2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Morning Sitting

Volume 43, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: On the heels of International Women’s Day, we have in the gallery an exemplary woman from my riding, Vivian Turgeon. Some of you might remember Geoff Ingram, who used to work in the precinct. Vivian is Geoff’s mother. Vivian is a friend. She’s a supporter. She’s a student of the French language and is an exemplary role model for men and women throughout my riding. Would you please help me welcome Vivian to these precincts.

[1005]

Tributes

LOIS CAIRNS

Hon. T. Lake: On Saturday, my wife and I get to attend a very special event in Vancouver. It is to celebrate the 100th birthday of Lois Cairns.

Lois was born in Estevan, Saskatchewan on March 11, 1917. When she was 18, she moved to Port Alberni, where she worked for a while, then to Trail, where she met and married Allan Cairns in 1942. They had two sons, John and Richard, in Trail. John is a former dean of the faculty of medicine at UBC, Richard a former Crown prosecutor.

They then moved to Calgary, where they added three girls to the family, including our very special friend Debbie. They moved back to Trail in about 1958 and lived there until 1979, when Allan retired from service with Cominco and moved to the Lower Mainland.

Debbie tells me that her mom never worked outside the home after she was married, but she kept very busy. She was an expert bridge player and an enthusiastic golfer and curler. She never drank or smoked, but apparently hosted and attended a lot of cocktail parties in the ’60s and ’70s. She took up snow-skiing and water-skiing in her 40s, and in her 80s, when she couldn’t golf anymore, she took up lawn bowling, enrolled in several university classes and took a last major trip with her daughters, a Mediterranean cruise, when she was 90.

Lois has five children, 12 grandchildren and 9.75 great-grandchildren. Would the House please wish Lois Cairns a very happy 100th birthday.

PUBLIC SAFETY LIFELINE
VOLUNTEER AWARD RECIPIENTS

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Each year the province recognizes Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer award winners and their significant contributions to emergency and disaster response throughout the province. As Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness, I can’t emphasize enough how fortunate we are in this province to have more than 13,000 public safety lifeline volunteers in communities throughout B.C. These volunteers donate their time and, in some cases, risk their lives during rescues or in disaster situations to help keep British Columbians safe. A select few are with us today.

These volunteers have distinguished themselves for their extraordinary contributions to their communities. In the gallery today, I would like to introduce Deborah Reid for her work with emergency social services. She’s from Victoria. Brad Sills, our Search and Rescue award winner this year, from Whistler. Al and Kathy Kasatkin, with PEP Air, from Abbotsford. And Steve Kallies and Tom Hopkins, who are representing the Fernie road rescue team.

There are two recipients who unfortunately could not be here with us today. Bernie Leaker, from North Vancouver, is receiving an award for his work in radio communications, and from Salmon Arm, Ron Essex is this year’s recipient of the Lifetime Achievement award.

On behalf of the citizens and the province of British Columbia, I’d like to thank all public safety lifeline volunteers for their service and dedication. Could the House please make them feel very welcome today.

GEORGE FERGUSON

S. Gibson: Some people are larger than life. They’re filled with energy and passion. George Ferguson was truly larger than life, an amazing municipal leader for over 30 years. George has passed away at age 91 — an incredible legacy as one of our province’s longest-serving mayors. I was privileged to serve with him on Abbotsford council. He was the first mayor of the amalgamated community when Matsqui and Abbotsford got together in 1995.

He began his political career when I was still a teenager. He was well known provincially. He was president of the UBCM. Federally, he was the president of the FCM. He was everywhere in Abbotsford. Every event, every possible meeting, he was there. He was ubiquitous. I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues, the MLAs from Abbotsford South and Abbotsford West, how we’re going to miss George a lot.

There’s a Bible verse that says, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” George was truly a peacemaker. He was a bridge-builder among people that didn’t always get along, but there was consensus at the end.

He leaves 11 children, 14 grandchildren, 21 great-grandchildren and a loving wife, Ria. He’s going to be
[ Page 14204 ]
missed a lot in Abbotsford. His legacy lives on. My condolences and the condolences of this House to his family, his friends and all of the people of Abbotsford.

[1010]

Introductions by Members

D. Plecas: As we all know, occupational therapists are the art and science of enabling engagement in the daily activities of life that people need and want. We have some of these valued health care practitioners here today. Specifically, I’m pleased to introduce to the House the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapy B.C. chapter delegation.

Here with us are Andrea McNeill of WorkSafe B.C.; UBC doctoral candidate Laura Bulk; Sharon Campbell from Interior Health; Allison Patterson from Island Health; UBC’s head, faculty of occupational science and occupational therapy, faculty of medicine, Dr. Susan Forwell; Jeff Boniface of Boniface Consulting occupational therapy services; Katrina Tilley, with the Neil Squire Society; Julia Patria from the CAOT-BC private practice business network; and Giovanna Boniface of the CAOT, national director of professional affairs.

I know all members, like me, will want to wish them a great welcome.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the member opposite in welcoming the occupational therapists who are here today. They do amazing work in our community — caring for seniors, caring for people with disabilities, caring for people in residential care facilities. The work that they do is so absolutely critical to ensuring comfort and function and quality of life for our seniors. It’s one of those professions that is too often overlooked, and it should not be. They are really vital to our seniors being able to enjoy a dignified life, especially in the last years of their life.

I join the member opposite and everyone in this House in wishing them a very warm welcome to the Legislature of British Columbia.

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to welcome Joanne Landolt and Linda Proctor to the House today, along with our friend Lorne Mayencourt. We will be speaking about them later. Please welcome them to the Legislative Assembly.

G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by a good friend of mine, Fred Busch, from Sicamous. Fred is a former councillor, a former mayor, an avid golfer and, with the election season upon us, a very formidable door knocker. Fred is joined today by a good friend of his, Ron Otke. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

M. Hunt: It’s always a pleasure for any member of this House to welcome students from their schools who are here learning about how our wonderful government works and the beautiful democracy that we have here in the province of British Columbia. Today with us are students from West Coast Christian School, with their teacher Addison Lacasse. I’d ask all the House to please make them very welcome to the people’s House.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M238 — COMMUNITY CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Community Charter Amendment Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Community Charter Amendment Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to introduce a bill intituled the Community Charter Amendment Act, 2017. This bill makes a number of changes to section 49 of the Community Charter, which regulates special powers in relation to dangerous dogs. It adds legal clarity for proceedings and appeals in accordance with the Offence Act. It restricts the definition of a “dangerous dog” to a dog that kills or seriously injures a person or animal without provocation. It also creates standards of care for dogs held in long-term impounds, requiring that they have access to outdoor space and daily exercise. For seriously ill dogs in need of veterinary care, a compassionate release clause is included.

These are the changes that the BC SPCA has been calling for after seeing too many situations in which vague legislation has led to unjust suffering of impounded dogs. With this act, we seek to ensure the humane treatment of dogs who end up in the system, while upholding public protection from dangerous dogs.

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 M238, Community Charter Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M239 — ANIMAL
LIABILITY ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Animal Liability Act, 2017.
[ Page 14205 ]

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Animal Liability Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1015]

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Animal Liability Act. According to the Canada Safety Council, more than 460,000 dog bites occur each year in Canada. Over the years, British Columbians have called on B.C. legislators to act. Here in B.C., we do not have adequate laws to ensure that owners are liable for the actions of their pets or animals. Indeed, we only have liability being imposed on the basis of scienter doctrine, negligence or, in some cases, the Occupiers Liability Act.

This bill would ensure that owners are liable for any damages resulting from harm that the animals cause to a person or property. This bill, based on similar legislation that exists in Manitoba, is designed to ensure that owners of animals take ownership seriously and are held responsible for the actions of their pets.

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 M239, Animal Liability Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M240 — SAFE CARE ACT, 2017

G. Hogg presented a bill intituled Safe Care Act, 2017.

G. Hogg: I move that a bill intituled the Safe Care Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

G. Hogg: I am pleased to stand in this House with the support of the Premier and my caucus colleagues to present a private member’s bill intituled the Safe Care Act, 2017 — a bill that the former Children and Youth Representative said allows for the apprehension of vulnerable children and youth whose situation places them at an unacceptable level of risk and allows for a subsequent safe placement in a service that will respond to their trauma and high risk of self-harm.

There are many children in need of support and assistance to deal with issues of mental health, substance abuse, sexual exploitation or partner violence. Many parents and social workers are frustrated and desperate, as they try to save their children from a destructive and potentially life-threatening lifestyle. I believe that the provision of voluntary services such as detox, residential treatment, recovery programs and mental health services are the most effective ways of dealing with these youth. But sometimes voluntary services are not enough. Sometimes youth face dire circumstances and are at great risk.

This act will be used as a court-mandated last resort and would affect a small percentage of the hundreds of youth who come into contact with the child care system every year. The focus of safe care would be to stabilize the emotional and physical health of these children for a short period of time so that their needs can be assessed and a case care plan can be developed. This time-out in a safe, secure environment will allow a child to access the services available to best meet their needs.

If necessary, a court order can extend this period from an initial five days to a maximum total of 30 days. Youth will have an individualized safety and support plan prior to returning to their community. Participants in the development of this plan include the youth, their family, service providers and other identified community resources.

While at-risk youth come from all socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, aboriginal youth are disproportionately represented in the child care system. This Safe Care Act, therefore, has provisions that would ensure that indigenous people are engaged in the development and delivery of culturally sensitive and appropriate plans for each individual. Our current legislation does not provide for safe care, and this legislation would provide a short-term safe option for those youth at risk.

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 M240, Safe Care Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MARGARET MITCHELL

S. Simpson: All of us over our lives meet remarkable and special people. Margaret Mitchell was such a person. She passed away yesterday at the age of 92. The Member of Parliament for Vancouver East from 1979 to1993, Margaret was a leader on women’s issues, multiculturalism and social justice. It was appropriate that she passed on International Women’s Day, as the fight for women’s equality was such an important part of her life’s work.

She created a national debate when she called out male MPs who made jokes while she raised the issue of violence against women, chastising those MPs and calling it “no laughing matter.” That became the headline in news-
[ Page 14206 ]
papers and newscasts across Canada. It did not happen again in the House of Commons.

I worked with her in Ottawa during the repatriation of the constitution. Margaret made her office campaign central for women’s groups to fight a successful campaign to entrench women’s rights in the Charter.

[1020]

Margaret voted against an MP pay raise and then quietly used the money to create the Margaret Mitchell Fund for Women to support opportunities for poor women in Vancouver. That fund thrives today.

She was the first MP to raise the issue of the Chinese head tax in the House of Commons. She pushed the government to decriminalize abortion, worked with First Nations women for reinstatement of their status and supported a national child care program.

Before politics she worked in Japan, Korea, Australia and Austria for the Canadian Red Cross and was the innovator of the community development model in Vancouver to help citizens to organize for their rights.

I met her as a teenager growing up in the Raymur housing project in Strathcona. She inspired me to pursue the path my life has taken. She was my friend and my mentor.

Margaret has received numerous awards and accolades over the years, including the Order of British Columbia, in 2000, and the Freedom of the City of Vancouver this year.

Margaret never chased headlines, always fought with determination, principle and resolve for social justice, for the rights of our most vulnerable citizens and for true equality for all. In doing so, she has made a lasting impact on the lives of many people in B.C. and across the country.

FRED BING

D. Bing: A very special person passed away in November. Fred Bing was born in Lethbridge, Alberta, on February 3, 1924. Fred was a World War II veteran, and I recall growing up mesmerized by his stories of heroism and sacrifice during the war.

He was only 17 years old and an air cadet when the Second World War broke out and military recruiters asked him to enlist in the RCAF. Although Chinese were denied Canadian citizenship, Fred wanted to prove his loyalty to the country, and he joined the RCAF in 1940. He flew missions on Mitchell aircraft out of Dunsfold, England. He made bonds with his air crew that lasted his lifetime.

In gratitude to Fred and other Chinese Canadians who risked their lives to fight for Canada, the Canadian government removed the most discriminatory laws in 1947 and gave them basic human rights, such as the right to vote, hold public office and own property. Imposed labour, education and employment restrictions ended, as well as health and housing segregation.

It is the story of Fred’s military service and that of our brother Allan, who also served in the RCAF, and how their actions made our country a better place that inspired me to run for office in 2013.

I’m pleased to say that Canada will be recognizing Fred’s unique contribution to the country this summer, and our family will be in Ottawa on July 17, where Fred will be accorded a military funeral at the National Military Cemetery.

Fred was a humble person with a calm, easygoing manner, a quick wit and a wry sense of humour. He was kind to others, and others were kind to him in return.

To me, he will always be larger than life — a hero.

ROTARY CLUB OF COQUITLAM
SPORTS GALA EVENT

S. Robinson: Last week the Rotary Club of Coquitlam hosted its first-ever sports gala dinner to celebrate the 50-year history of their club.

Over 200 people joined the inaugural event to acknowledge a significant milestone. Former B.C. Lion Angus Reid was the emcee. Canucks alumni Kirk McLean and Jyrki Lumme were joined by the B.C. Lion legend Lui Passaglia and former NHLer and Coquitlam Express alumnus David Jones. They were also joined by Marco Iannuzzi, current B.C. Lion.

These men talked about life as professional athletes, their role models, the value of leadership and the most memorable moments they had as athletes.

I had the distinct pleasure of sitting with some of these men, including Travis Cornwall and Logan Schuss, professional lacrosse players with the Vancouver Stealth. Travis and Logan had lots to say about how it is that the Victoria Shamrocks had won the Mann Cup, but I will take that story up with the Leader of the Opposition at some point later.

Thousands of dollars were raised that night to support the work of the Rotary, including raising funds for upgrades to Mountain View Park. But the sweetest part of the event was our partnership with the Canucks Autism Network. The Rotary Club of Coquitlam had committed to splitting the fundraised dollars with the Canucks Autism Network.

As part of the evening, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain spoke not as an MLA but as a mom of a child with autism. As a mom, she shared how the Canucks Autism Network helped her son score a goal on the Vancouver Whitecaps and what it meant to her family to have her son be successful. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house.

On top of that, Rotary invited Robert Gagno, world pinball champion, a young man living with autism who not only demonstrated his pinball wizardry at the event but challenged Kirk McLean to a pinball game, completely outscoring the 1994 goalie legend.

[1025]

Congratulations to the Rotary Club of Coquitlam. They hosted an amazing inaugural event, and I can’t wait until next year. Well done.

ST. PAUL’S HOSPITAL

S. Sullivan: In the late 1800s, the Sisters of Providence arrived in Vancouver after hearing of needs in this burgeoning coastal city. When they arrived, they made a plan to meet the needs of people by building a 25-bed hospital. Their mandate, which still lives on, is about seeing suffering, feeling compassion and meeting needs. It’s about the people.

Over 123 years, St. Paul’s has stepped up when others wouldn’t and has become a hotbed for innovation and discovery. Examples. St. Paul’s is the home to the provincial Heart Centre, the referral centre for all of B.C.’s most complex cardiac cases. It’s the only facility in B.C. to perform adult heart transplants — 27 in 2016, three of which were performed in 24 hours.

The heart valve replacement technique pioneered by Dr. John Webb at the provincial Heart Centre has allowed more than 250,000 people in over 40 countries to have heart valves replaced without open-heart surgery.

St. Paul’s Centre for Heart Lung Innovation ranks first in Canada for research, helping people with lung disease breathe and survive.

St. Paul’s was one of the first hospitals in Canada to treat HIV/AIDS patients. Thanks to Dr. Julio Montaner’s treatment as prevention strategy, developed at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS at St. Paul’s, the treatment and care is about living and not dying. The same methods that were adopted to eliminate AIDS globally are now being applied to address other contagious diseases, like hep C.

Now St. Paul’s is on the front lines of the opioid crisis. Thanks to the newly established, world-class B.C. Centre on Substance Use, innovative treatment and care can help people stay alive and live better lives while struggling with problematic substance use.

All of this has been possible in a 120-year-old facility. Now as we look to the future of St. Paul’s and the health of British Columbians, we have an opportunity unlike one we’ve ever had to give our patients and health care professionals the hospital and integrated health campus they deserve.

When the doors of the new St. Paul’s open, it will stand firmly among the world’s great health care centres, because our citizens deserve the best in care. At the new St. Paul’s, the acute hospital will be the central feature that will also house medical clinics, research facilities and a health technology hub with industry partners. Research and patient care will be integrated as teams work side by side to transform early care concepts into real solutions for patients. Patients will continue to be seen as human beings and individuals.

Join me in supporting the new St. Paul’s and, with it, a new model of care.

KIDNEY DONATION AND
PAIRED-EXCHANGE PROGRAM

J. Rice: Today, on World Kidney Day, I want to relay a story about how Facebook is leading to someone getting a much-needed kidney. Irene Mills, a constituent of mine in Prince Rupert, is about to go on a journey of donating an organ. She tells me this: “After seeing my niece’s soccer teammate sick and needing help, on Facebook, I asked what was wrong. The response I received was that she needed someone who had a kidney to spare and who also had O positive blood type. As a blood donor for many years, I knew that I was O positive and that I could donate a kidney.”

Irene completed the medical tests and the interview process and became an approved donor in June of 2011. Unfortunately, the young lady she signed up for was not a match, so they entered into the paired-exchange program. This has meant more tests for compatibility and good health, which have gone well, and they are both on the verge of completing a donation through a number of paired-exchange matches across Canada.

Why did Irene sign up for this program? The young woman on Facebook was diagnosed with kidney disease when her youngest son was two years old. Irene thought this young lady needed a chance to see her boys grow up. She saw a young, single mom needing help, and she had the ability to help. She says: “I have been blessed with good health and have seen my children grow up, and I get to enjoy time with my grandchildren.”

About one in ten people have some degree of chronic kidney disease, and that can develop at any age. Simple blood and urine tests can detect chronic kidney disease, and the progression can be slowed with simple, low-cost treatments. Then there are also generous, kind-hearted people like Irene who, when in need, will give the gift of life and donate a kidney. Today is World Kidney Day.

[1030]

KIMBERLY’S LAW

J. Thornthwaite: It was a horrific crime. In March of 2010, Langford teen Kimberly Proctor was brutally murdered by two of her peers. Those boys exhibited serious behavioural problems at home and school before the murder but did not seek or receive any treatment.

During the deliberations of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth special project on child and youth mental health, we heard similar documented cases in which at-risk youth refused to get or accept treatment. Since 2010, Kimberly’s family has been educating lawmakers, in our Legislature as well as federally, on Kimberly’s law — proposals to reform the young
[ Page 14208 ]
offenders system, which includes both federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Kimberly’s law would establish threat assessment protocols in schools, mandatory counselling and treatment, and parental responsibility requirements. The other proposals build upon the Young Offenders Act and would make those convicted of first- or second-degree murder fully accountable for their actions — transfers to adult court, publication of young offender names upon a guilty plea, truth in sentencing and interim custody.

We thank Kimberly’s family, her aunt Jo-Anne and her grandmother Linda, who are here today, for their persistent advocacy to make changes in laws to protect our youth and society. We hope that the bill that is introduced today will help prevent further tragedies and protect our youth who may be victims in the future.

Oral Questions

FINANCING ARRANGEMENT FOR
HOUSING PROJECT IN VANCOUVER

D. Eby: In 2015, the Wall Corp., a massive development company in Vancouver, walked in a proposal to B.C. Housing. They bought some land on Hastings Street in the Downtown Eastside where the zoning required them to build rental housing. Just over half of the units were required to be affordable.

Their proposal? B.C. Housing should provide them with an interest-free construction financing of $39½ million. They also proposed that B.C. Housing pay them a 10 percent developer fee worth $3.3 million for the privilege of giving the Wall Corp. interest-free money to build something they had to anyway under the zoning.

My question for the Minister for Housing is simple. Did he agree to provide interest-free financing and a multi-million-dollar fee to a rich developer to build something they would have had to build anyway under the zoning rules in Vancouver?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t have the details of that particular project at my fingertips, but I’ll certainly provide them for him. It would be unusual for us to do what the member described, but it is not unusual for us to enter into an agreement to take affordable rental units that we can subsidize in the marketplace for people that need housing in Vancouver or anywhere else in the province of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, just in the pipeline right now in Vancouver alone there are 800 units under construction and about another 1,100 to 1,200 units in process, waiting to be approved by the city of Vancouver.

That would be supportive housing for people in homelessness or at risk of homelessness. It’s housing for people that are in a shelter and being transitioned to housing — for people that would need supportive housing like the rental assistance program or SAFER, in the city of Vancouver, which is well in the increment of about 30,000-plus people. In the city of Vancouver, households get support in housing. We support them directly in the marketplace.

We do work with all aspects of the marketplace with regards to housing to be able to make sure that we can find product for affordable housing, within actual existing developments as well as purpose-built buildings that we actually do ourselves, as well as what we do in the marketplace.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: It’s interesting that the minister forgot about this unusual project, because B.C. Housing also forgot about this unusual project. When we asked them, under freedom of information, for a list of projects where they’d provided construction financing, they sent us a list of non-profit organizations building housing projects worth an average of $3.2 million, for interest rates between 1 and 1¼ percent.

The project they forgot? They forgot to list the project worth ten times their average construction financing. They forgot to list the project where they didn’t charge interest. They forgot to list the project they were financing that is 62 percent for-profit market housing and commercial space.

[1035]

We didn’t find out about the Wall Corp. project through the Freedom of Information Act. We found out about it because someone leaked the proposal.

So why does the minister charge interest to non-profit organizations building 100 percent affordable housing and not charge interest to a for-profit developer building a building with only 38 percent affordable housing?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is looking at a proposal, saying, “You did this,” when he doesn’t have the information, and I told him I’d get him the information.

So if you want to go jump to your accusation, like you always do….

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: You usually never have any facts to back up what you’re saying with regards to anything that you do.

I will get the information for the member, and I’ll let you know exactly what happened with that particular proposal.

I do know that we do deals, where we go in…. We will do construction financing on portions of projects that are ours that we’re going to have the benefit — for the public, for affordable housing in British Columbia. We do that be-
[ Page 14209 ]
cause we’re very effective at actually delivering thousands of units in British Columbia — 5,000 actually, right now. The largest investment in housing in British Columbia’s history is taking place in this province right now.

There are over 2,000 units under construction and 2,900 that are approved to go forward, in addition to other investments we’ve already made in housing. We have the largest investment in operating that we’ve ever had in the province of British Columbia. In the city of Vancouver alone, almost 28,000 households are supported by B.C. Housing every single month, on an annual basis, and that budget in Vancouver has gone from $100 million to $200 million in operating, just in the city of Vancouver in the last ten years.

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

D. Eby: It is profoundly ironic to hear from a member of this government accusations about being light on facts. This government has a remarkable track record.

It’s no wonder that the Wall Corp. and its principals donated $400,000 to the B.C. Liberals in 2016. They had an extra $3.3 million in B.C. Housing money to spend. This is money that was supposed to be spent to house the poorest of the poor, and it was given to a B.C. Liberal donor to do something they had to do anyway, under the zoning bylaws.

Even worse than taking money from the poorest of the poor to give to B.C. Liberal donors, when the minister was asked why he couldn’t help a building full of seniors in Kelowna, facing homelessness after their building was sold, he said: “We don’t go in and build buildings in the marketplace for rental with developers.” Well, unless that developer is a major donor to the B.C. Liberal Party.

Why did the Housing Minister…?

Interjection.

D. Eby: You can send me a voice mail, Attorney General.

Why did the Housing Minister refuse to make an exception to his strict rule for seniors facing homelessness in Kelowna but gladly broke the same rule for a major B.C. Liberal donor?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member was on radio in Kelowna the other day saying that we did something that we’ve never done. Again, he didn’t have his facts. So I’m going to give him some factoids. Let’s give him factoids.

The city of Vancouver…. There are 120 people approved today to buy their first home under the HOME program in Vancouver. There are 779 people in British Columbia now approved to buy their first home, something that you’ve already said you’ll cancel and tell those people they shouldn’t be buying their first home.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 30,000 households in British Columbia getting a form of rent assistance every single month, something that you oppose and you would get rid of…

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: …and put 30,000 people out on the street because you won’t support them in the marketplace — which we’re already doing, by the way. In Kelowna, 90 of the units already have SAFER, and we’re working with that building to make sure they’ve got assistance for the people who are living there, as we go work through that purchase.

The other factoid that the member doesn’t know is that we actually tried to buy that building, and that society wanted to sell it in the private marketplace.

[1040]

FIXED-TERM TENANCIES

M. Mark: For years, we’ve been calling on this government to close a loophole that is forcing renters to choose between paying a huge increase in their rent or finding a new place to live. Yesterday the Premier said she believes people should have the opportunity to wake up in a place that they can call their own, to raise their children in a place that they know, where they don’t have to move at the end of every month.

I agree. But the Premier refuses to close the loophole, and as a result, renters are forced to move out of their homes because they can’t afford the rental hikes.

Lindsie Arbeiter is a renter in Vancouver whose landlord exploits the fixed-term leases. Her rent has gone up nearly 10 percent in the last two years. Lindsie feels like she is being squeezed out of her home because of the law that the B.C. Liberals refuse to change.

My question is to the Housing Minister. Why hasn’t he closed the loophole to protect renters like Lindsie?

Hon. R. Coleman: Fixed-term tenancy has been in place in British Columbia for about 40 years, so you had ten years to take a look at this, and you did nothing with it.

We have done some work to try and see how we can do it and, at the same, time protect the property, the rights of people that want to come into British Columbia for short-term tenancies. Some of the people in the movie industry come in and do a one-year lease and then move on. There are issues legally that are being worked on with that, and we’re doing the work right now, hon. Member.

I heard the member say that she…. What the Premier said yesterday about people having the opportunity to own their own home and know that they can make a
[ Page 14210 ]
mortgage payment and not get moved out every day — she says she supports that, when in actual fact, you’ve clearly, clearly stated publicly that you will not keep the HOME program.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: You will cancel it and not have affordable home ownership for people in British Columbia who want to buy their first home. Explain that to me somehow — how you balance the fact that you absolutely don’t….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member from Coquitlam goes like this. Well, by the way, there are 60 people approved to buy their first home in the Tri-Cities, on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, alone.

Madame Speaker: All comments will be directed through the Chair.

M. Mark: Bakhos Mjalleh is a renter in Vancouver who was handed a 20 percent increase in his rent because he was on a fixed-term lease. The legal limit for a rent increase is 2.9 percent. He couldn’t afford this huge spike in his rent, so he had to find somewhere else to live.

The issue with fixed-term leases isn’t just happening in Vancouver; 80 percent of the leases in Kitimat are fixed-term.

If the Premier really thinks people shouldn’t have to move out of their homes at the end of every month, then why is this government allowing landlords to increase rents by 20 percent for people like Bakhos?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said, we’re doing some work on it because there are significant legal issues and stuff that needs to be worked out with regards to rights of people in a fixed-term tenancy. That’s a legal, binding agreement between two parties.

Outside of that, anybody that is actually operating under the Residential Tenancy Act should not be raising their rents any more than 2 percent plus CPI, because that is the law.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know you don’t like that.

However, this member, in particular, should be very thankful to the government of British Columbia, given the fact that we bought 24 buildings in your riding, renovated and saved them for affordable housing in your community — 24.

Over 50 of them provincewide — buildings that we’ve renovated and added into the marketplace, for affordability. Tens of thousands of units have been built in British Columbia since 2001 for affordable housing. The number of shelter spaces with meals in British Columbia is three times the number of shelter spaces in 2001.

But remember this. In 2001, there wasn’t a shelter in British Columbia that was open 24 hours a day with meals for people instead of throwing them out on the street. There were no outreach workers dealing with the homeless and people who are the most at risk in the province of British Columbia.

This is the most significant, successful housing strategy in Canadian history. We continue to have pressures that we’ll deal with.

[1045]

The most important part of this for us is that we….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: The most vulnerable in British Columbia have been where we are concentrating the money as we also do other things for affordable rental in British Columbia. The NDP, at some point in time, are going to have to tell the province of British Columbia’s people why they would cancel a SAFER and rent assistance program to help people that are vulnerable, because you don’t support that program, and why you would cancel a program that’ll help families get into their first home for the first time in their lives.

You’ll cancel that, and in cancelling that, you’ll also, notionally, actually not bring in the rental housing additions that you build by changing the marketplace.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY BRANCH
BUDGET AND STAFFING

S. Simpson: When the Housing Minister doubled the fees for people seeking help with their rental situation, his government claimed that money was being pulled in to be used to hire more staff at the residential tenancy branch. Last July there were 34 people at the residential tenancy branch helping with dispute resolution. Today there are 29 people.

To the Housing Minister: how does doubling fees and cutting the number of staff help people who are worried about getting thrown out of their homes?

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s only because the member opposite only accounts expenditures by bodies. How about better systems? How about more on-line opportunities for people to do dispute resolution? How about speeding up how you do things? How about clarifying how you’re going to actually deal with residential tenancy disputes so the people don’t have to travel to go some-
[ Page 14211 ]
where to deal with it? All of those are the aspects of the reform and the work being done at the residential tenancy branch.

I’m curious though, member opposite. If the HOME program next year gets 10,000 people — which is the estimate — the opportunity to buy their first home in the first year…. Presumably, when we know that 90 percent of those people are renting today…. If you have 10,000 people move into their own home and 9,000 rental products come back on the marketplace for people, just think of the positive impact on two things: families getting their first home, and more product coming on for rental for people in the marketplace to actually drive down the price of rents with some competition. I think that’s a pretty good idea.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Only this minister and this government would say that cutting the budget of the residential tenancy branch and eliminating staff is good for renters in a rental housing crisis. That’s what they think. Unbelievable.

It’s not only the number of staff that have been reduced by this Housing Minister. The budget for the residential tenancy branch has been cut by 2 percent. This means there are fewer resources to help renters in the worst rental market in the country.

To the Housing Minister again: B.C. is in the middle of a rental housing crisis. Why would you cut funding to the very organization that’s supposed to help renters and landlords to keep people in their homes in the middle of a crisis? It is absurd, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I had a colleague that used to say “in the NDP world” all the time. He’s no longer in this House, but he used to say that. In an NDP world, nothing ever is supposed to change. You’re not supposed to improve your call systems, how you triage your calls, how you improve your technology, how you can do things faster and looking at the capacity that you really need for each aspect of the branch.

All of that has been done. That’s the reason we’re going the way we are, and I know you don’t like it.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the members opposite…. I know you’re railing away over there, but the member who asked me the first questions earlier about that project: you’re completely and totally wrong.

DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES
AND REGULATION OF LOBBYISTS

A. Weaver: Vast amounts of money are flowing from fossil fuel companies to both the B.C. Liberals and — to a much lesser extent, mind you — the B.C. NDP.

[1050]

Between 2008 and 2015, 48 fossil fuel companies and industry groups donated $5.2 million to the government and official opposition and reported more than 22,000 lobbying contacts with public officials between 2010 and 2016.

With seven of the top donors also ranking among the most active lobbyists, there is a substantial overlap between those who give money and those who get meetings. To further that, 28 percent of lobbying by the top-ten most active lobbyists has been directly with cabinet ministers — an unrivalled level of access — and the Minister of Natural Gas Development is the most targeted member in the entire Legislature.

In light of this, my question to the Minister of Justice is this. How does the government expect the public to trust that their interests are being protected and that these practices are not buying lobbyists and their clients special treatment?

Hon. S. Anton: It may be that the member was not here yesterday to know that we actually established the first-ever lobbyist registry in 2002 to establish transparency so British Columbians could see who is doing the lobbying. There never was a registry before that. After some years of experience with that registry, we updated it in 2009, creating one of the strongest regimes for lobbyist registration in Canada.

The updates increased the registrar’s powers and duties. The lobbyist registrar now has the power to conduct investigations, to compel testimony and to compel documents. In other words, the lobbyist registrar has the tools that he or she needs in order to make sure that the registry is conducted properly and that the lobbyists are conducting themselves in accordance with the rules, which is what I expect, which is what we expect as a government.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I’m glad the minister talked about the lobbying registry, because frankly, we are one of the weaker in the country of Canada. B.C. lacks rules to regulate lobbying practices and ensure transparency.

We know that extensive lobbying is ongoing in B.C., but we have no code of conduct for lobbyists. Moreover, we have no requirement in B.C. for lobbyists to register actual meetings with public office holders. All they have to do is register who they plan to lobby. Other jurisdictions in Canada have much stricter standards.
[ Page 14212 ]

It’s clear to me that with our rampant cash-for-access system and allegations that lobbyists are engaging in illegal donation practices on behalf of their clients — largely to the B.C. Liberals but also to the B.C. NDP — we need much more stringent rules. We need standards against which the public can hold lobbyists and their contacts in the government to account.

My question to the Minister of Justice is: will the minister commit to transparency on lobbying practices, including requiring lobbyists to report on actual meetings held with government officials and creating a code of conduct for lobbyists?

Hon. S. Anton: The matter that the member referred to about contributions is very clearly, if that were to happen, a breach not of the lobbyists act but of the Election Act. The Election Act in section 186(2)(b) says that “an individual may make a political contribution with the money of another individual, but must disclose to the individual required to record the contribution under section 190….”

In other words, you can make a payment on behalf of a third party, but the third party must be disclosed. It must be very clear that it is that third party’s money which has gone to the payment. That is a breach of the Election Act. It is very clearly a breach if that is conducted. I think that that’s the conduct the member is referring to.

In fact, to the lobbying act itself, the 2009 updates to the act put very strict and significant penalties into that act for breaches of the act.

POLLUTER-PAY PRINCIPLE AND
CONTAMINATED SOIL CASE IN SAANICH

L. Popham: In 2012, the Blazkow family purchased a home in Saanich. Little did they know that the land had been used by an unauthorized oil tank remediation business until 2004. When they began to excavate for a new building, they discovered over 1,200 tonnes of contaminated soil just below the surface. The family reported the contaminated site to the ministry.

[1055]

Despite the fact that the polluter-pays principle is enshrined in the Environmental Management Act, the family was advised that they were responsible for cleanup and cost recovery.

Will the Minister of Environment do her job and ensure that her ministry makes the polluter pay?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m not familiar with the individual case that the member raises. Certainly, I know the member would be aware, being a resident on Vancouver Island, that there are significant issues with abandoned oil tanks, unused oil tanks, underneath residential properties. Primarily, the person who purchases the property is responsible for what happens with that oil tank, but I’m happy to look at the issue that the member raises with respect to that individual property.

Madame Speaker: Saanich South on a supplemental.

L. Popham: The minister should be aware of this situation. It landed on her doorstep, and she’s dropped the ball.

This family is desperate. They have spent over $100,000 and are facing at least $200,000 more in bills, when they are not the polluters. This family is just trying to make a home. They are not responsible for creating this mess.

I visited with the family last week, and the air was thick with the smell of oil and solvents. In their backyard, where their children play, sit 1,200 tonnes of contaminated soil that no one will touch. This isn’t just about the money. This is about the health of these kids and the quality of their lives.

Will the minister support this innocent family and enforce her own Environmental Management Act?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I’m not familiar with the specifics of that individual case. I’m happy to look into that on behalf of the member and on behalf of the individuals involved.

I am going to be cautious about it, because, of course, the issue of abandoned oil tanks underground on residential properties is a concern across Vancouver Island and something that could have other ramifications in terms of the law. So I’ll be cautious about speaking to an individual case in the House before I have the details.

G. Heyman: The Environment Ministry put out a fact sheet not two months ago with a list of bullet points about their so-called enforcement. It says: “The polluter-pay principle ensures those who are responsible for spills are also responsible for cleaning them up.”

Yet in Saanich, the Blazkow family has been under threat for five years, facing six-figure cleanup costs and mounting, for pollution that happened long before they ever took possession of the property.

Will the Environment Minister ensure that the polluter-pay principle is followed in this case so the family isn’t on the hook?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I’m not familiar with the individual case, but we do pursue the polluter-pay principle. A very good example would be Alpha Manufacturing. For years they dumped construction waste into Burns Bog. Legal action was taken, and in fact, that resulted in jail time and significant financial penalties.

We always pursue the polluter-pay model, and I’ll be happy to look into this matter on behalf of the member.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.
[ Page 14213 ]

G. Heyman: That’s an interesting comment from the minister, “We always pursue,” because last year the Auditor General eviscerated this government for poor oversight and lax enforcement of laws to protect our environment. She called it a decade of neglect and added: “Almost all of our expectations for a robust compliance and enforcement program were not met.”

The government’s own literature is clear. It says: “Any individual or company responsible for a hazardous material spill must pay for the cleanup.” So why are families like this one in Saanich stuck with a massive $100,000 cleanup bill?

[1100]

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll be happy to look into the case for the member.

FUNDING FOR TELKWA WATER TOWER
AND GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

D. Donaldson: The village of Telkwa residents, in my constituency, need a new water tower to ensure an adequate supply for safety and expansion purposes. But they’ve been turned down twice by this government for a grant of less than $2 million.

Tuesday night, while watching TV coverage of the Canucks-Habs game, Telkwa residents saw a B.C. Liberal government ad telling them how great things are, part of a taxpayer-funded $16 million ad spend by this government — double what was spent last year — just before an election. The tag line for that ad was: “Our opportunity is here.” Opportunity for taxpayer-funded propaganda from the B.C. Liberals but not for a water tower for Telkwa.

Could the minister please explain how his government can spend $16 million of taxpayers’ money on a TV ad campaign but can’t provide a fraction of that for the people of Telkwa, for something as basic as water?

Interjections.

D. Donaldson: I said the minister responsible for government advertising.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Our advertising programs are clearly based on the Auditor General’s criteria. They must inform British Columbians of programs that they can take benefit from. We have embarked upon advertising programs critical to British Columbians in fields such as opioid awareness, which we covered here the other day; the savings grant program available to families so that they can provide for the education of their children; and of course, the MSP reductions, which have been a key part of this government’s budget, with a $1 billion reduction in MSP fees to individuals, which they can take advantage of by going to the website. That is advertised to British Columbians so that they can be the beneficiaries of the prosperity here in B.C.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports: Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Investigation Report 17-01, lobbyist Michael Goehring; and a report of the Auditor General, An Audit of B.C. Public Service Ethics Management.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 9, the Finance Statutes Amendments Act, 2017.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 9 be read a second time now and will say that it is one of these pieces of legislation that probably lends itself best to a conversation in the committee stage, insofar as the provisions are highly technical in nature.

It makes technical changes to a number of Finance statutes: amendments to the Income Tax Act, primarily to ensure that the B.C. Income Tax Act remains consistent with applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act of Canada. That is not just advisable; it’s also required under the Canada–British Columbia tax collection agreement.

[1105]

There are amendments being made to the child fitness credit to ensure consistency with bankruptcy rules. That, happily, applies in a very, very small number of cases. But there is a need to ensure that the tax credit, child fitness credit, provisions are consistent with bankruptcy rules for other non-refundable credits.

There are amendments to the film and television tax credit to clarify the stages of production — during which salary, wages or remuneration are included in determining the amount of the credit claimable — and another couple of amendments to ensure that the rules in the credit remain aligned with the rules in the federal credit. Again, no substantive changes in those provisions — but technical, to ensure that there is consistency.

In the Insurance Premium Tax Act and the Logging Tax Act, there are amendments to definitions. They are modernized to ensure that the calculation of interest on amounts owed to government are clear. That really relates to the date at which the calculation for interest begins. Similarly, with the Logging Tax Act, it is amended to clarify, again, the calculation of interest to ensure con-
[ Page 14214 ]
sistency in the calculation of that interest between the Logging Tax Act and the Income Tax Act.

There is a technical amendment to the Tobacco Tax Act which clarifies the amount of a collection bond the director may require from a person as a condition of holding a permit to sell tobacco. That change will allow the director to request a bond amount that is at least $5,000 and up to the maximum bond amount as defined in the act. The provision is intended to restore the equal treatment of new applicants to existing tobacco dealers, regarding the bond. An inconsistency developed inadvertently as a result of an amendment that was introduced some time ago, as part of a separate bill.

I’m hopeful we’ll have an opportunity…. We can delve into a little more detail on these technical amendments, but that’s really all I intended to say at this stage in the second reading debate.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I think the minister has well outlined the clauses. Although this bill…. When the public takes a look at it, at 40 clauses, they may think that it contains a great deal of information that will have an impact on them. As the minister has outlined, most of the clauses in this bill, in fact, are technical in nature and do not have an impact on an individual — to make a change, whether it’s tax law or otherwise, for them. I think that’s important for the public to note.

As the minister has said, most of these changes are related to coordinating the federal and provincial tax acts. The issue of refundable and non-refundable tax credits is an interesting one — perhaps not interesting for all of the public but interesting for some of us — around why some credits are refundable at one level and non-refundable at other levels. If we get to committee stage, we’ll have a chance to be able to just ask some questions about how that decision is made and when those changes occur.

The film tax credit clarification, again, might be an interesting discussion if we get to committee stage. There have been some questions raised — more at the federal level and more in Ontario than other places — about whether, because there are so many tax credits for the film industry, those could be utilized in the wrong way and could be utilized as a tax shelter for money. I think there may be some interesting questions to raise around film financing and the piece that’s coming forward around that issue.

But other than that, I would agree with the minister. I think these are technical in nature. That’s the end of my remarks.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, thank you — and to the hon. opposition Finance critic for her contribution to the debate. I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Now I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, 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. M. de Jong: That takes us back to ongoing committee stage on Bill 2, the Adoption Amendment Act.

[1110]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — ADOPTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On section 2 (continued).

M. Mark: It’s good to be back. Thank you to the minister and the team that are here to field my curiosities about this act.

Going back to section 2, just to conclude this piece. I wanted to ask about…. We know that there are some post-adoption supports available to children in B.C. Yesterday we were talking about other provinces and their jurisdictions. Can the minister describe or explain if the other provinces have post-adoption measures in place? If not, what are the options to remedy that? I’m just curious about post-adoptions across the country available to B.C. kids.

[1115]

Hon. M. Polak: Most provinces do have post-adoption supports. However, when it comes to a child being adopted from B.C. into another province, the province of B.C. would pay for and continue the same kinds of post-adoption supports, such as providing occupational therapy, physical therapy, counselling — those types of services that we would ordinarily provide here to a qualifying family. Those agreements would be renewed every two years with the family.

In a case where another province is providing some of those supports, we would still pay for those services to be provided. We would fill any gaps that don’t exist….

M. Mark: Just to clarify, is the provision in place up until the child’s 19th birthday?
[ Page 14215 ]

Hon. M. Polak: It would be to the age of majority. I’ve just asked if we know whether or not CLBC crosses into that jurisdiction, in the case of an adopted child. I don’t know that, but we’ll find out the answer to that.

M. Mark: This section is about pre-approvals of prospective adoptive parents. Something that came to mind was whether or not there is any clarity around a siblings group. We’ve talked about placing children out of B.C. to go with extended family. I understand the principle of keeping those kith-and-kin arrangements in place, but what if there’s a sibling group here in B.C. and then there’s a sibling group outside of B.C.? Again, we talked…. I won’t use the “t” word like I did yesterday.

Which jurisdiction prevails? Where would the government be looking to the best interests of a child that is from here, has a sibling here and has potential family living in another province? Do they go together? Is it a collective move of the siblings to another province?

Hon. M. Polak: There’s no hard-and-fast rule. Every family is looked upon with respect to their individual circumstances. Of course, the best interests of the child are what we’re after. There’s no hard-and-fast rule, although we try, as much as possible, to keep sibling groups together.

M. Mark: I’m just thinking about the process of adoption and a family seeking out a child. What if the situation had a sibling where one sister has special needs and the other brother doesn’t? Does the brother get adopted and the sister with the special needs not get adopted?

[1120]

I know that we’ve got practices all about looking at and considering the best interests of the child, but we’re thinking about sending children out of B.C. to be adopted. Should there be a provision that siblings must go together? Should that be a requirement before they move out of the province? Or can we be faced with a situation where one child stays behind in B.C. and the other one gets adopted in another province?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we would hesitate to put a hard-and-fast rule in. One case I can imagine is one that the member raised yesterday, the question of: what happens if you have a teenage child here and Mom in Nunavut has a little baby, and they’ve never even met? Is that a significant relationship? So we’d hesitate to put in place a hard-and-fast rule.

But when there is a sibling group that is up for adoption, and we are pursuing extended family who live in another jurisdiction, the approach would be to be seeking that they adopt the sibling group, not just one child.

Again, it always has to be evaluated on an individual case, with the best interests of the child at the centre of that, but always trying to keep sibling groups together.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Mark: My understanding is that this section, section 22(3), amends the requirement for a court revoking consent of a child’s adoption after placement from requiring a full copy of the court application to “notice of the court application…be served on everyone who consented to the adoption.”

Can the minister explain the purpose of the section?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s strictly a practical matter. I should emphasize that for anyone who receives notice of an application, they can certainly request to have a copy of the application. But moving with the times, those things really, we think, would be better served by a requirement to send notice of it, rather than just a copy of the application. It makes it consistent as well with a further proposed new section later on in the bill at 24.1.

M. Mark: Can the minister give me an example of the practical nature of the significance of this clause? Who’s doing the noticing? Can I just have an example? I’ll use the community of Hazelton, where we would be serving notice or giving copies of orders.

[1125]

Hon. M. Polak: For the non-lawyers among us, this refers to “notice” as it is defined under the Supreme Court rules. That way, in using the term “notice” and requiring that “notice of the court application” be provided, it invokes the rules with respect to time, for example. It ensures that all those who have consented to the adoption will be notified in a very timely way.

It is an official notice that is provided through process servers. But again, it invokes, then, the rules of the court, which have requirements around the timing of that notification. So it ensures that you don’t have someone receiving a copy of the application maybe even at a later date than the adoption has taken place.

M. Mark: I’m not a lawyer either. I’m trying to understand: is a sheriff or someone delivering the notice in person or by mail? Again, that’s why I gave the example of Hazelton. There are some really remote communities that it could take three ferries to get to or a 500-kilometre drive to reach. I’m just curious about the administration of carrying out this notice — and if you can describe the intent of this notice.

Hon. M. Polak: It would be a process server. It could be a social worker. There are processes in place all across the province to deal with these kinds of notifications.

This, we believe, is far superior to the current practice where, in some cases, the person or family would be re-
[ Page 14216 ]
ceiving a copy of the application in the mail and, again, may miss those very important timelines in the notice. They would then be, through that notice, made aware of any upcoming court activities, dates, etc. But it would be served to them physically.

M. Mark: The government is making a proposed amendment to the act. Can the minister describe, with those 130 kids, how people were served notice? What has been the practice for the last 20 years for those 130 kids?

[1130]

Hon. M. Polak: This section is in the case of revocation of consent. Of course, in those 130 cases, there was no revocation of consent, so there was no notice of an application or copy of an application because there was no application.

M. Mark: Is this section in response to the Grand Chief Ed John report that was made note of in the minister’s press release about amendments to this act?

Hon. M. Polak: There is no direct linkage to any recommendation in Ed John’s report, but I would argue it is consistent with many of the principles he outlined, particularly around ensuring that there is adequate information provided to families about what’s taking place.

M. Mark: Can the minister describe…? When we’re talking about the notice of court application, is there a time frame? We talked about timeliness and being served notice by process servers. What is the time frame for this?

Hon. M. Polak: The time frames are outlined in the Supreme Court rules but also in the Adoption Act. We just don’t have it at our fingertips. Maybe if we have other questions, staff can continue to peruse that and find you some detail, and we’ll get that delivered to you quickly.

M. Mark: What if the director can’t get in contact with the person that they want to notify? What if they can’t reach them?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, that happens from time to time, with all manner of court proceedings. In the case where it might happen as a revocation notice is attempted to be sent out…. If it was impossible to reach some of the parties who had consented to the adoption, then it would be over to the ministry to advise the court as to all the reasonable means that they took to try to serve notice on that person or group of people. In the case where the court wished, then an affidavit would be provided to that effect.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Mark: This is a more lengthy amendment to the Adoption Act. What is the rationale behind section 24.1(3), allowing a court to grant exemption from notification only of a child’s parents and/or the child themselves?

[1135]

Hon. M. Polak: Pardon me. It could be my listening ears. I’m wondering if we are talking about section 4 or if the question is meant…. Well, maybe this is further on.

Could the member clarify the question? We’re having trouble finding where….

M. Mark: It’s section 4, referring to sections 24 and 25, which are being amended.

Hon. M. Polak: Sorry to prolong this. We found the section you’re talking about, or the area. Could you repeat the question about it, please?

M. Mark: That’s okay. This is perfect. What is the rationale behind section 24.1(3), allowing a court to grant exemption from notification only of a child’s parents and/or the child themselves?

Hon. M. Polak: A couple of examples. This could occur in a case where the individual has passed away. It could occur in a case where the individual doesn’t have the cognitive function to be able to deal with notice of that nature. Again, according to 24.1(3), that would have to be something that the court considers appropriate. But this allows for that to occur, should that be the case.

M. Mark: I’m just curious to know what happens if a child doesn’t consent to their adoption. They may have been given notice, or for some reason, the courts have decided that they’re not going to give them notice. But what if a child has been given notice, they’re 12 years old or over and they don’t consent to their adoption out of province?

[1140]

Hon. M. Polak: I should just remind all of us that while we have dealt with a section that is specific to out-of-province adoptions, this act, of course, applies broadly, not just to out-of-province adoptions. In the case of a child who is 12 years or older, who, at that stage, does not consent to the adoption, then that adoption would not take place.

M. Mark: Earlier we were talking about times when an exemption would be made not to serve notice. Under what conditions? There were some examples the minister provided earlier: if a parent had passed away, or cognitive issues. But under what other conditions does the minister envision it being important not to notify the parents and the child?
[ Page 14217 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Each case would be looked at individually. But it’s important to note that it wouldn’t, ultimately, be the decision of the ministry. Ultimately, it would be the decision of the court to validate whether or not that was the right approach.

M. Mark: Can the minister give me some examples of when, perhaps, there would be a circumstance that the court or the ministry wouldn’t notify the parents of the child?

Hon. M. Polak: I should emphasize, just at the start, that this is not common. Typically, notice is given.

But in addition to the examples I provided, it could be in the case where a parent or guardian has just completely disappeared and many attempts have been made to locate them. It could be in a case where a parent, for some reason or another, is medically fragile or very incapacitated. It could be because there is risk of harm to the child. Perhaps the parent or guardian has been extremely abusive.

M. Mark: With respect to notification, what about the First Nations and the Métis Nation being notified of court applications? Have there been any amendments or provisions in this act that explicitly identify the First Nation or the Métis Nation being notified?

[1145]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we take it very seriously, especially given the report of Grand Chief Ed John around the work we need to do with respect to reconciliation and First Nations and the very important matter of where children are placed or if they’re taken into care.

Sections 7 and 3 of the Adoption Act deal with requirements to work with the Métis Nation, with local First Nations in regards to adoption of children from their communities. The CFCSA deals with that kind of collaboration and work, notification when a child is taken into care. This particular section only deals with notification of those who are parties to the adoption. Work with respect to the broader dealings with the Métis Nation or with the First Nation in the area is in a different section than in this one. This only deals with notice for those who are parties to the adoption.

M. Mark: Yesterday I had given mention about concerns within the indigenous community about the Sixties Scoop. It has had a big impact on our Canadian history. We’re in the wake of reconciliation and action.

I am confident that the First Nations would want to know if children are being placed out of the province. It’s one thing to be notified that children are coming into care. Often, I hear concerns from the 203 First Nations in B.C. that they weren’t properly notified even when kids come into care.

So if we’re making amendments to strengthen the Adoption Act, will there be some provisions that notify First Nations and the Métis Nation before children are being adopted out of the province? There’s an opportunity, let’s say, that a First Nation might want to go down a different plan of action to keep the child in B.C. I just want to know that that has been explored.

Hon. M. Polak: This provision here is dealing with notifying those who have a legal right to object to an adoption. That’s why they are notified about the termination of the guardianship. When it comes to our work with First Nations, with indigenous communities in terms of ensuring that they are aware of, and together, as part of the discussion, with respect to an adoption, that’s covered already under section 7.

I’ll just read a part of it.

“(1) Before placing an aboriginal child for adoption, a director or an adoption agency must make reasonable efforts to discuss the child’s placement with the following:

“(a) if the child is registered or entitled to be registered as a member of an Indian band, with a designated representative of the band; (a.1) if the child is a Nisga’a child, with a designated representative of the Nisga’a Lisims Government; (a.2) if the child is a treaty first nation child, with a designated representative of the treaty first nation;

[1150]

“(b) if the child is neither a Nisga’a child nor a treaty first nation child and is neither registered nor entitled to be registered as a member of an Indian band, with a designated representative of an aboriginal community that has been identified by (i) the child, if 12 years of age or over, or (ii) a parent of the child, if the child is under 12 years of age.”

That would take into account not only the individual bands, treaty First Nations, but then, with the section (b), would also take into account if there was a connection to the Métis Nation as well.

M. Mark: Who determines “reasonable efforts”? The last section talks about giving notice. Here I just want to understand: who determines reasonable efforts are made to those parties?

Hon. M. Polak: If there was a dispute as to whether or not reasonable efforts were taken, a court would ultimately decide whether or not that had been the case.

M. Mark: Can the minister explain the intent or purpose of section 25?

Hon. M. Polak: The really significant part of the change in this section is in (b), where now we are requiring as a point of law that an agreement must be entered into under section 77.2.

Previously, that was not required in the legislation. Although, I should add, that has been practice, but it was felt important that we outline that in the legislation.

M. Mark: How does it change things in practice, with the proposed revisions?
[ Page 14218 ]

Hon. M. Polak: It won’t change practice on the ground. But as part of a court decision, it was pointed out that the existing legislation did not provide authority to enter into those agreements. So this does provide that authority and, in fact, can require that those agreements be done.

M. Mark: I just wanted to clarify the difference between a caregiver and a prospective adoptive parent. My understanding is that a caregiver is carrying out the plan of care for a child that’s been removed. They’re doing the fostering duties on behalf of the guardian. A prospective adoptive parent becomes the new guardian.

It’s just a bit confusing to me to have both in the same section. I feel like: is it clear to the caregiver that they’re just the caregiver, versus a prospective adoptive parent who has a plan with a permanent nature?

[1155]

Hon. M. Polak: One of the reasons that we want to see the use of the agreements is because it does engage the person or persons in a process that ensures that they are aware, fully, of what their role is.

A caregiver under CFCSA is a foster parent who would be an in agreement under, I think, section 94 of CFCSA. It’s defined in the Adoption Act as “a person with whom a child is placed by a director or an administrator and who, by agreement with the director or the administrator, is authorized to carry out the rights and responsibilities, under the agreement, of the director or the administrator.”

Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada