Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 5, Number 15

(Part 1)

[ Page 3953 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

J. Weisgerber: I'll resist the now traditional northern disclaimer and simply introduce a friend and constituent. In the gallery is Sharon Gevatkoff. Sharon is the mother of my constituency assistant, Sharlene Gevatkoff, and she is joined by my legislative assistant, Claire Vessey. Would you please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I would like to introduce Alison Pochereva, the daughter of Wilf Hurd's constituency assistant. She is visiting the Legislature with her classmates and teacher Miss Findlay from South Meridian school in Surrey. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd also like to welcome the classes from South Meridian, especially as one of the teachers is my younger sister Val Hammell. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Plant: I'm honoured to be able to introduce a remarkable young man named Steve Hayward to the members of this assembly. Steve is 28 years old, and on March 5, 1997, after more than 2-1/2 years of remission, his leukemia relapsed. Steve's best chance for survival is a bone marrow transplant. Unfortunately, he has not yet found a genetic match, and so Steve is campaigning to encourage all British Columbians to register in the unrelated bone marrow donor registry. A simple blood test is all it takes.

Steve has come to Victoria today to raise awareness for his personal situation and for all those who may someday need a bone marrow transplant. I urge everyone who would like to save a life to telephone the Red Cross at 604-879-7551, and I urge all members to join with me in welcoming Steve and his girlfriend Sakura Iwagami.

The Speaker: Because we all support the member, I will make the point he didn't -- that's local 411.

G. Robertson: With us today, hon. Speaker, we have Darrell Smith and Larry Cooper, two fine west coast loggers. Darrell and Larry are both members of IWA Local 1-71, also known as the loggers' local and a local that's steeped in great tradition and history. Please make them welcome.

Ho il piacere di presentare al parlamento della Columbia Britannica un caro amico residente nella mia circoscrizione, Il signor Michele Castagno, una persona molto attiva nella comunit� italiana di Vancouver e proprietario del Caffé Mondiale a Burnaby, dove spesso vado a gustare il cappuccino e guardere le partite di calcio in diretta dall'Italia.

Con lui c'é il fratello Luigi, sottufficiale della marina militare italiana, qui in vacanze, ma normalmente residente della bella citt� di Genova, citt� di nascita di Cristoforo Colombo, e secondo alcuni storici, anche luogo di nascita di Giovanni Caboto, l'esploratore che per primo mise piede in Canada, a Bonavista, nella regione della Terra Nuova.

The Speaker: I'm glad you advised us.

But on to my introduction, hon. Speaker. All the way from Golden, in the galleries today we have Karl Meyer. Karl has just retired from a major employer in Golden, Evans Forest Products. With Karl today are his daughter-in-law Corrie and his two grandchildren, Christine and Susanne. I ask you to make them welcome.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from Port Alberni are Eric and Angela Jantzen. With them are: Alex, 10; Burt, 8; Amy, 7; Josh, 6; Ben, 5; Ike, 4; Sam, 3; and Olivia, nine months. Yes, hon. members, that's eight. Eric tells me it's in the water in Port Alberni. Also, I noticed when he drove up in his van that his licence plate reads: "LUV-ANG." I ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Relations Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 31, the Family Relations Amendment Act, 1997. This bill is the first of two pieces of legislation that I will be introducing today to further government's commitment to improve the lives of children. In a few moments my colleague the Minister of Human Resources will introduce another initiative under the BC Benefits Act.

Bill 31 will amend the Family Relations Act to provide the statutory framework for using child support guidelines to determine the amount of child support awards under the act. The amendments are consistent with changes to the federal Divorce Act that came into effect on May 1, 1997. This will ensure that parents' obligations to support their children are consistent under federal and provincial legislation, so that children will be treated equally regardless of whether their parents were ever married.

The bill will also expand the scope of the act to give same-sex couples all the rights and obligations that common-law couples currently have under the Family Relations Act, including the right to apply for maintenance and custody and access for themselves and their children in relationship breakdowns.

[2:15]

This change does not include the provisions for dividing property under the act, which continue to apply automatically

[ Page 3954 ]

only to married couples. However, the bill contains a provision that will allow common-law and same-sex couples to enter into agreements and be bound by the property division scheme in the act. The bill will also clarify the intent of some of the provisions for dividing pensions to resolve some confusion that has arisen since those provisions came into effect in July 1995. These amendments will improve the lives of British Columbia children and families. I will elaborate on the nature of the amendments during second reading of this bill.

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

Bill 31 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.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to introduce Bill 32, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1997. This bill will amend the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to strengthen the act's enforcement provisions. It will introduce a number of new enforcement measures that send a clear message that maintenance payments are debts that must be paid in full and on time.

The bill contains provisions for reporting payers who default on their maintenance payments to credit bureaus, so that maintenance arrears will appear in their credit history like other unpaid debts. The bill also contains provisions to prevent the issue or renewal of a defaulting payer's driver's licence, as well as innovative provisions to collect maintenance directly from a payer's personal corporation or a corporation controlled by the payer and the immediate family. These two measures are being introduced to deal with difficult cases where substantial arrears have accumulated and other enforcement tools have not been successful in collecting the maintenance owed.

The bill will introduce a yearly fee to be assessed against defaulting payers to recoup some of the costs of enforcement incurred by government to collect the maintenance they owe. The new enforcement measures included in this bill complement the amendments to the Family Relations Amendment Act which I have just introduced. Together they will promote the well-being of children and families by helping to ensure adequate support that is paid in full and on time when separation or divorce occurs.

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

Bill 32 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.

BC BENEFITS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. D. Streifel presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled BC Benefits Statutes Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 33, the BC Benefits Statutes Amendment Act, 1997. The government of British Columbia recognizes that in cases of family breakup, it is parents, not taxpayers, who are primarily responsible for supporting their children.

This bill, together with consequential amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, enables government to apply for, monitor and enforce court orders on behalf of income assistance recipients.

The bill embraces identical amendments to the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, the Disability Benefits Program Act and the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act. Assignment of maintenance will become a condition of eligibility for income assistance, youth allowance and disability allowance. The amendments follow along similar lines as maintenance programs in other jurisdictions in Canada.

When families break up, the parents' responsibility to support their children does not end. These changes to the B.C. Benefits legislation are key to ensuring the well-being of children and fair treatment for children and for custodial and non-custodial parents.

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

Bill 33 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.

Oral Questions

PATIENT CARE

G. Campbell: The prompt and timely provision of health care in the province is a critical service for all of us. In the last couple of days we have discovered that the net cost of the health accord was $188.7 million. We've discovered that lack of beds has led to a deterioration of ambulance services. The NDP's mismanagement of the health care system has huge personal costs, as well, to the people of this province.

My question to the Minister of Health today is about the case of Evelyn Boubette. She's 73 years old, and the other day her doctor diagnosed her as being in the midst of a heart attack. The emergency physician in Port Alberni tried to get her into Nanaimo Hospital, but she was turned away from that hospital because there were not enough beds. So Ms. Boubette was sent from her home in Port Alberni to Victoria. The ambulance took her to the wrong hospital in Victoria. When she finally was admitted to the hospital . . . within 24 hours her heart had stopped three times.

My question to the Minister of Health is: how can anyone have confidence in a health care system when a 73-year-old woman in the midst of a heart attack is moved from hospital to hospital to hospital?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I do take this situation very seriously. I'll have to take the question on notice, and I'll get back as quickly as I can.

G. Campbell: A separate question, hon. Speaker. Reading the family's account and knowing what the situation is in Port Alberni, I think it's very important for the minister to look carefully at all of the factors which have led to this case.

We have a hospital which has serious physical problems. We have a situation where the family has significant financial

[ Page 3955 ]

trauma, and we have a government that has said to the people of British Columbia that they're going to bring health care closer to home. In Port Alberni and in parts of this province all over the province, what we're finding is that the government is not bringing health care closer to home. They are moving health care further and further and further away from the people of this province.

My question to the Minister of Health is: how can the people of Alberni or anywhere else in the province have confidence in a minister who is more comfortable finding excuses than she is finding hospital beds?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume that the Leader of the Opposition will wait for the answer to the question that I took on notice.

Just a couple of comments in terms of the allegations the opposition party continues to make around the health care system. It wasn't us who said that the health care system could do with $1 billion less in this province; it was that opposition party that said that. It wasn't us who continually undermined the process of regionalization and moving the decisions closer to home; it was that opposition party that did that. It wasn't us who continued to lobby for a two-tier health care system; it was that opposition party that did that. It wasn't us who said that the federal cuts weren't deep enough; it was that opposition party.

In light of massive federal cuts, we continue to fund the health care system. It is going through major organizational change. It is going through positive change. We have discussed that over and over and over again in this House. The changes are slow-moving in a big system. They're positive changes. We will continue to put the needs of patients first for better care. That's what our government stands for -- unlike the opposition.

G. Campbell: It was not the opposition that mismanaged the health care system; it was the NDP that mismanaged the health care system. It is not the opposition that puts their friends at the top of the health care list and forgets about patients; it's the NDP that does that. It is not the opposition that has shuffled patients from hospital to hospital. It is not the opposition that initiated a regionalization program which has cost millions and taken services away from patients in British Columbia. It is the NDP that has done that.

The Speaker: I want a question.

G. Campbell: I have a question.

The Speaker: Please.

G. Campbell: Ms. Boubette's situation is not the first time this has happened in Port Alberni. The question to the Minister of Health is simply this: why does she insist on finding excuses instead of finding the resources to open more hospital beds so patients can be at the top of the list in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have taken the question on . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Even after taking the question on notice, the Leader of the Opposition continues to fearmonger and say that this is an example of . . . over and over again. I have taken the question on notice. I actually take patient care very seriously and will look into the matter.

But let's just talk about the resources in the system; let's just talk about the resources in the central Island. It is a burgeoning population; the population of the central Island has increased incredibly. We have managed to maintain funding for health care in this province, even in the face of an aging population and an increasing population. We haven't cut the health care system; we have not cut anywhere in the health care system at all. Hospital funding has increased by $83 million this year. For doctors -- the physicians who supply the services -- funding has increased by 2.4 percent.

And yes, front-line workers continue to receive adequate training and wages to deliver the services available.

S. Hawkins: Health care horror stories are becoming more and more common under the management of this NDP government. In a letter to the minister, Mr. Kingston writes: "I'm told that doctors and health care workers are feeling at a loss on how to care for the sick and injured people that have come to them looking for relief for their medical problems."

My question to this Minister of Health is: when will this Health minister start listening to patients and front-line workers and admit that under this NDP government, patients are not getting the treatment they need when they need it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just earlier this week this same opposition party was absolutely denigrating the benefits of the health labour accord, which actually values front-line workers, trains them properly, and employs them in proper care in the health care system. This opposition party said that was outrageous. I also happen to know that the front-line workers' representatives can't even get a meeting with the opposition party to discuss issues in the health care system.

The opposition would rather stand up in this House and grandstand and allege, over and over and over again, without actually meeting with the front-line health care workers and hearing about the real issues. This opposition would rather stand up and defend the pharmaceutical companies, day after day after day. It's costing this health care system tens of millions of dollars each and every year.

Hon. Speaker, it is really time for the fearmongering in the health care system to stop, and for us to look at ways we can actually ensure the integrity of our health care system, which is the goal of this government.

S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, if this minister listened to front-line workers, she'd find that they are saying that patient care is compromised and lives are at risk.

An official at Nanaimo General Hospital informed Mr. Kingston that his mother-in-law could not be admitted because all the beds with cardiac monitors were in use. It appears that not much has changed since I visited Nanaimo General and found patients being treated in holding areas.

Earlier this week the member for Prince George-Mount Robson said that she doesn't see anything wrong with having patients lying in hospital hallways. That's the nature of health care under the NDP.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the Health minister tell us if she agrees that having patients lying in hallways is acceptable in B.C.?

[2:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, clearly they weren't able to make their points in the estimates debate, so they're trying once again.

[ Page 3956 ]

What the Minister of Transportation said was that when the opposition Health critic, the member for Okanagan West, visited the system, she snuck in. She didn't talk to all of the people that were involved in the system; in fact, she managed to offend a fair number of people.

There are major improvements that have been made in the health care system to deliver services. There is increased funding that occurs each and every week and month in our health care system. We have managed to maintain the integrity of the health care system by cutting deeply in other areas of government. That point was made over and over and over again.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Does that prevent the opposition from asking for funding in that area too? No, they want everything, hon. Speaker, with no responsibility . . . .

The Speaker: Order, minister, please.

MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

AND PROVINCIAL RIGHTS

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. The negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI, continue full speed ahead. We understand that there is now a new draft, dated May 14, 1997. Upon requesting that draft from Ottawa, Ottawa refused to make it public, saying that it is confidential. I have information to suggest that this minister's office has a copy of that agreement and that draft. I would ask if the minister will commit today to make that copy public, and all subsequent drafts of that agreement public, prior to any further negotiation taking place.

Hon. D. Miller: I thank the member for his question. As all members know, we held a debate in this House. All members agree that the MAI represents threats to the ability of the British Columbia government to work in the interests of British Columbia citizens in terms of job creations and other issues. We have written to the federal government, asking that there be consultation in Canada. There was a motion of this House asking for that same thing to be carried out. Indeed, I will work with the member to try to get a copy of that draft and to make it public.

G. Wilson: My understanding is that the minister's office has that draft. I welcome the fact that it will become public. The issue that is supplementary to that question is that within this draft, I am told, there are new agreements with respect to monopolies and monopoly control that will directly affect the ability of the provincial government to be able to maintain monopolies in areas such as B.C. Hydro.

Will the minister commit today, in the making public of that report, to formulate an all-party committee of this House to look at the implications of that monopoly section, particularly in light of the agreements that are currently being negotiated with respect to downstream benefits from the Columbia River?

Hon. D. Miller: I will take that question under advisement. But if I could use one example for the use of a Crown corporation in British Columbia to ensure the retention of jobs in British Columbia, it would be the B.C. Lottery Corporation awarding a contract to Pollard Banknote in Kamloops -- B.C. jobs. That contract cost the B.C. Lottery Corporation $2 million more than they would have had to spend if they'd gone outside our borders, to the detriment of B.C. workers. Instead, that contract was awarded to a British Columbia company. That's the policy of this government.

We will use the vehicles we have -- Crown corporations -- to ensure the maximum benefits for British Columbia workers and the British Columbia economy.

KELOWNA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT

A. Sanders: Kelowna Secondary needs to be replaced. After spending eight years and $2.1 million on planning the project, the minister has flushed the project down the toilet. Now the fire department has ordered safety upgrades to Kelowna Secondary, which is probably good, seeing as it's on fire right now. A school that is slated to be demolished needs improvement. The minister then announced that Central Okanagan would receive $800,000 for repairs to seven schools, one of which is the condemned Kelowna Secondary, where an upgrade will cost $1 million alone.

Can this minister explain why his government has so badly mismanaged this project that Central Okanagan now has to throw good money after bad?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This government has an unparalleled record of building new schools in this province, and that includes schools in Central Okanagan.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Do you want to hear the answer?

The Speaker: I would like to hear the answer, minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises a serious issue about a school that is close to the end of its useful life. That is why the school district and Okanagan University College have jointly brought forward a very innovative proposal for using the old university college site for the rebuild of Kelowna Secondary, and disposal of some assets.

The ministry is going to be providing funding to look at the feasibility of that. It is a very good proposal which will save the taxpayers money and get a badly needed new senior secondary school in Kelowna. If the member wishes, I would be pleased to have ministry officials brief her thoroughly, since obviously her constituency office has again failed to let her know what's actually going on.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Petitions

M. Coell: I wish to table a petition. In my riding, Mayne Island has 800 people living on it. This petition is from 464 of them who are not pleased with the recent changes in the ferry service. I have taken the opportunity to also give a copy to the Deputy Premier.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 1995 annual report of the B.C. Assessment Authority, a Crown corporation which reports to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

[ Page 3957 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the benefit of the members of the Legislature, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 23.

CHILDREN'S COMMISSION ACT

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This legislation is part of our commitment to the children of British Columbia. This government is a leader in its commitment to creating a high-quality child-serving system that is open and accountable to the people of British Columbia. The Children's Commission plays a vital role in making changes to our child-serving system and informing the public about the status of this changed agenda. This agenda is a long-term commitment that both sides of the House feel strongly about: improving the services of government to promote the health, safety and well-being of all children in British Columbia.

This legislation gives the children's commissioner the mandate to review and resolve complaints concerning the rights of children in care and decisions concerning the provision of designated services, monitor the plans of children in care, conduct random audits of plans of care to ensure an end to foster care drift, review all child fatalities, and investigate those found to be suspicious or unusual.

Her office is creating a database that will allow a more thorough understanding of how to help children and families that are at risk, automatically investigate critical injuries of children who are receiving designated services, and provide public education and information so that we're all more aware of how to support children and families and how to ensure that children are no longer neglected or abused. The Children's Commission will use the data collected in the course of its duties to make recommendations, supported by extensive information and research.

This process will be one of the most comprehensive in North America.

This legislation is about ensuring that the child-serving system is open and accountable to children and their communities. Regular public reporting by the Children's Commission will play a crucial role in continued public accountability. This legislation is about assisting professional service providers across all sectors and communities to better understand how to help children and families thrive, and what to do when they know a child is being neglected or abused.

The legislation will ensure more of a focus on children in care by making sure they do not get lost in the system. It is crucial that children in care are given the love, support and planning they need to become happy and productive adults.

This legislation creates a process for reviewing child fatalities and critical injuries that is the most comprehensive in Canada. It is already helping government understand and respond to systemic weaknesses, through the recommendations for change. The establishment of the Children's Commission will ensure that we honour the memories of all children by learning how we can prevent further deaths.

The complaint process will mean that children and their caregivers are provided a respectful external body that will hear their concerns and try to resolve them. Data collected and research completed in the course of our reviews will, of course, be used for good purposes by both the commission and the ministries that deal with children.

The ongoing work of the Children's Commission will ensure that change is constant but rational, driven by evidence of the need for change and the right direction for change. Evaluation and openness will become routinized in this process.

The Children's Commission is committed to ensuring that the child-serving system learns from the past and that the public is informed, at the end of the day, as to how we can better assist children who are at risk in all of our communities.

B. McKinnon: I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill 23, the Children's Commission Act. As it stands, this bill establishes the Children's Commission and the powers that go with this position. My biggest concern -- and a concern I have always held -- is not part of this bill: that the children's commissioner be independent and report to the Legislative Assembly as a whole.

I fail to understand the position this government has taken on this very important issue. It makes one wonder why there is such a fear of having an independent children's commissioner. Judge Gove stated in his report, the Gove inquiry into child protection, that the province should establish by legislation an office of an independent children's commissioner, who would be appointed by order-in-council for a fixed term and be independent of any affected ministry. Judge Gove, in his report, stated on page 52 of his "Executive

Summary":

"Had an independent children's commissioner been overseeing death and injury reviews, every death or serious injury would have resulted in a report. Systemic failures in the child protection system that contributed to Matthew's death might have been remedied before his death. The children's commissioner would have reviewed these reports to look for patterns and for inadequacies in the qualifications, training, investigative techniques, risk assessments and case planning decisions made by child protection social workers.

"The children's commissioner would have ensured that appropriate action was taken to address the conclusions and recommendations arising from these reports. Being independent from those funding and delivering child protection services, the children's commissioner would have pressured the ministry to remedy these inadequacies in a timely way, or would have reported publicly on the ministry's failure to do so."

The point I'm trying to make is that Judge Gove felt that by being independent, the children's commissioner would be able to pressure the government into remedying the inadequacies in the protection of children. The office of the child advocate and the ombudsman are independent, and so should this office be independent. Any of her reports given to us have first been seen by the Attorney General and the Ministry for Children and Families. How can we trust what information we get from the commissioner when two ministries can water down the report before we see it? We saw what happened in the case of Matthew Vaudreuil, and I would not like to see that ever happen again.

[2:45]

The opposition has stated may times in the House that we are very concerned with the protection of children and do not want to make children a political football. Our concern is for the protection and safety of the children in this province. We feel that the role of the children's commissioner is an extremely important one, and that is why the forty-ninth recommendation of Judge Gove's report, recommending an independent commissioner, is so important.

Another concern I have is that this office does not become a huge bureaucracy that ends up costing taxpayers a large

[ Page 3958 ]

amount of money. If that happens, the children and the reason that the children's commissioner was established in the first place will get lost in the paperwork it created. This bill gives the commissioner more powers than Judge Gove felt were needed, but I am sure, through her investigations into the deaths of children so far, that the commissioner has found the need for stronger powers in order to do the tasks put before her.

Matthew Vaudreuil's legacy has shown us that children can fall through the tracks and we, as government, have to be vigilant in finding ways to prevent another Matthew. Can we truly say that we have accomplished this goal yet? I would have to say no. We have seen a number of children who have suffered and died needlessly since Matthew.

In trying to help and make the right decisions for children, especially our youth, it is important that they have a voice in those decisions that affect them. When we don't listen, we take their dignity and self-esteem away from them.

I am pleased to see that this bill will provide children and families the opportunity to be part of the decisions that affect their lives so dramatically. Government must protect children from abuse and neglect, for they are our future, and without well-adjusted children ready to take over our roles in the future, we would not have much to look forward to. I support this bill, and I'm looking forward to the committee stage, for I have many questions regarding it.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker in second reading debate, I want to advise you that I neglected to table a report from the auditor general, and I would ask leave to do so now.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. It's my honour to table a report of the auditor general of British Columbia. There are two reports in his report No. 9 to the Legislative Assembly in 1996-97: "B.C. Transit: Managing Operator Productivity"; and "B.C. Transit: Its Success as a Market-Focused Organization."

Thank you, members; I appreciate that.

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this bill today. It's been many years in coming.

There have been a number of people in this House who I think deserve credit for this bill. The member for Langara on my left is one, and the present Minister for Children and Families is another. I congratulate them both for their support in making sure that this bill came forward.

Change is not always easy, and it is not always comfortable -- especially for governments and for bureaucracy. This change today, the Children's Commission Act, changes in a major way how the citizens of this province will view the Ministry for Children and Families and how they will view the programs and policies that it implements.

This side of the House would prefer to see the commissioner independent and reporting to the Legislature. I would suggest to you that that could be accomplished if the commissioner reported to the Standing Committee on Health and Social Services and then through to the Legislature. That would be the final part of what I think has taken place.

There have been changes over a two-year period that open up this ministry and open up how the citizens of this province view child protection. I think they've been positive. I haven't always agreed with the policies that have been put forward to bring this ministry into existence. As opposition, we will continue to push to make sure that children are safe in this province and that we learn from the mistakes of the past.

I believe the Children's Commission has an awesome task ahead of it. It will bring confidence back to the bureaucracy and will go a long way to making your front-line child protection workers confident that they are doing the job to the best of their abilities and that the policies and procedures are in place to check on that so that the citizens of this province will have confidence in the system.

I always think it's important that we remember that the children that are in our care -- in government care -- are in the care of the four million people who live in this province. In taking a child into care, in taking a child into any of the programs that are now offered by this ministry, we now have a commission that oversees any problem that is created for a child's safety: the death of a child, the serious injury of a child. There isn't a way that we as British Columbians can now say that there isn't someone overseeing the bureaucracy, overseeing the ministry.

But I would stress again that there is one final policy change that needs to happen. The children's commissioner reports now to the Attorney General. The office doesn't report to the Minister for Children and Families but does report to the government. I think you'll find that over a period of time, you in government on the other side of the House will want to change that. You will see that it is not giving up power; it is, in fact, sharing more power with the citizens of British Columbia. That it is not giving up power; it is in fact sharing more power with the citizens of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we have, and have had, a committee overseeing the implementation of the 118 Gove recommendations. That committee, I believe, has worked very well in that it is an all-party committee, and it is a committee where the members are dedicated to one cause: seeing the implementation of those recommendations in a timely manner, which all of us in this House can be proud of. I think all of us here, the 75 members representing close to four million people, want the same thing: we want to make sure that the safety of children is foremost on the agenda of government, of opposition and indeed of all people in British Columbia.

I believe that committee has shown the government that there is an opportunity for government and opposition and third parties to work together. Our party has offered to do that through the standing committee or any committee or commission that the government wishes to set up and that the children's commissioner specifically reports to. I would see in the future that the children's commissioner, the advocate, could report to the Legislature through a standing committee. Only then, Mr. Speaker, will you see an opportunity for this House to work together for one cause.

I realize that in a system that has a government and an opposition, it doesn't happen very often that you see an all-party committee work together. But I, for one, can't see a reason why there would be a difference between what the government wants for the safety of children and what the opposition wants for the safety of children. It's not what the 75 of us want; it's what the millions of British Columbians want for their children and their families.

I'm supportive of this act, because it's moving along a continuum, where I see a safer, kinder bureaucracy and a safer, kinder atmosphere for children and families. The act

[ Page 3959 ]

supports families. It has the new ability to give children support that they didn't have before. In many instances, this act, although it had been asked for for many years, is probably going to give better service because of the turmoil and the change that the ministry has gone through. So I support the Children's Commission Act. I will have some points to bring up as we go into committee stage and some suggestions for the Attorney General for ways that this act could be enhanced.

I also reiterate the offer from this side of the Legislature to work on an all-party standing committee on child welfare and child safety problems in this province.

V. Anderson: Today, as we discuss the Children's Commission Act, I think it's important that we put that act in context. The context I think I'll speak about first of all is that what we are talking about here is the well-being of the children in this province, all of the children in this province -- hopefully, not a select few, but all of them.

Over the past years we've had a great deal of discussion here in this Legislature on how we go about protecting, supporting, caring for and enabling our children to have the best opportunities in life that we as adults are able to provide them. That's a task not only for parents but for the whole of the community in which we all live.

We have often talked about who's first. Sometimes we say the adults are first, the parents are first, the husband or the wife is first, women or men are first, but I think in all reality that we must say that children are first. In this sense, until they become adults, they have the right to expect that we will give them first call for every concern that is of importance to them. We as adults will have the responsibility for and with them that they might grow up into mature persons in every way possible: physically, socially, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually.

It's important that we think of this particular bill, the Children's Commission Act, in that context. As I was taught in my first class in philosophy at the university, a text without a context is a pretext. So we must have in place that this has relevance only in the broader context of how we live and share with our children in our communities.

[3:00]

I think it must be said, in all sincerity and with some grief, that children have not always been considered first in our communities. Sometimes they're not even considered first in their own families. If we look at the totality of the legislation that we pass here in the Legislature, I'm afraid we'll discover that children have not been first in a good deal of the legislation that we have presented.

I'm interested that one of the things that has happened in recent years is that we have had legislation regarding multiculturalism, for which I'm the critic. The legislation was written so that every department of government was to have a requirement laid upon them that for every action they undertook, they should ask the question: how does this affect and support the multicultural nature of our community?

But I'm not aware that there is any similar provision at this point -- although we are moving closer to it with the new Child, Family and Community Service Act -- so that every aspect of government, before they move ahead with whatever program it is, would say: how does it affect the children of our community today, tomorrow and in the future?

We've had some aspects of that when we've come to environmental concerns. We have some aspects of that when we come to election times, and you hear during electioneering that we're doing this for our children. Yet if we look at the legislation that's before us, it's seldom the case that it's that obvious.

We've had a concern that there are certain people who have been overlooked in our society and who have been treated unequally. So we have had equity legislation that deals with women, people who have disabilities, people who have mental illnesses, people from a variety of ethnic, educational and cultural backgrounds. Until very recently we really haven't had legislation that highlighted the priority we place on children, who should have equity within the community in which we live.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that we have been challenged in this regard by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. And thank goodness for the United Nations, where nations of the world have come together and made common agreements on how we can care for children and respect the children of our communities around the world. Some 190 nations of the world have come together, and this is part of the context of this bill. Yet in the provinces of Canada, we find it difficult to come together on items of less significance than this.

We find it difficult to come together on a common position across Canada on how we would care for our children, except that, fortunately, Canada and all but one of the provinces of Canada have signed -- as has British Columbia -- the convention on the rights of the child. That's the background for which we have the opportunity to deal with this act on the Children's Commission.

We must also put it in context, because over the years we've had various difficulties dealing with how we work with our children in our community. When I first came into this Legislature, there was a focus, through Social Services, on supporting families and giving them the kind of support they needed to work with their children. In that regard, we were pleased with much of what was done, but there were a great deal of things that were being overlooked. And then there was a change, because of some disastrous things that had taken place to children within our province.

There was a new focus, and the focus said that in our concern for families, which, unfortunately, was interpreted to be a concern only for parents and not for children . . . . I'm not sure how that

interpretation came about, except that it's kind of the way we think of adults first sometimes. But the focus reversed, like the pendulum, to the opposite extreme and said that we should be concerned for children primarily, as if children didn't have a concern for their parents. Parents and children are bound together in their growing years, and the convention on the rights of the child pointed out to us that children have a right to know their heritage. They have a right to be loved; they have a right to be cared for. Even if there is a breakup in that family structure, they still have a right to know the heritage from which they have come, and not to be cut off from it.

In our important concern to protect children, we have sometimes built around them a wall that isolates them from the very things that can give them the help and concern that they need. When we met in the all-party committee of the Legislature to choose an advocate, one of the persons who was then working on behalf of Social Services -- I'm glad to say -- came to speak to us to give us the perspective of children and youth who had been abused, who had been neglected, who had lived in care, who had been on the street. That person was Cherry Kingsley, and I've had the opportunity to meet her since. It was just this last week that she

[ Page 3960 ]

shared with us her study, "Finding Our Way." She undertook the study, on behalf of Social Services, to listen to and hear what the young people who have been going through these circumstances have to say. One of the things she said to us was that young people want to find a way home. They want to find a way home to a place that's loving and caring, in which they are respected and identified as being unique and important.

There are two things she found, regardless of what the history of the circumstances of those persons was. There were two things common to all of them: one was a sense of loneliness, and one was a sense of isolation. In that sense of loneliness and isolation, walls were built that they were not able to penetrate, because in many cases they had not been given the opportunity to have the love and the care and the growth so that they were able to reach out. Apart from that, what they found was that the walls of the community had been so raised against them that they were isolated on an island from which they could not escape.

It was interesting to have her draw a diagram for us, and that's important as we look at the context of this particular enactment. The diagram said that there were three interweaving circles which were fundamentally important: one was the family, one was the community and one was the culture. It is within the context of those three elements that any person is to find the nature and the self-respect they must have. As you looked at her diagram with that interwoven circle, and at how young people were forced by circumstances outside that circle and not able to get in . . . .

What has happened with all our good intentions is that when we came to these young people and offered them our formal, in-care support network, what we didn't do was take them into the family, culture and community. We took them further out and made the distance even greater than it was before. We separated them even further from their families, their communities and their culture. In fact, they were taken away from the culture in which they were nurtured previously. They were taken away from the very communities and friends and people they knew, and they were taken away from their family.

In many cases, they lost touch with their families completely, because the official system did not really work on their behalf. In our attempt to protect children, we were the very ones who abused and separated them and created their loneliness and their isolation.

It's important that we look at the commissioner's role in this context, because the commissioner's role is, in effect, after the fact. It's when we've had a mistake, when we've goofed up, when we've done the wrong thing on behalf of these children, not just as families but as a government and as a community, that the commissioner steps in and asks: "Whoa, how come you went in this direction?" That's not just a legal question. It's a fundamental personal question of how we relate and how we consider our children.

Let me give you an illustration of something that I have raised with the commissioner herself. I raised it in this Legislature, and I think it's extremely important to show what happens. Up until now -- and it hasn't changed yet that I'm aware of, and I hope it will soon -- if there is difficulty with children in their family or in their primary relationship, and if the government feels it has to step in for their well-being, then the authority to do that is through the courts.

Regardless of whatever else happens, whether the treatment of them has been fair or just, whether the caseworkers have had time and experience and training to do a proper investigation, finally -- one way or the other -- it ends up with the courts.

And there is one of the greatest injustices we do to our children, because in our present system, once they get involved with the court, there is very little hope for them, because all the lawyers, the legal power, the money, the system and everything else is on the side of the social services that act on behalf of the government before the court.

The amount of information and knowledge, right or wrong, that is presented by the system on behalf of those children, presumably, outweighs any opportunity that parents, foster parents or relatives have to give, by any opportunities that neighbours or teachers or anyone else who works with these children have to present into the situation, because they are basically all shut out of the system. They have no opportunity to be heard. Even if they could and were able to collect themselves in order to push themselves forward, they have not the resources and ability to hire the lawyers to work on their behalf.

[3:15]

Besides, even if they did, what they would discover is that Monday afternoon at 5 o'clock they're advised that at 10 o'clock the next morning they are to be in court to defend themselves against the presentations of the social services ministry, against all the planning that the social services ministry has done -- none of which they know until they get into court. They have absolutely no way, in a balanced way, to pretend that they can protect themselves.

If we assume that sometimes the social services ministry is biased on one side and that sometimes the caregivers, the parents, may be biased on the other side, then what we discover is that there is no representation for the child. There is no independent representation. There is no person who sits down with the child, talks to them and gets some kind of feeling and understanding of what the child would like and feels and would be and do.

That's one of the concerns even in this commissioner's study, that though the Child, Family and Community Service Act says children should be heard and listened to, it really only says in this act that they should be heard and listened to if they're 12 years and over. If they're under 12 years, there's no representation for them in this act. If they're under 12 years, there's no one, really, to hear or speak on their behalf.

Now, we did appoint a child advocate. I'm quite pleased with the work that she's been doing. One of the recommendations of the Gove report was that the child advocate should have the ability to provide the legal counsel for those children when it is needed and required.

But in her appointment, that authority wasn't given to her. Even though the Gove commission and the children's commissioner herself have recommended that it be enacted -- and hopefully it would have come forth in this act or one like it -- still it has not come forth to give the child advocate an opportunity to represent the child legally in the courts. Without that, the representation is impossible. So without that, then, the children's commissioner has a flaw at the very beginning to try to represent the needs of those children, because what we find here, as mentioned, is the question of whether the commissioner is independent or not.

I recommend highly that the children's commissioner and the youth advocate, all of those people, should work with the all-party committees of the Legislature, because unless we set up that mechanism for them, they have no good way, even though they're responsible to the Legislature, to work with us. So they have been put out in the independent place and left there on their own.

[ Page 3961 ]

But the children's commissioner is under the Attorney General's ministry. That has good things about it and some difficult things about it, because what the act says when it puts out all of the good qualifications and duties of the commissioner, many of which we would agree with . . . . I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the present commissioner, who was the interim commissioner and who wrote the design, in effect, with her team, about the child, family and community service and the integration and approach. I think she has done a tremendous job, and I'm delighted in the outline she's given us.

But when you put that down here into this particular case, what you discover is that the regulations can be changed at any time by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The parts of the act which designate over which children she can have authority and which ministry is involved are left in the hands of the government to change at will, at any time. So when you look at the regulations and the power in the latter part of this act . . . . As you read the first part of the act, you get quite excited.

Then finally, when you come back to the back, when you get to "Power to make regulations," you find that she really doesn't have any power, that the commissioner really is dependent upon . . . . "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows . . . . " And it lists a whole host of regulations. You can designate different services or programs for the purposes of the different provisions of the act.

It may be argued that this is to facilitate and gradually move into the process of giving her the ability to do this task. But what we've found so far with the Children and Families ministry is that those controls are still being held by the government. They have not been given to the ministry to be as free as they could be with them. So if we go through the act in the context of what we're attempting to do here, what we realize is that as significant and as important as this act is, what it still must do is be in the context of the total action of the Children and Families ministry.

There are guiding principles. The guiding principles, in a sense, say that you should be concerned with the child and their family. But it doesn't spell out that confusion that we've had all the way along -- that it isn't either a child or a family; it's both. Sometimes within a family that priority is given to the child, over all of the other family wishes. That is what we as a society have said should happen.

But by saying it, priority to the child doesn't mean -- as many take it to mean -- that there's no concern that part of the priority for the child is to give priority also to supporting their family, because that's their history and their heritage. That's an important aspect that's not necessarily dealt with in this act.

There are a number of cases in which we're dealing with the age as 12 and over. But what it says is that if decisions are being made, they should be explained to the children who are 12 and over.

But when my daughters were three years old we explained to them. When our daughter was a year old, we explained to her that she was adopted. We explained to her why she looked different from her other siblings. All along, at every place in her life, we explained to her what she was about, and she understood it. She understood it very carefully. She was only three years old after we had been studying in the United States and had come back. One day my wife had taken the car to the garage, and the garage man whispered to her.

It was the time in the United States when Vietnamese children were being adopted into the United States by servicemen and families, and the garage attendant whispered to my wife: "Is she Vietnamese?" She's Japanese in background. Our three-year-old daughter piped up and said: "No, I'm a Canadian, I'm Japanese and I'm adopted." She knew at three years old who she was. She could understand who she was, so I can't understand why we have set it at age 12 and neglected to put into this act that children should be concerned with the opportunity to be part of the decision-making from the very beginning.

What we still have in this act is adult mentality. Why aren't we trying an adult protection mentality -- instead of an adult, family, parent, support mentality -- that considers children of whatever age as equal members of the society and of the family, able to participate in their own way? Sometimes they are able to get through with messages that no one else in the family can tell us.

I had that driven home very clearly when I was doing graduate studies and got in over my head. I was totally discouraged and, as I discovered afterward, impossible to live with for my family and anybody else. My good wife tried to get the message across to me. The neighbours and my fellow students tried to get the message across to me, and I didn't hear any of them. One night at supper, my six-year-old, in the middle of a quiet conversation, leaned over and said to me: "Dad, it's okay if you fail." I said "Pardon?" She said: "Dad, it's okay if you fail." She was wiser than I was. I had told her many times that it was okay to fail, but you see, I didn't believe it when it came to me.

Out of their mouths comes wisdom. We all know that phrase, but it's not in our Child, Family and Community Service Act. It's not in this act. It's not in this act that our children, whatever their ages, need to have representation on their own behalf. They need to be able to speak and talk with people who are concerned with them, who mediate between them and their parents and between them and all the do-gooders who would work on their behalf. We all need that kind of person sometimes in our lives. It's important, and that kind of understanding isn't here within the act.

I'm sure another thing will be questioned along the line, so I'll raise it. It is in a completely different vein, and this is in the materialistic rather than the spiritual vein. It says that the children's commissioner's remuneration shall be at a level that equals or exceeds the amount paid to a deputy minister. It was that word that surprised me. I had no problem with "equal" -- but "exceeds"? How far? I mean, what's the reason? We'll have to ask that when we come to the situation.

This is about the commission and its members. My final comment on that is: how come it's not the commissioner who selects these but the minister who decides with whom she has to work?

E. Gillespie: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: While the member for Vancouver-Langara was speaking about the well-being of children, we were joined by a number of grade 5 students from Lynndale Elementary School in Lynnwood, Washington, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Rayton. I hope all members of this Legislature will join me in welcoming them to the precincts today.

L. Stephens: I'm very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 23 and to support this legislation and the choice of commissioner. I had the opportunity to get to know Cindy Morton

[ Page 3962 ]

a little when she was the Deputy Minister of Education and I was the Education critic. We had a very good working relationship, and I have great respect for her talents and abilities.

This -- talking about child protection -- is not a simple issue, and as the House knows, the opposition has made an offer to participate fully in an all-party committee of the House to look at this very complex issue of child protection and services to families and children. I would hope that the government would think closely about this offer and perhaps set a bit of a precedent in this House, using standing committees or all-party committees in a way that would certainly further the interests of the people of British Columbia.

[3:30]

I want to read into the record the explanatory notes of the bill, because I think they are quite important.

What this bill is talking about is the child protection system in British Columbia, and I think we really do need to look at the state of child protection in the province today.

Events in the past have proven the need for this particular piece of legislation and for a children's commissioner. Judge Gove's recommendations were quite clear in what was needed for the protection of children in this province, and indeed the commissioner's report that was just released on June 4 highlights some of the reasons for increased legislation and for increased scrutiny of the child protection system in British Columbia.

Day after day, month after month and year after year, there have been events involving the abuse and deaths of children living in poverty, neglect and violence that hit the headlines in the media. Some of the examples were given in the commissioner's report. There were 16 cases that were looked at, and I'm just going to highlight a couple of areas where she made some recommendations.

One of them is ensuring suitability of placement. This is an issue that I think concerns everyone, and on some of the recommendations she has made and has referred to the Ministry for Children and Families, the ministry's response has been that these issues will be included in the systematic audit process that is scheduled to be implemented in September 1997. Those commitments by the Ministry for Children and Families are on the record and in the Children's Commission report, so we'll be watching very carefully, monitoring the ministry to make sure that these audits are in fact being carried out.

The second recommendation that I think is really important is the adequacy of ministry planning and the completeness of the file record. That speaks to this bill and what the recommendations and procedures will be. Again, the ministry has responded by saying that the systematic audit process, which is scheduled to be implemented in September 1997, will assist in ensuring that social work practice meets policy requirements, and that file documentation ensures a complete, comprehensive record of each child's development, as well as the decisions made on his or her behalf. So we will be watching and monitoring to make sure that in fact those kinds of practices are happening.

On page 3, under "Guiding Principles," the bill talks about the importance of the child's best interests. This is a term that is bandied about quite regularly when we talk about children and protection and services around children. It's acting in the child's best interests. I think there needs to be more definition of what is a child's best interests. What are the bottom-line conditions in which a child should be expected to live? Is it ever appropriate to allow a batterer custody of a child? Is it ever appropriate to allow an alcoholic or a drug addict custody of a child?

What is an appropriate standard of living for a child? What is an appropriate level of love and affection and stability that children need? These are questions that I think are going to come up, and we are going to be monitoring the Ministry for Children and Families to help the children's commissioner do her job.

I want to say that the front-line social workers -- and I think all members of the House would agree -- have a very difficult job. It's fraught with decision-making that tends to be second-guessed from time to time, and they tend to have all of the responsibilities for these decisions. Sometimes they're good and sometimes they're not so good, but those are issues that the new ministry and the children's commissioner are going to have to really take a close look at and develop best practices for, and develop ways and resources that will help those front-line workers do the job they want to do.

We talk about prevention and early intervention as being extremely important, and they are. I'm pleased that this is the way the ministry is moving to look at services and the delivery of services, because if we want to tackle and hopefully eliminate these kinds of issues, we need to talk about early intervention and prevention programs -- providing services to families on how to be better parents and how to make sure that children are living in situations that are in their best interests.

There must be tougher measures to deal with people who abuse children. I'm glad the Attorney General is here, because we really have to talk about how we're going to do that, what kinds of issues are going to be addressed and what kind of legislation is going to come forward in the justice system to deal with some of these serious problems.

I want to make some comments about the policy of child protection. I'm going to take this issue up further in the Ministry for Children and Families estimates debate, but it's about the percentage of complaints that are investigated. I wonder if the Attorney General would note this, because there has been some concern about complaints made and not followed up, proper questions not being asked or individuals not interviewed as to the validity of complaints. There have been suggestions that there is an unwritten policy that the number of individuals investigated for child abuse cannot look after everyone.

So there are decisions made on what kinds of allegations will be investigated and what kinds of allegations will not be investigated. The whole issue of intake and training of whoever the intake workers are and however the single-entry system is going to work needs to be highlighted as a serious concern.

The government has an outstanding opportunity to do this right. There's a new ministry and a new organization of that ministry, with new ideas. I sincerely hope that this

[ Page 3963 ]

is going to break the back of the old attitudes, the turf protection and all of those other things that went along with previous administrations and previous social services and child care and child protection agencies. We need to really make sure that the front-line workers have the kind of support and resources they need to do the job they need to do.

What we have is a new ministry, a new commissioner and Judge Gove's blueprint for action, and an opposition that will be watching very closely to make sure that the government do what they say they're going to do. I just want to say that this is a fair warning. Members on this side of the House take this particular issue very seriously. I want to say, too, that the past actions of this government have not been encouraging in the areas of protecting women and children where it counts -- and that's in the justice system.

We have to get tough. We have to get tough with batterers, pimps, pedophiles and pornographers, and with all of these other individuals that prey on our children. So I want a government that acts tough, not just talks tough, and I want standards for foster parents, homes monitored for the appropriateness of care, and best practices followed by the ministry -- the management and the workers.

If the NDP put as many resources into protecting children and women as they do into feathering the nests of their union friends and insiders, if the government understood the simple economics of a market economy and the dangers of overregulation, and if the NDP government was as dedicated to public service as it is to building bureaucracies, then the money to provide the services, training and resources to front-line workers would be there.

I think this legislation provides an important principle, and it establishes this watchdog for children. I think it's about time, and I want to commend the government for bringing this legislation forward and for appointing a children's commissioner. The new ministry has been given a chance to learn from the past and to make the necessary changes to deal with the realities of children's lives today, and the realities of many children's lives today are poverty and violence. I have a great deal of respect for the demonstrated understanding and abilities of the children's commissioner. I am pleased to support her efforts on behalf of all children at risk by supporting this bill.

K. Krueger: I think if there is any valid measure of the worth of a society or the quality of a society -- whether or not a society is civilized -- that measure would be the way a society treats its children, its aged and its ill. This is a tremendously important piece of legislation. It seems as though the area where we have the most common ground in this Legislature is in the concern that we all share for children in British Columbia, and the revulsion we all feel for the horrible things that we've heard have happened to children and that somehow continue to happen to children in B.C.

So I want to start off by really commending the government for bringing this legislation forward. There are things we'd like that have already been mentioned and that possibly the government would still consider including, one of them being that we've had a sad history -- in the Vaudreuil case, for example -- of ministries cocooning somewhat, and of the alteration of reports by individuals within ministries. People have their own motives for doing things like that.

We'd like to see the children's commissioner genuinely empowered to act as an officer of the Legislature and not have reports edited, but to bring these things forward in a rapid and efficient way so that we, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, can all deal with solutions together. As the Leader of the Official Opposition has repeatedly proffered our assistance to the Ministry for Children and Families, we express our very genuine desire to be involved in rapid solutions in the protection of the little ones of British Columbia.

[3:45]

One of my favourite stories in the Bible is when children came to Jesus when he was teaching. His apostles thought they were wasting his time. He was far too important to be troubled by children. They were going to shoo them away; they felt the master was too busy. No, he said: "Suffer the little children . . . to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

That was a lesson to all of us, and one that our society often seems to have forgotten. In fact, our society almost seems to be waging a war on childhood innocence. It doesn't last anywhere near as long as it should, and that's a great tragedy of our times. Somehow, we need to reverse that; we need to protect children, protect their innocence and stand together, especially as Members of the Legislative Assembly, to ensure that they are protected, that they are safe.

Honestly, one of the ways that I think we need to rethink government activities and government ventures -- government decisions -- is through the filter that says: "How will these activities -- this program, this means of raising revenue -- affect children in our society?"

Probably everybody on the government side is bracing themselves for what will inevitably follow from the official opposition gaming critic, but this government's massive gambling expansion in British Columbia is going to hurt children. There's no doubt about it. The literature that's available to us from all over North America demonstrates that in other jurisdictions that have gone into gambling expansion, the effect on families has been terrible. The effect on children is drastic.

That's already happening here in British Columbia. I talked to a woman just last weekend who grew up in the home of a gambling-addict father here in B.C. They never knew in their home whether or not their dad would lose the house on any given day, depending on how the cards fell for him, depending on how carried away he got. She could always tell when he'd been losing at his gambling, because he would come home and beat her and beat her mother and be abusive. Her life was a life of not just uncertainty, but of fear and dread and horror -- nothing at all like a little girl's life should be.

Somehow a decision has been made, in the face of public opinion, to throw open the gates to gambling expansion here; to expand all the operations, essentially, that have been underway in British Columbia for gambling, and to add a whole lot more; to increase the betting limits by 2,000 percent -- from $25 to $500 a bet -- so that a gambling addict could easily, in a legitimate charitable casino, lose his house in one night, apparently, with drastic consequences, of course, for his children, for his wife, for all of their hopes and dreams as a family and for all of the ways things should have been in that particular household.

This government has made a drastic mistake. Of course, it's not too late to reverse it. We haven't got any new casinos in British Columbia yet as a result of gambling expansion. I personally intend to do everything I can to ensure that we never do. The opposition stands united against gambling expansion in B.C. and the harmful effect on B.C. families.

When the spouses of pathological gamblers attempt suicide at triple the rate of women in the rest of the general

[ Page 3964 ]

population, of course that has a terrible effect on their children. A child who loses his or her mother at any age loses far more than just a family member. He or she loses love, guidance, affection, role-modelling -- the whole vast spectrum of what a mother provides to a child and to a family. It's a terrible consequence for the child, for the family and for all of society.

Here we have

an act that deals with the protection of children, brought on by a government that obviously cares about children and yet has somehow chosen to close its mind to the effects of this gambling expansion -- predictable effects, effects that were discussed by members opposite in the years when they were in opposition.

I look at the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. I've often read his words, and I know they were sincere. He didn't believe that gambling was something that fit the fabric of British Columbia's society. He didn't believe that in 1987; I'm not at all certain that he believes it now. I think that the government, in its zeal to generate revenue, has somehow pressed on in this dangerous direction without giving individual Members of the Legislative Assembly, or even cabinet ministers, the opportunity to really look at the effects on B.C. and on children. As a result, a decision has been made that is going to be very harmful.

Psychologists tell us -- and this is well documented -- that the spouses of pathological gamblers experience a strange form of reactive violence to the problem that exists within their homes, and that 37 percent of them abuse their children. That's not the gambling addicts themselves, although many of them also abuse children; it's the spouses of the gambling addicts. These are hard facts. They're documented by academics. It's nothing that I or the official opposition commissioned. Those are studies published by experts who have examined gambling expansion and what it does to societies, what it does to families and what it does to children.

The addicts themselves, of course, commit suicide at a greater rate than any other type of addict. Again, that has horrible consequences for their children, for their homes and for the future of their families. It's something that the government should have weighed carefully before it pressed on with gambling expansion, but doesn't seem to have.

On the date that the Minister of Employment and Investment made his announcement concerning his intention to press on with gambling expansion, members of the NDP caucus were interviewed going into their caucus meeting. Apparently they thought that they were going to be debating gambling expansion. Lo and behold, they emerged to find out that the minister had actually announced it already. Even cabinet ministers appeared to have been taken by surprise. We've records throughout Hansard of quotes from individuals who are in cabinet right now who clearly were, and I believe still are, opposed to gambling expansion.

As the government takes this very honourable step of bringing forward this legislation, which the official opposition surely intends to support, we want to urge the government to look through this filter at its gambling expansion plans. Think again about making a move as drastic as that. Clearly one of the highest priorities, possibly the highest priority of this government, should be and perhaps is the protection of children.

We've come a long way since the election in May 1996 toward the protection of children. We have the implementation of Mr. Justice Gove's recommendations, the creation of the Ministry for Children and Families and the extremely energetic and wonderful work of the minister responsible for that ministry. I think the accolades from both sides of the House and from outside the House have made it clear that British Columbians really value what is being done by that minister in the direction of protecting children.

But things aren't happening fast enough. We don't say that it's the fault of the minister; we want to see things happen much more quickly. We want to see children protected. We want these horrible incidents to stop. We want children in British Columbia to know that they're safe and to feel safe every hour of the day. On this side of the House we certainly don't approve and can't accept government implementing decisions, taking new steps and launching policy initiatives that we know will be harmful to children -- and gambling expansion is one of those.

When I looked at the explanatory note and listened to the Attorney General introduce this bill, it sounded to me as though the children's commissioner would have some authority, some power to review government's intentions when it considers new programs and new approaches that will affect children. I hope that it is the case.

As I read it more carefully and as I read the whole act, I didn't quite see the teeth that I initially thought were going to be there for that particular function. Certainly there's a great deal of focus on individual cases. That's good; that's needed.

But in looking at the first bulleted explanatory note, it gives the Children's Commission the following power: " . . . to monitor the development and implementation of internal review processes across ministries and agencies of government to ensure they are respectful, timely, effective, and child centred." I looked at that at first, and thought: that's it; that's the sort of responsibility that the Minister of Women's Equality spoke of frequently during her estimates.

She is charged with the mandate, she said, of looking at initiatives of the government -- through what she referred to as the gender lens -- and determining whether or not those initiatives might have a harmful effect on women, which is a good thing.

It doesn't appear that she really had the opportunity to do that with regard to gambling expansion. That's something we've dealt with at some length already in this session of the Legislature and will, of course, be dealing with some more. But she has that power. I was hoping the children's commissioner might have that power, too. Broadly interpreted, perhaps that bullet does set that out.

So I looked for it in the text of the act, and I didn't see a whole lot that really fleshes out that power for the children's commissioner. In

section 4(1)(h), it does say: "At the request of a minister of the government or on the commissioner's own initiative," -- which I was really pleased to see -- "conduct special investigations and prepare special reports concerning matters affecting children."

Well, that's good; gambling expansion certainly affects children. I don't see anything herein that would prevent the commissioner from reviewing gambling expansion and its devastating effect on children, even though it has already been launched. Perhaps the government would do us all the favour of actually asking the children's commissioner to do that.

Of course,

section 4(1)(

h) doesn't really set out what force and effect such a review by the children's commissioner would have. I suppose a report might languish on shelves throughout the Legislature or be disregarded by ministries if they felt that the decision had already been taken by someone as powerful as the Minister of Employment and Investment -- the Deputy Premier of the province. So I don't really see the

[ Page 3965 ]

protection for children, insofar as the review of contemplated government actions and programs such as gambling expansion, that I hoped to see in this act.

I do see a lot of good things. We all meet people in our lives who, when they walk into a room, bring peace and security and a sense of calm into the room, into a situation, into a meeting, into a family. And we all, unfortunately, meet people who take those things away, people who bring the opposites of security and peace and calm into a room. Many children, unfortunately, live with the latter type of people: angry people, abusive people, people who are taking out the unhappiness in their own lives on those around them and very frequently on those who are the most defenceless -- on little children.

That's something we all want to stand against, I'm sure. Any right-thinking person abhors a bully, and any right-thinking person wants to defend those who cannot defend themselves and are bullied and abused in any way. Again we commend the government for moving in this direction.

I hear about horrible circumstances from constituents who come into my constituency office. I hear of awful conflicts in relationships between former spouses and of terrible consequences to the children, who are sometimes used as weapons against an estranged partner. Of course, sometimes new partners or organizations come into the picture. I know of one example, for instance, where I'm told that the Hell's Angels organization is on the side of one of the estranged partners, and the children are living in a state of fear as a result.

Those are situations that need to be dealt with urgently, and sometimes it seems as though all of the regulations and procedures that we have in place cause children's safety to fall through the cracks. In that particular case, matters aren't moving along nearly as quickly as I believe they should be.

[4:00]

I had hoped -- and still do -- that the children's commissioner would have the power to intervene if somehow in a situation it seemed that the system was failing, that things were moving too slowly, that something awful might happen to a child in spite of everybody's apparent good intentions. I'm not sure that I see that in this legislation. Certainly, as we work through the committee stage in examining this bill, I'll be looking for that, and I'm sure others will, as well. We can't have delays during which children are at risk, and those can happen with our existing systems.

There are also general concerns within our society about children and how they are cared for. One which comes to mind that has been raised to me recently by constituents concerns children who have fetal alcohol effect or who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, and whether or not those problems are recognized properly by the education system or by a particular school district and whether or not those children receive the kind of care they should while they are children.

If they don't, experts tell me that there's a strong likelihood that they'll be led astray as they become adolescents and move into early adulthood. They may well end up in lives of crime that might have been avoided if society had devoted the resources it needs to at an earlier stage of their lives.

I hope that issues such as that will also come under the purview of the Children's Commission. Once again, all of that will be of the best value to the Legislature if the children's commissioner is truly allowed to operate as an officer of the Legislature and not just a person who writes reports for ministries -- that they may or may not ignore, however inadvertently.

Special needs adopted children are another group. We have an anomaly in British Columbia where children adopted before a certain date don't receive near the level of programs and assistance from the provincial government that children adopted after that date do. Generally, I would like to see the whole issue of abuse of children of any kind -- all of these things -- come under the purview of the children's commissioner in a way that will be effective and that will oblige this Legislature to focus early attention on the concerns.

Again, we'll be referring to the details of this legislation as we work through it. Looking at

section 11(1)(a), I had some concerns, in that the commissioner is plainly sidelined by situations where an internal review process of a ministry or agency is available to deal with the complaint and that process has not been exhausted. Well, what if it's been dragging on? What if it appears not to be getting the job done? I'd like to see the commissioner have some authority to impose a deadline and say: "I don't see the job getting done here, and I'm going to step in and involve myself in getting it done if the ministry hasn't accomplished its proper goal by a given date."

Every child needs a champion, and every child should have a champion -- someone who does not put up with other adults or society or the system or a ministry or a government or whomever abusing that child; someone the child knows that that child can go to and that there is going to be protection, there's going to be a champion. Certainly this is an opportunity for the provincial government to ensure that children in B.C. have a champion in the Children's Commission.

I see the commissioner, potentially, as a kind of keeper of the gate, closing the gates against those who would harm children and against errors in the structure of society that might inadvertently bring harm to children. Subsection (2) of

section 11 does give the commissioner the opportunity not to pass up a complaint but to defer the investigation until the commissioner is satisfied. I think that will be helpful, but that's a concern that I had in reviewing the legislation.

There are other particulars. Any piece of legislation, I suppose, could be abused by people who are so minded, and this seems to be a rather broad "hold harmless" for persons who bring complaints which might well not be justified. I'm looking at

section 27(2) when I say that, and I wonder about people who bring complaints maliciously or dishonestly. Hopefully, we'll have that concern addressed as we work through the committee stage, recognizing that the children's safety will be paramount in any complaint that looks like it has any justification whatsoever.

I've seen a number of things happen in British Columbia in recent years that clearly aren't in the best interest of children, and a number of things are contemplated that I don't think would be in the best interest of children. For example, traffic safety initiatives which were announced a couple of years ago -- and very lately some of them have been brought on stream . . . . The only one that was brought on stream relatively early was photo radar -- with some difficulties but with some positive effect, it seems, as well.

One of the issues that traffic safety initiatives were meant to address was the graduated licensing of drivers, particularly new drivers, whether they be adults or young people just reaching driver's-licence age. The program hasn't really been brought into effect let alone up to speed, and I'd like to see that happen. It's not good for young people to be licensed before they're ready or without due understanding of the potential that they could come to harm through the operation of motor vehicles. Certainly those are the types of programs that I'd like the children's commissioner to be able to have a look at and advise government on.

[ Page 3966 ]

We had a new vice-president of public affairs . . . road safety introduced to ICBC several years ago -- a sort of affirmative action hire. She announced immediately that she couldn't see the point of having traffic safety programs in elementary schools because those kids aren't drivers. She essentially yanked the programs out of schools, and that was a ridiculous mistake. She didn't understand the very successful history of traffic safety programs at ICBC and in British Columbia, and she blew it.

It's very hard to ever work your way back into the education system and into the curriculum when you've been pulled out that way. That sort of decision should have been reviewed by someone like a children's commissioner before it was ever taken.

When government considers issues like no-fault car insurance or failing to balance their budgets and saddling the children -- who will be adults in the future -- with the responsibility of paying off old debt and interest that is run up on debts that were of no benefit to them, I think that that's the kind of thing that a children's commissioner might want to look at as well -- an overview of the general course of government.

As I say, the very first task I'd like a children's commissioner to be assigned to after this legislation is enacted is a review of the government's whole gambling expansion initiative. Through the estimates process, as I talk to one minister after another -- the Minister of Women's Equality, the Minister of Health, even the Attorney General himself -- I find that cabinet ministers haven't been mandated or allowed to review the whole issue of gambling expansion with regard to protection of the people under their care.

I'm going to pause for a moment, because I would like to yield to a colleague to make an introduction.

G. Plant: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to say that present in the gallery, I believe -- certainly present in the precincts today -- is a classroom from Jessie Wowk Elementary School in my riding. I believe they are accompanied by Ms. Borthwick and perhaps also Ms. Ridout. I hope that the House will make them all very welcome.

K. Krueger: I'm going to wrap up my comments urging the government to have a second look at this whole aspect of who the commissioner will report to -- whether he or she might be a full-fledged officer of the Legislature reporting directly to the Legislature, which is certainly what we'd like to see, to avoid any self-serving outcome or cocooning of ministries, where ministries might not want to act on recommendations of the commissioner. I'd like the commissioner to have that ability to take a broad look at present and contemplated government programs which will have an effect on children in British Columbia and report back to all of us -- to every member of the Legislative Assembly.

G. Wilson: In rising to speak to Bill 23, I went back and looked at the Hansard debate on a number of other bills that I've spoken to in past years that were going to provide the solution to the problems that we face with children in care, children who are suffering as a result of injuries that are effected in care. Yet we've seen a litany of examples of how the past legislation didn't work. And this legislation, which essentially is a enhancement of the past, is supposedly going to solve the problem.

I think, in speaking to the principle of this bill, that we have to understand -- and I'm sure the Attorney General does understand -- that the problem in the vast majority of cases, the systemic root cause here, is poverty. It is a question of people being poor, being unable to fare for themselves in a system and society that, once they are entrapped in that web, makes it even more difficult to ever get out. That's the root cause here.

Children, unfortunately, are the ones who suffer the most, because not only do they suffer as a result of their inability to take advantage of a moderate and certainly basic standard of living but they suffer the difficulty of a parent who is under enormous stress and tension to be able to try to provide for them. They often suffer in a broken home in which, very frequently in these cases, substance abuse is an issue. Many times, there is an extended battle between parents over custody, over placement of a child. They become pawns in a bigger fight, in a bigger war, that really has nothing to do with their welfare whatever but has a lot to do with the punishment of a former spouse.

Children are in jeopardy not because there is a lack of a commissioner. They're in jeopardy because we have developed a society and rules within that society that have become so complex, so difficult to try to wade our way through, that we have lost sight of the very basic requirement, and that is compassion -- compassion for those who live within our communities but, most of all, compassion for those who are members of our families.

In all of this legislation, in all of what we see here in terms of the entrenchment of new rules and new regulations . . . . My goodness, Bill 23 puts in place layer upon layer upon layer of new rules and new bureaucracy and new bureaucrats who are all going to come in and sort out what's in the best interest of that child -- what that child's interests and needs are best suited toward. Nowhere in here is there an examination of the existing rules, regulations and laws that would provide us an opportunity to put in place things as simple as family rights, grandparents' rights.

Nowhere do we say there is an obligation on the extended family and a requirement to make the extended family more directly involved in the well-being and welfare of the child. In fact, in this province it has become more and more difficult for family members to engage themselves in the direct care of those children who are in that extended family.

[4:15]

In fact, it reminds me of the case where . . . . I don't want to get into all kinds of individual case issues. But the one that hit me the hardest, because it's the one that I heard the most recently, was where a mother -- pushed to the point of absolute incomprehension, obviously -- smothered her child. The father -- who couldn't get custody, couldn't get access, couldn't even get information despite repeated attempts to find out what was going on, even though the officials in government were well aware of the problem -- learned of the death of his daughter on the radio, because he heard it on the news.

You know, I don't want to get into a long diatribe in my comments today, but I'll tell you that I don't think the establishment of a new commission, of new guiding principles and regulations for new bureaucrats, is going to be the salvation of the children of this province. It is incumbent on every individual who lives and works in this province to look after the wellbeing

[ Page 3967 ]

of those who cannot, for reasons beyond their control, look after their own welfare. That's everyone's obligation and our obligation under the social contract that we have in a free and democratic society.

First and foremost, it means that we have to look after the well-being of those people who are in our immediate family and our extended families. That obligation shouldn't fall to the state. It's not for the state to become parent, because the state doesn't make a very good parent, frankly; neither should it.

I question in all of this why it is that we haven't simply moved to try to put in place regulation and law that would provide us an opportunity to enact some of that which is on the books even today. You know, we had the child, youth and family advocate give us a report in which there were a number of key recommendations. I wonder how many of those key recommendations have actually been acted upon. How many have we put in place before we introduce this new, complex bureaucracy that's supposedly to look after children in B.C.? A simple one,

section 9 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, in terms of its implementation with respect to children 15 to 19 years old -- is that in place today? Is it actively working today? It certainly wasn't as of mid-April or early May.

It seems to me that the government can provide all kinds of appearance of doing things but in fact not be doing much at all. If that sounds like harsh words, it's intended to try to draw attention to the fact that as legislators we simply cannot put in place any law that will provide and protect for our children unless we go to the systemic root causes -- and that is poverty. People are in poverty in this province, one of the richest in Canada, a society that has on a per capita basis one of the greatest wealth bases in the world -- yet kids are in poverty.

Children are finding themselves on the streets in greater numbers. Just walk down the streets of Victoria between where I live and where I work in this assembly. I walk that route frequently. The numbers who are sitting panhandling -- wanting dollars, wanting money -- and that are on the streets make me ask a bigger question: why are they there? What's caused our youth, our children, to be sitting on a street corner with cap in hand, some perhaps more talented with a guitar but nevertheless sitting there as I go by, saying: "Excuse me, can you spare some change? I need some food"? What's happening?

Where are their families? Where are their parents? Where is the broader network of people who have an obligation to that individual?

Some may say: "Well, once they reach a certain age, they don't want that. They want to stand independently. They want to be treated independently and get on their own feet." Then implement the recommendations that were put forward with respect to

section 9 and provide them that opportunity to be treated that way.

We heard in this recent federal election about youth offenders. There are those who stand up and say: "Let's lower the age to ten, and if they commit a crime, let's throw them in jail and treat them like an adult." But, you know, that's the only time we'll treat them like an adult. We won't treat them like an adult at any other time in their lives, until they've breached the law and committed a criminal offence. There's something bigger that's wrong than we can fix with this bill. It seems to me that as a society we've come to the point where we have to start to explore some other solutions to our problems.

Some time ago there was talk about the implementation of a guaranteed annual income. I think there are some issues around that that need to be addressed in a broader social debate, because as a society we have become so focused on debt and deficit reduction, so driven by the International Monetary Fund and the major chartered banks -- who are telling us what we have to do and can and can't do as a society because of the extended levels of debt that we've incurred -- that we forget that we are in charge here.

We're the ones that can make those decisions and choices, not those who are external from our borders and who are telling us what we can and can't do. Yes, retiring the debt is important, and maintaining balanced budgets is important.

But this year, if it is similar to 1996, we will have raised, through corporate and individual taxes in this province, close to $42 billion. That's what we will have split in half -- half of it sent off to the feds and the other half sitting in here. Three and a half million British Columbians, $42 billion, and we've got kids in poverty. We've got children whose families can't feed them.

There's something wrong in our society, and what's wrong in our society isn't going to be fixed by Bill 23. So what is Bill 23 to do? What's its intent? Well, the Attorney General outlined it very clearly. I don't take issue with anything he said; I think that's exactly what the bill is intended to do.

Should one support it? Well, I guess one has to have some measure of putting in place some guiding principles that are going to determine how children in care are looked after and maintained. Where children in care are abused or there are problems associated with it, there have to be mechanisms for them to be looked after and dealt with. So one would say yes, you have to support this bill.

But, you know, I remember once a speech that was made by the member for Vancouver-Langara. I don't know if you'll remember this speech, but it was one of the more moving and better speeches I've heard in this chamber. It was some years ago. It dealt, essentially, with the issue of food banks and with legislation and language that was there with respect to the provision of food banks. The one thing that stuck in my head . . . . The member, as people will know, is among those who were involved in the founding of food banks.

His lament was that they have become an institution now, not a solution -- an institution in which we now make provision for those people who will be locked into their services because we haven't fixed the problem. That's the same thing with this commission.

The difficulty is children in poverty. That's what we have to pay our attention to; that's what we're going to have to try and fix. We're going to have to try and find out what it is in our society, this great wealthy society that we live in, that drives people into that state of despair, keeps families involved in it and allows for that cycle of violence, poverty and despair to continue -- because it's getting worse, not better.

Perhaps those of us who are in this chamber or our friends and our immediate families may not feel that direct pain, because we do have a reasonable income, and our families may be in the upper middle class in terms of our abilities to earn. But I don't think there's any one of us in this chamber that doesn't know somebody very closely associated with or very near to us that isn't feeling that same problem. I think each of us has an obligation to go well beyond what is intended with respect to this commissioner and how this commissioner is going to replace the existing services.

Each of us in our own communities and our own constituency, the constituency that elects us, have an obligation to those people who cannot, for reasons beyond their control, look after themselves. Children in need are the most vulnerable of all.

[ Page 3968 ]

Yet I can tell you that there are two other bills we'll be coming to soon that were tabled today: Bill 31 and Bill 32. They don't speak to the solution; they'll compound the problem. What we are doing is attempting to get bureaucracies and bureaucrats, rules, laws and regulations to govern that which can only be dealt with at home.

We must provide the opportunities for those that are either directly in the home situation or immediately appended to them through an extended-family relationship to get involved more specifically and more directly, not only with the children but also with the parents of the children and with the safe living situation that exists there. We haven't done it. We haven't even come close to doing it, because we're not looking at the problem. We're simply trying to design a bigger band-aid to put on the wound, and it isn't going to solve our problem.

I want to conclude my comments with two specific references to this bill in terms of two of the sections. I think the resolution-of-complaints

section is far too complex. There are too many levels at which this complaint is going to get encumbered. In the committee stage, I want to talk with the Attorney General, through the Chair, to sort out why it is that some of the choices that have been made in that complaint

section were made. It strikes me that we couldn't design something more complex than we've designed here. It seems to me that there has to be an easier way. Given that the idea is that we want to move to a closer-to-home concept, there has to be a mechanism that would provide an opportunity far closer to the real situation than what this resolution-of-complaints process requires.

I serve notice that that is one of the areas that I think we need to take a look at. There may be very good reasons for it; I don't know. Certainly through reading that section, one really can't imagine how we could make things a little bit more complex, given the fact that we've got other agencies who are directly involved in trying to solve the same problem. It really does start to make things very complex.

The second area that I think is important with respect to this issue is the powers with respect to the commissioner. I think it was alluded to already. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson talked a little bit about the powers of the commissioner, the extent to which there is an opportunity to act within the role of the commissioner and the extent to which that opportunity is going to provide some level of security in terms of privacy of information, in some instances. In other instances, it is going to protect the right of families to be able to have a direct intervention prior to the commissioner's ruling.

That's a contentious issue right now. As the Attorney General is probably well aware, there's a very active grandparents' rights association in the province right now who would like very much to be more directly involved in this kind of discussion.

So those are two areas in this bill that I think we really have to focus in on. But on the principle, I cannot stress strongly enough that the reason our children are in crisis is because of systemic poverty. As a society we're going to have to deal with that. The second reason is that our communities are building a greater level of intolerance for each other, often for people of another colour, people of other language and religion. Those divisions that are happening are happening more and more openly and more vocally, with far more damage.

In order for us to really deal with the children, we have to look at the issue of poverty. In order for us to do that, I think we have to act with a good deal more compassion than we have done in the past.

[4:30]

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the philosophy and principles of Bill 23, the Children's Commission Act. I'll attempt to keep my remarks brief and to the point.

I think that this act, the Children's Commission Act, responds to one of Judge Gove's recommendations, but it falls a bit short of what he had envisioned. I have three areas of concern with the act. One of those is the reporting authority; secondly, the increased bureaucracy; and thirdly, the potential regional inequities.

I support the establishment of a Children's Commission, but the act must be improved to truly reflect Judge Gove's recommendations. I think we heard a moving speech from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about how he feels or what he thinks some of our problems are with children and with our families and those types of things.

I've often commented that one of the biggest problems in this great country of ours is the breakup of the family. I don't think there's an easy solution, nor should there be, to a very complex problem that all of us have to face in this great country of ours. I listened intently and agree quite wholeheartedly that poverty is much of the problem that we face in a country as wealthy as Canada.

But it's not just a poverty issue, and I need not embellish that. I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast brought that out clearly. There is a responsibility that goes along with all of us and many of those out there. The member talked about seeing many children on the street. There is a responsibility that goes back to the parents or to the grandparents, to the aunts, to the uncles, whomever -- friends, neighbours -- to try to work with those young people.

I think what we find in the society we have today -- what we've moved away from so much from what I grew up in -- is that family is no longer close. I can relate that to my own individual life. Living in the north, my two children never got to know their grandparents, because they lived a thousand miles away. It's difficult to get to know your grandparents; it's difficult to get to know your aunts and uncles. In fact, I've lost contact with many of them -- cousins, those kinds of things.

There is a responsibility, I think, for each and every one of us -- British Columbians, Canadians as a whole -- to look a little more closely at how we have to intertwine, interknit with one another, so that we can have a better society. I think poverty and responsibility are two very important parts of it. Responsibility goes to those who think that they can have families, leave those families and not have any responsibility. Unfortunately, that's got nothing to do with poverty, in many cases. It's got a lot to do with being too affluent and thinking that the state can just . . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I'm saying something that's funny over there, I don't think I am. I think there are some real responsibilities for those in society who think they can do those kind of things and clearly walk away from their responsibilities.

Having said that, I'm going to touch briefly on the three points that I have some concerns with. The first is the reporting authority. I believe that the commissioner should be an officer of the Legislature, so that that commissioner would report directly to the Legislature regardless of what political party is in power or who is in opposition. That shouldn't matter. This kind of issue should transcend political lines.

[ Page 3969 ]

Unfortunately, under this act the commissioner reports directly to the Attorney General. I'm not saying that the Attorney General of the day doesn't have the compassion or the understanding to deal with it. I'm certainly not trying to indicate that at all. What I am saying is that if the commissioner did report directly to the whole House, then we could work together -- all parties. It has been offered by all parties -- the opposition parties specifically -- to work on these issues collectively with the government to see if we can't get to some kind of resolution to deal with these issues.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Society tries to write up legislation that we think can fix every problem that there is in society, and in many cases it makes it worse. I think of a grandparent in my constituency that's been trying to get access to a grandchild for two years, and because of . . . not this bill, but many like it, cannot. Here we stand and talk about family getting together and trying to deal with these issues, yet we seem to be more divisive and drive apart families that need some help to get together.

I certainly am not going to stand here and say that I have any magic way of doing that; I don't. So all I can do is comment on what I see in here that I think may be detrimental to children and families in the future. I think that if we all work together, collectively -- opposition and government -- on issues such as this bill before they come before the House, we may be able to come forward with something that may be a lot more acceptable to a whole different cross-section of people in British Columbia. I think that's where we have to get to.

Secondly, the increased bureaucracy. I think we as MLAs know how difficult it can be to get through the bureaucracy. It's not that those people aren't good people; they're doing their job, and all of them are doing their best. But what happens is that each one has a certain set of rules or regulations that they have to follow, and it goes on and on and on.

The person out on the street who needs help and wants to access this doesn't understand how many different levels you have to go through, how many different kinds of people you have to talk to, how often you have to talk to them, how many days and how you appeal. In a lot of cases it's not because they're not well educated; it's just that they don't deal with this stuff in their average daily life like we do. We find it difficult, so it's no wonder that people out there who are trying to solve problems within their families have some difficulties.

I think the state does cause a fair amount of difficulty, even though the state is trying to rectify some of the problems. Judge Gove commented in his report that the act may follow and increase bureaucracy, which may hinder and complicate the commissioner's work. He said that in his report. Let's keep it as simple as we can and try to get to the end as best we can.

The third one is regional issues. Again, I speak as a member from a rural constituency. How we deal with issues in rural B.C . . . . I think back to a while ago when the Minister for Children and Families commissioned a study on foster homes. I commend the minister for it, and I did at the time. She has rectified this, but how it started was that we were going to do it all in Victoria -- all the case studies were going to be in Victoria. Now, it was understandable why it would originate here.

What wasn't understandable to a member from rural B.C. was that in an area where there are the best health services, the best social services . . . . It's the best of everything; everything you want is at your fingertips just a short walk away from here. And that's where we're going to do our study.

I gave credit to the minister when I spoke to her. She said: "Yeah, you're right, we will look at rural, and we will go to the northeast and do a study there." So I'm thankful for that, but what I see here is dominated again . . . . I guess probably the greater number of problems are on the lower mainland -- maybe, I'm not sure -- when you look at it. But I think there are certain problems that happen with children and families in rural British Columbia, and how we deal with these issues is totally different from the way we would deal with them in downtown Victoria, downtown Vancouver or downtown Kamloops.

It's just something that I think we have to look at. In fact, I would hope that the commissioner would travel to the Peace; I would hope that the minister in charge, the Attorney General, would ask the commissioner to travel to the Peace and see it firsthand. I was just in Fort Nelson, talking to people there about child development centres and the difficulty they're having with someone coming through once every three months to check in and see what's going on. By that time the problem has already exacerbated itself so much that you can't deal with it anymore.

I've spoken about our court system, our travelling court system and our probation system. All of that in the rural part of British Columbia is woefully inadequate, and I can't see this being any different. So I have some real problems with that.

Hon. Speaker, with those remarks, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill, where we can maybe research and go into some of these areas a little bit more -- the three areas of concern that I have brought up -- and the minister will be able to answer or help me out as to how we can deal with those issues in rural British Columbia. With that, I will take my place.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Attorney General, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, much has been said, and I have made the initial remarks. Therefore I will not waste any more time, other than simply to say that this is obviously a very serious issue. In some ways I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast hit the nail right on its head when he said that there are other things that we have to do so that we don't have to have legislation like this. Unfortunately, the fact is that we need legislation like this while we continue to try and do as much as we can to prevent this legislation from having to be used.

The member for Peace River North, who just finished speaking, indicated that the establishment of the commission, with the seat of the commission being in Victoria, may have some different regional impacts. Obviously it's important for us to keep those issues in mind, and we will. This is an issue regarding the independence of the Children's Commission and where the reporting should be. I think that that issue was dealt with in the estimates debate, and we'll deal with it now.

With that, I conclude my remarks and move that we read the bill a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 23, Children's Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 3970 ]

CHILDREN'S COMMISSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

G. Wilson: The

definitions

section obviously is usually fairly important but also is often very straightforward.

I have a couple of questions. The first is with respect to the definition of "child," meaning a person under the age of 19, although I notice in reading the legislation that in fact that can be varied. I wonder if that's a general guideline unless otherwise amended by the act, or . . . . In the case of somebody who's incapacitated, for example, I understand that the age of 19 does not apply. Am I wrong? Because it would seem to me that's what the act says.

[4:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: A child, of course, would mean a person under 19 years of age throughout the act. There would be no provision to vary it, since it would be in the legislation.

G. Wilson: I'll pick up my particular question when we get to that one

section where it seems a little ambiguous.

The second question I have is with respect to the "continuing custody" definition. Could the minister explain: " . . . (

a) an order under the Child, Family and Community Service Act placing a child in the continuing custody of the director, or (

b) a permanent order made under the Family and Child Service Act"? I'm assuming that this does not apply, then, to a first-time order. Are we dealing with a situation where a person is in continuing care at that point? We're not dealing with somebody who's under apprehension, who's just simply been apprehended. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct.

G. Wilson: With respect to "guardian," I'm assuming that this means the legal guardian and not the person who is essentially providing care, necessarily, for the child. Under many court orders, custody and guardianship are defined specifically; in some they are not. It may be that a child can in fact be under the "guardianship" of an individual even though that individual may not be deemed the legal guardian. I wonder if that's made clear here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It means the legal guardian of the person.

V. Anderson: The simplicity of this act in being able to be used by the community . . . . I didn't get a chance, once I realized what it was there . . . . I would like "child in care" to read, "means a child who is in the custody, care or guardianship of a director or the director of adoption," instead of, "has the same meaning as in the Child, Family and Community Service Act" -- which means that you have to have two acts. Not everybody carries around two acts. So you get this act in order that you can deal with it, and then you have to go and get a copy of another act.

What I'm suggesting is that child in care include the same definition, which is the one I read, which is in the Child, Family and Community Service Act: instead of referring to it, we actually put the words in. So I'd like to move -- if it's in order -- an amendment th