of work. They like running, or they like the kind of work that they do. Racehorses love racing, yet there are those who would say that racing horses is some form of cruelty.

There are arguments, I think, that can occur every time a subject like this comes up. There are many who now will say that the seal hunt is very, very cruel, yet on the other hand there are those who make their living hunting seals and who say that it is not cruelty. These are very difficult arguments.

It would be very difficult to put some of those kinds of arguments into a bill without an awful lot more consultation and without having some way of mediating the arguments that go between, for example, trapping and fur. There's a fairly large contingent of people who are opposed to any kind of trapping and the wearing of fur, yet there is a very large number of people who earn their living that way, whose traditional lifestyle would say that trapping is a part of their lives.

I'm glad that we stayed away from those kinds of arguments in this bill because I don't think that there's a win there. I'm reminded of when the sled dog incident happened and there were those who said: "Maybe we should ban sled dog racing."

I'm reminded of the movie Eight Below, where the sled dogs were left as the people in the north had to leave because of an oncoming storm. They left the dogs there. Actually, it's quite an overwhelming movie. I think it's true, actually. I think it was based on some facts.

It showed, to me anyway, that those dogs actually were bred to do what they do. They loved running, they loved pulling sleds, they loved working, and they spent their entire life in the outdoors in absolutely, well, Arctic conditions. That's how they live. But there are those who would argue that that's a form of cruelty. I'm glad that we're able to overcome those kinds of voices and put together a bill like this that is getting support from all sides of the House.

We've heard lots of discussion from various members who talked about their own pets, talked about their cats and talked about their dogs. I mean, all of us…. I can't think of somebody who doesn't love animals in one form or another, whether it be dogs or cats or whatever. No one wants to see animals harmed. No one wants to see working animals mistreated.

[1705]

I'm just glad that we are able in here to allow some of the practices that have gone on and not call them cruelty, not call them putting animals in distress. I know there are some people who would think, among other things, that some of the farm animals that are raised for food are somehow in distress. I'm glad that we haven't made it so that we're out there looking at farmers that are doing what has traditionally been done on the landscape, looking at them to form some form of cruelty-to-animals charges. Some, I think, say that that's a form of cruelty.
[ Page 7274 ]

This bill does put a huge penalty in place for those who mistreat animals. That is what we are all agreeing on here. I can't see any reason why anyone would oppose this. With that, I don't really have much more to say, other than this is a bill that you can't help but support.

The last thing I'll say is that my colleague from across the way who has passionately spoken about the antifreeze issue here for a number of years raised some points today that I don't think anyone on this side of the House or perhaps on that side of the House has ever thought about. You heat up antifreeze that has the bittering agent and it gets rid of the bittering agent. Who knew?

I know some of us, I'm sure, will speak to the Minister of Environment and see if he can look at that issue. You know, maybe there's a way that we can resolve it — which, I would hope, the member opposite would be happy with. I do understand his passion on that issue. I think he's to be commended for his persistence and for the way that he's pushed that issue for quite a number of years. I would hope that there's a way we could do this so that animals don't suffer from drinking antifreeze in future.

With that, I'll give way to a number of the people on the other side of the House that I see want to speak on this issue as well.

J. Brar: I would also like to add my words to Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011. As we all know, this bill is in response to a very sad story, a very sad story that nobody wanted to see. I was actually shocked, and many other people were, that something like this happened in B.C. It's hard to believe sometimes that we were not able to stop something like that. This bill is in response to the killing of about a hundred dogs owned by a Whistler-area sled dog operator.

In that light, I support the bill. This bill is based on good intentions. This is a good piece of legislation, and I also appreciate the fine work done by the task force members. As you know, in response to what happened in Whistler, a sled dog task force was established. The members did their work, and they presented a list of recommendations.

I would like to particularly highlight a couple of recommendations. Presently we have a penalty in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, section 24, that is only a $5,000 to $10,000 fine, with a possible jail term of six months. Under this bill, when this bill becomes a law, it increases these penalties in section 24 to a maximum of $75,000, with a potential sentence of two years in prison. That's a good step. Similarly, this bill also talks about holding owners, companies and others who are responsible for service animals more accountable for the welfare of those animals.

These are good recommendations, but at the same time, I must say this. We will pass the bill here today or later on, but we must make sure that this bill does what it is intended for, that this bill produces the outcome which the people of B.C. would like to see: to stop the cruelty to animals in B.C. In that light, I have some concerns which I would like to highlight.

[1710]

The first one is that after this bill is passed here, next is the implementation of the bill or the enforcement of the bill. This is certainly going to add more work for the B.C. court system, which is already underfunded and understaffed. We hear stories almost every day that we have a shortage of judges and staff to deliver justice in a timely manner.

Because this is a new law and this law brings new penalties, this is going to add more work. So I don't know — and it's hard for me to understand — how the court system is going to deal with this additional work and still deliver justice in a timely fashion. That's a concern I have. I hope the government is going to look into that and provide the court system with the appropriate resources so that they can deliver justice on time and also deal with the additional casework which will come out of this act, Bill 9, which is to stop animal cruelty.

The second part where I have some concern is the lack of funding to the SPCA. That's the agency which is responsible to enforce this bill, which is a bill with good intentions. So they are going to be responsible for enforcing this new bill, but if you look back, the SPCA's capacity to basically enforce the existing bill and this new bill has been declining for about the last ten years.

Just looking at the funding, the B.C. Liberals have actually cut funding for the SPCA on a very regular basis, beginning with 2003. From 2001 to 2009 the B.C. Liberals provided the BCSPCA with an annual grant of $71,500. In the last two years the grant was actually increased to $75,000. That money, particularly, was directed towards training for special constables who are going to enforce this new bill. The grant was completely cancelled at the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year. So the question is: how is the SPCA going to enforce these new regulations when they don't have the capacity to deal with something like that?

Similarly, the B.C. Liberals have also steadily cut gaming grants to BCSPCA since 2003. In 2003 the society received $475,000. In 2005 that went down to $407,000. In 2006 that went down further to $325,000, and since 2007 the society has received only $250,000. That's a significant cut to this agency which is responsible to enforce this new act. It is a very important act, with good intentions, but I seriously doubt the capacity of the SPCA to enforce this new bill.

If we compare the SPCA with other jurisdictions…. In Ontario, for example, the SPCA received more than $1 million in provincial funding in 2004. Similarly, in Alberta the SPCA received $750,000 a year — as compared to B.C., which is way down when it comes to funding. So to expect from the SPCA fine work and particularly enforcement
[ Page 7275 ]
of these new regulations will be hard for me to imagine if they don't receive extra support from this government. Then this bill probably will remain a piece of paper rather than actually changing something out there. So that's my concern.

The last piece I want to speak to is education, as some other member spoke before me. We need to, of course, educate the people of British Columbia that animal cruelty is not acceptable in this province and that it has to stop.

[1715]

We need to educate them that we have this new piece of law which has serious penalties. There will be serious consequences if people do something like that.

I think probably, particularly for the service dogs, there should be something in the licensing process where the agency and company go through some sort of orientation about the penalties and to make sure they are not doing something that is not acceptable to the people of B.C.

I would like to conclude. My understanding is that this bill deals with both the service dogs as well as the pets. We will probably ask those questions when we go to the committee stage. I'm sure that the government will look into that and make sure that all kinds of animals, not only one type, are part of this bill.

I will support this bill but with a caution that we need the resources to make sure that this bill is fully enforced and that this bill does what it is intended to do, and that is stopping animal cruelty. With that, thanks, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity.

J. Thornthwaite: I'm very happy to stand here and support this bill. Some of the most important issues that people bring to my attention in my office are related to the environment as well as animal issues. I think that this bill is a really good step positively, and I'm very proud to be part of a government that's doing this.

In fact, there was a proclamation day, Memorial Day for Sled Dogs, that the city of North Vancouver declared on Monday, April 18, 2011. It just goes to show you that we do have quite a few people in North Vancouver that are very, very interested in this issue — that plus the 40,000 people that had put in recommendations for the report.

From a personal perspective, my background. As a bachelor of science, I majored in zoology because I actually wanted to be a veterinarian just like our Minister of Environment, way back in the olden days. But having not completed that, I went back to school. As a registered dietician, I not only specialized in nutrition but also, from a more holistic perspective, in the nutritional, environmental and ethical implications of our food choices. So I educated myself quite well with regards to animal issues, environmental issues, when it comes to food.

I'm very, very pleased that this legislation is very much likely going to go forward. I haven't heard anybody since I've been here speaking out against it, which I'm very pleased about. But with regards to actually giving voice and giving credence to animals that are voiceless, those that are vulnerable, this act gives our animal friends a lot more say in their well-being than they had before this act was here.

I'm very proud that we do have here in British Columbia now the toughest animal cruelty laws in the country, and that's something we should be very, very proud about. It will help to give a deterrence to those individuals in society who may think that they can get away with this. It will also make them accountable for their behaviour, and it will also improve standards of care, not just for sled dogs but also for other animals. I'm sure that this act and the sled dog recommendations will serve as a jumping point for further discussion with regards to animals in general.

[1720]

Given the fact that our Premier announced on April 5 of this year that we were going to having the toughest animal cruelty laws in the country, and here we are just in the middle of May, it proves that we are acting very quickly and decisively to show that cruelty to animals will not be tolerated.

I'm an animal owner as well. In fact, I've owned several animals, from rodents to dogs, cats, rabbits, even reptiles and fish as well as several birds and even a chicken. I've actually experienced my own little menagerie at my own house.

The changes presented in this bill will amend and strengthen our legal framework, and for those of us in government, that's where the teeth, so to speak, get put into the bill. No pun intended. This is for the benefit of all animals, from working dogs to faithful companions.

I was really pleased to learn that the Ministry of Agriculture considered the following in the creation of this bill: the Sled Dog Task Force, their findings and their recommendations. As we know, the Premier announced on April 5 that the province would be accepting every single one of the recommendations of the Sled Dog Task Force. The prosecution and circumstances of horrific animal abuse cases here in B.C. — definitely prosecution will go up; the circumstances will go down.

In addition, this bill will help ensure flexibility to address animal welfare policy issues, not just now but for many years to come and, as I mentioned before, will offer as a springboard for future discussions. It will ensure that the fundamentals of animal protection here in B.C. are consistent, as well, with other provinces. We are leading the way right now on animal cruelty legislation. The bill demonstrates that here in British Columbia, again, we will have the toughest animal cruelty laws.

The critical changes that will be brought in under this legislation, as I mentioned before, are to deter the acts of cruelty to begin with. We've got fines increased to $75,000, jail time up to two years and the new ability for this government to regulate specific activities.
[ Page 7276 ]

That's strengthening enforcement, strengthening punishment, and it will extend the current six-month limitation period for prosecuting offences and also require mandatory reporting of abuse by veterinarians. I agree that we should be consulting with the College of Veterinarians of B.C. to create mandatory requirements for reporting. This act for veterinarians will report — or will encourage it — suspected cases of animal abuse to the BCSPCA with a statutory immunity for the veterinarians making such reports.

There's also a recommendation for us, the provincial government, to recommend to the federal government that consideration be given to strengthening the Criminal Code provisions related to animal cruelty, and our province will work with our federal counterparts to do that. We will enhance the capacity of the SPCA to undertake animal cruelty investigations. One of the ones that is currently going on right now with regards to the sled dogs' tragic situation in Whistler is finishing up right now. I'm told that it's underway, and it's very comprehensive, and they're doing a great job right now.

In addition, it will build upon the existing prosecutorial expertise in the Ministry of Attorney General to successfully pursue cases of animal abuse through ongoing training. A Crown counsel has been appointed with expertise in the area of animal cruelty to increase awareness amongst prosecutors.

Then lastly, there is the communication and the awareness. This case with the sled dogs has come up with multiple jurisdictions and massive public outcry. This situation was not just world renowned and reported all across the world, but now we're acting on it very, very quickly. I think that's a testament to how quickly and decisively our government has worked.

[1725]

The public will be out there being the eyes and the ears for us and the SPCA and other animal rights groups.

This is enhancing the provincial public sector's ability to recognize and report the instances of animal abuse, and we will be developing awareness materials regarding animal abuse for front-line staff. We'll develop the policies to ensure the mechanisms to report animal abuse are in place, and we will establish information-sharing agreements between the BCSPCA, the provincial ministries, Crown corporations and non-government agencies with statutory obligations.

Just in summary. As an animal owner myself, as somebody that has researched animal issues in my past life as well as currently here as an MLA, and also representing all of the folks in North Vancouver–Seymour who have come to my office and expressed dismay and encouragement with this bill, I would like to stand and say that I very much support this bill. I'm very, very pleased that our government has acted so quickly and is going in a positive direction for all the animals that need our assistance.

J. Kwan: I'm delighted to get up to speak to Bill 9, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011. Now, I'm tempted to get into stories about my own pet stories, but mine are not nearly as exotic as the one that was offered by the member for Port Coquitlam because I just got mine from, you know, an old farm.

I got these big Rottweilers because I thought they would make for good guard dogs, because our house was broken into. Then we got these dogs, and the people who broke into our house, or new people who broke into our house, came back. Both dogs, big Rottweilers, were in the house at the time and didn't even bark. There was no noise. Anyway, there we go. We were in the basement, and the people came and took stuff out of the house. Didn't know it. Came back. The dogs were happy, and we were thinking: "Oh, okay."

Anyway, I don't really know how to compare my story with the member for Port Coquitlam in terms of how he got his dogs. But I do want to get into Bill 9 just a little bit, and I know there are other members interested in speaking as well, so I won't be very long.

I think it's safe to say that everybody in this House supports this bill. It is a bill that was highlighted with the tragic incident around the sled dogs, and we don't need to go into the details around that. Hence, lessons learned from the task force. What I'd like to sort of touch on, though, is to talk about the pieces that I think are not in the legislation, that I wonder and am thinking about in terms of these issues.

Now, we all know that the Premier was on the public record to say that her government will adopt all the recommendations that came out of the report of the Sled Dog Task Force. But the way I read this piece of legislation — I've been paying attention, as well, with respect to media announcements — and I actually don't see all of the recommendations adopted. I think it's worthwhile to note that.

Let me just touch on what the recommendations are that are not adopted that cause me concern. I have to say that, in reading recommendation No. 4 of the task force, which requires that all sled dog companies…. Sorry. Not No. 4, No. 8, which talks about needing to "build upon the existing prosecutorial expertise within the Ministry of Attorney General to successfully pursue cases of animal abuse through ongoing training and related efforts."

Let me just touch on this a little bit, because a piece of legislation is only as good as it's going to be implemented, and related to that implementation are the recommendations that came out of the task force. So in this instance, they're talking about the need to ensure that, I think, the resources are available coming from the Attorney General's ministry to ensure enforcement of this bill.

It's true that the bill talks about increasing fines and providing jail terms and all of those issues — the statutory limitation changes and so on. But what good is a piece of legislation when you don't have the capacity to actually enforce it or there is a question about the capacity of enforcement?

[1730]
[ Page 7277 ]

I think this recommendation speaks to exactly that. The Attorney General, in fact, some days ago right here in this House, when the issue was raised by our critic around the lack of resources in a provincial judicial system by way of processing cases, whether it be impaired driving — drinking and driving — cases and other matters that should go through the judicial system…. Because there are no resources to process those cases through, our judicial system failed our communities. Those cases were dropped and never saw their day in court.

So I have to ask in this instance: where are the resources that come with this piece of legislation, to ensure the enactment of this legislation? The spirit and the intent of this legislation are only good if the government makes good on the resources to materialize it into reality.

I also want to touch on, very briefly, the issue around investigations — because that really goes hand in glove with the judicial system — and that is that you actually need the capacity to conduct investigation. Right now the current system is such that the BCSPCA undertakes that work, but they are extremely under-resourced. They currently have 26 full-time constables for the entire province to undertake the work of investigations. And it's not funded by the government, by the way. It's funded by donations from the community.

So this area of investigations by the appropriate authorities, to ensure that investigations are done, is severely under-resourced. If we are to ensure that this piece of legislation is worth the ink it's printed on, then you need to financially support that as well, to ensure that their investigative authority is backed up by funding resources to do the job. Otherwise it's basically meaningless.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I also just want to touch on the issue around education, because recommendation 10 touches on the educational programs and speaks to developing and delivering information awareness materials regarding animal abuse to front-line staff, as appropriate. It speaks to other policies and so on.

Now, maybe that will come later on by way of regulation, but as it stands right now, I actually don't see it in the legislation, nor have I seen an announcement from the government around educational materials that need to be put forward. I would argue that we need to go further than that. We need to educate the public around animal cruelty, as well, in terms of their responsibility.

We heard of stories in terms of things that are happening to animals that should not be happening but that are happening on a regular basis, it seems to me. So I think that there needs to be an educational program, a campaign, if you will, that will actually get into dealing with that piece.

I just want to also say, and I'll conclude with this, that Bill 9 comes with, I think, good intentions. There's no doubt about it. I think everybody in this House agrees with the good intentions behind it. But with the intentions….

Earlier my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim had actually tabled a private member's bill that speaks to actually protecting animals in a non-cost-effective way. That was his private member's bill to make sure that certain substances — in this instance it's the antifreeze — come with a bad taste. In other words, animals and pets out on the road and on the street would not consume this material, and then, of course, die a very cruel death.

That's actually a piece of legislation that the government could adopt in tandem with the spirit of this legislation — that is, to aim to protect animals and animal cruelty. I would argue that the government should, in fact, adopt this piece of legislation that's already written up by way of a private member's format and can be brought into the House for debate.

[1735]

With that, I'll take my seat. I will support this bill, but I would urge the government to get on with the funding aspects of it and to make this piece of legislation valid by way of investigative authorities, with the funding to go with it and the court system so that they have the financial resources to process these cases and to get on with the recommendations that have not been touched on by this piece of legislation. Because, after all, that was a commitment made by the Premier.

V. Huntington: I just want to speak very briefly to this bill primarily out of respect for the many, many men and women in Delta and organizations who have worked so hard over the years to protect animals from the cruelty that we know can happen to them.

In fact, a number of these individuals and organizations ran Delta's community shelter for many, many years. I was pleased to participate with many of them on a panel, which I chaired, as we transitioned to the municipal government taking over the Delta Community Animal Shelter. We worked on standards that these organizations felt should be undertaken by the municipality, and I think all together we have a strong, new management structure for the community shelter in Delta.

I do know that all of these individuals will be extremely pleased with Bill 9. It engages in many of the recommendations that we've all been searching for over the years.

Members, like the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, have indicated that there are gaps in the bill, and I'm hoping that over the ensuing years those will be fixed and that the government will take those into account. Certainly, the financial ability to enforce the act is of utmost importance.

I just want to add that I am extremely pleased to see the level of penalty rise. It will certainly act as a deterrent and, in fact, is now large enough to perhaps be a punishment as well. Clarifying the definitions of "distress"
[ Page 7278 ]
and, in particular, putting in a clause that prevents the training of animals to fight other animals is particularly attractive to me.

Just in brief, therefore, Madam Speaker, to thank all of the people in my riding who have been so dedicated to protecting animals from the cruelty of others and from the abandonment of others, and who have set up individual breed rescue organizations. I want to thank them very much.

I want to thank members of the government for such a rapid response to that situation in Whistler. I do hope they take into account the considerations of members on how this bill can be amended to work even more strongly in favour of the animal population.

N. Simons: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 9, intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. I think it's a good piece of legislation, for the most part. I think it addresses what was clearly in the news significantly in January because of the horrific reports of cruelty alleged against people in Whistler. I think that was just a tragedy. I was sickened when I heard about it.

I just think it's important to also point out that we really want to talk about prevention of cruelty, not the enforcement of cruelty specifically. I think if we can actually put our resources into preventing animal cruelty…. It makes you wonder what kind of society we live in when we have to pass laws that prevent the wilful abuse of other living things.

As a social worker I used to visit families wherever I was working, and there are certain things that make a social worker very concerned. One of them is if a child is lighting fires. That's a signal of something terribly wrong.

The other one that usually rings alarm bells is when a child exhibits tendencies towards hurting animals. I think that rightfully raises concerns among parents and social workers and teachers. I think that's really what we have to focus on: finding out what it is that makes us grow up into people who are not kind. Essentially that's what it comes down to.

[1740]

I think that there has to be some recognition of the fact that laws do not prevent crime for the most part. We see the most strict laws against crimes in some states, for example, where they have the highest level of that crime. So you have the death penalty for murder in the States, where they have the highest murder rates. I think if we are expecting that this law alone will prevent people from being cruel to animals, we're delusional if we do not actually provide the necessary enforcement, inspection and prevention that is necessary to make this effective.

I do think it's important, also, to recognize that sometimes governments do things for reasons that are to promote their popularity. In this particular case, we're responding to a bad event. Sometimes bad events don't lead to good laws, and in this case perhaps we have an exception, and maybe it's about time that we have this kind of legislation, but we should make sure we're not hypocritical in the way we deal with certain issues in our society.

On the Sunshine Coast just the other day a dog was trapped in a leghold trap not far from the community. People are rightfully upset about that. I think it's inappropriate that we have situations in the urban-rural interface, where leghold traps can potentially cause damage to household pets.

There's another broader question about whether or not leghold traps and other forms of traps that are inhumane or are questionable in terms of their humanity need to be looked at. I'm glad I've had a chance to speak to the Minister of Environment about that particular issue. We have to actually look at the issue from a broader perspective.

The problem that pets, animals…. Obviously they don't speak for themselves, so we do that for them. When we express our disgust at maltreatment, we're reflecting the values of our communities and of our society. I just think we need to be consistent with that expression as it applies to all living things.

In my opinion, we need to make sure that we are putting our priorities in the right place. I entirely support this bill, as do all members of this House, as far as I can tell.

The other report that really saddened me in January that has elicited absolutely no response from government was the report on the deaths of 21 infant children in this province that were possibly preventable. I just think it's important to point out that there are many things that government can do to address problems in our society, and it should not matter whether it's the front-page story or not, whether or not action is taken.

I would just like to say right now that while I believe strongly in this legislation to prevent cruelty to animals, we must make sure our governments are doing what's necessary in all aspects of our communities. One of them is to make sure children are safe and are properly provided for and that they do not suffer from anonymity and being put to the back bookshelf.

We need to make sure we do what we have to for all people, and I think this is a good piece of legislation. It may require some amendments, but I just want to make sure that I'm on record saying that we need to make sure we're not hypocritical in our approach to the protection of animals and that we look at all aspects of animal safety, that we focus on prevention as much as possible and that we do what's necessary to protect all living things in our province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 7279 ]

With that, there are a few other speakers, I believe, but for now I'll take my place and thank you for the opportunity.

L. Krog: I'm pleased to rise today in entering debate on Bill 9.

I suspect that our attitudes about animals go back to those primitive times when we first befriended creatures, whether it was dogs or wolves or whatever. There's no recorded history, but we have drawn comfort and sustenance and emotional pleasure from all creatures great and small, to use the language, throughout recorded history.

[1745]

It was the domestication of animals that probably was one of the greatest steps forward in terms of civilization. It allowed domestic agriculture to prosper, and I think we have a natural affinity to animals.

On one level, what the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast had to say, I think, is quite profound, however. This bill is before the House really, I think, for one very obvious reason, one notorious story, an incident that brought embarrassment to all British Columbians, a story that was heard literally around the world. The concept of the mass slaughter of animals that we regard as pets struck a chord with everyone. But the words of the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast are important, because it does say something about our values.

We have moved quickly as a Legislature to see this legislation brought forward, to see a significant increase in penalties that many British Columbians, I suspect on both sides of the House, have called for, for a number of years. Certainly, a number of British Columbians have called for a significant increase in penalties. But it's only that incident that's moved us forward.

I hope that what my friend had to say earlier will perhaps inspire government to consider a similarly rapid response to other issues that confront us.

Having said that, many of us have been supporters of the SPCA. Many of us are pet owners. The members here have spoken eloquently today on all aspects of this bill and all aspects of their personal relationships with animals and their families' relationships with animals. I think what we are really saying today in speaking in support of this legislation is that we recognize that animals are sentient beings and that we cannot treat them in the way the sled dogs were treated. We cannot treat any animal in our society….

Clearly, society gets changed often by law. Forty years ago in this province many would have completely refuted the concept that when couples broke up, they should share their assets — unheard of. Now today couples, whether they marry, whether they live in common-law relationships, regardless of the nature of that relationship, accept absolutely the concept that they should share the assets they accumulate during marriage.

That wasn't a societal change brought about by attitude so much. It was a legal change, and it promoted a change in attitudes, a profound change in attitudes. That's just one example of how law can move society forward.

This legislation today, by so significantly increasing the penalties for animal cruelty, I think is a way of changing society's attitudes about animals. For that reason it deserves support, and wide public support, because I believe it will move us forward, and that is the most important aspect of this.

But I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity, as it is the duty of opposition to do, to say a few critical words. Many, many years ago a very wise police officer once said in my Law 11 class in high school, when confronted with that most difficult of questions, and the obvious question being asked of everybody around 1970, around the issue of legalization of marijuana…. This police officer, who had spent a few years on the force, who wasn't some kid fresh out of Regina, said in response — avoiding the question, I thought, rather nicely — that a law that can't be enforced is a bad law.

Now, I'm not drawing any relationship between what we're debating today and legalization of marijuana. But what I am trying to get at, and I think it's obvious to most members, is it will be one thing for us to pass this legislation.

It is one thing for us to stand and speak from our hearts about how much this means to us and how it reflects a moving forward of our values and our sense of community and all of those good things. But if the provincial government, if the B.C. Liberals, are not prepared to fund adequately the enforcement, to try and educate prosecutors and everyone else as to how this law is to be effectively enforced, then what we are doing here is really a bit of a farce. Surely there are important things in this province that require our support. This legislation is one aspect of that.

[1750]

I honestly hope that when this is passed, the provincial government will look into that great big pot of money that they pretend doesn't exist but seems to flow out from time to time when the Premier wants to make a happy announcement. I'd like them to dip in and ensure that this legislation will get enforced. That the SPCA or however we choose to enforce it…. That that money is there; it's done. In other words, as we've heard many, many times in this chamber, that the government will actually walk the talk, because if we don't walk the talk, then we have wasted our time here today.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Agriculture closes debate.

Hon. D. McRae: I want to thank all members in this chamber for their heartfelt, thoughtful and occasionally very detailed comments today.
[ Page 7280 ]

At this stage I would like to move second reading of Bill 9.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. McRae: I move that Bill 9 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 24, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,980,486,000 (continued).

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Just before we get back to answering the question that you posed prior to the break, which seems like hours ago, I'd like to correct for the record…. When I made my introductions — or perhaps it was in addressing a question you had asked — I believe I said that we've invested over $2.1 billion in capital. What I should have said is $21 billion in capital. I don't know if it's a decimal point mistake in Hansard or if I misspoke, but I'd like to put it on the record that since 2001 we've invested over $21 billion in capital on our campuses in British Columbia.

Prior to the break you asked about student protection mechanisms for students who attend private institutions. We have a couple of things that we do. PCTIA — I'm still struggling with the acronym — is the Private Career Training Institution Agency. This organization actually oversees the student training completion fund. It protects students in the event that an institution closes.

Just as mentioned earlier, with the example of Columbia College, this training fund was used. What this does is the STCF — student training completion fund — allows the student to apply for a tuition refund for the amount of tuition they had paid for but had not received any training for. Now, if the student decides to complete their training at another institution, that amount of tuition that they paid will be transferred to the other institution. If the student decides not to continue on in the training, they will be able to receive the refund for the training that they did not receive.

In January of 2008 PCTIA established a registry, as well, of institutions that have their registration and/or accreditation suspended or cancelled. This remains on their website for five years. This list also highlights suspensions or cancellations that were there for reasons that could have serious negative effects on students, such as false advertising, refund refusals or the failure to honour start dates, program provisions and quality standards. So that's what we have in place to protect students through PCTIA.

There's also private degree-granting under the Degree Authorization Act. Before giving consent, the institutions must meet the following requirements with respect to financial security. The amount of financial security cannot be less than $100,000 per institution or must equal 75 percent of the highest amount of unearned revenue that the institution will hold during a 12-month period. These institutions must maintain valid security continuously while they are operating. This financial security is in the event of a closure. It's perhaps important to note that Advanced Education holds this bond and can use this to refund students if required.

The other issue with respect to the private degree-granting under the Degree Authorization Act is that we must be able to have access to the transcripts for the students.

[1450]

The transcript maintenance plan is to ensure the integrity, safe-keeping and accessibility of student transcripts for a period of 55 years, which surprises me.

M. Mungall: I'm aware of all the different programs that the minister discussed in reference to their attempts to protect students, but my specific question was actually about recommendation 2 in the Watson report around a charter of students' rights and responsibility and a complaint system.

As the minister had already said that that is only being considered and nothing being implemented, I'm not surprised that she was not able to comment or let students know out there that there is actually a complaint
[ Page 7281 ]
system for them. If she'd like to elaborate further on a complaint system, that would be wonderful.

But I'm going to move on to another set of questions. I just want to know more about the ministry's initiatives on climate action. What is the ministry doing to reduce its carbon footprint?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I believe when I made my correction…. I have to correct it again. I think I said $21 billion in capital. I meant $21 billion operating. Okay?

Now, your question was: how are we greening our ministry? One of the ways is through the use of telepresence. I'm not sure the member opposite is aware of the ways we often communicate that are actually quite costly. In a lot of cases staff, ministers and deputies are flying back and forth to Vancouver or coming here for meetings. Through the use of telepresence, which is a wonderful opportunity to engage people at a distance…. It's better than video conferencing, and I would be pleased to show the member opposite this technology the next time you're in Vancouver.

Telepresence is an opportunity for a dialogue that's more intimate and more engaging than you would normally see in video conferencing and, of course, saves money on transportation — flying from here to Vancouver or to other areas in the province. We look forward to actually having other telepresence sites in B.C. to further reduce our carbon footprint or greenhouse gas emissions.

[1455]

Other areas that we're reducing our greenhouse gas emissions…. We are looking at innovative ways within our ministry to do that. What we've looked at right now is simple things like ensuring that we have, perhaps, lights in our washrooms that turn off when we're not there. Obviously, we are continuing our recycling efforts, and we ensure that our staff are turning off our computers at the end of the day.

There are bike-to-work initiatives that we're engaged in, as well as competitions amongst staff to encourage reducing our carbon footprint. We have bought a total of $9,587.48 of carbon offsets for the travel that we actually have undertaken through the ministry to date.

M. Mungall: I'm very glad that the ministry is definitely taking a concerted effort to green itself, reduce its carbon footprint. The ministry is doing that for itself, but I'm just wondering — we discussed earlier the annual capital allowance — if the ministry has done an analysis of the budget cutbacks for the annual capital allowance and what impact that cutback has had on institutions' ability to go carbon-neutral.

The ministry is doing it itself. Institutions want to do the same. They're finding it difficult. Has the ministry done that analysis?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We have worked very closely with our post-secondary institutions in British Columbia to ensure that they are carbon-neutral. Post-secondary institutions have received $12 million over the past three years from the province's public sector energy conservation agreement to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and energy use and operating costs in the public sector.

I can talk about some projects that have been undertaken by the post-secondary institutions just last year and this year. UNBC has partnered with the private sector to replace an existing fossil fuel–burning central heating plant with a biomass gasification system that converts non-merchantable wood to energy.

I had the opportunity to visit this facility last month, and it's quite impressive. This system is anticipated to slice about 40 percent of the fossil fuel usage and reduce energy costs and lower greenhouse gas emissions by up to 19,000 tonnes annually.

UBC Okanagan campus has installed a geothermal heat exchange system and is currently completing the connection of all its major buildings to the system. This multiphase project is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the campus by up to 1,550 tonnes annually.

SFU just announced their new biomass facility last month. This facility will replace the fossil fuel usage for the hot water heating system needed for the entire campus of SFU.

Northern Lights College will complete the Centre for Clean Energy Technologies in 2011. That's coming up. This innovative teaching-learning building will provide opportunities for renewable energy industry skills training and be built to the highest environmental standards. All our new buildings that we've funded are built to LEED gold standards, and that does a lot to reduce our carbon footprint.

[1500]

M. Mungall: My question was actually, though, about the annual capital allowance and if the ministry has done an analysis that shows that its budget cutback on the annual capital allowance is not going to have a negative impact on institutions' ability to go carbon-neutral. I anticipate that it would actually have a negative impact.

The minister knows, as she was formerly the minister for building code…. She ought to know from that role that if you have old heritage buildings, which is very common on several of our campuses like Royal Roads and UBC, and then the general problems that have existed at SFU for several years, maintaining your facilities has a huge impact on going carbon-neutral. Of course, facilities haven't been able to do as much as they need to do because of the cutbacks, the incredible cutbacks of 78 percent since the 2009 levels.

How does the minister expect institutions to contribute to the broader provincial goal of carbon reduction
[ Page 7282 ]
and climate action? She's mentioned some of the projects that are ongoing and have been developed, and that's great. But how are they going to contribute to that broader goal if their annual capital allowances are cut?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Post-secondary institutions emitted approximately 149,330 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, which resulted in an offset purchase of $3.1 million. I'm pleased to report that the institutions, which are required to be carbon-neutral, have actually met those targets.

In addition to the ACA funding, the institutions also have access to an unprecedented level of funding through the KIP, the knowledge infrastructure program funding. Many of those funds were used to upgrade and renovate existing and older buildings.

There is also a capital renewal fund, and I can go through a list of these projects. This is in the next cycle of funds for institutions, but just to give you a flavour of this, hon. Chair, we have BCIT. They'll be receiving….

[1505]

I'm sorry. These actually are past contributions that we've made to institutions to upgrade their facilities. There's quite a long list of them, but I'll just mention a couple of the outstanding ones.

We've got BCIT, which has seen a $22.750 million contribution as a capital commitment; Douglas College, almost $4 million; Kwantlen Polytechnic, $2.5 million; SFU, $25 million; University of the Fraser Valley, almost $20 million; Selkirk College, $3.45 million; TRU, $913,000; College of New Caledonia, $6.4 million — and I'm rounding these off; Northwest Community College, $8.8 million; UNBC, $2.8 million.

In the Vancouver area Langara has seen a $925,000 contribution for capital improvements; UBC Vancouver, $97 million — actually, $97.325 million; Vancouver Community College, $5.6 million. On Vancouver Island here we've seen UVic receive $26.5 million.

The list goes on. There are plenty of examples here where the Ministry of Advanced Education and the former ministries have contributed to these institutions to enable them to become carbon-neutral.

C. James: A thank-you to our critic for allowing me to bring a question forward. I know we're short of time, so I'll be focused in my question. It's around the student loan program.

I know that there'll be discussion, and our critic, as well, has raised the concerns around accessibility and affordability for post-secondary education. I add my concerns around the heavy debt load that students are carrying and the importance of education not simply to that student and that family but to us as a society and the importance to us as an economy and the importance of that.

So to ask a specific question around the student loan program…. This is related to students with disabilities. I understand there's a process in place in the student loan program which is basically that a number of unsuccessful weeks that a student has had will add up to having their student loan program removed.

I understand that's to ensure success and to ensure that students are taking their education seriously, but it certainly causes some real difficulties for students, particularly with disabilities. It's not unusual to have an unsuccessful semester if they are struggling with accessibility issues, if they're struggling with health issues. It's often common for a student with disabilities to not be able to complete a semester.

While I understand there's an appeal process in the student loan program, that again is a very onerous process for students with disabilities who are already struggling with perhaps health issues or accessibility issues.

So my question to the minister is: has there ever been a process looked at by the ministry or the minister to flag the files for students who applied for support student loans under the disabilities category, so that there's a separate process for them to go through when they're unsuccessful in their semester, so that they're not stuck with the same kind of appeal process that other students have to go through, which just adds one more burden to students who we want to be able to have an education and to improve things for themselves?

[1510]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Apparently, there is a separate application process for students with disabilities, and there's a separate adjudication process, but the member opposite is correct that there is not a separate appeals process.

What I can tell you is that there is actually a dedicated group of people within StudentAid B.C. who specifically work with students with disabilities who are going through the appeals process. The turnaround is apparently quite quick. It's two to three weeks for the appeal.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. Just one additional question.

The other stipulation around the appeal process. If the student has gone through the appeal process and is not successful, they're required to complete two semesters or a full year of studies without a student loan in order to be able to apply again for a student loan. If they've been unsuccessful — they went through the appeal process; it didn't happen — they're then required to actually complete a full year without a student loan in order to be able to reapply for a student loan.

My question would be: has there been consideration for students with disabilities in particular, who…? Again, that's probably going to be a huge barrier for students to
[ Page 7283 ]
be able to access post-secondary education, particularly students who we want to be able to provide the opportunity to.

[1515]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I understand that our StudentAid B.C. process, when it comes to students with disabilities, looks at four unsuccessful semesters before the funding is stopped. I have to say that apparently we are very generous in our appeal process and, in fact, put a lot of the consideration for the students.

At that point, if the student is unsuccessful in their appeal, you're absolutely right: they do have to demonstrate two successful semesters, complete two successful semesters, before they are eligible for continuation of a student loan.

Having said that, I'm confident that the people in StudentAid B.C., who work very diligently with these students, have actually bent over backwards to accommodate the students in order to ensure that they can succeed.

M. Mungall: I'm just looking here at research-and-development funding, and I'm noting that and the per-capita spending on research and development in B.C. is actually 20 percent less than in Alberta. We're looking at $645 per person here in British Columbia and $812 per person in Alberta. This is coming from the 2010 Stats Canada report — just this past September, actually.

Provincial funding for research is only 23 percent of total R-and-D spending here in British Columbia. Now again, let's go to our neighbours and compare that with Alberta, where it makes up 28 percent, and Saskatchewan, where it makes up 38 percent of total research spending.

Noting that we are spending considerably less, can the minister tell us whether this trend is going to continue?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Research is actually not part of this ministry. I'd ask that you redirect that question to Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

M. Mungall: Fair enough. With the recent reorganization of the ministries, it's hard to keep up with where things are at these days. But we assumed that Advanced Education…. Normally the home for research and development would have been in this ministry.

Moving on to tuition. Since 2001 — I'm sure the minister has heard many students and many institutions say this — the average tuition in B.C. has risen by over 90 percent. That is faster than anywhere else in Canada.

Realizing the strain this puts on B.C. families, can the minister today commit to reducing tuition in this province?

[1520]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: One of the goals of this ministry in this province is to ensure that students have access to high-quality post-secondary education. In meeting this goal, we have to ensure that there's appropriate balance of costs borne by the students, taxpayers and the institutions.

What we've done is…. As tuition increases across Canada, in B.C. we've actually seen our tuition increase at half the rate that the rest of the Canadian universities and colleges have seen. In fact, we have a tuition cap policy that limits our tuition increases to 2 percent a year.

Going back to the balance and the cost borne by the students and the taxpayers, we actually see that students are paying for about one-third of the cost of their education, and taxpayers actually bear two-thirds of the cost of their education. One of the important things to remember is that a student that actually gets a post-secondary education will earn, on average, about $650,000 more than someone who didn't. So we believe that the cost of an education, the cost borne by a student, is actually a very, very good investment for the student.

M. Mungall: Into that investment, students are paying an average…. Well, they are paying the maximum increase allowed per year. Most students have seen their tuition fees rise 2 percent every year, which is the maximum allowable increase under this provincial government since they almost doubled the rates right off the bat once they were elected in 2001.

Dr. David Mirhady, president of the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia, has said: "Students have seen their tuition fees rise 2 percent every year, and professors have accepted two-year wage freezes every year. It's only the government that is letting B.C.'s universities fall behind. Facing similar fiscal difficulties, Ontario and Alberta have continued making substantial advancements into post-secondary education."

In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador, a province here in this country not known as a wealthy province, has decided to roll back tuition. In the last ten years it has actually effectively rolled back tuition….

Interjection.

M. Mungall: Excuse me, hon. Chair, I don't think that heckling is needed here in estimates. I really don't.

Tuition was rolled back by 20 percent in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, not known as a wealthy province, and yet they can afford that type of rollback. In the last ten years Alberta, where I never thought — that's where I went and did my undergraduate, where I saw a 208 percent increase in the '90s under Ralph Klein — would ever turn around and start reinvesting in post-secondary education…. But it has.

In the last ten years post-secondary education tuition has only gone up by an average 38.45 percent — again, very considerably less than the 90 percent increase here in British Columbia.
[ Page 7284 ]

Students are contributing 2 percent more each year. Faculty is essentially contributing 2 percent each year by accepting wage freezes. So why isn't the provincial government matching that 2 percent increase? We do not see an increase in funding to institutions this year.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Just to correct something the member opposite mentioned, there actually is a small increase to operating for institutions this year — in fact, an $11.9 million increase in operating.

[1525]

I'd like to bring this to the attention of the member opposite. You mentioned Alberta and Ontario. In B.C. this is the average undergraduate tuition: $4,802. In Alberta, where the member opposite mentioned she studied, it's $5,318. In Ontario, the member opposite mentioned, it's $6,307. So B.C. clearly is competitive and affordable. In fact, we have the fourth-lowest tuition fees in Canada. With respect to increases, if we want to look at Ontario, Ontario currently allows up to a 5 percent increase in tuition per year.

M. Mungall: The minister is correct to point out that Ontario tuition and Alberta tuition are higher than British Columbia's, certainly. But I think what is important here is the rate at which they have achieved those higher tuition rates. It's at a much slower pace.

More importantly, here in British Columbia, combined with $4,802 as the average tuition rate for students is cost of living. You cannot compare the cost of living in British Columbia and say that it's similar to what it is in Alberta or Ontario. Indeed, we all know that on a day-to-day basis — we talk about it all the time — the cost of living in British Columbia, simply put, is just higher. We could go over to another ministry, the Ministry of Housing, and have long conversations all about that.

But for today, looking at the cost of living, the high tuition plus the cost of living has left students with an incredible amount of debt in this province. We're looking at $27,000 as the average student debt load, one of the highest in the country, definitely the highest outside of the Maritimes.

That student debt has increased. The number of students with debt, actually, has increased by 14 percent in the last ten years. It is now at 56 percent — students in British Columbia who have a student debt — the average being $27,000 a year. Those stats come from the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. So you combine that high tuition that's jumped by 90 percent in the last ten years, and you see an increase in students with debt in the last ten years.

Has the minister noted that correlation? Again, noting that the $11 million that she spoke of as an increase this year is certainly not 2 percent, can this ministry make that same 2 percent contribution increase that students and their families are making?

[1530]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite does raise an important issue, and that is with regard to student debt. Any debt, really, is a burden for anybody, and students in particular.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

The member opposite mentioned the high cost of accommodations in British Columbia. One of the great programs that I am so proud of is the seven new universities that this government has created. That has allowed students to get university degrees closer to home. That is one of the steps where we've made it more affordable for students.

There are other programs that we've developed that provide a lot of benefits to students who finish their studies. We can either entirely forgive their loans or partially reduce their loans, and that makes it, obviously, easier for them to get out of debt.

Our B.C. loan forgiveness program forgives 100 percent of a student's loan over a three-year period when professionals such as nurses, nurse practitioners, midwives, doctors, occupational therapists and specialty teachers agree to work in underserved communities, and those are obviously usually in those rural areas.

In the 2010-11 fiscal year more than 21,000 students actually had their student loans reduced through the B.C. loan reduction program.

I think it's very important to note that B.C. has the third-lowest student debt load in Canada. Actually, we're looking at just the provinces that do report student debt. The average debt load for a student with a four-year degree in British Columbia is less than $21,000. In fact, it's $20,894. You want to compare that to Ontario, which is $21,540. Saskatchewan is $22,952. The highest, which surprises me, is Nova Scotia at $24,816.

M. Mungall: I'm going to come back to some of those numbers on student debt. I'm surprised where the minister is getting her numbers from, because it's a longstanding acknowledgment that the average student debt load in this province is $27,000, unless the minister insists on contradicting every single student organization in this province.

One more question on this, and then I'm going to pass it over to a colleague. I'm just wondering, with the inflation…. We talked a little bit earlier this morning about HEPI. We've talked about consumer price index and inflation. I've just brought up the 2 percent increases that students are paying each year and the wage freezes of about 2 percent that faculty members are taking every year.

You know, universities have inflation, yet what they are saying is that funding from this province is not keeping pace with that inflation. As a result, they're actually seeing a decline in per-student funding when we look at real dollars. It's a decline in per-student funding; it's not
[ Page 7285 ]
an increase, as the minister and this government continually say over and over again.

How are institutions supposed to maintain their operations in the face of inflation without real funding increases?

[1535]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Just to go back to the member opposite's question about where the stats came from. It's actually from the Ontario student financial policy department. It's an interjurisdictional collection of data. We would be very happy to provide the member opposite with some more information with respect to that.

To the member opposite's question, we've seen a 46 percent increase in the operating funding for post-secondary education since 2001, which actually averages out to about 4 percent per year — which, with your references to HEPI, is about the same as HEPI.

M. Sather: Continuing education in school district 42 has held the English language services for adults contract — the ELSA program, as they call it — for the past 15 years. But now the contract with the district is not being renewed.

The program had a positive reputation with the students that took it, and a lot went on to successful careers. I'm just wondering if the minister could tell me why that contract was cancelled.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I understand that this is actually funded through the B.C.-Canada settlement agreement, which is in the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

M. Sather: This is indeed frustrating. You know, I did pretty due diligence to try to figure out what ministry this was under. Who would have thunk it? I mean, Jobs, Tourism.

Well, I'm going to ask the minister anyway, since it's definitely an Advanced Education area, and see if she wants to make some response to it. I'll try to make it short.

The issue, as I see it, as I understand it — and if the minister or staff have any information to correct me, that's great — the teaching…. There are fully certified teachers in the program now, but that's not going to be the case under the new contract. Also, those people in the new contract won't have the same pension and benefits.

Worse than that, I guess, is that the program will only be four mornings a week, and it was full day previously to that under the previous program.

Just in a global sense, then. Obviously, it's an important area, English language services in our community and in all communities, and I wonder if the minister wanted to make any general comments about what appears to be a decline in the quality of the service.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I understand the concern that the member opposite is displaying. I'd like to perhaps offer that our staff at the Ministry of Advanced Education will work with the staff at JTI and provide the information to the member opposite.

[1540]

M. Mungall: In speaking with ministry staff, they have repeatedly said how aboriginal students' access to education is important. I couldn't agree more. Aboriginal students are under-represented in our post-secondary system. Yet they are integral to filling future labour market demands — absolutely. So I want to ask a few questions to ensure that this province is doing everything it can to support First Nations access to post-secondary education.

My understanding, in speaking with the College of New Caledonia, is that the province has cut about $400,000 in funding for aboriginal programs. On Friday the college decided to maintain its aboriginal programs and fund them from other sources. This has actually added to what is a $1.85 million budget shortfall for the College of New Caledonia.

According to a budget assumptions report from CNC's vice-president of finances, expenses will continue to climb at the college, while funding from the province is, of course, not expected to increase substantially.

So has the government restored the funding to CNC's aboriginal program? Is the minister aware of what other programs CNC has had to cut as a result? I'm specifically asking about aboriginal students programming.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd first like to reiterate that there was actually no cut to the program. It was a three-year pilot program, and we came to the end of the three years. It was actually a very successful program.

The member opposite is right. We are committed to ensuring that our aboriginal students have access to post-secondary education and that the training they get is going to be absolutely important in order for them to succeed.

The College of New Caledonia was one of 11 institutions that received funding to pilot an aboriginal service plan. As I mentioned, that was a part of the 2007 aboriginal post-secondary strategy. I have visited the College of New Caledonia, and they have done some incredible things. I'd like to commend the college for the work they have done and the support they've given their aboriginal learners through this initiative.

As I mentioned, the pilot for this aboriginal service plan ended in March of this year, but we actually are continuing funding for aboriginal service plans. The operating funding for the College of New Caledonia has increased since 2001 from $22.3 million to $28.8 million in '11-12, and that's almost a 30 percent increase.

In addition, since 2001 over $36 million in provincial funding has been invested in capital projects at the College of
[ Page 7286 ]
New Caledonia, including $317,000 for the creation of an aboriginal gathering place at the Prince George campus — which I also visited, and it's a wonderful place — and a $310,000 investment for the creation of an aboriginal gathering place at the Fort St. James campus.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering if there are any seats in post-secondary institutions that are currently targeted specifically for aboriginal learners, what areas of study these seats would be in and if these seats are likely to be expanded.

[1545]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes. In fact, there are 192 spaces targeted for First Nations students in British Columbia, and they're in areas of health, early childhood education and adult basic education, just to name a few. We are currently working with our First Nations partners to identify areas of need and if there is potential for growth.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering: how much in funding is earmarked for these seats?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Hon. Chair, $1.85 million.

M. Mungall: I'm just looking at the service plan. On page 10 of the service plan, it does note: "Performance measure 2: number of aboriginal students in the public post-secondary system." Number of aboriginal students — it offers the baseline benchmark as 2009-2010. I asked the minister last year about this. My understanding was that was because it was the first year that this performance measure was put in place.

Then forecasting it out into the future, all we have is: "Increase over previous year." So they're very soft targets. There are no hard targets in this performance measure where we see that in other performance measures, such as "Total student spaces." So that's for the general population.

I do understand, of course, that there's a lot that goes into supporting First Nations students' success in post-secondary education and that it does say on a previous page that those numbers are determined based on the previous years' numbers. But I'm just wondering. It seems to me that it would hold us to account so much more concretely if we had harder targets in there, if we were able to extrapolate the information from our baseline data out into the future and provide ourselves with hard targets for us to meet. I just feel that it's a stronger accountability measure.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, I do appreciate the member opposite's concern. We actually have been working to try to improve our data on our aboriginal learners, which is something that the evaluation report actually identified and recognized.

We are ensuring that learners are asked about their aboriginal identity in a consistent manner — and that's been a problem in the past — so that we can have a greater confidence that the results are consistent. In the coming years we hope that our improved data will allow us to create more exact hard numerical targets.

But I just want to also add that participation isn't the only measure of success. We also want to measure areas with respect to retention and completion. So those are other targets that we are looking at as well.

[1550]

M. Mungall: As I'm sure the minister is aware, actually the largest population in adult basic education is First Nations. Sorry. I should rephrase that. The most accessed program in post-secondary education and advanced education by First Nations is adult basic education. So my question is around adult basic education, and if there have been any program cuts in the province.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No.

M. Mungall: Is the minister aware of there being any wait-lists for ABE programs?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes.

M. Mungall: Does the minister have any data on those wait-lists?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We do have wait-list data from individual institutions. What we are actually working on right now is trying to aggregate that data, and when that's available, we'll let you know.

M. Mungall: We talked earlier in the day about FTEs and the targets being a bit less this year than previous years and so on. We already heard from TRU that their enrolment has stagnated from B.C. students. So, I'm just wondering if for aboriginal students we're seeing a decline, stagnation, or if we're actually seeing an increase.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The answer is yes. Overall, we've seen an increase in participation from our First Nations students, but I have to admit that the data is weak and a lot of it is anecdotal. We've relied on our First Nations aboriginal partners in education to provide us with information, and we are endeavouring to get more concrete numbers.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering about the aboriginal community adult literacy program — if it's going to be funded in the coming year. If so, what is the total funding, and how will different regions and institutions be targeted by this program?

[1555]
[ Page 7287 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The answer is yes.

M. Elmore: Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. I've had some questions come forward to my constituency office. A number of my constituents attend Langara College. There are over 20,000 students at Langara College, and it's been brought to my attention that they have access only to seven different student grants.

Most students wouldn't qualify for these grants, despite showing significant financial need. After 2009 even fewer students have had access to grants, particularly when the Liberals cut the student grant program by $17 million — reduced the number of actual grants.

In my constituency, particularly with families and young people who I engage with…. Often when I speak at activities and events, I encourage young students to plan ahead and to make an effort to access post-secondary education in terms of setting their goals and establishing their careers. My concern is the lack of access for my constituents in particular to be able to avail themselves of student grants and other supports to support low-income and needy families and students.

My question is: what are the plans to reinstate a financial needs–based grant system for B.C. students and ensure full accessibility and options for all students across British Columbia regardless of constraints on ability to meet the financial challenges of pursuing a post-secondary education?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In 2010-2011 StudentAid B.C. provided over $730 million in federal and provincial student financial assistance to over 65,000 students in this province.

[1600]

We are committed to providing an effective system of supports for our students who attend post-secondary while ensuring that we're also accountable to our taxpayers. Really, the public dollars are spent on student financial assistance.

I think it's important to note that working in partnership with the federal government, we are able to provide the right mix of upfront grants and back-end loan reductions this year to encourage students from low- and middle-income families to access a post-secondary education. That will really reward students who successfully complete their post-secondary education.

I actually have been touring the province and talking to students. I understand that student debt is a concern. We are expecting to release some findings this fall on B.C.'s current state of student financial assistance and some future options for policy consideration.

M. Mungall: Earlier the minister said that — if I heard her correctly — 21,000 students had loans forgiven. I'm wondering: is that in the last ten years? That's in one year — 21,000 students? So 10 percent of the student body is having their loans forgiven?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Last year we saw 21,000 students who were in the loan-reduction program. That's about 21,000 per year we're seeing.

M. Mungall: I wonder if the minister can give me statistics on how many students actually do have their loans forgiven per year. She did mention that there are several loan-forgiveness programs targeted for specified occupations, those people going to underserved communities. So I'm wondering: how many loans are actually forgiven each year?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In 2010-2011 over $2 million of loan-forgiveness funding was issued to 288 borrowers. Graduates from accredited schools in medicine and nursing, including licensed practical nursing and nurse practitioners along with medical midwifery and pharmacy schools, have had their B.C. student loan debt forgiven if they have agreed to work in a publicly funded facility in an area of the province that is currently underserved.

[1605]

Perhaps just to give you a flavour of some of these professions: 230 students saw their loans forgiven if they were licensed practical nurses; 744 registered nurses saw their loans forgiven; nine pharmacists saw their loans forgiven; 50 physicians; 35 physiotherapists; a school psychologist; 25 speech-language pathologists; two students who were teachers of the visually impaired; and 34 technology teachers. So we have addressed the needs and targeted our loan forgiveness program to areas of high need.

M. Mungall: Sorry, just a little bit of a discrepancy in the numbers from what I'm hearing. Are all those total of loan forgiveness this year? What I heard was that $2 million for the past year went to 288 students, and yet the numbers total that the minister was just saying would have been more than that. So I just want to get some confirmation.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: You're absolutely right. The 288 is the number of students who had their loans forgiven last year, and some of the recipients, the numbers that I was reading out earlier, were recipients to date. So I can actually tell the member opposite some of the areas that we looked at in 2010-2011. Again, if you look at nursing, 140 nurses received loan forgiveness; six therapists; three pharmacists; 11 physicians; 11 physiotherapists…. The list goes on, but they are in those targeted areas.

M. Mungall: On the student loan issue…. We talked earlier that the average student loan is $27,000
[ Page 7288 ]
once graduation…. How much of that is owed to the provinces?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: About 40 percent is provincial.

M. Mungall: Once these debts are amortized over a 10-year period, what's the average total upon completion of payment?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It is a calculation that…. My staff can get back to you later and provide you with that information.

M. Mungall: Actually, some of the information that I've been working with that has been researched by the student movement here in the province is that once all is said and done, at the current interest rate level, students are actually paying $35,000 for their student loans. I'm just wondering, then: what is the average amount of non-repayable student financial aid that the average student would receive here in British Columbia?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's $1,345.

[1610]

M. Mungall: Combined with the non-repayable financial assistance, what is the total average debt level upon graduation?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's nearly $21,000.

M. Mungall: Again, those numbers would definitely be disputed by the student movement here in British Columbia. How does the minister anticipate these figures will change once the B.C. and Canada student loans are consolidated?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There will actually be no change, but what I can tell you is that it is quite an administrative improvement over the current system. As the member opposite mentioned, the integration of the Canada student loan program and the B.C. student loan program will actually be more simplified. It will be streamlined. We're seeing a lot of elimination of duplication of loan negotiation repayment and repayment assistance application.

Significant process improvements such as the master student financial assistance agreement will allow funds to be issued to students electronically, which will be something very new. That will improve the service for students. This is the first provincial-federal agreement of its kind in the country. We're looking forward to the integration.

M. Mungall: Imagine that. The government is actually issuing funds electronically. Welcome to the new millennium. I never knew that it took that the government only 11 years to catch up, which I think is actually a compliment for this government.

What steps or new programs is the government looking at to help reduce student debt outside of the ones that we've already canvassed?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm going to list for the member opposite some of the programs that we have in place to assist students. We've got the B.C. loan forgiveness program and the B.C. loan reduction program, which we've talked about earlier. We have the Pacific leaders loan forgiveness program, B.C. interest relief program, the extended amortization for student loans and principal deferment.

[1615]

M. Mungall: I'm wondering if the minister would be able to provide me with totals for each one of these programs and also the number of students who access them on a yearly basis, and if we could get a comparison from the last two years to this year. I know I don't expect her to pull all that out right now out of her hat, but if I could get it at another time at least. If it's at the fingertips of her and her staff right now, I would be very appreciative to hear it.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We do have some of this information that I can read off to you.

With respect to the B.C. loan reduction program, I think the member opposite asked for the last two years. For students completing the program year 2009-10, we assisted 20,900 students and saw an average reduction amount of $1,788. Our actual expenditure was $37,362,200.

For 2011-2012 — that's for our fiscal year but for students completing the program year 2010-11 — we saw 21,000 students that were assisted, with an average reduction amount of $1,873. The actual expenditure was $39.338 million.

For the Pacific leaders scholarship for children of public servants, in 2009-10 we saw 59 students in the program. The awards expenditure was $147,500. The total administrative expenditure for that was $29,094, which comes to a grand total of $176,594.

In 2010-2011, 52 students. The awards expenditure was $130,000. The administrative expenditure was $29,562. The total was $159,562.

With respect to the B.C. student loan principal deferment program, as of September 2008, program administration and budget are the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. StudentAid B.C. remains responsible for program policy.

Let me repeat that for you, because I bungled that. As of September 2008, program administration and budget are the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering if the province has undertaken any research on the impact of student debt levels on economic activity in the province.
[ Page 7289 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No.

M. Mungall: That's too bad. I know that from my own experience within the student movement and still paying off my own student loan…. We've often talked about, as students, that we are not able to buy a car, to buy a home and to do some of those major purchase items in our society that drive our economy because of student debt.

[1620]

So doing that analysis — I do encourage the ministry to do that to determine just what kind of impact large student debt is having on those day-to-day economic activities that fuel our local economies, that fuel the banks and so on.

I'm just wondering if the province has undertaken any research on the impacts of student debt levels on the students' completion rates. Do they find that completion starts to decline as students' debt loads increase, and specifically, for low-income students, aboriginal students, students with disabilities and other under-represented student groups in the student population?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I believe the member opposite asked whether or not as student debt increases, there's an effect on the completion rate. What we have seen is that on average there is no correlation between the two. But what we haven't identified yet is how this affects the under-represented groups, and we do need to work on that area.

But before I sit down, I'd really like to emphasize that, as I mentioned earlier, students that do complete a post-secondary education will, over their working lifetime, earn $650,000 more than somebody who hasn't. This $650,000 is a huge benefit, paid in a large part by the taxpayers on behalf of the students.

K. Corrigan: There are 33,936 students at Simon Fraser University. My understanding is that there are seven different types of provincial grant bursary programs, but I note that of those seven, one, the adult basic education student assistance program, would be likely irrelevant to students attending Simon Fraser. Four more are for students with disabilities. One is for former youth in care, and one is a specialized nurses education bursary program. So to me that means that many students, even students that are in significant financial need, would not have access to student grants.

And after 2009 even fewer students had access to grants because the Liberals cut student grant programs by $17 million and reduced the number of actual grants. I also note that the budget for students' base grants has been cut in half from its 2001 levels when it was $153 million. It's now down to $84.5 million, with no projected increase.

My question to the minister: why are the B.C. Liberals continuing to fail to develop a financial needs–based, upfront grant system for B.C. students?

[1625]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Student financial assistance is a key priority for this ministry to ensure that our post-secondary education is accessible and affordable to all our students. Since 2001 this province has invested $2.5 billion in student financial assistance. In 2010-11 StudentAid B.C. provided over $730 million in federal and provincial student assistance to cover over 65,000 students.

In addition to the student aid that this province provides, students also have access to the Canada student grant for persons from low-income families, the Canada student grant for persons from middle-income families and the Canada student grant for persons with permanent disabilities. They have access to the Canada student grant for services and equipment for persons with permanent disabilities and also to the Canada student grants for persons with dependants. There's actually a final one that they have access to, and that's the Canada student grant for part-time studies.

K. Corrigan: I note that a number of those programs, in fact, all of the programs that you just listed off, are federal programs, and I'm particularly interested in the provincial programs. So I'm wondering if you could, from that $730 million, separate out what are provincial grants — not loans and not federal grants — for this year.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm going to have to read out the list because it's quite lengthy. The total federal and provincial student financial assistance is over $700 million, and the member opposite asked what the B.C. portion of that is, so I will just read the list.

[1630]

There's a B.C. loan reduction program, and that is $39.338 million: the nurses education bursaries, which are $1 million; the B.C. Access Grant for students with permanent disabilities, $2.25 million; the disabled student grants, $800,000; supplemental bursary for students with disabilities, $600,000.

Then we provide block funding for the next three areas for our colleges and post-secondary institutes. The college and institute library services, $516,000; post-secondary communication access services, $184,000; program for institutional loans of adaptive technology, $80,000; B.C. Access Grant for deaf students, $16,988.

So the breakout for the $730 million: $357 million, Canada student loans; $299 million, the B.C. student loan program; $84 million in Canada student grants; and $60 million in B.C. student grants.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister aware if any other ministry has studied the correlation between income levels and participation in post-secondary education?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, there are actually many studies.
[ Page 7290 ]

K. Corrigan: Two questions, and then I will leave, because I know there's lots more that the critic wants to do here. First of all, I'm wondering if the minister could give me a quick summary of what the findings are of those studies, and secondly, whether or not the minister would make those findings available to the critic or me.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There are many academic studies that, if I could generalize, suggest that low income generally equates to a lower participation rate in post-secondary education. That's why it's important that we work with our federal government and the federal government student loan program. The federal government has the low-income grants, which are up front and pair quite nicely with our program — the completion, the back-end, grants.

[1635]

I would be happy to collate some of those studies and provide it to the member opposite. Perhaps I will mention that we actually are doing a study with the federal government to see how the low-income upfront grant and our provincial grant, which provides relief at the back end, are affecting student participation and student completion rates. But we still need a couple more years of data to determine what the outcome is.

I think one of the challenges that we have with respect to students, especially students from low-income families, is that they overestimate the cost of a post-secondary education, and they underestimate the benefits of a post-secondary education. I think we need to develop a better communication strategy to demonstrate the benefits.

M. Mungall: As the Chair knows, the Finance Committee releases its annual report, and in this year's report, recommendation 13 is: "Reduce financial barriers to post-secondary education by lowering the interest rate charged by StudentAid B.C. on student loans." That's only part of it. We'll talk about the other part of that recommendation 13 a little bit later on.

So looking at that, and knowing that the B.C. and federal student loan programs are going to be consolidated, we're just wondering what the anticipated interest rate will be.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It will be the same as it currently is.

M. Mungall: That's prime plus 2.5 percent, if I'm correct. Who will be setting that policy? Will it be the federal government, or will it be the provincial government?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's the provincial government that will set the policy.

M. Mungall: So if the provincial government is setting that policy and then negotiates that interest rate with the federal government, is the province locked in for a certain amount of time? Or does the province have the ability to change its policy on rates, essentially, and then change rates as it chooses?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We are not locked in to that rate, and we have the ability to change that rate.

M. Mungall: Has the minister, then, consulted with other provinces on their lower interest rates in conjunction with combined student loans to learn about what they're doing and find out their best practices?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I haven't personally consulted with other provinces, but the ministry staff have.

M. Mungall: I'll just follow up from that question. Which provinces have the ministry staff been able to consult with?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: My staff have consulted with all of the provinces.

M. Mungall: So my next question, then, is: what is the current rate that the province is borrowing the money that it then funnels to students?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's prime minus 1 percent.

M. Mungall: If I'm correct, then, students are paying 3.5 percent more than what the province is paying on student loans.

[1640]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The answer is yes, but I'd like to remind the member opposite that 100 percent of the interest that is on the student loan while the student is attending full-time studies is actually paid by the province.

M. Mungall: How much money is the province making from students paying a higher rate on their student loans than the province borrows at?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The question is best directed towards the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance administers the program. But I'd like to add that we don't make money on our student loan program. The money is used to assist students in providing grants and loans.

M. Mungall: So if I understand correctly, then, this government is using students repaying their student loans to fund grants for low-income students. So low-income students who are getting loans and paying interest on those loans are funding grants for low-income students.
[ Page 7291 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: This is not a profit-making exercise. If the member opposite recalls, banks actually got out of this business and didn't want to take part in this social exercise. Government has decided that this is something we should support.

M. Mungall: The minister can't be for real. To say that banks got out of the business of providing student loans…. I have two private bank student loans right now. So clearly banks are providing student loans.

We'll just leave that and go back to the fact that revenue from student loans…. There's money being generated from charging students over 3 percent more than what the province borrows at on student loans. So there's revenue being generated on student loans for the province, and the minister has said that that's going to pay for grants.

Of course, what we're saying is that grants need to be targeted for students who demonstrate financial need. Right now there are only seven grants. Most of those grants, of course, do not target, specifically, students with financial need. They do target some students who are under very specified categories of permanent disabilities and obviously have financial need.

[1645]

Those grants are great. I don't want to diminish that those grants are very necessary. However, the point is that we need to have more grants for students who demonstrate financial need.

The minister is essentially saying that the grants that do exist right now are being paid for by students who are in a low enough income that they can't pay their tuition and their living expenses upfront so they have to go get a student loan. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No, that is not correct.

M. Mungall: Then, please do tell me where that revenue is going.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: That revenue is directed to the Ministry of Finance.

M. Mungall: As the Minister of Advanced Education, is she saying that none of that revenue from student loans is going into anything in Advanced Education or that she does not know?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The revenue goes into general revenue, which, of course, funds programs that we've been talking about all afternoon, amongst others.

M. Mungall: Then, was the minister wrong to suggest that there is no revenue, that this isn't profit-generating, that everything goes into grants? Was she wrong to suggest that? Was she misinformed, or is she misleading the committee here?

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I think I'm more offended by the member opposite suggesting that I wasn't real. But I'll just reiterate that the revenue actually is directed to general revenue.

C. Trevena: I've got a couple of questions. One is really about North Island College, which covers my constituency and my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim. It goes down but covers way up to the north end of the Island and just on to the mainland. So I've got that question, but I'd like to pick up on the argument or the discussion that's been happening with the student grants and student loans — that debate.

I was very fortunate, coming from a society where we had a very healthy student grant system, where the government felt it was important to invest in students. I know that things have changed in Britain since I graduated, but like many Scandinavian countries, we had the benefit of having a grant system that was funded, and so any student of any background could afford to go to university or any post-secondary institution without ever having to worry about getting into debt.

I think that if a government is serious about investing in the future of its people, this is the way it should be looking.

However, there are at North Island College in total about 11,000 students. Some of these are in short-term programs, so maybe about 7,000 students are there full-time, and they have access to seven student grants. Most of these wouldn't qualify for grants, despite showing that they have the need.

There are more people going into North Island College. The numbers are going up. The recession has really hit the north Island significantly. People are trying to retrain. They're looking for advanced education. They're looking for a way of getting back into the labour market.

So I'm wondering why your government, Minister, is not reflecting that and increasing the budget to student grants and making sure that student grants are accessible to all sectors of the community who do need them.

[1650]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To the member opposite: you did talk about your international education. Perhaps an interesting statistic for you that we should be very proud of: Canada has the best participation rate in post-secondary education in the OECD countries. That's something I think we should be very proud of.

I'd like to reiterate, because this is the third time we've heard this question, that there is a healthy balance between upfront grants and back-end grants. That's through
[ Page 7292 ]
the relationship we have with the Canada student loan program and our own B.C. student loan program.

We have a very comprehensive student aid package. We've maintained funding for institutions and for students despite the fiscal challenges that we've seen, and as capacity increases, we will look for opportunities to increase our support.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I'm not going to go too far into this, but the line between grants and loans is quite clear in my mind. A grant is money that is given to you. A loan is money that you have to pay back. I think the minister is talking more about the loan system, which is money that is expected to be paid back.

I'm interested in the statistic, if I might just indulge my colleague from Nelson-Creston to ask a quick follow-up on that, that Canada has the highest participation in the OECD countries. Where does B.C. rank in the rest of the country?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I don't have the specific ranking of British Columbia, but generally, we've been near the top. That's the good-news story, and we can follow that up later.

What we're measuring is the spread between high-income and low-income participation in post-secondary for participation of our students. That is the ranking where Canada actually has the best ranking in all of the OECD countries.

C. Trevena: I will move to a couple of questions about my own constituency and North Island College, which is a college that is very important for the community. It's got campuses in Courtenay, Campbell River, Port Hardy, Port Alberni, Gold River, Cortes Island and, I believe, up in Bella Coola.

It's in its second year of a three-year budget without an increase, which effectively means…. I think the minister is aware it means cuts. If you're not increasing for three years, it means a cut. They are at least three-quarters of a million dollars short. They have had to increase their tuition. They didn't want to because they are trying to make sure it's an accessible community college.

They are, as it's been described to me, surviving from year to year. They are not able to do the new programming because they are not getting any more money. How does the minister jibe this with any effort to invest in a new economy and invest in new educational opportunities for transition?

[1655]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Despite the really challenging fiscal climate that we've been facing, I'm actually very proud of this government's priorities. We have protected funding for post-secondary education. In fact, we've seen a small increase in funding for post-secondary education, where we've seen other governments in other jurisdictions actually cut funding. This government has not done that.

C. Trevena: The minister didn't answer my question. I wonder if she'd explain how a cut of three-quarters of a million in funding — because it's a zero-zero-zero budget, and they're in year 2 of a zero-zero-zero budget — means an increase in funding for North Island College.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The funding for North Island College has remained constant, as the member opposite has indicated. Again, during these challenging fiscal times, that's a record that I think we should be proud of.

But I would like to remind the member opposite that North Island College has an opportunity to compete for skills and health seats that are available, and just a note that the North Island College utilization rate is only 85 percent, and we haven't clawed back 15 percent of the operating grant that we provide North Island College.

C. Trevena: I don't know whether North Island College is supposed to be grateful for that. I think the fact that it is working in an environment where it's had no increase is hard enough.

By saying that they are available to apply for certain programs…. This is a college that is really very forthgoing. It's trying to get out into the community. It's trying to make sure it's offering relevant training in communities that are transitioning out of what were forestry and fishing and mining communities and trying to transition into something new.

They would expect some government support. They wouldn't expect just to be told that they're not going to get anything and that they can apply for certain areas that the government approves of. I would hope that the minister would look more seriously at investing in North Island College and other community colleges to make sure that we can get the necessary transition.

Could the minister tell me…? Say we're at year 2 of a three-year cycle. I know that we're looking forward in this budget up to 2012-2013. Can the minister guarantee that there will be an increase in North Island College's budget after it's had three years of zero?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Unfortunately, I cannot commit to that.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

H. Bains: I have a few questions. One is on the area of recognition of foreign credentials. As the minister will know, we have, I would say, probably thousands of people who made British Columbia their home as a result of our government and their officials going abroad and advertising that we need their skills. We need them
[ Page 7293 ]
here so that we can utilize their skills to maximize jobs here and improve our economy.

Once they come here, right at the airport they're told that those credentials are no good to be used here in British Columbia or they are not recognized. In a way I think it's a tragedy. We are telling those folks that we need their skills and we can utilize them here. As a result of that, they are qualified to come to Canada, immigrate to Canada.

[1700]

Once they arrive here, doctors are — you've heard stories; I'm sure the minister has — driving taxis. Not that there's anything wrong with driving taxis, but that's not how those skills should be applied, because they acquired those skills to help in that field. Engineers are not in their field. Nurses are not doing the nursing jobs. As a result of that, we're underutilizing a vast wealth of skills of our workers in Canada, especially here in British Columbia.

My question to the minister is…. Many ministers have said that they are working towards making it a speedy recognition or helping them to recognize those credentials. But there is no concrete action plan for those folks who come here and try to utilize their skills to the maximum capacity. So we're both losing. The province is losing. We're not using those skills that are readily available. They're losing, as British Columbians, in that they're not maximizing their skills to the fullest of their potential. So I think there's a lose-lose proposition right now.

Minister after minister has said, "Yes, that is an issue," but hardly anything is done. So I ask the minister: what role is the ministry playing in speeding up the recognition of those credentials?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I do agree with the member opposite's assessment. Underutilized skills are an absolute waste of human resources and economic value that we could be looking at. I would ask that the member opposite redirect the question to the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

H. Bains: I kind of expected that answer. But again, I think this is…. We are talking about Advanced Education here, but if it's not under this budget, it's not in this budget. But I think the minister should be concerned. She should be talking to the other ministries responsible so that we could push forward in the right direction.

My next question, then, would be to talk about my constituency and the university we call Kwantlen Polytechnic University now. It used to be Kwantlen University College. I was very fortunate…. Actually, I had the honour to serve on the board for about six years. It's a fine institution, and it does an excellent job in serving the community.

But I think there is confusion now, I'm told, probably in ministry circles as well as at the university level. What does "polytechnic university" mean? You know, Kwantlen University was one thing; Kwantlen University College was another thing. But I think now we have called this Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and people outside who are looking to either use their academic skills to acquire jobs in faculty or trying to get some education through the institution….

The local management has struggled for years now, ever since the designation was changed. What does it actually mean, and how do they work towards designing those programs so that those do look like and actually are incorporated in the name called "polytechnic university"?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Kwantlen Polytechnic University — it's a mouthful. But what it really does is recognize the strength of the programs that Kwantlen Polytechnic University has been known for.

[1705]

I'll just read you a description, hon. Chair, of what a polytechnic institution is. A polytechnic institution is an institution "providing courses of instruction in technological and vocational matters and subject and…offering baccalaureate and master's degrees." The name Kwantlen Polytechnic University reflects the institution's areas of specialization in trades and technology, and at the same time, the name clearly establishes the institution as a university.

If we look at the jobs that we are looking at filling in the next ten years, the gap in skills required for the trades and technical areas is widening. This polytechnic university is a great example of an institution that will fulfil the labour market needs of our future.

H. Bains: Going back to Kwantlen University College days, all of those programs existed then. We had a vocational component. We had the academic side. We had all of that. Kwantlen University College was very responsive to the community needs in designing programs that were for the benefit of the local community.

But changing the name to polytechnic. That's my question: what has changed from Kwantlen University College, when we had all those programs, the trades and vocational? And we had the academic side of university education as well. We had a nursing program. We had interior design. You know, we were known for those types of programs.

Giving the name polytechnic confused many, including the university staff. What does that actually mean? What had changed? What kind of direction has the ministry given to them now since the name changed to polytechnic? What different kind of technological changes or education programs does the ministry expect them to deliver?

That's where, I think, the confusion was, because the definition that the minister provided fits the Kwantlen
[ Page 7294 ]
University College. Those programs existed there at that time. So the question was: what had changed with the name? What kind of different direction? What kind of different programs to match the polytechnic definition part of the name that was provided? What direction and what resources were provided to the university to come up with those programs?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite is absolutely right. There were strong, recognized programs at Kwantlen University College. The name change to polytechnic university was in recognition of those strengths.

Now, I understand that the confusion was actually with the name Kwantlen University College. It negatively affected their competitiveness internationally. With the name change, you're right, programs essentially stayed the same, but they actually increased the value of the programs that they are offering.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hello to the minister, through you, hon. Chair.

I had questions from constituents of mine who attend Emily Carr University. There are about 1,600 full-time students and about 300 part-time students that go to Emily Carr. I'm curious about needs-based grants. They've told me that they're largely ineligible for the seven grant programs, and I'm curious if the minister is going to take action to ensure that students who are challenged with affordability for attending university are going to get access to needs-based grants that they can actually be eligible for?

[1710]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The reason I took so long to respond to the member opposite is that this is actually the fourth time, I think, the same question was asked. In the previous two or three times I went through quite a considerable list of grants that are available to our students in post-secondary. I am happy to take the time to go through that list again, but I would rather not.

Just to say that I have actually toured Emily Carr and, coming from a graphic design background, I'm so impressed with the calibre of students that go through this institution.

What I can say is that I have been meeting with students and consulting with students. I think that once our fiscal situation improves and once our capacity increases, we should be really looking at our student loan program. Right now we do have considerable programs outside of the seven grant programs that you actually did outline.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just one more question on this. I think that we've gone from about $153 million in grants down to $84.5 million. I will read through the Hansard transcript for the other answers the minister gave us, but obviously, that huge cut in grants happened over a number of years, not just in the last year, so in good times as well as bad.

The minister said that she was relooking at loans programs. Is that also inclusive of looking at grant programs?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes.

M. Mungall: I am wondering if the minister can please provide a breakdown of the $84 million set aside for student support programs, specifically the grant programs.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I am going to have to resort to reading off this list. The programs that make up the $84 million — actually, $84.541 million: the B.C. permanent disability benefits program, $2.25 million; the College and Institutes Library Service — and these are disability programs — $780,000; the disabled student grants, $800,000.

We've got the B.C. loan reduction program, which is $39.338 million; Passport to Education, $17.634 million; the community adult literacy program, $2.4 million; nurses education bursary, $1 million; the student society emergency aid fund, $100,000; targeted loan forgiveness reduction program, $1.5 million; the aboriginal policy framework, $4.4 million. I have an acronym here I'm not familiar with, but it's probably First Nations — FNESC, $100,000.

[1715]

We've got the adult basic education student assistance program, $5.7 million; the part-time student assistance program, $210,000; two disability programs — ATBC contract, which is $497,000, and support bursary students with disabilities, $600,000; StudentAid information centre, $420,000; WWN, $317,000.

I've got a subtotal for administration, because there is an expense to offering these students support programs of $6.495 million. So that should total $84.541 million.

M. Mungall: Specifically, then, to the grants that are available to students — the upfront grants. Is money set aside for each grant open-ended? So I'm just wondering: if you have a spike in participation, have students been turned down for grants due to overenrolment?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No students are denied for grants. What we do is we allocate the amount of grant money available over the number of students that have applied.

M. Mungall: So then my understanding based on what the minister just said is that if there is larger enrolment one year and a smaller enrolment the next year, that next year students will be able to access more money than the year previously.
[ Page 7295 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I just want to make sure that I am clear. I'm talking about the loan reduction program. So with respect to the loan reduction program, yes, you're correct.

M. Mungall: Well, I'm particularly interested in the grants that a student would actually find on the website. So specifically, assistance program for students with permanent disabilities, B.C. Access Grant for students with permanent disabilities, learning disability assessment bursary, B.C. supplemental bursary for students with a permanent disability, nurses education bursary and the youth educational assistance fund.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The answer is the same. The grants are upfront grants that are demand-driven. So when we do have a large number of students applying for the grants, that number is divided by the amount of money allocated for that, except for one program, and that's the nurses bursary. That actually is a set amount per student.

M. Mungall: Then do all eligible candidates qualify for full disabilities grants? Or is money shared between applicants in years of higher enrolments for those specific grants?

[1720]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The program the member opposite referred to is demand-driven, but if there are more students with disabilities that apply for this program, we actually in this case won't reduce the amount provided per student.

M. Mungall: Just wondering when the last time the rates for the Passport to Education were raised. Right now the current rates are $250 in grade 10, $250 in grade 11 and $500 in grade 12.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd have to get back to the member opposite with that information. The Ministry of Education actually sets the policy for this. We do hold the funds, but it's the Ministry of Education.

M. Mungall: Great, thank you very much. That's good to know.

On that note, though, if this ministry holds the funds…. Just wondering if the minister is aware that what a student would actually receive from Passport to Education barely covers the cost of 20 percent of the first year's tuition.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, I am aware.

D. Thorne: I also wanted to ask a question about grants. It sounds as if other people have asked the same question, but I'm asking the question on behalf of the 14,800 students at Douglas College, which is in my riding. The second campus is in New Westminster. The total number of students is almost 15,000 at this time.

Douglas College has very much a growing number of students, and it's alarming to me that at the same time as more and more students are going to university — because they just can't find jobs, a lot of them are going to school now that might have gone into the workforce — it's getting harder and harder, with higher tuition fees, higher interest rates on student loans and less availability of bursaries and grants.

Now, I know that there aren't many bursaries anymore, but in the old days, when I worked up at Simon Fraser University in the PDP department, in the education department, bursaries were what we called pretty much all of the need-based money that was available in those days. I'm going way back to the '60s and early '70s, when the university first opened, actually.

[1725]

I know that it's getting more and more difficult for students to go to school, so they're taking out increasingly higher student loans with higher interest rates. I guess it's a dual question. With the increased need to have students get an education to fill our ever-increasing need for an educated workforce, the higher student loans or higher interest rate and the inability to access very much money…. I know in 2009 the grants were cut quite a bit. They've been cut every year. I'd like to know why the government isn't putting more money into grants and a program to help out or change the interest rates and make it lower, like most other provinces in Canada. So that would be, I guess, two questions in one.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I believe this is the fifth or sixth time the same topic has come up. I will endeavour to answer it without going into the great detail I've given in my previous answers, which was to list all the areas that we are actually helping students successfully complete their education by making it affordable and accessible for them.

Generally, I can say that I have been meeting with students on my tours of campuses around this province, and I do understand that students have a student debt load that for some is quite high.

What I can tell you, which I've told the other members that have asked questions, is that a student who receives a post-secondary education will probably make in excess of $650,000 more in their working lifetime than somebody who hasn't. So my feeling is that the investment the student is making in their post-secondary career is a good investment when you consider the return on that investment, and it's good for the province.

We're looking at a huge gap in skills in the next decade. We are looking at three-quarters of those million jobs that are going to require some sort of post-secondary education or training.
[ Page 7296 ]

I'd like to say that during these challenging fiscal times we have protected core funding to post-secondary education, unlike other jurisdictions in Canada and, obviously, in the world, which have actually reduced the operating funding for their post-secondary institutions. We've actually protected the core funding. In fact, we've increased it slightly.

But I recognize that students have a student debt — a lot of them do — when they leave post-secondary education. I'd like to say that in my conversations with the students…. When we have the capacity, when our fiscal challenges are behind us, we'd like to look at ways to lessen the burden on students.

M. Mungall: As the minister has pointed out, it is true that most people who complete their post-secondary studies will have the opportunity to earn higher wages than people who don't complete post-secondary education.

However, many people in this province are not even able to get to that first step of getting in the door, to going to school, because they come from low-income families. And wouldn't we want them to get the opportunity to get post-secondary education so that they can go from a low-income- to a middle-income- or even to a higher-income-earning family? Of course we do. That's exactly what we want in this province.

[1730]

But the reality is that without upfront financial needs-based grants, many low-income students are just not able to get in the door. Those that do are walking out with an exceptionally high debt load as a result of not being able to get grants.

I know the minister has heard this question before, but let's finish it off with some of the larger schools. We've got this year at UBC 49,830 students. At UBCO we have 7,075. At UNBC we have 2,500 students. Selkirk College, in my area, has just over 2,400 FTEs. College of the Rockies, also in my area, has just over 2,100 FTEs. Of course, UVic also has a very large student body, and there are several institutions that we haven't even brought up today.

All of them, all of these students…. Like the minister — she has been touring around the province — I have also been speaking with students. All of them want to know how only seven upfront grants can be available in this province and how this ministry can justify its cut of $17 million in 2009, especially when we consider that during economic recessions the result is that more people are seeking post-secondary education so that they can get their higher income so that they can rebuild.

Of course, education is not just the ticket out of poverty for individuals. It's the ticket out of poverty that builds long-term economic stability in this province.

How can we continue to ignore the desperate need for financially based, needs-based, upfront student grants?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd like to point out that 70 percent of our students actually don't access student loans. So I have not heard from all students that the student loan program is an issue. There are 30 percent of our students that do access student loans, and I will be listening to them carefully.

What we have done is we've got a good combination, a good balance, of upfront grants for students. We have worked with our federal counterparts and have targeted those upfront grants.

I'll list them again. For those students that are, in this case, persons from low-income families, $61 million is available in student grants.

The Canada student grant for persons from middle-income families. This is a grant that is $100 per month of study and a flat amount that may exceed…. Sorry, I won't get into that. Anyways, the grant is $100 per month. It's $8 million.

The Canada student grant for persons with permanent disabilities. This grant is a $2,000 per year loan. It's a value of $3.8 million. I guess it's not a loan; it's a grant.

Canada student grant for services and equipment for persons with permanent disabilities. It's $2 million that's available.

There's a Canada student grant for persons with dependents. This grant is $200 per month, per child under the age of 12. It's $11.5 million.

There's the Canada student grant for persons with dependents, for part-time students. I'm not exactly sure what the federal contribution to this is.

I guess my point is that students have access to a combination of grants, both from the provincial and the federal governments. It's a good balance between upfront grants and back-end grants that forgive loans or partially forgive loans, in the case of students that will work in rural areas or that we've targeted specific professions they've entered.

M. Mungall: I'd like to thank the minister for again listing off those federal grants. We are dealing with the provincial budget here today, though.

Moving from grants — and with only five minutes left, really, to go over such a large budget — I noticed on the website that there's a program called SkillsPlus. It's listed as a "government initiative to enable British Columbians to gain essential skills demanded by today's workplace."

[1735]

Unfortunately, the information on the website speaks of previous years — 2008, 2009 and then again in May 2010 — but nothing specifically for this year and, of course, no details on to whom the funding was awarded for previous years as well.

I would like to ask the minister if this program is continuing this year. I'm assuming that it is because it's on the website, although there's no information. How would one apply to this program? And how would they find out if they're even eligible?
[ Page 7297 ]

The only other information I was able to find on the entire government website was that only applicants from Campbell River and surrounding area; greater Victoria area, including Sooke; Lower Mainland and the southwest area of B.C.; and Nanaimo and surrounding area would be eligible. It sounds like nothing from the north whatsoever. So then I would further ask the minister: why this is not a B.C.-wide program?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite does raise a very good point, but I'm actually happy to report that yes, SkillsPlus is continuing this year. In fact, it is expanding. I will just read out the areas that it will be covering. It will actually cover the entire province: Vancouver Island and coast, Lower Mainland, southwest area of the province, Thompson Okanagan, Kootenays, the Cariboo and north coast, and Nechako and northeast.

M. Mungall: I know that the minister is probably wondering how many questions were in the last question, but I just found out that I have five more minutes, so I'll elaborate on that jumble that came at you before.

I'm just also wondering what determines eligibility and how one would apply? I'm assuming that it's businesses. Or is it non-profits? Is it both? And how are past funds and ideally, if you can tell me, future funds allotted?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: With respect to the eligibility, it's for low-skilled employees, but it's actually the businesses that have to apply. The reason why you haven't seen the information on the website is because we're expanding the program. We're still finalizing the details with Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

[1740]

M. Mungall: For my final question…. I feel like I'm just getting started. I could be here all night.

With the lack of grants and the high cost of student loans in B.C., is there a risk that students may choose to relocate to other provinces for the opportunity to access cheaper loans and more generous financial assistance? Has the ministry done any analysis to that effect? I've been hearing from quite a few institutions, as well as many stakeholders throughout the post-secondary sector, that they're concerned that we are actually quite uncompetitive at this stage.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Student numbers have been increasing in British Columbia in post-secondary education, and we've seen no evidence to the contrary that students are leaving the province.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,980,486,000 — approved.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:42 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175