1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 14

[ Page 16119 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today we have some special guests in the members' gallery. His Excellency Bremer Nxumalo is the newly appointed High Commissioner to Canada for Swaziland. The high commissioner is accompanied by Newman Ntshangase, the First Secretary at the Swaziland high commission in Ottawa. Please join me in welcoming them to the House.

I also have the very pleasurable task of introducing the following individuals today in the members' gallery. We have some very, very special visitors who were part of the ceremony earlier today to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations: Mr. Gordon Brown, a retired Canadian diplomat who has served in many countries, including Switzerland, Cyprus, South Africa and Zaire; Mrs. Francine Brown, a former member of the staff of the Belgian delegation at the 1945 San Francisco Conference on the International Organization for the Creation of the United Nations; Mr.

Mike Sproule, president of the United Nations Association, Victoria; Ms. Julia Feesey, executive director of the United Nations Association, Victoria; and Mr. Garth Frizzell, past president of the United Nations Association, Victoria, former youth representative to the National Committee for UN50 and the secretary general for the National Model UN in New York in 1995. Please join me in welcoming them.

J. Weisgerber: It's a real pleasure for me today to introduce a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Len Bawtree, from the Shuswap area. Len is joined by his wife, his wife's brother Peter and his wife, Ann Swaby, visiting from England. Len and his wife are showing them around British Columbia. I'd certainly ask you to give them a very warm welcome to the Legislature.

L. Krog: It's with great pleasure today that I introduce in the gallery three of my constituents and one constituent from Margaret Lord's riding. They are Maj. Nicholas Balke, retired; his spouse, Noel Balke, likewise retired; my old high school librarian, Don Machan, likewise retired. The only one of the four of them who is working is "the Bulk's" daughter Jennifer, who's a registered biologist from Denman Island. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

M. Sihota: There are a number of students here from the Khalsa School on the mainland. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm sat siri akal.

T. Perry: I'm not sure I can do the same in Latin for the students from St. Augustine's School who are visiting. Sic transit gloria mundi, or something to that effect.

An Hon. Member: Was that Japanese?

T. Perry: That was Japanese, yes. I think, actually, that somebody has made a mistake; they are constituents of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, but they are across the street from my riding. Students from St. Augustine's School and their teacher, Ms. D. O'Hara, are somewhere in the precincts, and if they are in the gallery I urge members to join me in making them welcome.

Hon. E. Cull tabled the financial statements of the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority for the year ended March 31, 1995, in accordance with

section 4(5) of the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act; the report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act during the fiscal year ended August 31, 1994; and the report of guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995, in accordance with

section 56(8) of the Financial Administration Act.

Ministerial Statement

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UN CHARTER

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter. On June 26, 1945, representatives of 51 countries, including Canada, met in San Francisco to sign the charter. Four months later the charter was ratified, and the United Nations came into being. Today, 50 years to the day since that gathering in San Francisco, the United Nations has 185 member countries, representing the vast majority of the world's population.

It has been a challenging 50 years for the United Nations and for the world. But even in the midst of these challenges, it's clear that this institution, the UN, has played a powerfully positive role. The promotion of peace and disarmament, delivery of humanitarian aid, protection of environment, advocacy for human rights and delivery of health care: these are some of the vital tasks that have been taken on by the UN. At times, some of these challenges have seemed virtually impossible to overcome, and at times, the depths of the world's problems have seemed overwhelming. But through all these times, the United Nations has represented our aspirations for making the world a better place.

In the late 1960s the New York Times newspaper characterized the UN as "a kind of mirror for our world, warts and all." That was true then, and it's still true today. The United Nations has not, can not and will not solve all the world's problems. But it offers our best chance at and the best hope of moving forward, even if only one small step at a time. British Columbians overwhelmingly support the positive role of the UN and Canada's constructive leadership role in it. The United Nations' efforts at increasing understanding between nations and cultures have great meaning to a province such as ours, blessed by an increasingly rich diversity of cultures.

As Stephen Lewis, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN, observed:

"It is not so much a solution which is required here; it is rather the inspired knack of keeping doors open, countries talking, a vital process going. These modest initiatives help to keep the world on track when all around us there is menace, alarm and hostility. If the United Nations system did not exist, it would somehow be created."

[2:15]

This government is an enthusiastic supporter of Canada's involvement with the United Nations. As a demonstration of that support, a number of initiatives are underway to help celebrate this year's anniversary. Gretchen Brewin, the

mem-

[ Page 16120 ]

ber for Victoria-Beacon Hill, is serving as the provincial representative on the national committee established to celebrate the UN's fiftieth anniversary. The province has contributed $50,000 to support the efforts of the national committee. Thanks to Hon. Art Charbonneau, Minister of Education, a provincial proclamation will be distributed to B.C. schools, with October 24 designated as UN Study Day across the province. Government mail and publications will be stamped with the UN50 logo, from today until October 24.

A UN exhibit will be on display in the reception hall of this building until October 24, and the United Nations flag will be flown on the grounds of this Legislature and at B.C. Ferries.

On this important day, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter, I ask all members to join me in saluting this most valuable international body. I further ask that we acknowledge the contribution of Canadian peacekeepers, humanitarian aid workers, medical personnel, international development workers, advisers of electoral processes, and diplomats. These people have made the United Nations what it is, and they deserve our thanks.

G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise today in support of the minister's statement. We all in this House join in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. One of the most important things that the United Nations reminds us all, I think, is that in spite of our many cultural differences and the different places in which we live, we have many things that we share in common.

I was fortunate enough to spend two years working in Nigeria, and I can tell you that families in Nigeria work very hard to make sure that their children can have a brighter future. They are keen and interested in providing a better education for all of their community. As you go around the world, I'm sure you'll agree that people are all seeking a cleaner environment, a healthier world and a healthier community in which to live.

They are all seeking a more peaceful world in which their differences can be resolved through discussion and negotiation, rather than through the violent methods that unfortunately still remain. They all take their hats off to the United Nations for the efforts it makes and the work it does, whether in humanitarian ways, through agencies like UNICEF or through our peacekeepers. Canada has always played an active and vital peacekeeping role in the United Nations. That is a part of our history and tradition that we all must acknowledge.

We must acknowledge the work that has been done by people across this country to strengthen the United Nations in creating the international bonds that are imperative if we are going to provide our children with the kind of bright, significant, healthy future they all deserve.

We are pleased to join with the government today in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, and hope that everyone in British Columbia will take the time to reflect on the viable and important contribution that that institution makes to all our lives.

J. Weisgerber: I am delighted to join with the government and the official opposition in recognizing the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. I believe that probably its most important function has been to create a forum where the issues that challenge us have had an opportunity to be aired and discussed. Canada has played an enormous role in the United Nations, a role far greater than our population would indicate or demand. I think Canada has been a very key player and a very key supporter of the United Nations.

Perhaps more than anybody else, our peacekeepers have demonstrated time and time again all around the world Canada's involvement and commitment to the United Nations. So with all British Columbians, I'm proud today to join in recognizing and celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

G. Wilson: Now I have to think of something to say. [Laughter.]

I also rise to speak to the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. As members of this House will know, most, if not all, of my formative years were spent in Kenya and East Africa at a time of great strife for that country as it moved from a colonial regime to independence. My mother was actively involved with the United Nations through UNICEF, and my colleague for Okanagan East has relatives who currently serve within the United Nations.

So we know firsthand of the outstanding work that is done not just in the larger assembly in New York but, more importantly, in the developing world in those countries which are emerging today into full-fledged nationhood as we start to break away from the old colonial regimes and the imperialistic nature that has been our past.

This country, Canada, has a proud heritage with respect to our participation in the United Nations. I think many British Columbians have served the United Nations well. As a nation and as a population, we can be proud of the role we have played as our world emerges and as we start to break away from the myth that there is somehow a first world, a second world and a third world, and to realize that there is but one world.

It is our world, and as humans we must all live and work together so that we may practise a life of dignity and have hope for all children, especially our children who seek to find a world in which poverty, disease and pestilence are no longer the kinds of hallmarks that, unfortunately, we see today.

I rise very much in support of this, as a strong advocate of the United Nations and of Canadian involvement in it. I'm delighted that the minister has brought this forward today.

Introduction of Bills

COURT INFORMATION ACT

R. Chisholm presented a bill intituled Court Information Act.

R. Chisholm: I'm greatly concerned about our legal system in British Columbia. I've listened to many individuals throughout our province and within my riding of Chilliwack who are concerned about our flawed legal system. This non-confidence in our justice system arises out of a lack of understanding of how our legal system works. Currently, in many cases, no official records are kept of trials or procedures, and no recording devices are allowed in court. The only records

[ Page 16121 ]

kept are the decisions passed down by judges. These current realities around recording keep the judicial system cloaked in mystery. People feel frustrated by the Canadian judicial system. Put simply, if the public does not know what is going on in the courts, how are they supposed to have confidence in the legal process?

I therefore believe that a judicial equivalent of the legislative Hansard would go far towards eliminating this lack of understanding by the public. The Court Information Act would cover all the courts in British Columbia: Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Provincial Court, and small claims and family courts, as well as hearings and chamber applications related to these courts. The recordings of the courts would occur with the use of mechanical recording devices and would be transferred upon request into a written transcript for purchase or review by the general public or media.

The cost of implementing this act would be absorbed by the recording companies and not the government. The Court Information Act would give the general public and the media access to all the proceedings, with some exceptions that are outlined in the act, so that the doubt about the judicial system that exists in society today would be eliminated.

In conclusion, the Court Information Act would give the public access to the judicial system. This increased public access would help the public to understand the system, which will also help to eliminate their frustration. I believe this is a good act. It will cost us nothing to implement and has been a long time in coming. It is for these reasons that I would like to introduce the Court Information Act.

Bill M210 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

CONFIDENTIALITY OF PHARMACARE

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Health. On Saturday you were alerted to a situation in your ministry which could undermine the integrity of Pharmacare. This morning we heard of a memo which suggested "a discreet inquiry from the Pharmacare database be made into a person's personal records." The minister must know that there is considerable public concern about the confidentiality of Pharmacare. The only way to restore the public's confidence is to launch a full and independent investigation into that situation. Why has the minister not initiated a full investigation by a special prosecutor and the privacy commissioner?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Only authorized persons have access to the database held by Pharmacare. Any breach of that confidentiality is a criminal offence. Staff at Pharmacare are quite committed to ensuring that the personal privacy of individuals listed on the claims database is kept confidential. To my knowledge, no breach of that confidentiality has occurred.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The problem is that the public does not know that. I understand the minister's position, but the fact of the matter is that many coincidences are reflected in this memo which has been put out today. We recognize that it's an alleged memo. However, we recognize that the memo is to the director of Pharmacare about an existing employee in the minister's employ; it is initialled as the minister often initials his memos, and it is done on stationery which is used by the minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: The violation of a person's medical records is a serious offence, and we know that the minister understands that. However, the only way to be able to assure the public that there is no threat is to have a full and open inquiry into this, which includes a special prosecutor and the privacy commissioner.

My question is to the Deputy Premier: will you instruct an independent investigation by a special prosecutor and the privacy commissioner right now so that we can protect the integrity of Pharmacare?

Hon. E. Cull: First, I'd suggest that the Leader of the Opposition review the legislation about who appoints special prosecutors. It certainly is not the Premier or the Deputy Premier -- or even the Attorney General, for that matter. The Minister of Health has just indicated that if there has been a breach it is a criminal matter, and I would suggest that if the hon. member has any information to suggest that there has been something like that done, he make it known to the appropriate authorities.

L. Reid: The Minister of Health repeatedly stated this morning that the letterhead in question was pre-1991 letterhead not in use by his ministry. The B.C. Liberal caucus has determined that this is in fact not correct. I have letters in my possession dated 1992 and 1993 using exactly the same letterhead. To the Minister of Health: did you or did you not write this memorandum to Mike Corbeil asking for a Pharmacare search to be conducted on one of your employees?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I did not write this letter. It is unsigned and undated. I did not write it, and neither was the memo received by the person the memo purports to be addressed to. The deputy minister to the Premier of British Columbia is investigating this incident to see if we can determine the origin of this clearly fraudulent document.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: This opposition would be interested in learning what prompted the minister to mislead members earlier today when he said that this letterhead was still in production and was not taken out of production until last year. The issue is whether this minister can be relied upon always to provide the facts. How can the Minister of Health say beyond a shadow of a doubt that no such letterhead continues to exist or to be in use by his office?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The memo is written on letterhead that purports to be from the Ministry of Health. The name of my ministry is the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible

[ Page 16122 ]

for Seniors, and that's the letterhead I use. The member opposite says she has some letterhead that says Ministry of Health, so perhaps she should be asked if she has used any such letterhead for purposes of fraudulently producing a memo.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Health as well. I believe there is a compelling need for a full investigation to determine who authored the memo that suggests the criminal misuse of Pharmacare's PharmaNet system. I believe the public deserves to know: if not the minister, then who did author the memo? Who asked the director to examine this? I don't believe for a moment that the people of British Columbia have any confidence in an investigation conducted by the Premier's Office. Why in the world doesn't the minister have the courage to call for a full police investigation into the authorship of the memo and the use of the paper from his office?

[2:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm tempted to just refer the member to Hansard and the previous answers. Let me say again that this letter was not written by me and it was not received by the person it is purportedly addressed to. The origin of this fictitious correspondence is unclear. The deputy minister to the Premier has been asked to investigate to see what we can find out about the origin of it. I understand that the member opposite has provided a copy of this memo to the Attorney General, who has given it to the RCMP. The RCMP determine what they wish to investigate.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: With all due respect to the minister, the public's confidence in the pharmacard system has been shaken by this memo and by previous activities of this minister. I believe that there is a need for the public to have confidence in the investigation. If the minister or his staff had nothing to do with it, I can't imagine for a minute why he would hesitate, why he would waffle, on bringing the police in for an investigation to find out who wrote the memo and how they got access to the minister's letterhead.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat: the name of my ministry is the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. That is not the title on this letterhead. There is other old letterhead in circulation, some from the administration of that member. I wonder if there might be some held in a cabinet somewhere that somebody has used to fabricate a memo. The police have a copy of the memo; they decide what they wish to investigate. We have asked the deputy minister to the Premier to investigate to see if the origin of the document can be determined.

In closing, I heard the member opposite refer to a lack of confidence as a result of this and "previous activities of this minister." I will take it under advisement as to whether I wish to raise a matter of personal privilege in this House.

USE OF PUBLIC MONEY IN NDP RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

M. de Jong: Another manila envelope has landed in the laps of the official opposition, and this time it's the secret advertising plan for spending the millions of taxpayers' dollars that the Minister of Finance has set aside. The pattern of deception has come full circle and is now even more focused.

First we had Brian Gardiner writing that the Premier must be more active in promoting the party. Then the Minister of Finance reallocates millions of taxpayers' dollars to a special ad hoc political committee to spend as it wants. Now we have a government communications plan that's advocating spending those millions of dollars in conjunction with MLAs and ministers in their local ridings. My question to the minister is: can she tell us exactly why she thinks this massive propaganda campaign with public dollars, this exercise in propaganda, is warranted with public dollars?

Hon. E. Cull: First of all, let me remind the member that we have cut advertising budgets by 15 percent in this year's budget. In addition, we have put a freeze on half of the advertising budgets. We will be receiving information from the ministries over the next couple of weeks at Treasury Board as to exactly how much money is actually caught by that freeze. I can tell the hon. member that it is nowhere near the $10 million that has been bandied about. It is much less than that because of the upfront funding of many of the advertising contracts in various ministries.

However, I do think it is prudent, given the cuts to the advertising budgets, that cabinet and Treasury Board have another chance to have a look at exactly where that money is being spent. That's what we're doing.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The Minister of Finance has turned the phrase "there's no truth in advertising" into a high science. The document is called "A Plan for B.C." It should be retitled "A Plan For Deception," because that's what it amounts to. It's public money. The advertising plan describes how millions of dollars should be spent, but then goes on to state that this blatant exercise should "not look like a campaign." This is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy. Can the Minister of Finance tell us how she's planning to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars, using every communications budget within her reach, and not make it look like a campaign?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't think any government would be ashamed to advertise its vision for the economy of the province. We very clearly have a good story to tell. We have the strongest economy in Canada. We have the second-lowest taxes for an average family.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. E. Cull: We have the lowest debt per capita of any province in the country. More important, we have a plan to make sure that we stay the strongest economy in Canada. It is essential that the public know that there are two plans in this province: the government's plan, which is to reinforce that strong economy, and the cut-cut-cut that is being proposed by the opposition. They need to be able to make a choice.

[ Page 16123 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The difference is that the B.C. Liberal Party will be paying for our plan, not the taxpayers. The taxpayers of British Columbia don't need a $10 million, taxpayer-funded government advertising campaign. What they need is an election, to get rid of the NDP government.

The leaked Brian Gardiner memo shows just how insidious this campaign has become. My question is to the Deputy Premier: was Mr. Gardiner present at any cabinet committee meetings where this ad campaign for the expenditure of millions of taxpayers' dollars for partisan purposes was discussed? Was Mr. Gardiner -- the head of the NDP -- there directing those funds?

Hon. E. Cull: The Premier has already made it absolutely clear that any partisan advertising will be handled by the party, and that government advertising will be done by the appropriate ministries. This plan talks about Skills Now, which is a government program, not a partisan program. It talks about all of the tremendous things that we have been doing with land use and forest practices in this province -- CORE, the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal B.C. -- and advertising those things.

Most importantly, it talks about the essential infrastructure that our government has had the courage to invest in when those people over there are saying in this House that they shouldn't do it -- except when they're back in their ridings and moan about the lack of schools, the lack of health facilities or the lack of transportation facilities. They can't have it both ways.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The taxpayers are upset with this plan. This communications campaign is way beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay. The leaked document states: "Every announcement must be posed in the context of affordability." It goes on to say that the campaign should not look like a campaign. Is this deception going to go on and on? Does the Minister of Finance really believe that the taxpayers should be paying $10 million for a partisan pattern of deception perpetrated by this government?

Hon. E. Cull: I repeat: the number that the member is throwing around is simply a matter of arithmetic. When the ministry's budgets are presented to Treasury Board, we'll know exactly how much of the money that is left is not going into the regular programs.

What the public wants is accountability for where their tax dollars are being spent. The only way that we can tell young people and people who are on welfare or unemployment insurance where they can go to apply for skills upgrading is to advertise. Maybe this member thinks we should keep it a secret...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. E. Cull: ...so that not only do we not spend the advertising dollars, we don't spend the money in the program, either. Maybe that is what their plan is.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Presenting Petitions

L. Hanson: I have a petition signed by some 400 British Columbia citizens, and it is protesting the government's policy regarding adoptions.

R. Chisholm: I have a petition to table that is signed by hundreds of people in reference to the adoption bill that this government has tabled. They are in opposition to it.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and it's appropriate that in the House we'll debate second reading of Bill 51, the Adoption Act.

ADOPTION ACT

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to rise for second reading of the Adoption Act. This new legislation will replace a bill drafted in another generation -- the 1950s -- which no longer reflects today's society's view of the complex relationship amongst children, birth parents, adoptive parents and extended families. The legislation before this House today is based on several years of public consultation. It incorporates the thoughts, ideas and suggestions of thousands of members of the adoption community. In every matter, it seeks to balance their rights. It has at its heart, in all respects, the best interests of the child.

Before I go on, I would like to recognize my colleague the member for Comox Valley for her participation in the adoption legislation review team. Over many months, the team visited communities around the province and talked to British Columbians whose lives have been touched by adoption. Building on the findings of earlier consultations, the team also heard from more than 2,600 people who wrote to the ministry or telephoned a special toll-free number to share their views.

Members of this House will not be surprised to hear that our review team heard some widely divergent views. But, as team members can attest, we also found a very strong consensus. British Columbians have expressed overwhelming support for regulating private adoptions and very strong support for regulating the growing number of international adoptions. The consensus was that parties in adoption should have a broader range of options for personal contact and for accessing personal historic information. Each of these issues is addressed in the bill before you today.

Other significant sections of this new legislation address access to information, eligibility to adopt and the unique concerns of aboriginal families, children and communities.

I would like to start by outlining the policies we propose around private adoptions. Over the past two decades, the number of children placed for adoption has decreased dramatically. As ministry waiting lists grew, an increasing number of prospective adoptive parents turned to private individuals and agencies. In 1971, only 2 percent of B.C. adoptions were arranged outside our ministry. Today this figure has increased to 57 percent -- a large and growing service sector -- but it has only minimum regulation.

[ Page 16124 ]

[2:45]

Virtually everyone who spoke with our review panel agreed that this must change. We need legal safeguards to standardize the process and, more importantly, to protect the rights and interests of children. In our consultations, we heard from many caring, dedicated individuals involved in private adoptions, and they had serious concerns. Under the current system, unless an adoption is facilitated by the ministry and is therefore under our ministry control, there is no formal preplacement process to evaluate homes to ensure that they're safe for our children.

There is no legal obligation to ensure that birth parents and adoptive parents are fully informed of their rights and options. The fees involved in private adoptions can create the impression of a marketplace with children as a commodity, and there is a potential for conflict of interest. Because adoptive parents pay fees for private adoptions, facilitators may consider their rights before those of the child or the birth parents.

To protect the rights of children and to ensure the fairest system possible, we propose to regulate private adoptions as closely and as carefully as government adoptions. Non-profit agencies will require licensing to handle adoptions, and they will be required to provide a full range of adoption services, including home studies to assess prospective adoptive families, counselling for birth parents and postadoption support. We believe these changes are needed to protect the safety of children and to ensure that the parties to the adoption make informed choices.

At the same time, we recognize that certain kinds of adoptions need not be bound by detailed regulation. Under the terms of the bill before us today, birth parents will retain the right to place a child with people they know and trust. Private agency or ministry staff will help in the process to ensure that critical personal information is gathered, shared and preserved for the child's future use. In these cases, preplacement assessments will only be required for adoptions outside the child's extended family.

I must add, however, that the courts will have full authority to ask for a complete report before approving any adoption to make sure that it is in the child's best interests. These proposals are consistent with the recommendations of our adoption review team. Agencies currently facilitating adoptions outside the ministry have indicated very strong support for these changes. They extend to parties in private adoptions the same rights and protection enjoyed by those who seek adoption through our government.

While the number of private adoptions in this province has increased, the number of children adopted from outside Canada has increased even more. We estimate that the numbers have doubled in the past year alone. This ministry often does not have access to complete records on international adoptions, because these adoptions most frequently take place in the child's country of origin. But we estimate that the number is roughly equal to the number of private and ministry adoptions completed in B.C. each year.

As with private adoptions, we have found a consensus that international placements must be regulated. We propose to bring them under the same provincial standards I have just outlined for private adoptions, and they will have to meet provisions of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. Developed by Canada and 65 other countries, the Hague convention's primary purpose is preventing the abduction and sale of children. It also sets standards for collecting information, getting consent from birth parents and determining which children should be considered for adoption outside their countries of origin.

Consistent with our own provincial legislation, the Hague convention also states that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration in all adoptions.

As our society has evolved, our notion of a child's best interests has changed, too. It was 1957 when the current Adoption Act was last substantially revised. At that time, British Columbians agreed that the interests of adoptive children would be best served by treating them as if they had not been adopted. This concept is enshrined in legislation in a four-word clause, "as if born to." It says that adopted children must be treated as if they were born to their adoptive families. It effectively severs all formal ties between these children and their families and communities of origin.

During our review we heard heart wrenching stories of the impact of this degree of confidentiality, and I know each and every member of this Legislature has also heard those devastating stories. Many adult adoptees said that while they dearly loved the parents who had raised them, they had a very deep desire to know about their biological roots. We also heard from people who feel that the "as if born to" guarantee of privacy should be extended. Therefore, as in all other sections of this new legislation, we have worked hard to strike a fair balance between these strongly held divergent views.

We recognize the need for greater openness. We also acknowledge government's obligation to maintain commitments undertaken in the past. Therefore we propose allowing the parties in adoptions to arrange their own openness agreements according to their mutual needs and wishes. There is a broad range of options available here. They may want to keep in touch through a third party, or they may wish to maintain strong ongoing personal contact between the child and the birth parents, or they may wish not to. The key point here is that it's their choice.

Throughout this new legislation, we have tried, wherever reasonable, to cut red tape and allow people to make their own personal decisions. We believe this serves the long-term interests of all parties to adoption. One area in which these interests may compete is access to historic adoption information. Under existing legislation, all adoption files are officially sealed. For example, it's extremely difficult for a birth parent to pass on updated medical information to the adoptive family. This can only be done through the ministry and relies upon the ministry's ability to contact the adoptive family.

Adult adoptees and birth parents do have access to non-identifying information, such as medical histories, and thousands have used the three-year-old adoption reunion registry to find one another. But even the registry has its limitations. We have found a level of frustration among those seeking adoption information. They believe that their records should be their property and government should have no right to restrict their access.

To satisfy the overwhelming public demand for freer access, we propose to unseal the adoption records. Those who wish to maintain their confidentiality will have two options. Anyone involved in an adoption under existing legislation will be able to file a disclosure veto. This will prohibit the release of all identifying information. Birth parents and adoptees who simply wish to have no personal contact will be able to sign a no-contact declaration. This option will be

[ Page 16125 ]

available to parties to adoption under current or new legislation. Research in other jurisdictions and data from our own adoption reunion registry, which I will make available to anyone in the Legislature, strongly suggests that adult adoptees and birth parents will be equally respectful of expressly stated privacy requests. We intend to maintain the adoption reunion registry. The bill before this House today will also ensure adoptive parents will have full access to all available personal information about their child.

At this point, I would like to remind this Legislature that the existing Adoption Act has not been substantially updated since 1957. Times have changed, and legislation must keep pace with social change, not attempt to shape it. Members of our judiciary are still examining, case by case, all the ramifications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but a

section of the existing Adoption Act is clearly discriminatory. It says only single people or legally married couples may apply to adopt in British Columbia. This discriminates against those who would like to adopt their former partner's children from previous relationships and against those couples living common law who want to adopt a child jointly.

In our new legislation we propose to continue allowing applications for adoption from any one adult. We also propose to extend this right to any two adults who may apply jointly, regardless of their marital status or gender. I would like to emphasize that this provision affects only applications to adopt, and there are many checks and balances which must be applied in each and every case to ensure a child is adopted only when the arrangement meets the best interests of the specific child to the satisfaction of a court.

I have already outlined the safeguards we plan to put in place where they do not already exist: preplacement home assessments, including criminal record checks, and greater access to information for all members of the adoption circle.

In addition, this new legislation spells out very explicitly for the courts the eight factors that must be considered in determining a child's best interests in adoption. I'll pause here just for a second and say: wouldn't it be wonderful if these factors could apply as well to those families that have their own natural children -- the traditional family? I look forward to the day when these principles apply there as well.

But let me tell you the principles that now apply in determining the child's best interests in adoption: the child's safety; the child's physical and emotional needs and level of development; the importance of continuity in a child's care; the importance of the child's development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of the family; the quality of the child's relationship with a birth parent or other individuals and the effect of maintaining that relationship; the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage; the child's views; and the effect on the child if there is a delay in decision-making.

I must also point out that birth mothers have the greatest voice in deciding who will raise their children. The birth mother will give consent to what is in the best interest of her child.

Many of us talk about a traditional family. Having a great deal of experience in this portfolio now, I don't know what a traditional family is. But if I say "traditional family," I suspect many members of this House are likely to picture mom, dad and two or three children. But this vision certainly does not fully embrace the aboriginal concept of traditional family. During our adoption legislation review, people in aboriginal communities clearly expressed the wish that aboriginal children not be adopted outside their culture.

They told us that if the immediate family cannot raise a child, the extended family will. And if the extended family cannot raise a child, then the larger community will step in.

In respect to these views, this Adoption Act of 1995 contains two key provisions: formal recognition of traditional aboriginal custom adoptions -- that is, adoptions between people according to the customs of their band or community; and a legislated commitment to consult with the community of origin whenever an aboriginal child is being placed for adoption, with -- and this is key -- the birth parent's consent to consultation. The new act also enables this ministry to enter into agreements with aboriginal communities or bands that are able and willing to provide adoption services.

These provisions markedly improve recognition of the rights of aboriginal people and communities. This bill before us today also provides increased protection for the rights of birth mothers, birth fathers and children. As I have already mentioned, birth mothers will have greater access to information before, during and after adoption. Private agencies facilitating adoption will be legally required to inform the birth parents about support services and other alternatives that might make them reconsider adoption.

Birth parents will also have a greater opportunity to plan for future contact with their child if they wish. We will also establish, for the very first time ever, a birth fathers' registry for fathers who may not have been otherwise involved in the planning for the future of their children.

Under this new legislation, children will also have a greater say in planning for their own futures. Children between the ages of seven and 11 will have to be consulted and have their views considered before they can be adopted. Children who are 12 or older will not be adopted without their direct consent. This new Adoption Act has the best interests of the child as its paramount consideration. To this end, I believe it represents the best possible balance of rights and responsibilities.

[3:00]

Adoption is a deeply personal matter. I have learned that over the course of the last several years. It has profound effects on children, families and communities. We cannot consider it without considering all of its ramifications and the best interests of the child -- the heart wrenching choice of a parent to place a child for adoption, the deep instinctive longing of those who want to be parents but cannot have a child biologically, and the child's basic need for a loving, supportive family, just to name but three.

We're all indebted to the agencies, groups and individuals who opened up their hearts and shared their views with our adoption legislation review team. Without their help we could not have drafted such responsive legislation. While our consultation did find some strongly opposing views, everyone who spoke with us agreed on this point: the rights and needs of children must be considered and respected above all else. This most fundamental principle is at the foundation of this new Adoption Act, Bill 51.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the exhaustive run-through of the act that the minister has presented to us, and I would like to thank her and compliment her on it. She has covered it in

[ Page 16126 ]

quite a bit of detail, and I think that's very appropriate in this particular case. We can remember that an adoption act was previously brought into this House that caused a great deal of consternation in the whole community. In faxes, telephone calls and personal visits from people right across the community, many concerns were registered again and again. I will credit the government for taking that bill off the table at that time and following up with a study, which has already been mentioned by the minister. That study was provided to the public so that they might review the results.

Consultations have been held, both in the preparation of that study and since, with people across the community, who had an opportunity to respond to it.

I have to say from my own personal experience, in agreement with the minister, that there have been people who have opinions on all sides of the issue. There is no way that everybody is going to get all of their particular concerns met, but there is agreement about the need to arrive at an updated and modern act. There is also a need to get the best balance of all available issues, taking into account the UN convention on the rights of the child, where the best interests of children are highlighted around the world, which are also acknowledged in the Hague convention, which the minister has mentioned.

It's a very personal thing; I can attest to that, being an adoptive father. So we have the opportunity to share and therefore have some feeling with others who are going through this very personal experience in their lives. We know that there are the concerns of parents for the children they have adopted, and that there are concerns -- justifiably -- of children who have been adopted about their history, their circumstances and who they are in the totality of their being. Each person sees these things in a different and very personal way, according to their own circumstances.

There are many issues that we will discuss as we go through various clauses of the act to make sure that we have a common understanding of their meanings and implications. There are many sides of many issues to be clarified, but I have to say, in my reading of the act and from listening to people I have talked to from a variety of aspects within the community, that although they do not agree with everything in the act, they are basically satisfied. They have said that it is a step in the right direction, which can then be modified as it proceeds from there.

One of the changes the minister has mentioned -- and I mention it particularly because it is one of the responses I received just this past week from persons who are in the process of adopting using private agencies, which will no longer be able to facilitate adoptions because of this act unless they are non-profit, and these are not.... These people are very anxious about their situation and circumstance and whether they, being partway through the process, will have to go back to ground zero and start at the beginning of the line again, or whether they will be able to finish the process which has already begun.

That's something the minister might clarify in her final response so that the anxieties which are there for people in process and who are seeing daylight at the end of the tunnel and feeling that adoption is close to them.... They are very frightened that the process may be cut off at this point. We will discuss that in great detail as we go through the principles of the act.

I would like to affirm the appreciation that I hear from the community for the responsiveness to the consideration of the issues and questions and to the awareness that the act is not perfect. It has many balances which it tries to make in openness and in confidentiality, and there are some questions about whether it has arrived at those balances properly or not, but I think those are best dealt with clause by clause.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise and debate this afternoon on Bill 51, the Adoption Act. I firmly believe that the best interests of the child must always be addressed and that those interests will be paramount in this debate this afternoon. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the time for adoption reform is now. I think that the individuals who have waited for some direction on how best to proceed will find direction in this piece of legislation.

As a teacher and a school administrator prior to being elected, I came in contact with numerous students in the system who had tremendous issues around their own personal adoptions and adoptions of their friends and colleagues, and it seems to me that the time has arrived where it's no longer appropriate to keep that information in the back rooms -- to somehow deny someone knowledge of their family. If we talk about strengthening the Canadian family, then coming to understand what it is to be Canadian, what it is to be a member of a family and to understand your own heritage has to be paramount.

It's part of the broader perspective, and it's something that all of us must take very, very seriously.

I would agree with the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee when they suggest that this Adoption Act is a positive first step. I too would submit that it is a first step. It is putting us on the road to freely providing information to people who have the best knowledge and the best need to be in possession of that information.

My firmest theme throughout this debate -- and all of us will address this in our remarks -- is that to deny someone access to their heritage is fundamentally wrong, and the fact that we have had legislation before in this province that has allowed that to transpire causes me great concern. If this legislation goes any way down the road to rectifying that situation, it will certainly have my support.

The individuals on the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee make mention of an ongoing process. I know that this legislation will demand an ongoing process and that a number of the issues will come forward under regulation and perhaps through order-in-council. That kind of ongoing process must be public. I will state very firmly that we must ensure that the process continues to be in the public domain. I applaud the fact that a committee travelled this province to ensure that opinions were sought from various members of various communities.

I applaud that level of activity, and when regulations are created and orders-in-council come forward, I trust that that information will be shared in the public domain before implementation. If this is about access to information by parties who most need to know, the regulations will have as great or as equal an impact as the legislation which is before us today. That issue can never be taken lightly. That information must be considered to be very, very serious and, hopefully, very accessible to the public.

The news release put out by the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee talks about the fact that one in five people in British Columbia are touched by the adoption issue. It's a significant number of people, which is why I believe this legislation will have a tremendous impact on a great many lives in British Columbia. Indeed, as we move through debate

[ Page 16127 ]

this afternoon, we must ensure that the highest levels of dignity are attached to this discussion, because it is about personal dignity. It is about families; it is about coming to understand who has access to information and for what purpose. There is tremendous opportunity for misinterpretation in this act. There is tremendous opportunity for individuals to call upon the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner on a number of these issues. I trust that we will approach this entire discussion from a perspective of common sense and of understanding that others beyond this chamber have a definite need for this level of information.

I certainly agree with the minister's words when she talks about keeping pace, that legislation must keep pace with social change. Again speaking as a teacher, I can only concur that the highest priority of this legislation must be the children, the young people who will be dramatically impacted by adoption. Whether or not they are dramatically impacted by this legislation, we shall see, but the aspects of adoption have a dramatic impact on a young person's life. The minister talked about physical and emotional well-being.

As a teacher, yes, those issues must be considered when you're making a decision for placement of a particular child in a particular classroom, let alone placement in a particular family. So, always, the issues of the child must be uppermost in everyone's mind, because you are indeed building a family. You are creating, hopefully, a secure place for a child to grow up, and that, I think, has to be one of the most serious challenges facing anyone in the delivery of social services. You are in fact stepping in to make a decision that will bear either positively or negatively on a child throughout their entire life.

I would also agree that we must always come to understand the child's cultural needs -- needs around heritage, needs around linguistics, needs, perhaps, around religious issues. All of those make this a very challenging task in terms of placing a child appropriately. I believe this legislation has the ability to frame some very excellent decisions.

A number of individuals came forward who happened to be birth parents -- birth mothers or birth fathers -- and they had limited impact on the type of placement their child had received in the past. I believe firmly that there must be parental involvement in those kinds of decisions -- i.e., involvement on behalf of the birth parents -- and I welcome that aspect of the legislation.

The dilemma in legislation such as this is that it demands a very fine balance, a remarkable balance, if you will. It's very difficult to craft such a balance. Certainly I believe this legislation has the potential to craft such a balance. I believe firmly that it will be responsive. It is absolutely not a final package. It will constantly evolve, and I welcome that. I think if this is about keeping pace with social change, there will be many, many, many changes that each of us in this chamber, and British Columbians generally, will face in our lives. This is not the end of that discussion.

Frankly, I see it as the beginning. I see it as the opening discussion on a very complex, enormous issue. I trust that each of us in this chamber today, and British Columbians at large, will come together and participate in the discussion, because this is a critical decision point, if you will, of how societies continue to evolve. I certainly welcome the discussion and frankly look forward to participating in the discussion. I thank the minister most sincerely for bringing the legislation forward.

[3:15]

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to Bill 51, the Adoption Act. I rise with some trepidation to speak to this act because I know from my own experience and from listening to many others around the province that there are some sensitive areas in this piece of legislation. If there are some in this House who think we can just briefly gloss over some of those sensitive areas and say that the bill is good in its intent, they accept it and it's a working, evolving piece of legislation, then I fear they haven't read the legislation carefully or carefully thought out what this legislation intends to do.

Having said that, I want to say that I agree that it's a piece of legislation that needed updating. I agree wholeheartedly that

an act that was originally written in 1957, that had minor updating in 1979 and that had regulations changing right up to date, needed some changes to bring it into this century and the future. After all, we're talking about children -- about infants, those under two -- who cannot speak for themselves and who hope that we will speak for them. That's what we should be doing in this House: making sure that the child is paramount in what happens in adoption and that the child is paramount above the rights of heterosexuals, singles or same-sex couples. That's what we should be driving at. The child is at the centre of what's happening here.

We agree with much of the legislation that has been put forward. I think that the consultation program that has gone on around the province is good. It has been broad. I thank the minister for sending her team to Fort St. John to listen to concerns of people in my constituency about adoption and what should happen with the act. So I can commend the minister for that, and she should be commended for many of the changes in this act. It's a difficult act to bring into the twenty-first century, but I believe we have to.

There are some sections of the act that I have serious concerns about, and I will highlight those. The minister spoke in her opening remarks about

an act in 1957 that would not allow people in common-law relationships to adopt. I just want to correct that a bit. Or maybe I misunderstood the minister. That's not the fact, hon. Speaker; that's there. It was allowed in the regulations....

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The minister says it wasn't, but it was allowed in the regulations in 1990. It was allowed in the act in 1979.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: And here we have the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith catcalling at me about what I'm reading, hon. Speaker. I'll table the document for her information; maybe she can read it so that she can update herself on what has transpired in the past and on what we have in place now.

What I am saying is that we do have to update the legislation. There's no doubt about it. We have to bring it into the nineties and into the future, but we have to keep the child -- the infant -- paramount.

In the act of 1957, singles were able to adopt the children of others. Married couples have been able to adopt the children of other families when they get together -- maybe not same-sex couples; in fact, not same-sex couples, because they are not recognized at all as a legally binding entity. I'm sorry,

[ Page 16128 ]

hon. Speaker; that's the way it is. Also, the 1990 regulations clearly stipulate common-law and married couples. That's the traditional family: a man and a woman and who comes after. That's what we are talking about.

Certainly we are talking about human rights here. That's why it is a difficult and sensitive issue, and that's why maybe some wish to skirt around the issue. I'm not wishing to skirt around the issue; I wish to talk about children. I wish to talk about infants, those under two who can't speak for themselves and those who are older who can't speak for themselves. Those are the children who should be paramount. Those are the children we should be thinking about, not the rights of adoptive parents. I don't care if the adopted parents are heterosexual or single or same-sex couples. We should be thinking paramountly and mostly about the children.

Invariably I hear -- I heard it in the minister's statement today -- about the Charter of Rights and how we have to update everything to agree with the Charter. There are some provinces across Canada, and the Yukon Territory, which state in their legislation where children will go definitely. New Brunswick recognizes the traditional family -- that is, married or common-law couples, men and women. It's in their legislation. But something this present government constantly does is bring forward legislation under the guise that we have to recognize the Charter of Rights.

Where is the Charter of Rights for children who are under two years of age -- the infants? Do we think any of them want to be adopted into a same-sex unit? Are we to presume or predetermine that? Are we to look at these children and say: "That one would, this one would and that one would"? No. That's why I say with some trepidation and very sincerely that we should be thinking mostly and paramountly of the child.

It has been said that the courts will look after the child, because it is written into the legislation.

Section 3 is on the the child's best interests. I appreciate that, and it's written very well. Those making the recommendations to the court on where the children are to be placed will follow this piece of legislation and the regulations that go with it. So we can say all we want about the best interests of the child, but I think we are missing the best interests of the child.

In almost every discussion I've had around the province around adoption -- and let me tell you, I've had a lot of them -- people are feeling nervous about the changes to the adoption law, but are welcoming parts of it. When you start talking to them -- and it doesn't matter what age group they are -- they start talking about human rights, and they say that we don't want to exclude anyone from being able to adopt a child. That's the way most conversations start out, and it doesn't matter what group I'm with.

I have trouble with that, because I think the first thing they should be saying is the child's best interests, and then go on from there. But the things that seem to come out are whether we're meeting the Charter of Rights or whether we're excluding some groups or individuals from being able to adopt.

When you discuss further with those people -- whether they are younger people or older people or middle-aged people -- they start to say they've never thought of it that way. They never thought that could be a problem.

The other thing that's very often said-- and I've read it in the newspaper quite a bit since we've been talking about changing the Adoption Act -- is the fact that same-sex couples offer a stable environment, because look what's happening in the heterosexual families. That's true. I'm certainly not here to apologize for heterosexual families that are having trouble. They're having trouble for all kinds of reasons, and I'm sure those things can happen with same-sex couples.

It would seem to me that human beings, being human beings, will all experience much the same problems with raising children, so I don't think that's an issue. I've been on a number of radio programs where I have asked people to send me some information on scientific studies that have been completed about same-sex adoption, and my mail slot is still empty. I'm still waiting for that information, and it still hasn't arrived.

There are a number of hurdles that people who are adopted have to get over in life. For some of them, it's more difficult than others. I speak from an experience where I had no trouble. I've known for as long as I could comprehend that I was adopted. My parents never hid it from me. I had great parents. I was adopted at a time during the Second World War when there was no seven-year waiting period. About two days after they were released from the hospital, children were put into homes. I don't think it worked every time, but it sure worked in my case, and it sure worked with my two sisters, who were also adopted

I never had an identity problem with whether I was adopted or whether I was "born unto." I don't know. I can tell you that until I arrived in this place, this "born unto" concept didn't affect me one bit. I never, ever thought of it; it never bothered me. Mom was mom and dad was dad, and they still are. It seems that some people infer a great deal about "born unto." I don't think that adopted children that have been raised in loving, kind, family homes have any problem with that -- none whatsoever. But it seems as though, when we get into this big House, we want to address everything that we can that could happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime. That's not going to work.

That's why I say that we are missing keeping the child or infant paramount. When we start saying that we have to meet the Charter of Rights, or we have to abide by this and we have to change that because of "born unto," I have some real problems with some of those things.

While I'm talking about being adopted, I also want to tell you that I found my birth mother. I was adopted in 1944, and I was able to find my birth mother for a successful reunion. I also found that I have two half-sisters. It didn't change how I feel toward my adoptive mother and father, though my father has been gone for a long time. It does not change the way I feel toward those two people at all. They are mom and dad, and that's the family I was adopted into. That's what I'm saying: these infants and children we're talking about have to be paramount in how we think they must be adopted into those kinds of families.

[3:30]

That is the part of this adoption process that the B.C. Reform caucus has an awful lot of trouble with. It should come as no surprise. I'll be very interested to listen to members opposite from the governing party, the NDP -- some of those members who have talked to me and have some problems with this

section of the bill on same-sex adoptions.

[ Page 16129 ]

There are members of the Liberal caucus who have talked to me and have trouble with it also. It will be interesting to see how they talk about this

section of the act and how they feel about it, and whether they will abstain from voting or stand here and speak the courage of their convictions.

Each and every one of us.... In fact, the Minister of Social Services talked the other night about this being a very important bill. It was about human rights, and the minister said we should all be speaking to this....

Hon. J. MacPhail: Access to abortion.

R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. I'm corrected by the minister -- access to abortion.

She said that we should all be standing up and talking to this, because it is very important. She said we should be voting party line and all those kinds of things. Well, she was setting the stage for what maybe could happen here today.

Heaven forbid! Maybe we will see an NDP person stand up. There are some in this House who do have some problems with it. Maybe they will stand up and speak against this legislation and this government. It's not the first time. It happened in Ontario, and it was defeated. In fact, it was a government bill defeated under the NDP in Ontario -- much the same kind of bill, not in wording, but it had exactly the same intent. We saw MPPs in Ontario stand and speak against their own government. I'd like to see those who talked to me in private about this bill -- and I'm certainly not going to mention their names -- stand up and speak against this legislation.

I also challenge the Liberal official opposition. We know, from previous press reports, that initially they approved of it. The critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, approves of same-sex adoptions -- approves of the whole act. Let's see how many others can stand up and talk about this act -- about the sensitive parts of this act. Just talk about the parts that are really sensitive, that are really going to affect the child. You know, that's what each and every one of us should be doing. That's what we're here to do. When we're talking about dramatically changing legislation, it behooves all 75 members to stand up and at least speak briefly to it.

I talked about hurdles that children may experience in same-sex families. I want to tell you, before I tell the story, that I'm sure there are same-sex families out there that provide a secure and stable environment for their children. I'm sure there are. I don't agree with it, and that's what I'm putting on the record here today, but I'm sure there are.

But if you think about a youngster who's adopted into a same-sex couple's home when they're an infant, and they grow up, when they start school and are six or eight years old, in school we know that kids can be very direct and cruel. All of us have gone through that in school. When they start having sleepovers and birthday parties, and all their friends come over for a visit, when that child goes back to school later on they may and probably will be harassed by other children. That's the difficulty; that's the hard part that these children who are adopted into that kind of family have to overcome.

It is difficult to deal with this issue. When we're talking about.... Government statistics alone show that there are 1,000 or 1,100 homes that are looking for children, and the government has about 180, on average, to adopt every year. It's not a shortage of traditional homes -- not one bit; there are very few children around to be adopted. I wonder if it is in the best interests of the children to think more about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms than about the children. That's what is paramount to me when I talk about adoption.

It's not just me or members of our caucus who believe this way. I have recently canvassed my constituency, and so have the other three members of our caucus, and one of the questions was fairly straightforward: do you believe in same-sex adoptions? I can tell you that about 90 percent said no. That didn't go out to a select group of people; that went out to every person on the voters list in my constituency -- outdated as the voters list is. But it did. It went out to about 15,000 homes. That's the response I got. That's obviously something I should think about; that's obviously something I should relate to the people here.

In fact, when I go to the report that the previous minister commissioned -- the adoption review report.... I read that report. I know that there were a number of areas that dealt with same-sex adoptions. I want to read two quotes from the report, which was presented in July 1994. First: "About half of service providers polled in Canada believed sexual orientation was important or very important in determining eligibility to adopt a child." Obviously there was some polling done nationally for all jurisdictions in Canada, finding out how people felt about it. Obviously people felt fairly moved, shall I say.

It's a controversial issue; it's hard to speak to. I can guarantee you that it's hard to speak to, but someone has to.

Another very important part of the report, that tends to enhance what I've been saying, says:

"There is growing evidence in society that the importance of family is a significant factor in the development of all children. The definition of the word 'family' may be undergoing an evolution but the fact remains that traditional extended family" -- I say that again: "traditional extended family" -- "...mother, father, son, daughter, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins -- whether a 'unit' or a 'clan' -- represents one of the most influential aspects of a child's development."

That's in the report to the minister, and here we see her bringing forward legislation that she says will comply with the Charter of Rights and allow children to be placed for adoption with one adult or two adults jointly. That's the extent of the description. I would be surprised if it changes in the regulations at all. In fact, I don't think it will, at all.

There are a number of areas in the bill that we do agree with -- in fact, quite a few of them. The birth fathers' registry is, I think, necessary. Many birth fathers have said that they don't seem to have any rights. I wish that there were more, to be perfectly frank; but there aren't. So the birth father's registry is something that was badly needed. If they want to be involved with their families later on in life, birth fathers can now take the initiative and register that desire. I think that that's a good move.

I agree with what the minister talked about regarding the regulation of private adoptions. For far too long, adoptions were performed by government and whoever -- a friendly lawyer or a doctor. The regulations may not have -- and, in fact, in most cases probably didn't.... But to have a set of regulations to deal with non-government adoptions is another move in the right direction.

I do have some problems, though, with the sections that deal with disclosure for the adoptee and the adoptive parents. As I understand the legislation, when a child becomes 19, he

[ Page 16130 ]

or she can request all the pertinent information -- that means original birth certificates and everything that goes along with that. There can also be a no-contact veto put in place by the birth mother. That is where we come into some difficulty, and I have some problems with it. I've met with a number of groups who have varying points of view. But I think that the anonymity that some birth mothers may want -- some for the rest of their lives -- they should be allowed to have.

I don't think that a no-contact clause is the answer. If a birth mother does not wish to be contacted by her child -- whether it be a son or a daughter -- she should not have that onus put on her; she should be able to have a veto in place. Sometime later on in life she may change her mind, and then she can remove that veto; that's no problem. It has been said to me that the information is 19 years old by that time, so it doesn't matter. I think it matters. I think that that is one part of the bill we probably should spend a little more time discussing with people.

The bill sets out in

section 65 that adoptions that took place before this act comes into effect may have a disclosure veto statement....

The Speaker: Hon. member, I don't wish to interrupt your train of thought, but you will appreciate that the sections will be addressed in committee. If you could stick primarily to the principle of the bill, it would be much better.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, and I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I'm not trying to get into third reading debate, because we'll certainly have enough time for that. But I've had representation made to me that people want the one

section which deals with disclosure for previous adoptions taken away.

I still say that the Reform caucus has some problems with same-sex adoptions. We have some problems with anonymity and people being able to retain that anonymity for life if they want to. We feel that all records should be made available.

[3:45]

Hon. Speaker, I'm the designated speaker, so I will take a little extra time. It won't be much longer.

We feel that records, whether they pertain to health, extended family or those kinds of things, should be made available. I don't take exception to that. The only issue I take exception to is naming the birth mother -- or the birth parents, if they're both on the.... I think that's the one right that the birth parent should have and be able to retain. I only say that because at age 19, some of us.... In today's world, age 19 is grown-up, but when I think back to age 19, being grown-up was not much different than it is today. I'm not sure that giving a person that information at age 19 will always be in the interests of everyone, including the adoptee, so we should think carefully about that.

I can tell you that at the age of 19, from my experience -- and from the experience of many people.... I belong to a number of adoption groups that have searched for their families. People are usually my age, or maybe a bit younger -- 40 or 50 years old, on average -- before they really start searching; there aren't many who are younger. I think that at 19, there's a different thing happening in your life at that particular time, and that's why I think it's important that we make sure that the information is not made available until either the adoptee or the adoptive parents have had more time to think about it.

We have mixed feelings in our caucus about the other

section -- the openness agreement -- and I have had as many representations made to me for as against, as to whether it will work. Certainly it has worked in some cases, there's no doubt about it; but I have had representation made where it hasn't worked.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's voluntary.

R. Neufeld: The minister says: "It's voluntary." Of course it's voluntary for the mother and for the adoptive parents, but it's hardly voluntary for that infant who is just a baby, and that's where the problem arises. Everybody thinks about the adoptive parents or the birth parents. It's the child; when that child gets a bit older, that's when the problems start showing up. That's why I have said from the start that we should be thinking of the child as paramount -- number one -- and thinking about what could happen later on in life.

Who's to say that the child is going to be perfect through that whole agreement between an adoptive parent and the birth mother? As I said, I have had representations made to me where it has worked, and I've had representations made to me where it hasn't worked. I want to put on the record that is a proposal that we have a bit of a problem with. I'm not saying we would totally oppose it, but I'm putting on the record the fact that we do have some problems with that part of the bill.

So with those few words I will take my place. Again, I would challenge all members of this House, with the dramatic change that this piece of legislation makes to the Adoption Act, to put on record their real views and feelings, not the party line. Let's see where they're at on this one, and whether each and every one of us is thinking more about the child and the child being paramount, or about trying to adapt to the Charter of Rights.

So, hon. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to the other presentations that are going to be made.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to add a few words on Bill 51, British Columbia's new Adoption Act. I'd like to say, following the member for Peace River North, that I don't have a personal or direct connection with adoption as he does. But it's interesting to me, ever since this government has been talking about bringing in new adoption legislation, which goes back to the start of their mandate, that as a member of this assembly I've had representation made to me by constituents and others on this issue. It's interesting to me to note, through the kind of research that's been made available to me in my constituency office, how many British Columbians are affected by adoption.

That was a surprise to me, I can tell you, when I learned that one in five British Columbians are touched by adoption. That was a much larger number than I had anticipated at the time. The numbers provided by the Society of Special Needs Adoptive Parents, the post-adoption support services society in Vancouver, indicate that well over 600,000 people from every walk of life are deeply affected by this legislation. That's a fairly general swath through the demographics of British Columbia. So it's easy to understand why adoption is an

[ Page 16131 ]

emotional issue, why adoption reform has been a long time coming and why many groups have been advocates of adoption reform for many years.

The minister pointed out in her comments in second reading that this has been part of a long-ranging process. I suppose there was a time not very long ago -- just a generation or so ago -- when if one was adopted and found out, discovered or was told they were adopted, it would have been extremely difficult or challenging to determine who one's birth parents were if one had the natural curiosity to discover that. One would have had to depend on private agencies to try to find that out, and there would be varying degrees of success.

We've changed, over the course of the last generation or two, to the point where a number of non-profit societies and organizations across Canada have been formed to help out with adoptees and to be advocates for adoptee rights.

One such group has been very active in my constituency, and this is Parent Finders of Canada. In fact, one of the founding members of this national organization is a constituent of mine. Her name is Mrs. Joan Vanstone. She's educated me somewhat about this issue over the last short while. She's pointed out that this one organization -- and it's one of many, I recognize -- was founded more than 20 years ago in Vancouver to promote openness and understanding in adoption, to provide service to the adoption community in general and to meet the needs of adult adoptees and birth relatives.

It's interesting: over 40,000 people are today registered, seeking reunion through their adoption register. This is just one organization, and it's one that's been extremely active.

Mrs. Vanstone points out that she's delighted with the legislation that's come forward. It's important for the government to know that there are those in the community and in the adoption rights advocacy movement, such as the Parent Finders of Canada, who are generally pleased with the direction of this legislation. Through this legislation, Parent Finders of Canada say that the province does recognize the best interests of the child and that they should be paramount.

However, they also point out that it is vital to remember that the best interests of the child must not prejudice his or her best interests upon reaching the age of majority. The two rights and needs are inseparable. So Parent Finders of Canada, which is just one group, says this new Adoption Act must recognize the rights of adoptees and birth parents to have access to all information contained in adoption files and court records, and provide all medical history -- as the bill tries to do.

They also say that adoptees and their offspring were medically at risk under the old act and that no barriers must be raised in the new Adoption Act to restrict the free flow of information to the parties affected. Further, the new Adoption Act must adhere to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to preserve his or her identity. Again, the bill does try to achieve those kinds of objectives.

It's interesting when we talk about the best interests of the child. The previous speaker talked about the best interests of the child. I guess the question is: who decides what is the best interest of the child? That's not easy. It's not easy for the state in particular to decide what is in the best interest of the child. With this new Adoption Act, we are moving a step in the direction of the state becoming much more involved -- in some areas where it needs to be involved, perhaps, and I don't discount that at all.

When the state decides what is in the best interests of the child, we have to ask the question: who? It can't be a faceless bureaucracy. There has to be an individual to take responsibility. Some of the comments of the previous speaker struck at the heart of that issue.

It's also important for members in this assembly to speak on this issue -- it's not a partisan issue, hopefully; it is the kind of issue that touches many of our constituents -- and not shy away from touching on the more controversial aspects of this bill. Rather than simply getting up and speaking to and mouthing platitudes, let's deal with the more controversial parts of the bill, as well.

We know that the government has been considering this legislation for some time. This minister's predecessor tried to get some legislation through cabinet. We know that because of the leaks that took place over the first couple of sessions of this parliament. There was talk at the time that this government was planning on outlawing private adoptions, and there was a very negative reaction against that -- thank goodness! This government hasn't gone that far. I'm not sure if this minister's predecessor really, in a genuine way, wanted to believe that she could outlaw private adoptions in British Columbia, but that approach wasn't taken.

A much more reasonable path has been taken with this bill. We're going to be regulating private adoptions, not outlawing them. I don't think anyone has concerns with the idea, the concept, of regulating private adoptions. The question is: how far should those regulations go? That's what we'll be debating in some detail throughout our debate on Bill 51.

There are a number of concerns that one could raise about this piece of legislation; I'd like to just put a couple of them on the record. One of them is the question of openness. I don't think anyone can disagree with the notion that if you want to talk about the best interests of the child, inevitably you're going to be talking about how to make the adoption process more open. How we are going to do that is by disclosing more information than has previously been available to adoptees about themselves.

That question of openness has to be balanced with other rights. It's interesting to note that an officer of this Legislature, our information and privacy commissioner, just last week, after reviewing the legislation, expressed some concerns. He thinks that further consideration should be given to protecting the privacy rights of natural mothers. This is something that I haven't heard the minister reflect on, but it's an important point.

While I generally support the principle of greater openness that is enshrined in Bill 51, I have to ask a question, and I ask it partially as a result of what's been drawn to my attention by the information and privacy commissioner: has due consideration been given to the rights -- the privacy rights, in particular -- of natural mothers?

We can talk about a couple of specific sections of the bill, and I know we will do so in much more detail in the committee stage. Under

section 63 we talk about disclosure to adopted persons over the age of

Section 65, as the member for Peace River North indicated, deals with the disclosure veto, which is also controversial in this regard, as is

section 66, which is the no-contact declaration. The information and privacy commissioner says that these provisions are the exact opposite of what is required. He indicates that to the best of our knowledge, almost 50,000 women in British Columbia decided in the past to put children up for adoption. That's not

[ Page 16132 ]

an easy decision, I'm sure; it's a very traumatic decision for any woman to have to make. It appears that they were promised confidentiality in that process on this sensitive manner.

Based upon how few have agreed to make contact with their children at a later point by joining any kind of an adoption-reunion registry, the information and privacy commissioner concludes that most of them want to keep this matter a secret. That's the conclusion he comes to, and it's a logical one. Most of those natural birth mothers want to keep that matter a secret that they wish to carry to their graves with them, for whatever reasons.

Should that desire, that right, of the natural birth mothers be respected? Does this legislation respect it, or are we going too far with the openness provisions of this legislation? That's something that the minister is going to have to address satisfactorily. There is a balance that we're trying to achieve here. Many people want to support in principle the legislation that she's bringing forward, but there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed, and I think that one is one of them.

Bill 51 proposes to disclose the name of a natural mother to her natural child who has now become an adult and thereby facilitate contact between the two, unless the mother indicates, on her own initiative, that she does not wish such disclosure and contact. This is very similar to another issue, which is not quite so charged emotionally. It's an issue that the cabinet of this government dealt with earlier in this session, which is the issue of negative-option marketing.

It's a matter that we in this Legislature debated earlier in this session when the government reacted so strongly to Rogers Cable TV attempting to impose new services on subscribers unless the subscribers decided to cancel them.

[4:00]

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

It's a poor analogy perhaps, as the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith points out, but the principle here is: should the birth mother, the natural mother, be obliged to be the one to contact the registry to say no, or should that privacy be enshrined unless she otherwise voluntarily decides to have her name made public? At what point should the name be part of a registry? At what point after a natural mother dies should that information become part of a registry and available?

The information and privacy commissioner raises this because, he says, it is an important point.

Section 65(6), the disclosure veto after death, suggests that two years after the death of the natural mother, that name will automatically become part of the registry. He raises the question: is that a sufficient length of time? Should it be ten years, as it is in some other jurisdictions? I don't know.

The minister will have to answer these kinds of questions and the question about the principle of openness and the rights of natural mothers, as well. Yes, we're talking about the best interests of the child. I think it's entirely appropriate in this debate to be doing so. But let's not forget the other privacy rights of individuals involved in the adoption process. It's a difficult process at the best of times, I'm sure.

There are a couple of other provisions in this bill that I'm going to leave for others to address in more detail -- for instance, the aboriginal provision, which I know my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has some concerns about, whereby we seem to be providing a different definition to aboriginal children. Why would that be? Is this simply a replication of the paternalistic, patronizing attitude we see in the federal Indian Act of Canada? Is that now being continued in this so-called progressive legislation? I don't know.

There's another issue that the member for Peace River North talked about, which is the issue of who should have the right to adopt, which is specifically addressed in the legislation. Under this legislation, single parents, common-law couples and, indeed, same-sex couples will have the opportunity to legally adopt children. The minister has indicated in previous statements that that doesn't really change anything; it's simply codifying or regulating what is already the exact practice. It would be interesting to note, from the minister, how many same-sex couples have adopted children to date in British Columbia. I have no idea.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: The minister says none. So this is a major change. No same-sex couples, the minister confirms, have adopted children to date, but it will be possible under this legislation. It would be interesting to know about some of the statistical data in terms of demands or requests that may have come forward for this in the past. But public opinion is hard to measure on this issue. I can only tell you that as one member of this assembly, this aspect of the legislation is the one that is primarily brought to my attention in my constituency office.

Perhaps it won't surprise other members of this House to know that I have very few people contacting my office saying they're in favour of this; I have many people contacting my office saying they are uncomfortable with the notion of same-sex couples adopting children.

I don't think anyone has similar reservations about single parents or common-law couples, given the fact that they are going to be scrutinized and there is going to be some care with respect to the placement of children in any family or household. It's interesting to try to monitor public opinion on this issue to see where things stand. I don't know if the minister would be willing to provide us in this House with any public opinion research the government has done on this issue. I know that this government is prone to doing polling and conducting public opinion research on a whole range of issues.

It would be interesting to know if the Ministry of Social Services has done any polling on this specific aspect of the bill to indicate how British Columbians feel about the notion of same-sex couples adopting children.

We have a number of unscientific polls that have been published lately, like the one that was published right here in the city of Victoria on C-FAX Radio, a local radio station that does a so-called "insta-poll." I don't think it's a scientific poll by any means, but last week they took 68 calls on the issue in 25 minutes. The question was: do you approve of the concept of same-sex couples being eligible to apply to adopt a child? In 25 minutes their switchboard took 68 calls: 18 calls or 26 percent said yes, 50 calls or 74 percent said no.

It would be interesting to know from the minister -- and I'll put her on notice that I'm going to be asking her this question when we get to committee stage -- whether the government has done any public opinion research and whether these numbers reflect public opinion in the province

[ Page 16133 ]

generally speaking. Certainly its roughly reflective of the kind of feedback and representations I receive through my constituency office. I have no idea if that is scientific, but it would be useful to know. I think it's important for all of us to know not only where our constituents stand but where each of us stand on this issue. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, I am uncomfortable with this notion.

I have no similar discomfort with the idea of regulating adoptions along the lines being proposed with Bill 51. I generally support the openness provisions of Bill 51 as well, because I think we are taking a good step forward. I do believe that even the private adoption process in our province should be regulated. But I do have some concerns about a few of those regulations and wonder whether we are creating dual-class citizens with some of the sections in terms of disclosure to adoptees over and under the age of 19.

When it comes to same-sex couples being eligible to adopt a child, I share the discomfort of many of my constituents. I'm going to want to know much more clearly from the minister when we get to committee stage what kinds of reviews are going to take place before children in British Columbia can -- and according to this bill, will -- be adopted by same-sex couples?

I think the best interests of the child should be paramount. We've heard that from the minister and from others who have contributed to the debate. I don't think there is any argument about that; there's no partisanship involved in the debate about the best interests of the child. The number of adoptions in the province surprised me when I conducted my research into this issue. One out of five British Columbians are touched by the adoption process -- that's a truly staggering number. So I think this is an important piece of legislation.

I encourage members when they get up to speak on this bill -- as the minister and the member for Peace River North did -- to speak to the principle of the legislation and not to avoid the more controversial aspects of the bill. Our constituents demand, and I think they deserve to know, how we stand and how we will vote on their behalf on this.

J. Sawicki: The hon. member for Peace River North has encouraged members of the government's side to stand up and say how they feel about this piece of legislation. I want to say that I am very proud to do so. As so many speakers have mentioned, this is a very emotional and sensitive issue. There are three different sections to this piece of legislation that is before us. The previous speakers have already touched on some of them: (1) who has a right to apply to adopt children; (2) the role of private adoptions; and (3) the rights of adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents.

I was struck by what I consider incredibly faulty reasoning by the member for Peace River North when he suggested that one good reason not to allow same-sex couples to adopt children is because they are going to get harassed when they go to school. I would ask that hon. member this: where did the children who would harass the children of same-sex couples learn the kinds of attitudes where they think it's okay to humiliate and reject children because they happen to have parents of the same sex?

Surely it would be much better for us all as a society to remove the biases and prejudices we have on sexual orientation rather than to suggest that a good reason not to allow it is because public opinion doesn't think same-sex parents can be good parents. There is a matter of human rights here. I for one proudly stand up in this Legislature and say that I welcome legislation that removes barriers based on sexual orientation as a basis for applying to adopt children.

The second area is the role of private adoptions. Several months ago, when the possibility of legislation was first discussed, I held a couple of meetings in my constituency office in response to several constituents of mine who had either adopted children through private adoption or wanted to do so, and from constituents who expressed some concerns that in some cases it was a truly good, sensitive and powerful experience and in other cases it was not.

When I listed and sent forward to the minister some of the concerns my constituents had raised, I have to say that what we have back in the legislation addresses those constituents' concerns.

I believe that most people who are involved or wish to be involved in private adoptions will enthusiastically support the balance that has been retained in this bill, mainly because it is based upon the best interests and the rights of the child, recognizing that people who wish to adopt need to feel that they've got a process in place which is supportive and sensitive and which will allow them to go through with that process of adopting a child so that it is a positive experience.

I now want to come to the third aspect of the legislation, which has already been discussed briefly by some members, and that is the rights of adoptees and birth parents. Hundreds of thousands of adults in British Columbia today live in a vacuum: they don't know where they came from; they don't know anything about their heritage; they don't know about a family that they were perhaps born to but know nothing about. There are also hundreds of thousands of adult women out there who lived through decades where having a child outside marriage was considered the greatest shame that you could bring upon your family.

Before members vote against this piece of legislation, I'd like to ask them to think carefully about some of the words the minister spoke; what it really means to replace legislation that was steeped in the 1950s; impact, during all these decades, of the high degree of confidentiality and sealed records, and an attitude that treated adopted children "as if born to"; and what a powerfully different, positive and joyous message this legislation will bring that says a birth mother would give consent about what happens to a child she gave birth to. Hon. members, that is an incredibly powerful statement of support to hundreds and thousands of women throughout this province.

The previous speaker suggested that there are maybe 50,000 women in British Columbia who may not want it to be known; that they would like to keep their past secrets.

I would suggest to that hon. member that perhaps the reason that is so is that we have had legislation in this province and we have had an attitude in the fifties and sixties that took young women who happened to become pregnant, ripped them from their communities, put them in homes for unwed mothers, shut them away from their families and friends, punished them for this horrible thing they had done, literally took their children from their bodies and threw a piece of paper in front of them to be signed, and then expected those women to go back as if nothing had happened.

Maybe that is the reason some women in British Columbia are frightened. But I maintain that that is exactly why we need to take this legislation out of the fifties and bring it into the open, to celebrate a society that supports women and children, that supports loving couples, regardless of their sexual orientation

[ Page 16134 ]

-- loving couples who want to give supportive homes to children that are up for adoption -- and that supports access to identifying information.

I believe that if we open those records.... Yes, women or children who do not wish those records opened may register that. But if we open those records, we will finally have pulled back the curtain of an incredibly judgmental society that has kept the whole issue of adoption and the children born to birth mothers -- especially young birth mothers -- in the dark all these years.

This may not seem to be a big issue to many people, because when you look around now, our society is supportive of young women who choose to keep their children. Many of them do keep their children. Many of them continue with their schooling; many of them have access to supportive families, supportive communities and supportive services, so that they may raise their children. That was not the case in the fifties and sixties, and that is exactly the situation in which the legislation we have had until this time is steeped.

[4:15]

I say to the minister: congratulations for all sections of this bill. And I say to members in this House: I hope you will think carefully about how progressive this legislation is. There is nothing to be afraid of in this legislation. It is legislation that joyously celebrates the role of children in our society and ensures that they can be supported, cared for and loved in the way that they should be.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to rise today to make some comments with respect to Bill 51. I haven't had the benefit of personal experience with adoption or even of knowing people who have had that experience, but I did value a recent meeting that members of our caucus had with the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee, at which at least ten people who had had direct experience talked about their own life experience. For me, that always puts real life into a piece of legislation. I appreciated that session.

I want to express concern about two areas of the bill, the first one being the area that speaks to regulating private adoptions. I noted the minister's comment that in 1971, 2 percent of adoptions were private compared to 57 percent currently. I wonder about moves to regulate private adoption in the context of those kinds of numbers. I'll certainly be listening to try to understand what is being done -- and why -- by the legislation in that area.

I also want to express opposition to the possibility of same-sex couples adopting children, which is contemplated in the act. I don't see how this can be in the best interests of the children. When you consider the number of petitions that have been filed in this Legislature expressing serious opposition with respect to that issue, you know that there are a lot of people in this province who are strongly opposed to this direction in the bill. I've already personally been given a petition to that effect, which I will be tabling shortly.

I take some comfort from the provision that the birth mother has the strongest voice in what happens to the child in terms of the adoption. Hopefully, that will provide some comfort in that area. I think that the comments that were made by the member for Peace River North in this area were very appropriate. It's fine to talk about an ideal world, where a child would grow up without any discrimination; it is unrealistic to think that that is achievable.

The traditional family is still a legitimate and necessary thing to be concerned about in our society. We've seen a trend in society away from the situation where every child has a father and a mother, and I don't necessarily believe that that's a positive trend. This concern has nothing to do with discrimination; it has a lot to do with whether or not we think that that trend in our society is positive. If you talk to teachers and administrators in schools -- friends of mine, certainly -- they've expressed a lot of comments in that area.

With those comments, I will be very interested to hear the various viewpoints expressed in the debate in this House on these serious and sensitive matters.

J. Pullinger: I too want to participate in this debate, but I want to participate in full support of Bill 51. What we're discussing today is the principle of this legislation, and I can heartily say that I support it, both in its principle and in its detail. This legislation is being updated from the 1950s, and in my view and in the view of most if not all of my colleagues, it's long overdue.

What we've got here is a shift to legislation that facilitates more open and more honest adoptions. It gets rid of a lot of the pretences of the past that hail from a time that my colleague so eloquently spoke of: a time when it was practically a crime when a woman had a child out of wedlock. Those women were marginalized and judged and treated in a way that was, in my view, reprehensible. Both the woman and, in many cases, her child suffered for years if not throughout their lives from the effects of that kind of oppression and its consequences.

What we have here is legislation for the 1990s and beyond. It allows for more choice; it allows for relationships. Despite the fact that a mother, usually, is unable to raise a child doesn't mean that she has to completely give up that relationship, which, in most cases, neither the child nor the birth mother want to have happen. So there is a much broader range of choice through this legislation, including the choice not to have any contact with your child or with your parent. That is something that all of us could and should support in this Legislature.

This legislation has broad support. I have received, as every member of the House has, a number of documents from groups with large numbers of people involved in adoption. In one way or another, all of them are saying: "Please bring in this legislation, and please do it now."

The fact that there is such broad support for this legislation reflects the fact that there was broad consultation. There were literally hundreds of people who made their views known to my colleague who travelled the province and, in other ways, solicited public response and concerns and views on this very personal and important issue. Of course, there are some differences; we're hearing them expressed in the House today. What is worth noting is that there was a huge degree of consensus, as well.

For instance, anyone who understands what is happening in the adoption community and who understands the deficiencies of existing legislation has been overwhelmingly supportive of regulating private adoption agencies. Similarly,

[ Page 16135 ]

there has been very strong support for the regulation of international adoptions. There are virtually no regulations right now. There is also a lot of support for more openness in adoption, particularly for protecting information that's vital to a child and their family, which now may or may not be lost. It's a pretty ad hoc system.

What I'm hearing in this debate in the Legislature is that we all believe the best interests of the child should be paramount. That's precisely what this legislation does. I would offer that the 1950s legislation that we've been functioning on until today probably also felt that it was functioning in the best interests of the child. But the 1950s definition of the best interests of the child simply doesn't apply today.

For instance, the best interests of the child in the 1950s was deemed to be.... Only a husband and wife could adopt a child. It didn't allow for, or even acknowledge, the existence of any other kind of relationship. I want to give a little bit of a different look into this issue that both opposition parties are objecting to, which is the provision in this legislation that says two adults or a single adult can adopt a child -- or can apply to adopt a child, because application is what we're talking about. The courts make the ultimate decision after a lengthy process.

I want to give just a little bit of a different perspective on that issue. The assumption that's coming back is that we're dealing with homosexual couples -- period. And this definitely.... Of course, it would mean that couples in a homosexual relationship could apply to adopt -- and why not?

But there's something else there, too. I want the House to consider the fact, for instance, that a single parent who may be part of an extended family -- a number of cultures in our society live as part of extended families -- may want the protection of having another adult in that family adopt the child. Now, that could be the mother who's living with the child and wants her mother to adopt the child also. It could be her brother, her sister, her aunt; it could be any number of people within that family who they want to have adopt that child. That is a significant issue for a lot of single parents today.

They want the security and the knowledge that someone else is there who has a legal right to look after that child in the event of the natural parent's disability or death. I think that is significant -- especially as a single parent for most of my child's growing-up years, 18 out of 19. So I think we need to consider that.

We also need to consider that there may be other instances. For example, because of economics today there are lots and lots of cases where two single parents -- women, generally, because women still have the care of children in our society -- choose to share a house. I could point to any number of families made up that way that I know of personally, where there are two women, both of whom or one of whom has children, and they're sharing a home.

They've been sharing a home for a number of years, and they've developed a relationship with those children and with each other as adults, which may or may not be a homosexual relationship. Is it, then, in the best interests of the child, if something should happen to the natural parent, to take that child out of that circumstance and away from that other adult? The opposition benches are saying that we shouldn't allow that other parent to adopt. I would offer that, in many cases, it may be in the best interests of the child simply to allow them to stay in the circumstance that they've been growing up in.

I have some concern when I hear what is, in effect, homophobia coming from the other side of the House around this issue. I think we need to consider the broader issue about grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters and friends -- all of whom may have a lovely relationship with the child and its natural parent -- who should be allowed to adopt that child in order to provide the security to deal legally with that child in the event that one adult should die or become incapacitated. They should have the right to that kind of safety and security. So I think we need to be a little bit careful.

The other issue I want to raise around that same concern is.... I also find it very disturbing that we're saying we should deal in the best interests of the child, and at the same time a whole bunch of people just want to eliminate 10 percent of the population and say that they are clearly not in the best interests of that child. We're trying to stand here in the Legislature.... This is the problem that I see with this kind of emotional issue: none of us in this Legislature can say what's in the best interests of any specific child.

We don't know their circumstances; we don't know who their family members are; we don't know who that child has been living with during their growing-up years. We have to allow a good process to determine that. We have to allow that choice to the child, when the child is old enough -- and their parents and their family and the people who are involved in that child's life, as well as the courts, which make the ultimate decision. That is not a choice that we should be making in this Legislature.

[4:30]

The issue, then, is not about sexual orientation, income levels or any of those external things; it's about mentally healthy adults in a healthy relationship with each other and with the child. It's about the circumstances that the child is in -- the reality of their lives. It's also about ensuring that the circumstance into which that child will be adopted is one that is supportive, loving and nurturing and in which the child's needs can be met. And it might just be -- on many occasions, I would offer -- that someone other than a man and a woman is able to adopt that child.

We need to consider those things as we discuss this legislation. We must not simply turn a blind eye to all of those other possibilities and realities in today's society, and say: "None of you has a right to adopt; it doesn't matter what the circumstances of your life are, because I'm afraid that there will be ridicule if there are two parents of the same sex." We simply need to look at the best interests of the child and at the reality of our society today, and start from there. That's precisely what this legislation does.

The need for this legislation is clearly driven by the fact that 1950s legislation doesn't serve the needs and the purposes of parents and families and children in the 1990s. It also doesn't reflect the wishes of the majority of British Columbians in the 1990s. The need for this legislation is also found in the fact that the number of children available to adopt today has decreased dramatically -- partly, I'm happy to say, from the fact that we're not quite as judgmental anymore about single women having children.

We still have some distance to travel in terms of treating women -- and especially women with children -- fairly in our society, but there is a change. That means that young women and single women are able to keep their children, which means that there are fewer children -- especially infants -- available for adoption. It seems to me that that's good news.

[ Page 16136 ]

However, what that seems to have done is shift the focus from finding a child a really good home to the other way around. You've got a whole bunch of adults who legitimately want to have a child, and the focus turns to those adults: "We've got to find children for these adults." The danger of focusing on the availability of children is that we can start to see children as a commodity, and clearly that's not acceptable. When we start to see children as a commodity, then we start to see a distortion in the process through which we decide how children and prospective adoptive parents are matched up.

We also see a small number of children to be adopted and a large number of people who want to adopt. We see people increasingly wanting to find a way around the lineup. That's understandable, but it creates some real problems. It creates a need to do some things differently. Specifically, it creates the need to update and modernize the system and better regulate what's happening. Right now, with the rather fragmented, ad hoc system of adoption that we have, there is, for instance, no formal pre-placement process to evaluate the homes to which a child might go.

Over the last couple of years we've seen some pretty horrifying headlines about circumstances that have arisen when there is no good, clear, legal process followed for adoption.

Similarly, in the current legislation -- the outdated legislation of 40 years ago -- there is no requirement that a woman or a family who are going to give up a child be advised of all of their rights, have counselling and be fully informed before they make that decision; it is a profound one. That makes a lot of women, especially young women who are on their own, extremely vulnerable.

There's a danger today that some people -- and I think most people deal honestly and in good faith with this kind of situation -- will take advantage of the opportunities without ensuring that birth mothers have counselling and full information. There is no pre-placement process for the prospective adoptive family to make sure that this is a good and safe home. The consequences of that can be very negative and very great, and obviously we need to protect against that.

We need to make those changes to make sure that the birth parents are protected and that the child goes into a safe and supportive home. We also need to make sure that people aren't earning money in the adoption of a child, above and beyond normal fees for services. In other words, we don't want to allow a black market to exist in children. That's simply not acceptable, and the legislation today does not prevent that. It's fair to say that there is some legitimate concern that that kind of thing is happening.

Not only do you end up with some people earning a whole lot of money through making placements, sometimes in questionable ways, there is also the issue of conflict of interest, where the adoptive parents are paying the big bill and the intermediary -- who could be a doctor, lawyer or other person -- is obviously under some pressure to make sure that they deliver the goods, which is the child. It's a clear conflict of interest when that same person is supposed to be looking after the rights of the birth mother.

Under the existing legislation, there is very much the possibility today for that kind of conflict of interest, which is clearly not in the best interest of anyone except the intermediary. So there are a number of things that are problems with today's legislation, and they are being updated in Bill 51, which is a good thing, and I would urge all members to support it on that basis.

There is one other thing that's lost in the current situation, and I can only imagine what this must be like. There is no central registry for information in the fragmented system of today. Therefore a child's information might or might not be lost. You might or might not be able to find your birth parents. You might or might not be able to find some of your medical or cultural history, or anything about your family origin. It's a bit of a roll of the dice today, because there is nothing to require that certain critical documents and pieces of information be kept in a way that they will be retained for the long term and ultimately be made available to those involved in the adoption process.

Those are the kinds of changes that we need, and those are the kinds of changes that we're seeing in this legislation. I can only say that I think it's a very positive change, and there is virtually nothing in this legislation that we ought to be objecting to. What we're talking about, in terms of the changes, is who can apply to adopt, how that process will happen and the procedures following adoption for contact between the parents, the adoptive parents and the child.

The concerns that I have