1994 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 5

[ Page 11541 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like to introduce to the House His Excellency Dr. Walter Lichem, the Ambassador of Austria to Canada, and Mrs. Maria Lichem. Accompanying the ambassador is Mr. Graham Clarke of Vancouver, the honorary consul for Austria, and Dr. Wolfgang Harwalik, the trade commissioner. Welcome them, please.

R. Chisholm: Today in the House we have 36 grade 5 students, accompanied by Miss Wood, from Greendale Elementary. I wish that the House would make them most welcome. Seeing as they're here to see democracy in action, I hope we give them a good show and this meeting goes well.

L. Stephens: Today in the House we have 35 grade 5 students, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Harris, from Willoughby Elementary School in Langley. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. O'Neill: It's my pleasure today to make two introductions. First, I would like the House to make welcome 29 grade 6 students from Bastion Elementary School in Salmon Arm. They're here in Victoria with their teacher, Ms. Morash. Would the House please make them welcome.

If I may, I would also like to introduce Mr. Lyle MacWilliam to the House. I'm sure many of the members will remember him; he represented the constituency of Okanagan North and also was Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Shuswap. Would the House please make him welcome.

H. Lali: I too would like to join the hon. member for Shuswap in welcoming the former MP for Okanagan-Shuswap, Mr. Lyle MacWilliam, who was not only a strong advocate in Ottawa on behalf of British Columbia but also on behalf of interior British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce the Liquor Distribution Amendment Act. The purpose of this act is to clarify and set out more fully the authority of the liquor distribution branch respecting the manufacture, importation and distribution of liquor in the province. The amendments are required in order to take account of changes which have occurred in the system of the manufacture, distribution and sale of liquor over the past decade.

Specifically, the amendments are required in order to clarify three areas. The first is to clarify that the branch's mandate to regulate, control and collect markup on liquor extends both to liquor imported into the province and to liquor manufactured in the province. The second is the need to clarify the ability of the branch to collect markup on liquor, the location or disposition of which cannot adequately be accounted for.

The third is the need to clarify the circumstances under which liquor may be possessed in the province and to ensure that the scheme and vision of the Liquor Distribution Act is in accord with the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act. The amendments address the many and varied ways in which liquor is imported, manufactured, stored, distributed and sold in the province.

Bill 54 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1994

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1994.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to introduce the second Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It contains amendments to twelve statutes: British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, British Columbia Transit Act, Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act, Ferry Corporation Act, Health Authorities Act, Hospital Insurance Act, Industrial Development Incentive Act, Motor Carrier Act, Park Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, Science and Technology Fund Act, and the Wildlife Act. I will elaborate on these amendments during second reading debate on this bill.

Bill 48 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

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Campbell: My question is for the Attorney General. Today the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Now that the guilt has been established, it is time for the full RCMP investigative report and the full report of the special prosecutor to be made public. The special prosecutor has said there's no reason why you can't release these reports. My question to the Attorney General is: will you today instruct the assistant deputy minister to release both the full investigative report of the RCMP and the special prosecutor's report for full public review?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There will be no political direction from me in any respect of this matter. If the Leader of the Opposition wants an answer to this question, he should direct it to the special prosecutor.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Dave Stupich, a longtime member of this assembly and a longtime colleague of the NDP, has stated quite clearly the connection between the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the NDP. He said that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society "will help the political activities of the NDP in whatever way is desired." The public has a right to know just how much of the NDP's activities have been funded by these criminal acts. My question to the Attorney General is: will he initiate a full public inquiry today into the activities of the Nanaimo

[ Page 11542 ]

Commonwealth Holding Society and its co-conspirators in support of the NDP?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will have nothing to say on this matter while the issue is still before the courts.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The guilt on the part of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society has already been firmly established by the society itself. The Attorney General, unfortunately, has once again forgotten that his first obligation is to protect the public, not his political friends.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Yesterday the Premier said that he was going to get tough on criminals. Why not start by getting tough at home? Get tough on your supporters, and let the public know who is accountable and who is responsible for these criminal acts. The question is simply this: will the Attorney General not protect the public interest? Will he not call for a full public inquiry into the activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and its support of the NDP?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The third question was the same as the second. My answer stands.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's time the Attorney General stood up for the public in British Columbia. Instead of standing up for himself, it's time he stood up for those charities that were built by the NDP and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. The link between NCHS and the NDP has been firmly established. Can the Attorney General tell us who is going to pay the fines of those societies? Are the societies going to hold a bake sale or a bingo to raise the money to pay these fines? Will the NDP pay the fines of these societies? They are the ones who benefited from these funds.

The Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member, the members should realize that while the Attorney General has responsibility with respect to justice matters, the issue seems to be about who is responsible for the New Democratic Party and a society. I would ask the member to phrase his questions so that they fit within the specific responsibilities of the minister.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker; I will be glad to. This government may well have got itself elected using funds that were fraudulently extorted from charities in British Columbia. Every MLA from the NDP caucus should be standing up and answering to this, including the Attorney General.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the Attorney General tell us what person in British Columbia is going to be held accountable by the justice system for the fraud and corruption that took place with those societies?

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Attorney General is hiding behind the law. The Premier is hiding behind the law. This is British Columbia, not Colombia. When will the Attorney General -- and if not the Attorney General, the Deputy Premier -- stand up and demand, on behalf of the taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia, a full, independent and open inquiry into their activities?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may remember that a number of inquiries were underway prior to the initiatives taken by the RCMP. At the time the RCMP investigation began and the special prosecutor was appointed, those other inquiries were suspended. The matter is still before the courts. When it's no longer....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No sentencing has occurred, and no opportunity for an appeal on sentencing has yet....

An Hon. Member: They pled guilty; they don't appeal that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member for Matsqui has a law degree, I would be surprised.

No sentencing has occurred, and no opportunity for an appeal on sentencing has yet elapsed. Until this matter is no longer before the courts, the other inquiries, which had been proceeding, are suspended and don't have an opportunity to continue. At that point, the question might be appropriate.

REGISTRY OF SEX OFFENDERS

J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Attorney General, but on a different subject. Residents of Dawson Creek were scared, shocked and angry to learn that a seven-time serial rapist, Larry Fisher, had moved to their town on release from prison. We understand that he has left the province now. The RCMP have warned that he is very likely to be a repeat offender. What steps has the Attorney General taken to track Larry Fisher's movements and advise British Columbians when he is again resident in any community in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's not something the Attorney General or the Attorney General's ministry does; that's left to the police in this province, generally to the RCMP or municipal jurisdictions, if they're involved. I have full confidence that...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.,

Hon. C. Gabelmann: ...the RCMP and other police jurisdictions in this province will do their job. If the members opposite don't have that confidence, they're in a very small minority.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Vicious sexual predators like Larry Fisher represent a real threat to British Columbians. These people -- and people who reject rehabilitation, like Larry Fisher -- need to be identified in the communities they move to. I believe that British Columbians, particularly people in small

[ Page 11543 ]

towns, deserve to know who these people are, where they live and what they look like. Is the Attorney General committed to building a provincial sex offenders registry to protect British Columbians from people like Larry Fisher?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I have said before in the House, we're working with the federal government with respect to a registry to deal with that very problem. But in the meantime, RCMP detachments and other police departments are able to notify communities when these circumstances arise, as they have done on occasion.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Last week the minister advised that he was indeed working with the federal government. What was released was a discussion paper that dealt only with pedophiles. It didn't deal at all with serial rapists or other sex offenders like Larry Fisher. If the federal government won't, is the province committed to establishing its own provincial registry for all violent offenders like Larry Fisher -- particularly sexual predators and repeat offenders who have resisted rehabilitation attempts while in prison?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not clear at all that the solution is a provincial registry. Would an individual from another province be on a provincial registry? The answer is likely to be no. Would that person have an opportunity to drive across provincial boundaries? The answer, obviously, is yes. So provincial registries in and of themselves don't necessarily provide protection. They may provide the illusion of protection, which I think may be more problematic than the current situation. The current situation allows the police to ensure that the public can be advised in circumstances where, in the judgment of the police, there needs to be that kind of advice.

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. According to the minister, 175 form letters supporting Kimber Cabs -- some containing spelling errors -- were responsible for her decision to overturn the Motor Carrier Commission decision. She said that she tried to give it as much weight as she possibly could, to make it a fair weight. The people of B.C. have had it with the NDP's fair-weight policy. Can the minister explain how much fair weight she gave to this laughable example of political manipulation?

Hon. A. Edwards: I will say it again. As I said in my ministerial statement, there were 743 expressions of support in the appeal of the Motor Carrier decision on Kimber Cabs. There were expressions of support from seven organizations, from 80 businesses and from individuals. There were 400 letters -- some handwritten, some typed and some form letters. There were letters from Richmond's mayor and city council and from the Premier's advisory council on the disabled. There were letters from the B.C. Paraplegic Association and the Open Learning Agency. There were letters from Richmond Inn and other hotels.

I had to look at this expression of community support on the one hand, and the expression of objection to the current monopoly on the other hand, and make a decision. I have made the decision to make more services available for the disabled in Richmond.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: I have read the letters. I would have to ask if the minister has. Only 11 of the ones I read were not form letters. Many of the letters claiming to be from people living in Richmond were signed by people living in Vancouver -- even giving Vancouver addresses. Yet these form letters, signed by people who obviously didn't even bother to read them, mattered more to the minister than the expert testimony before and judgment of the Motor Carrier Commission. Can the minister explain how she allowed herself to be manipulated by identical form letters from across Vancouver, which all claim to be from Richmond and look like they were proofread by Dan Quayle?

Hon. A. Edwards: As I have said a number of times, there was quite a bit of evidence, and a number of submissions and representations were put forward to the commission that were considered on appeal. Some of them were expressions of support from the community in Richmond, including a letter from the City of Richmond and its mayor. That, to me, is an important representation from the community. There were other letters that were important representations of the feelings of the community in Richmond, and as I say, there was a considerable amount of evidence there. I again have to make the case....

The Speaker: Thank you....

Hon. A. Edwards: It was an issue on the two....

Hon. Speaker, I will shorten my answer to say that it was part of the submissions that were in front of me.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: We know what party the mayor belonged to at the time he wrote that letter. But dozens of the form letters, which won over the minister, were in fact written by an American consulting firm. Yesterday the minister said that letters like this still count as support. Will the minister tell the House what pearls of wisdom she discovered in only two hours, in a stack of photocopies written by paid American lobbyists, that the Motor Carrier Commission missed in three and a half days?

Hon. E. Cull: Once again I've got to call the attention of the opposition and the public to the hypocrisy of this opposition. Last week the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove said under no circumstances should the Motor Carrier Commission decision be overturned. But last November the then Leader of the Official Opposition sought to influence that appeal process. That member, at that time, sought to characterize letters and petitions as community support. As I look at this petition, I see not only were they not all from Delta, but they came from Vancouver, Victoria, Coquitlam and Port Moody.

This opposition has to take some responsibility. They are being hypocritical. This is not opposition....

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this is not opposition; this is opportunism.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

[ Page 11544 ]

The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston rises on a matter of personal privilege.

Point of Privilege

A. Warnke: After having given notice this past Friday, I have since reviewed the Blues and would like to now raise a matter of privilege.

Standing order 18 does allow considerable latitude for members to speak on matters related to their careers, yet all members are encouraged to exercise appropriate action when the prospect of a conflict of interest is possible. I sought advice from the conflict-of-interest commissioner with regard to Bill 22, and he clearly decided that if not in actual conflict, I would at least appear to be so. Accordingly, I exercised this caution and stated in the House that I would withdraw from both the debate and the vote.

I assumed that this would be respected by all members. Yet the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour stated last Thursday in this chamber:

"...one of your members absented himself last night, I believe -- although unnecessarily, I think -- from a debate on community colleges simply because he is probably on a leave of absence or is a teacher or whatever in a community college. I think that's quite foolish.

"I think the member from Richmond should take

part in the debate as well. I don't think you can perceive it as a conflict."

When a member is conscientious and takes appropriate action, exercising cautious judgment, I would hope that members, including ministers, would respect that judgment and refrain from criticizing it, both to that member and, in this case, to an officer of the Legislature. Accordingly, I feel that the minister's statements were inappropriate if for no other reason than that the member cannot defend himself in this chamber when the debate is in progress.

[2:30]

Therefore, hon. Speaker, perhaps you would address what happens when hon. members absent themselves from this House. Perhaps the Speaker could provide guidelines as to what grounds there are to ensure respect for both the members and the commissioner.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his submission. There being no further submissions, I will be pleased to take the matter under advisement and report back to the assembly as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A. Hon. Speaker, just for members' information, I call the Agriculture estimates first, to be followed by Government Services estimates. In this chamber, I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 46.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: This is the second time I've done this, hon. Speaker. I apologize. I would ask that, prior to the orders proceeding, we have the

summary debate of the Social Services estimates.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES

R. Neufeld: I rise in response to the minister's estimates, which were completed last week. I want to draw to everyone's attention that we have a budget in excess of $2.7 billion here. Actually, this budget has increased by approximately $900 million over the past three years. There is an increase of about 7 percent, or another $173 million, in this coming year.

It's absolutely unacceptable for British Columbians to continue at this pace. When you go and talk to people in rural British Columbia, or even in Vancouver, you learn that they cannot afford to pay more. It's obvious that the minister and the government are not listening to those people. There has to be some savings in the system.

You also have to take into account that about $130 million was removed from this minister's budget and put into Women's Equality. That makes it that much worse. We have to somehow corral the expenses of Social Services. This government talks about the best economy of any province in Canada and creating the most jobs of any province in Canada, yet we see this kind of increase in Social Services which British Columbians can no longer afford. Some method has to be put in place to slow down expenses in Social Services.

We can't do that by eliminating good-paying jobs in the mining industry and sending them to South America; we can't do it by eliminating high-paying jobs in the forest sector to save trees for the spotted owl. We cannot continue on that road, and the minister and this government are in error if they think they can.

We dealt a bit with fraud and administrative error. The bank of the Minister of Employment and Investment in downtown Vancouver is not going to take care of that issue. It's obvious that the minister thinks this is going to alleviate all the problems of fraud in the Social Services ministry, but it's not. That's just downtown Vancouver. There's a whole province out there. That's the problem with this government; they never get out there to have a look at it. They know downtown Vancouver, and that's where they deal.

We need all kinds of issues dealt with in Social Services. I don't think they are being dealt with strongly enough. We need more positive ID -- possibly retina scans -- to deal with stolen cheques. We need to be able to track people more. We have to be able to control expenses a bit more, and this government is not doing it. People living in expensive homes who are receiving social assistance should have to pay it back. The last minister refused to acknowledge that there was even any fraud or administrative error in the ministry. She refused to admit to it, but this minister has seen that that is happening.

The Speaker: Regrettably, hon. member, the time allowed has lapsed, and I must ask the hon. member to please conclude.

The hon. member for the official opposition responds.

V. Anderson: I appreciated the discussions and the interaction we had on the Ministry of Social Services estimates. I also appreciated the minister's frankness when responding to our questions, admitting on occasion that there were things she would like to do that she is unable to do under the present system.

There is a grave concern in our province, and it's indicated by the lineups at the food banks, for which the government has not taken any responsibility. The Vancouver Food Bank has 6,000 people lining up for food each week, one-third of whom are children. Two thousand children have to line up for food in Vancouver, and that doesn't count the lower mainland. Then we have 2,500 who line up each month here in Victoria. We have people lining up at food banks right around this province, because they do not have the basic necessities of life. Those same people who are lining up at

[ Page 11545 ]

food banks also do not have the basic housing that they require.

Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts that this minister is making in a very difficult situation. We in the opposition have called for a total review of the social services system in this province -- that is, a total review of how this government is responding to the very desperate needs of the people. Later today we'll be dealing with acts that deal with a small portion of the concern, but that's only a small portion of the concern.

The minister indicates that one of the things she's doing is reviewing the appeal processes in the GAIN Act. That's the one thing that the people in the province don't want reviewed. The people themselves and those who work with persons in need have been consulted throughout the province, and they've said that this is a process that's working well. Why would the minister meddle with a process that is working well? The consistent response is to leave it alone.

So there is a concern that the minister is hampered in what she may be attempting to do by the whole process of the government. There needs to be a review not only of the social services system but of all other support systems that dictate and limit what the social services system is attempting to do in the province.

Though there were honest and frank discussions, the discussions were limited, because each time you asked another related question, the answer comes back, as it does from every minister: "You must raise that in another set of estimates; that doesn't belong in these estimates." So the really telling questions don't belong in any estimates. They don't belong, because they are cross-estimate jurisdictions. The government does not have a way of dealing with those cross-estimate jurisdictions, unless we're given the privilege and the opportunity to do that in the Premier's estimates.

I might well attempt to do that this year, assuming that all of the interlocking concerns of the government would be addressed and could be responded to in at least that set of estimates.

I have to admit that though I think the minister is sincere, she's locked into a governmental system that does not enable her to get out of her cage of Social Services to deal with the interministerial consequences that must be taken into account with Health, Education, corrections, economic development, roadbuilding and whatever else. The economy of this province, though it may be the best in Canada, though it may be the best for 80 percent of the population, is for some 20 percent of the population inadequate, impoverished and inexcusable.

In a country as wealthy as ours, and where the ability to govern is available in our democracy, it is inexcusable that we cannot do a better job for the people in this province who are in need. In the estimates we were not able to go into that depth; we weren't able to get to the necessary interlocking programs or to the overview of a total government process.

The Speaker: The hon. minister concludes.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's very interesting to be in the main chamber for a wrap-up of estimates. All I want to say is: what a difference a camera makes in terms of the debate. I certainly appreciate my colleague's point of view, and we did grapple with all of these issues in estimates.

Let me try to take an overview of what exactly we did talk about, and of the very serious issues facing British Columbians that my ministry has direct responsibility for. In any one year, one British Columbian in six will receive some benefit or service from my ministry, the Ministry of Social Services. There are changing social trends out there affecting the demands on my ministry's services. We are seeing an aging population; we are seeing a growing number of single-parent families, 70 percent of whom receive income assistance -- 70 percent! There is no question that there is a feminization of poverty: 95 percent of single-parent families on income assistance are headed by women.

As minister, I too join with my colleague for Vancouver-Langara in finding the issue of child poverty to be most disturbing. One child out of every eight in our province lives in a welfare family, and these children are more likely to suffer ill health, drop out of school, get in trouble with the law and spend their lives struggling on the margins of the economy and society. We as a society must effectively address these children's needs, and we in my ministry believe that a child's greatest resource is a strong family. Those are the matters that we are debating in the Legislature, from the point of view of the legislation we have introduced in this House.

However, at the same time, British Columbians need to have reassurance that there is confidence in the system, and to know that their tax dollars are being spent properly and are going to those most in need. I'm not sure that we do that by a retinal scanning of everyone, but we certainly do make every attempt possible to ensure that the system is secure, that the dollars are being properly spent and that there is no waste and abuse. Our first obligation under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan is to ensure that every resident of British Columbia can get their basic needs of food and shelter.

Under the Canada Assistance Plan and the GAIN Act, we are the place of last resort for those in need when they are unable to help themselves.

As managers of public money, we also have an obligation to seek every opportunity to eliminate duplication, waste and abuse. In fact, that is exactly what this government has done -- despite the comments of the official spokesperson for the Reform Party. Our government brought in reforms this year to tighten up procedures in the income assistance area, and we will be enhancing others during this session. The initial reforms we announced in January are expected to save British Columbia taxpayers $20 million this year.

We have implemented a whole series of new initiatives that will make sure that abuse is ended, that those who abuse the system are caught and that those who are in need get the money that's available.

[2:45]

We are doing everything possible to make sure that we continue to monitor the system, enhance it and make it more accountable. Quite frankly, after years and years of neglect to this system, it is now up to our government to take action to restore confidence in it. Over the last 14 years recommendation after recommendation was given to previous governments, none of which was acted upon. This government is taking action, and has taken action, and it's all toward the end that we will actually give the money to the people who are most in need: the one in eight children in this province who actually live in poverty.

I must tell you that it's a time of major change for the Ministry of Social Services. However, I also want to emphasize that during this time of change, our basic values are constant. We will continue to offer the same core services as before. We remain committed to providing the most effective help to those in need, be they families, children, people with a mental handicap or those suffering financial hardship. What has changed, and is changing, is how we provide the service and the balance between service and effective financial management. In recent years a lot of attention has been paid to how this ministry conducts its

[ Page 11546 ]

business. A number of independent reviews have already been conducted and the results have been made public. It's not time for more reviews; it's time for action. That's exactly what our government has done in this ministry.

We continue to work within the ministry to identify areas where we can improve, and we are providing an important accountability mechanism through our internal audits. Those audits are a useful tool for identifying problems with ministry policies and practice, and we will continue to enhance our audit review. In a business as complex and decentralized as ours, we recognize that there is always room for improvement. I'm confident that each and every time we examine our ministry internally through audits, that will result in changes for the better.

As a result of all the external and internal work, our ministry is in the midst of a major financial management revitalization project. It's time for action now, and we are taking that action. So far, 30 high-priority projects have been identified and are in various stages of completion, and those are projects to restore financial accountability and good financial management to our ministry.

In addition to those 30 internal projects to ensure financial management, we have the seven major initiatives that I announced in the spring. I know that it often seems like the government takes forever to deliver on its promises; however, let me reassure you that in our case it is not because we are procrastinating. It's difficult to imagine how complex our organization is and how many people we serve. We have 5,000 staff in over 400 offices. We have a huge client population, with a wide scope and variety of programs and services. We make changes, but when we do so, we do it carefully and deliberately.

To do otherwise would produce consequences much worse than the problems we're trying to resolve. It doesn't mean that we aren't changing, only that we cannot change everything overnight.

I would hope that everyone in this House sees how important it is to put our clients -- the children and families in poverty -- first; not to attack them and make them victims in society, but to work with our government in ensuring that every

hard-earned taxpayer's dollar goes toward those most in need and that those who are abusing our system no longer have access to it and, indeed, are caught. It is time for us to work together on resolving the very important poverty issues that face us. But we can only do that by making sure that the system is held accountable and not put under attack.

Hon. G. Clark: Before we move to the other bill, I'd like to call third reading of Bill 15.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Bill 15 read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 46.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT

(continued)

V. Anderson: I rise to complete my comments on Bill 46, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which is bringing in a completely new and, shall we say, renovated system for responding to the needs of families, children and youth in this province when they are in need of assistance outside of what their own resources can provide.

I referred to some of the areas before lunch. I would like to refer specifically to three areas at this time. One of the difficulties that we have in bringing in

an act of this nature is that it involves a great deal of trust and confidence in those who are to administer it -- and therefore trust and confidence in the government. One of the lessons I learned when I was a youth -- in hockey, baseball or whatever -- was that what you did in practice was what you were supposed to do when it counted in the game. If in practice you horsed around and made mistakes, you would likewise horse around and make mistakes in the game;

whereas if you were serious and devoted to what you were doing in practice, then -- as the Canucks will be trying to do this evening -- you could be serious and hopefully win the game. It only takes a small error for one to be defeated.

One of the concerns that I have with this issue is the way we have been acting of late in this House. I am likening some of the comments and interactions between members in this Legislature to the coaching we used to have in game practices. If the people who are watching us hear us tell misleading statements about each other -- trying to gain political and personal political points from each other -- it seems to me that the credibility we are losing with that interaction goes directly to the lack of confidence we will have in this kind of bill when it's presented.

It's that kind of wholeness of concern that I think our electors are looking for -- not to have us say on one hand that we are serious about this kind of legislation and to have, on the other hand, the inappropriate political shenanigans which are going on here in the Legislature. I raise that because one has a direct bearing on the credibility of the other.

I am also concerned about the informal as well as formal communication that goes on within the system and between the workers who are part of the system -- between the front line and the troops in the back who are calling the commands. It seems to me that we must put more stress on the front line. The front line is not just the workers; they are the recipients. I am glad to see that in this bill there is an attempt to listen to the primary people: the families and children who are directly involved in these circumstances.

It's that communication which must have priority at every step; it's that communication which must be taken most seriously, rather than the communication of the system, however good the act may be.

One of the dangers that has been brought to my attention is that these regulations may become the tune that those they are meant to serve will have to dance to. We cannot allow that to happen. If the regulations have validity, they must now allow the recipients of the services, who are the people not to receive services but the people who are to be served by the staff in our various institutions.... We must reverse the language and the terminology, as well as the acts that we write.

There is another major concern that has come to the floor, which is not really addressed in the bill. The bill addresses the difficulty for families when children, youth or parents are having difficulty within their family and need support. They must be listened to, supported and responded to in a positive and just manner. Many of the criticisms, though, that we have of our present system are about the very care that children and youth, particularly, and families get when they come into care of the ministry. Many of the criticisms are that when they are in the care of the ministry....

And I'm not too happy with that term, but we'll use it for the moment. Sometimes it is thought of as being in the custody of the ministry, and I'm not happy with that term, either. But when they are in the care or custody of the ministry, the treatment is not fair or just. Many of them are reporting physical or

[ Page 11547 ]

sexual or emotional abuse, unjust confinements and lack of freedom within the ministry.

There is nowhere within this bill that those who are inflicted with injustice within the ministry have a way -- other than the other bill, the advocate -- to respond. There's no way within the ministry to be accountable financially, emotionally, physically. The accountability is as if it were to parents and children outside the ministry. But a great many of the comments are concerns about the harm and hurt that's inflicted upon them while they are in the care and custody of the ministry, and about the inability to respond.

When we've tried to raise issues about this in the past, we've been advised to go to another ministry. We've been advised that we could go to court to deal with it. But there's no system within this act that holds the ministry itself accountable for those persons who come under their care and custody.

It seems to me that if we have high expectations of how parents will care for their children to the best of their ability, we must have even higher expectations that when children are taken into care for their own well-being, they will be even better cared for and the ministry will be even more responsible, so that they are given every opportunity to recover and return home with health, strength and assurance.

A great deal of the difficulty of people who have been in the care of the ministry is that the links have been broken with their families, that there have been no opportunities to grow and maintain the family contacts. Though that's referred to indirectly within the ministry, there is no accountability when the ministry fails to do that -- when the workers fail to do that, or when they put roadblocks in the way so that families are unable to follow up on visitation. They've been allowed visits by court order, but the ministry says, for one reason or another, that they would do it another way.

I will be discussing it further, but what I'm asking about now is: where is the accountability for the ministry when children and youth are in care? Where is the accountability for the finances which are being expended in the process? Where is the accountability for the personal, emotional and physical future well-being of those who come into care? That is a major concern which this bill overlooks. I trust we'll be able to review that further in third reading.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise in second reading debate on Bill 46 and to state that I think all members of the House agree in support for the protection of children and families. To reiterate the minister's remarks, these are changing times that bring particular pressures and stresses to families everywhere. Governments and legislators have a duty to mitigate those and to protect people, as much as possible, from those kinds of pressures and from the results of some of the difficulties that families face today.

[3:00]

Bill 46 is a very significant bill, with about 148 sections. I understand that it is based on the recommendations of a community panel that travelled around the province in 1992 gathering input from various communities. What we see here is the result of many of the submissions made to it. No doubt changes are needed to the laws regarding child protection.

Mr. Ray Ferris wrote an

article in the Times-Colonist of Tuesday, June 7, 1994. He's a retired registered social worker with many years of experience in practising and supervising child protection, and he is the author of a book, The Art of Child Protection. He lives in Victoria. I found his

article to be quite enlightening, and I'd like to read some excerpts of it into the record. He says:

"Child protection is the most difficult of all social work and is to be mastered in the same way as any other difficult profession. It must be taught with rigour and practised with discipline. Staff need to have commitment, intelligence and courage and need to be well trained and supervised."

"The basic problem is that educators, administrators and many of the supervisors simply do not have the knowledge and skills needed to train the staff. Child welfare tragedies are followed by investigation, intimidation and blame, rather than by retraining and support. This creates a climate of bureaucratic control, which stifles professional initiative.

"One will often hear that more resources are needed, but a much worse problem is the abuse and misuse of existing resources.

"It would be more profitable to conduct regular practice workshops, using experienced protection workers and supervisors as trainers."

And his final remark is:

"The basis of good child protection is to have focus and purpose in the work. Advanced interview and assessment skills must lead to clear-headed planning and decision-making."

We in this House would do well to think about and reflect on these remarks. I'm sure the long years of actual work that this gentleman had in child protection and in the field of social services.... He has a longstanding list of professional development and opinion and, I'm sure, support for the system itself.

This bill makes some sweeping changes to family and child legislation. There are 19 consequential amendments to this bill.

I have some concerns about this bill. I see a lack of accountability for social workers, wide-ranging powers for ministry personnel and, in my view, a massive intrusion by the state into the rights of parents and families. We're going to be looking for checks and balances to prevent that abuse. What initiatives address some of the concerns that Mr. Ferris raised in his article? This bill has some very serious implications.

I look forward to committee stage, when we will be asking for the government's justification for the sweeping powers that have been given to the ministry personnel and the state in Bill 46.

With that, I will take my place and, because of the size of the bill, simply say of the intent of Bill 46 that I think all of us in this House agree that the support and protection of children and families is of paramount importance. But there are a number of sections in this bill that we will be wanting to examine much more closely.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the principles of Bill 46, the Child, Family and Community Service Act. From the outset, I would like to say that we as a caucus agree with much of the intent and with the direction that this legislation is going in.

We of course, as normal, do have some concerns with some parts of the legislation. The legislation is a large act. It covers an awful lot of issues about the child and the family in the community, how they interrelate and how we deal with families and young children in need who are taken into care.

One of the difficulties we have with the bill is that it is a legislation companion piece to Bill 45, which was discussed earlier this morning. I wasn't here to listen to the discussion, but this differs quite a bit from Bill 45. We find it difficult to understand; we feel they should be working more hand in hand. We feel that this variance between the two bills could cause a fair amount of legal confusion, as well as create a problem for families and children that will be affected by this legislation. It's difficult for us to know why there are

[ Page 11548 ]

such different positions in the two bills. I'm sure that when the minister wraps up the discussion later today she will enlighten us on some of the reasoning for that. The

definitions throughout the bill could cause an awful lot of confusion.

This bill actually legislates for government to intervene in our children's and families' lives at a very -- I don't know quite the word to use -- slight provocation. I find this hard to believe, coming from a minister and a government that just recently said that some of the legislation in place before was far too harsh and that you should not intervene in family problems. I see there seems to be a bit of change in philosophy, to where in some cases it could be almost too easy to interfere in a family's life.

A good example is that this bill has an entire

section outlining when a child needs protection, which if broadly interpreted could apply to almost every child in British Columbia. That's disturbing for me, because I think all of us realize that the family unit is under attack -- not by government, but it just seems to be under attack from all kinds of forces. We see families broken up, not working and dysfunctional. If the state breaks in more, I think it's going to cause more trouble.

We have to do a bit of the reverse, to make people a little more responsible. Instead of taking responsibility away from people all the time, as we and all human beings have a tendency to do, we should make people more responsible for some of their actions. I mean, make some of the families more responsible for some of their actions, instead of just intervening and trying to do it that way.

Obviously that hasn't worked. If you look into the education system and talk to some teachers, you'll see problems in that system. I had the opportunity to talk to some teachers in my constituency last week who are having some real difficulty with children coming to school from single-parent families or broken homes, and there's an awful lot of them. What we've done through time is to let it happen because of our good nature, instead of making people responsible, students responsible and the system responsible. I think we have to change that.

I'm sure everyone in this House has a different definition of the best interests of the family or the child. I'm sure the minister has a totally different idea of what's in the best interests of the children than I do. That doesn't make the minister right and me wrong, or me right and the minister wrong. That's the difficulty. Each child and each intervention is different. Where a child has been abused or has to be removed from the home, you can't presuppose how that child has been brought up through the years.

You can't do that, and you can't all of a sudden go into a home, take that child away and say: "Okay, now we're going to do it this way, because that's what's in the best interests of the child."

This legislation and anything dealing with children or families is difficult for any one of us to deal with. It transcends political parties, just as the critic from the Liberal opposition said. It's very difficult to deal with, yet somehow we have to because we do have the problem. Society has the problem, and in some cases we as a society have promoted it. Now we have to deal with it, and I think we have to start dealing with some of these things in a little different fashion.

We're concerned also that the bill allows the workers and the ministry to make voluntary agreements with the youth but leaves no option for the youth to get out of these agreements if they choose to do so. I don't think I have a lot of problems with the youth making agreements in some cases. But again, this is a way of taking responsibility away from people, as I tried to speak about earlier. By doing that, we encourage the young person who's making that agreement to.... They get some kind of incentive that they can leave that family unit. All of a sudden, Big Brother or someone else is there to look after them.

And if it doesn't work there, they'll go to another part of the system and get looked after there. That's the difficulty with our system. I'm not trying to say that I or the minister or the official opposition critic knows best.

These are difficult decisions that have to be made. But we have to be very careful when we write into legislation what can and can't be done in dealing with the family unit -- something, as I say, that is under terrible attack within Canada. One of the largest problems we have in Canada is the family unit, and it comes down to all kinds of things. It comes down to economics. It comes down to the fact that mothers and dads are both out working, sometimes at jobs that.... A lot of people don't have the eight-to-five job; they may be working from 10 o'clock at night till seven in the morning. They come home, and they don't have the time to spend with those young children, nurturing them.

So there's an economic element to the problems that we face in this country and province in dealing with children. The family unit through time, if you read back in history, has brought us through many difficult times and will continue to do so. But if we allow the family unit to be broken down too much, to where the state will look after those who don't specifically fit into the square hole, then we are encouraging it, and we are going to have a lot more trouble than we can deal with.

The legislation misses on a number of other issues: in the ministry being able to seek out the next of kin of families in order to deal with them before action is taken, or the ability for families that are having trouble.... If they have some negotiations with the ministry, I understand that the bill will not allow those people to talk to others unless they have the consent of all, and that could be very difficult. I don't know whether you are going to be able to get the consent of the ministry and all the family members, if other than the mother, father and children are involved. That could be very difficult, but it could be helpful if those in need could talk to others.

[3:15]

I spoke earlier about the ability of the ministry to remove a child without an order of any kind -- in fact, with just being able to state why the child is being removed. I don't know whether that is responding to some of the problems within the system that have allowed some things to happen which we wish had not. I don't know whether that's going to alleviate that problem, because there was the ability to do those kinds of things before without going that far. Of course, that is only my opinion, and there are others who think that the ministry should have more power.

There is no doubt that we need to protect children who are being abused. As a society, we have to cope with it. When you have a system as large as the Ministry of Social Services, with a budget of $2.7 billion and thousands of employees, trying to broad-brush something that will work in each instance is very difficult. That's why our caucus supports the intent of the bill. We know that some changes have to be made in legislation to deal with families and children in British Columbia, but we take exception to some parts of this legislation. There are about 150 sections to the legislation. It gets very in-depth and has a lot of legalese.

In third reading we intend to deal with each

section that we have problems with. We know there are problems that have to be dealt with and that it's not an easy situation for anyone. But generally we support the legislation and hope that it deals with the issues that we have created in our

[ Page 11549 ]

society, and we have to now deal with them. With that, I look forward to third reading.

J. Tyabji: I would like to begin my comments by saying to the minister that I am sure her opening remarks were appreciated by all members of the House.

As we did this morning, I'm sure we will be fairly informal with regard to protocol and introductions. I understand there are some students we want to welcome here.

M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the member for Okanagan East for her courtesy; it is appreciated.

In the gallery today we have 32 students from Maywood Elementary School in Renton, Washington and their teacher, Miss G. Fitch. I'd ask the House to welcome these students from south of the border, who have come to British Columbia to see how our system of government works.

J. Tyabji: Of course, being a member of the opposition, I would like to welcome them -- to see how our government doesn't work. That's part of my job.

With regard to this bill, the minister's comments this morning I think illustrate two aspects of it, as we deal with the principle stage of the bill. We had the former act, which we know was unwieldy, out of date and in drastic need of change. I think this minister should be commended for taking charge, in a very short period of time -- although her predecessor probably had something to do with it -- of a very difficult and large system that was full of inertia, and for having the courage to try to change it. In that respect, many aspects of this bill are a dramatic improvement over what there used to be.

There are also aspects of this bill that are a big concern, and we can get to those in committee stage. That would be one prong of this bill.

The other part of this bill that the Alliance members have a very strong problem with, in principle, is with regard to the new element that has been introduced. As we know, the previous act, the Family and Child Service Act, dealt with every British Columbian on the same basis; all of us were equal, and none of us were designated on the basis of race. What we have a problem with is that throughout this bill, there is a new aspect to it, as we see in the name change. It is now the Child, Family and Community Service Act. There's actually a

section dealing with aboriginal community intervention in the determination of custody. Based on the definition of an aboriginal child, and the way this comes through, we can see that throughout this bill there is an intention to set aside the aboriginal community as separate and apart from the rest of British Columbia. That's something that, ideologically, the Alliance is at complete odds with this government on, and we will continue to be, whether that's through the negotiations on government jurisdiction or the placement of children for the purpose of custody.

This bill could allow a reverse custody system to what we saw 100 years ago -- and, in some cases, much more recently -- when, I'm sure all of us recognize, there was absolutely horrendous treatment of aboriginal people. Children were removed from aboriginal communities and westernized. They were put into western institutions and their cultures and community were stripped from them. That was a very traumatic and a highly regrettable and shameful part of our history.

But when you read this bill, it allows us to visit on some of the aboriginal children of today the wishes of the older members of the aboriginal community with regard to placement in custody matters, because of cultural considerations. That is not something we can support in principle, because we know that the majority of aboriginal people in British Columbia are not living on reserves, within traditional aboriginal communities; they're living in urban centres. We have enormous urban native communities. To that extent, many aboriginal children are being born in a

non-aboriginal context.

If we look at the definition of an aboriginal child who falls under the provisions of this bill for custody, it could be a child of a non-aboriginal and an aboriginal, born in an urban setting, and a community could place a custody order against the child if there are custody proceedings. Under this bill, that is to be given primary consideration in the determination of custody for that child. That could affect many children, because a child isn't going to say "I'm an aboriginal child," or "I'm a

non-aboriginal child." We are the ones who teach racism to our children. We are the ones who tell them that they are different. To address custody of children on the basis of race is wrong. That's something that we're fundamentally opposed to. It runs throughout this bill. The reason for changing the name of the bill, to add "community," is obviously to add that element of community input into the determination of custody.

I don't think this minister.... Having listened to this minister, I have to say that I have a lot of respect not only for the principles she has brought into this but for the manner in which she is delivering them. Certainly the rest of us can sense her conviction when she stands in the House to defend children. I believe her to be sincere and to be working for the best interests of children.

Ideologically, however, we can't possibly support a bill in principle when you have the majority of the children defined by this bill as aboriginal living away from that community. Yet even the part at the back where we talk about the hearings.... The hearings allow parents and a member of the aboriginal community, who may be at best a distant relative, to be present at the determination of custody. They may not necessarily even be a distant relative but may be an interested party, because that person has a certain race or cultural perspective. So that's something that we have a problem with in this bill.

That being said, and that being the strongest basis for our opposition to this bill in second reading, I would like to say that the improvements the minister has brought to some of the mechanisms for dealing with children are commendable. Some of them are very creative. Obviously this has been drafted with a lot of thought. The Liberal opposition has talked a lot about accountability. I'm not sure how you can build too much more accountability, other than with the court system.

We see that time lines are actually built into the bill, to provide some manner for it to move along. If the time lines weren't there, there would be a huge concern. There are some concerns in terms of tightening up the

definitions, but the mechanism itself is relatively good and is a dramatic improvement. Since the Attorney general is here, I'd like to say that I hope his office will look at this bill, take some of the machinery from it and put it into the Family Relations Act, because the Family Relations Act is sadly lacking in time lines and in taking the best interests of children into account.

With that said, obviously the majority of the debate on this bill has to occur in committee stage. It is unfortunate that given the minister's valiant and in some respects very successful attempt to deal with a very problematic bill, the Family and Child Service Act, the Child, Family and

[ Page 11550 ]

Community Service Act is something that we oppose in principle because of differentiation on the basis of race. We feel that that is as illegitimate a process as it was when we did it to the aboriginal community 50 and 60 years ago.

I look forward to committee stage. There are a number of questions. I hope the minister will accept some amendments in committee stage. I would like to offer to this minister that if she would like some notes on where we would like to see amendments in committee stage that are in keeping with the intent of the bill and that might be a little helpful, we'd be happy to provide that for her. Otherwise, we'll be delivering them during the debate.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

G. Wilson: I wish to rise to speak in a discussion that parallels that of my colleague for Okanagan East with respect to this bill and how we break it down. I think my colleague made it very clear that we believe there is a great deal in this bill that is of value, and there has clearly been a lot of thought in drafting this bill. My comments on Bill 44 are echoed in my comments on Bill 46, to the extent that government must be very careful at all times not to cross the line and allow the power of the state to become too great in terms of intervention, or not to provide powers to the state that can be used and expressed when there is no, or limited, justification to do so.

part 3,

section 13 of this particular bill, it talks about when protection is needed. Throughout the entire section, it doesn't talk about a question of evidentiary action being taken, where people say, "Indeed, now there is evidence that the following events have occurred," or that there is an evidentiary question with respect to past performance in somebody who has received custody through some litigation process. What it talks about is that something is likely to happen. It says that there is "likely to be" physical harm, sexual abuse or problems associated with exploitation or, in some instances, that there is "likely to be" emotional harm done.

[3:30]

I think we have to be extremely careful in this instance because of the volatility of some situations where there are dysfunctional families, matters of substance abuse in one or possibly two of the parent figures, and issues that are critical to the overall well-being and welfare of the child. It is one thing to come in and act as an advocate to make sure that there is a level of protection, and it is something entirely different to give to a director, who is appointed by government, the powers that this act provides for in the removal of that child. Under

section 1, the act says that a director, without a court order and by force if necessary, can enter a premise or a vehicle or board any vessel for the purpose of removing a child.

The question is: if the director has some reasonable grounds -- and that's what is considered -- to believe that the child needs protection.... That's covered under what I've just said about it being "likely to be," or that there's a possibility that an event will occur and the child's health or safety is in immediate danger. This is a real problem for the state, because clearly, if an event occurs where somebody is under some kind of social program for assistance and the child is negatively impacted or affected, the first person who will be on the firing line by some members in this House will be the minister.

They'll ask: "Why didn't you move in, and why didn't you do something? Why didn't the minister go in there and remove the child? Why didn't the state intervene?" Some members of this House would demand resignations. The minister can't do that, and the state has to be extremely careful about intervening on those questions, because there are rights of parents and children that have to be considered in this equation.

It isn't up to government. It isn't up to the government to make a decision about what is appropriate or inappropriate in many instances -- unless, of course, there is clear evidence that a child is unable to protect themselves, or a parent unable to protect a child will put the child at risk through an immediate threat of danger. That's a tough question in the mind of whoever it is who has to make that decision. This is not an easy thing to do.

In drafting legislation, you have to recognize that you have to give powers to individuals, but you must not provide them with such latitude that they have the opportunity to move in and use all the weight and force of the state when justification for that may not be there -- or where reasonable grounds may be entirely under question. Because if you do, it's a slippery slope.

We have seen many instances in other jurisdictions -- thankfully not many in British Columbia, although there are some examples in B.C. -- where the state, sometimes out of good intentions, sometimes out of quite obvious politically driven dogma, has made the authority and rights of the state so overwhelming as to allow the state to move and to apprehend in a manner and at times that are simply not justifiable at all. That becomes a significant abrogation of individual rights and freedoms, and of the right of an individual to raise their children in a manner they believe is appropriate.

I understand the complexities of this issue, but surely you don't give an appointed director -- who in this act is able to take action whether or not a complaint has been filed -- an opportunity to move into a situation, observe it and make a decision that requires, by use of force if necessary, forced entry into a premises. That's what the language of the bill says. If that's not what the bill intends to say, then we'd better look at that in committee and do some amending. The only person who should be given that kind of right without warrant is a police officer.

There is nothing that suggests that if the director has knowledge of an event that is taking place or is about to take place, or if the director knows that there is a child at risk.... There is nothing to prevent that director from seeking the accompaniment of a police officer. Indeed, it goes on to say that the director has discretion as to whether or not to do that. We would argue that there should be no discretionary powers there.

If you're going to have forced entry into a premises, then you'd better have somebody who has the authority under the law to do so, not somebody who is just appointed by government, because that's a pretty scary precedent to set.

So we have some serious problems with that

section of the bill. It's not because it isn't well-intentioned and well-meaning -- we understand what it's designed to do -- but because you simply should not provide that kind of authority to that individual.

The other thing that there is nothing in here about is the training that's necessary with respect to these appointed directors. Where in here is there anything that says anything at all about the qualifications, training, background and the kind of people who are going to be designated, subject to whatever regulations -- all of this is going to be subject to regulations that we have not yet seen -- and given state powers to come in and intervene? We would have preferred some clear reference to who these directors are, what their training and background is, and what kind of individuals we're talking about.

It says that the minister is not allowed to delegate or designate the power for the designation of a director, notwithstanding

section 15 of the province's Constitution

[ Page 11551 ]

Act. So the minister is now empowered to select who these individuals are. There are two problems with that. It puts the minister in an enormously vulnerable situation, especially when you have the climate we have in the Legislature right now, when anybody who's appointed to anything is immediately accused of being some kind of friend, insider or political whatever. But more importantly, it puts the minister in an extremely vulnerable position, because the minister must make decisions on the qualifications, credentials and abilities of that director who is given widespread powers.

That's a pretty scary proposition, because the minister shouldn't have that unlimited authority and power without the ability to designate to a larger body that might want to look at training, background or some method of developing these directors if indeed this legislation is in place. There's nothing in this bill to provide for it. I think that's a major oversight, because people are going to be extremely fearful of the powers these people have if, in fact, there is one case -- and it will only take one -- of abuse of power by one director.

This minister and this government are going to pay the price for it, because we have seen what happened in the Vaudreuil case -- where this minister wasn't guilty; it wasn't this minister's fault. In some instances, it wasn't even the fault of sections in the ministry. Yet we've seen what happens when people try to make political hay out of a tragic situation. It's going to take one -- just one -- instance, and this whole program is going to be in jeopardy. That's not good.

We have to find a way for the state to use its powers without breaching the authority, which it trusts unto itself for the people, to look after children in this province. So we have concerns about that.

The second problem with it, in terms of the designation of these directors, is that the authority of the director -- in the discretion that director will have to have over assessing and analyzing decisions, notwithstanding that many supports and support documents may be provided -- is going to require a very special, unique and able individual. When there's an opportunity for interagency activity and interagency development and for those interagency groups to work in the community.... I come back to the comments I made under Bill 45 and, for the record, reiterate them here under Bill 46.

It's time the community became involved, because these children are participants in the community. They're members of the community; they're our neighbours. They may be low-income, may come from a different background, may be of a different ethnic origin, may speak a different language, may be new immigrants into this country and may not even participate in the kinds of social activities that we in our own little clique engage in. But they're members of our community. We are responsible for them, as they should be responsible for our joint welfare.

That's what is missing in this province: a little more humanity, caring, sharing and obligation among the community to move forward and to look after its own.

We don't and should not need the state to intervene. But we have become more and more dependent on government to provide more and more services. The service organizations are finding it more and more difficult to get into the community to do the kind of good community work they do. The churches seem to have pulled in their horns or reins and said, "No, we're not going to go out and do as much as we did," because attendance in those organizations tends to be diminishing -- at least in some; perhaps not among the evangelical group, but they often don't get involved in doing anything in the community. The mainline churches are finding it more and more difficult to involve themselves.

We have to recognize that individual rights must be enshrined in the society as well, to be able to protect those rights. It's not an easy thing to do. Yet in our judgment this provides powers to the government and to this new director -- and I say this in conjunction with the comments made by my colleague from Okanagan East -- that simply take the government one step too far. It goes over that line. I'm very fearful that if we put this in place, we are going to create an opportunity for state intervention that is going to be open for abuse. And all it will take is one case, and you're going to have a real problem with this program.

So we would like to see some amendments and changes. We would like to see some hard discussion in committee stage on some of these sections. We're going to do so in a manner that is constructive, because we don't intend to simply object to this for the sake of objecting. We have tried to put forward some thoughtful concerns about where we see the problems in this bill.

It may, in all honesty, be a philosophical difference between members of the Alliance and members of the government with respect to the powers that should be enshrined in the government. I know that I have a philosophical disagreement with members opposite when it comes to the role of an individual in society versus the role of the collective, and which should have superior right or authority over the other. That's a very large intellectual debate that we're not going to get into in detail here, although it would clearly apply.

In the judgment of the members of the Alliance, the rights of individuals are paramount. They shouldn't be subjugated to the rights of the collective, and especially a collective that's driven by the government. It shouldn't be the government that's determining what's right in society and what the norms should be. It isn't the government that should be deciding for us where the standards will apply and that we will conform.

It isn't the government that should be coming forward and saying: "We know best what's good for you; therefore we're going to legislate it, and you're going to take a good dose of it whether you like it or not." Yet we see that happening; we clearly see that happening. We saw it happening today in the tabling of a miscellaneous act with respect to health care workers, where the government is now going to determine how they're going to organize and bargain.

So we have to recognize that there is much good in this bill -- indeed there is. To the minister, we pass our congratulations for drafting some of the material here that we think is sound. We congratulate those people who engaged in the drafting of it for the thoughtfulness that went into this bill. But we believe that it has gone too far. And that's the purpose of this Legislative Assembly: to act as a

[ Page 11552 ]

chamber in which debate can occur and some sober second thinking can happen in committee stage.

We have committee stage so that when legitimate concerns are advanced; when we don't believe the interests of society will be well-served, because government is simply becoming too interventionist and directing too much the way we are going to live; when it's not just legislating how we're going to live but very much directing the parameters within which our lives will be governed.... We don't believe that's the way it should be. We believe in a greater degree of freedom in our society and among individuals, and we do not believe in subjugating that freedom to the collective interest.

[3:45]

So that's our concern, and that's why we're going to vote against this. It certainly isn't because we're voting against the needs of children in this province. Nobody knows, I think, better than some members of the Alliance -- certainly my colleague -- what it is to fight the system in this province. Nobody knows better than we do how difficult it is to fight the bureaucratic system when it's entrenched in government legislation. But it's ironic in the extreme if what we're doing is creating a new agency of government to fight government. That becomes a real irony.

Yet from our point of view, that's precisely what we're doing here. I think there is a better way. It's not an easy way, and it won't be one that can be effected overnight. We're prepared to work with this minister to try to bring that better way into play. We're prepared to work with anybody who recognizes that the state should have a limited authority -- that there are, or should be, limits to the ability of the state to intervene, because intervention is something that has repercussions.

It has social and financial repercussions, but above all, from a philosophical point of view, it has political repercussions as well. And if we believe in democracy and in the freedom of our society, we had better be vigilant in protecting it.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. Seeing no other members rising in their place, I will recognize the Minister of Social Services, whose remarks will close debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again I must thank all of my colleagues for their very thoughtful opening comments on this bill as well as on this morning's bill. I think that committee stage will be interesting, and I actually expect it to be constructive, which will be good news for all of us.

Let me say a couple of things, though. This is a preventive bill, and that's what makes it unusual as a piece of legislation, compared to so much legislation that comes before the House from all governments. This bill is meant to assist and create wider opportunities for a very complex system to prevent pathology from happening. Yet it's unusual for us to grapple with that, because so many times we, as a state, actually do become the parent of children. That's an unusual role for us to play; nevertheless, it is a fact of life that 5,000 children each year have the state as their parent.

We have to take that responsibility very seriously, but I do take all members' comments about how to do that in a way that makes families whole and does not break them up.

There is no question that our government wants this to be seen as a kids-first bill; there is no other way of describing it. I cannot claim credit for this thought, because I've seen it before from a social commentator. But when we invest in our children and our families with social programs now, we save in the way of paying less for social pathology in the future. That's what this is about. The bill is there to support families who can then support their children. It is not a guide for parenting. If parenting is working....

This is not to make judgments on the socioeconomic or cultural abilities of parents to parent. If your child is safe, healthy and secure, then this bill has no application to you. If you are functioning as a family and providing a nurturing environment -- not to make judgment on what or where that environment may be, or on what happens in that environment -- and if your child is healthy, safe and free from abuse and neglect, this bill doesn't apply to you.

What it is meant to do, though, is to assist when families may be in crisis and when, as a result of that family crisis, a child is put at risk. The bill is there to strengthen the family and provide more options to protect children and families. At the same time, it is to give recognition to the fact that there are different families in society today. There are many more

single-parent families, and, yes, there are different ways of parenting depending on what culture you come from. We have to make sure that this bill incorporates the widely known wealth of knowledge around what exactly constitutes a family, and therefore kids, in trouble. It is not unknown to society.... In fact, many experts out there can tell us clearly when a child is at risk, either by abuse or even threat of abuse. I know it's difficult.

I must confess to having been on a very sharp learning curve in this area about exactly what does have an effect on our children, about potentially abusive and indeed abusive situations as well, and about the impact that can have on children for the rest of their lives. We can have those discussions in committee about the issue of threats or potential for harm. There is lots of documentation that threats and the potential for harm actually have a great deal of effect on our children during their growing up.

I'll quickly touch on some of the points raised by the hon. members in second reading that we can deal with at committee stage. The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara raised a legitimate point around the fact that we have to have accountability for kids who are in care now. In the past, that accountability hadn't been there, and we've got many former kids in care who now have to go to the courts to seek that accountability. I hope to be able to show in committee that that accountability is there, and it may require that we make it widely known, from a public point of view, how to access that accountability.

The other point is well taken: financial accountability has to be there for children in care. Some of my colleagues have also raised the concern that it's too much intrusion by the state. I hope we can alleviate some of those concerns at committee stage, because the intent is not to intrude in the home; it is to offer support when the family is in crisis and has no other way except to turn to our ministry for support in that crisis. It's not to have their children taken away or to have their rights lessened, but to see our ministry as an alternative for supporting the family,

whereas before we weren't seen as a viable alternative. I hope that I can give some of those assurances as we get into committee stage.

I might also advise members of the House that if they wish to put amendments before me for consideration, I would be more than happy to look at those ahead of time and discuss them with them, or we can have the discussion in committee stage. I can't hold out promises on anything, but I'd be happy to discuss them.

Let me try to give some assurances regarding the differences between Bill 45 and Bill 46. I am not exactly sure what the hon. member was referring to, but the bills are meant to work together. They are supposed to jibe. They are not identical bills by any means, because the child, youth and family advocate is to support those who are being affected by the Child, Family and Community Service Act. One is to

[ Page 11553 ]

support the other. If that is not made clear, I hope that we can work out some of those misconceptions in committee stage.

I know that there are also some concerns in the House that we would be too intrusive -- that the legislation would perhaps now say that because we have so clearly defined what a child at risk is, we may then open up every family to being accused of having children at risk. That is not the intent, and I hope that is not the case. Much of this legislation is modelled after successes in other provinces and other jurisdictions. Our province is at the tail end of change in modernizing child welfare legislation. There is no intent to make families nervous.

I know that all of us in this chamber who are parents understand the difficulties of parenting today, and that with a great deal of struggle and a great deal of support from the community, the vast majority of people in British Columbia parent effectively.

This bill is intended to give greater assurances to those who are responsible for protecting children. They now have a clear guide and very specific language. It's a very plain bill. The language in the bill is easily understood, in most cases; that's a breakthrough for us as well. Those of us in the community who are responsible for children's protection will no longer be second guessing. We will know when a family is in crisis, and we will know when to offer them services. We will know when a child is in need of protection, and we will know when to protect that child.

We will know when youth are so alienated from their families that government has to come in and assist that youth to get off the streets and into some productive life.

[4:00]

I understand the concerns that are being expressed about whether the system can meet the changes and whether we will actually be able to move and develop a new system that can keep up with this legislation. That is our government's responsibility. I very clearly see it as my responsibility to ensure that the policies, procedures, regulations and staff training are well funded, well resourced and given all the support they possibly can be given to make sure that this legislation is a success and that its implementation contributes to that success.

In my mind there would be no greater failure than to underresource new legislation so that it has no choice but to fail. I have the greatest of confidence that two years from now we will be facing a completely different system -- a well-resourced system, a system that both the community and our own staff are well trained for -- and that there will be a different, much more open, point of view about how we protect our kids and how we strengthen our families. I look forward to ensuring that during committee stage. With that, I now move second reading of the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 39

Petter

Marzari

Pement

Edwards

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hammell

B. Jones

Cull

Gabelmann

MacPhail

Ramsey

Blencoe

Janssen

Farnworth

Conroy

Doyle

Lord

Streifel

Sawicki

Jackson

Kasper

Krog

Brewin

Lali

Neufeld

Fox

Hanson

Weisgerber

M. de Jong

Warnke

Anderson

Chisholm

Dalton

Reid

Hurd

NAYS -- 3

Serwa

Wilson

Tyabji

Bill 46, Child, Family and Community Service Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 12.

LIBRARY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 12; D. Lovick in the chair.

The Chair: I call the committee to order and ask those members who are not going to be here and who have other duties to please depart the House quietly and quickly.

section 1.

J. Tyabji: I'm at a serious disadvantage, because the copy of the bill in front of me is not the one I have marked up. So I'm going by memory, and it's been a couple of weeks.

I notice there's no definition of librarian in this act, although there was in the original. Could the minister explain why there's no definition and how the ministry will be guided without a definition?

Hon. D. Marzari: There are sections of the bill which refer to chief librarian. And common practices in this province very much define what librarians do. As a matter of fact, the number of public librarians is a minority right now. Many librarians work for corporations, universities or other publicly affiliated agencies.

The major issue here that I believe the member is asking is whether librarians should have self-determination, to begin to determine by themselves how they would like to define their professional experience and expertise and to accredit themselves. As I believe I said during second reading, I would be the first minister who would welcome an approach by librarians across this province to talk about an accreditation procedure and a professional librarians' act. However, that is not the case at this moment. I know there might be some interest.

Therefore you do not see a definition of librarian that has been accredited or that has gone through the appropriate professional act requirements for librarians.

J. Tyabji: So it wouldn't be the minister's intent to have some qualifications laid out for librarians. In the absence of a professional association, anyone who is filling a job as a librarian qualifies as a librarian. Is that what the minister is trying to say?

Hon. D. Marzari: As the current act does not set hiring standards for library boards, we can assume that an MLS degree is de facto the academic standard for our professional librarians. Library boards themselves are responsible for determining the appropriate level of training that they expect for librarians. We at the provincial level set an example for boards by requiring that the director of a public library service appointed by the minister be a qualified librarian. But as I said, it is up to the librarians themselves to determine when and how they wish to become accredited in a public library system in British Columbia.

[ Page 11554 ]

J. Tyabji: I should say that it's not my intention to take a lot of time with this bill, because I know that the librarians would like to see it passed, and there are only a few concerns. But there's also no definition of library, or what it is. And when we look at the next

section of the act, which is the purposes of the act, it doesn't really go into what the purposes of the library system are.

The reason I bring that up is that, with the changes in technology occurring right now, a public library could be construed as anything. In fact, many libraries are branching out to audiovisual, to certain parts of technology and to computer technology. Will there be some sort of future provision to define what a library is, so we know what falls under this act?

Hon. D. Marzari: This act largely deals with governance structures around public libraries in the province. In

section 1 in

part 1, you'll see that public library is defined to mean "a municipal library, a regional library district, a public library association or an integrated public library system." The provisions of this act basically bring together the requirements -- the menu, so to speak -- for what a public library should be.

The act is not theoretical, nor does it begin to expound on the nature of what public libraries might be in the future. It is simply

an act of governance to deal with the fact that the Library Act is some 70 years old and has been tinkered with over many years. I wouldn't call it a housekeeping act, because I think it has a vision simply by virtue of the fact that it is here in this House; but it is a governance act. It is

an act about accountability -- about who runs the libraries and how they should do that, what their terms should be and who pays -- rather than a discursive act that speaks to what libraries may be for our communities in the future.

J. Tyabji: I have one last question under this section, then. Considering that there is no definition for library.... I understand that the minister is saying that this approaches the structure. When we talk about municipal libraries or regional library districts, that is really in reference to the jurisdiction of the library, and there is no reference to what a library is. Does the minister have any concerns that libraries could be developed that are very different from the conventional concept of a library?

For example, when people think of a library, they think of a place where public funds provide access to books for the purpose of publicly accessible knowledge, whether that be reference materials or fiction. I can foresee that with changes in technology we could move into something more along the lines of public video stores, and I think that could be a concern. Is that something that has ever been discussed? It's one of those things that could easily be solved by a definition of a library.

[4:15]

In the absence of that, there is a lot of local control. I'm supporting local control, but I wouldn't like to see a change in the concept, and that's the only reason I raise that. That's the end of my questions on that section.

Hon. D. Marzari: The whole business of libraries is accessing information, and as communities choose how they wish to access information, so shall communities determine what that should look like. No, there have not been discussions as to what the future holds for functions and purposes and the technology surrounding libraries. But there is a basic, common purpose in this province about access to information, as there always has been, which is reinforced in this bill, by which I mean that in

section 46 we ensure that that access is free, with very few exceptions, to everyone who approaches a library.

L. Fox: I have one very quick statement in support of not defining either a library or a librarian. There's obviously some control through the funding process with respect to what a library is. The provincial government contributes considerable dollars to libraries throughout British Columbia. Any definition that we can think of today might limit the libraries of tomorrow, and I'd be concerned about that. We want libraries to have the freedom to evolve and meet the needs of our respective constituents.

Likewise, any definition that we put on a librarian would limit the opportunities and the flexibility that exist in the system in smaller libraries and in smaller communities to meet the needs in their communities. I just want to be on record as supporting the fact that I appreciate the rationale as to why there shouldn't be

definitions for either a librarian or a library.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

C. Tanner: I'd like to make the same declaration I made in second reading of this bill, in that a business with which I was previously associated sold books to libraries, and still does, so everybody should know that my next question regarding free libraries is not motivated with that in mind at all.

Section 39 under

part 5 of the old act mentioned free libraries. I haven't seen mention of the word "free" in the purposes

section or the definition

section or anywhere else in the bill that I can recall. I assume that that is not going to change. Could the minister give us that assurance?

Hon. D. Marzari: Stay tuned until we get to

section 46, which I would be very pleased to leap to at this very moment, if the member wishes.

J. Tyabji: The purposes

section of the act is obviously fairly important.

Section 2(c), for example, states that the act is "to support improvements in public library service." Is the ministry going to be supporting it -- in addition to some of the specifics of this bill -- with some technological support that would allow shared information on the inventories of all libraries in the province? Is that something that has been discussed?

Hon. D. Marzari: There are a number of examples of libraries coming together to provide services. In fact, I'm informed by our chief librarian, Barbara Greeniaus, who is sitting here, that our CD-ROM catalogue of all the facilities and books is in its third edition and was the first of its kind in the whole country.

Just a few days ago I had the privilege of opening InterLinka, which is basically a library service to access books from Hope to Bowen Island, so that anyone living in the lower mainland-plus will be able to access and receive delivery of books because of the technological innovation that we've been able to capitalize on and take advantage of, and the energies, obviously, of 27 different library boards. So, yes, I'm sure that a number of other projects will come on stream, just as these two projects have. We have a very dynamic library system in this province. I am not defining what it should or shouldn't be.

J. Tyabji: Although we've already covered whether or not the minister will be defining what a library system is, the

[ Page 11555 ]

minister has alluded to a number of computer.... I'm assuming that InterLinka is a computer link. Would the minister let us know whether or not libraries such as the library in the Legislature and some of the libraries associated with each ministry will be on that computer link and whether it will be accessible to the public library systems?

Hon. D. Marzari: At this point, no, but we are working towards that possibility.

J. Tyabji: A last question, then, on that subject: when the minister said that 27 libraries from Hope to Bowen Island have linked up, is that something that the ministry has facilitated and provided some support for? Is the ministry then going to offer the same kind of support to other libraries? Will that be concurrent with the act?

Hon. D. Marzari: It's all part of the federated systems, and we will be looking toward that.

I would like to correct the mention of 27 library boards and bring it to 12 library boards, hon. Chair.

The Chair: It is duly noted.

C. Tanner:

Section 2 refers to the purposes of this act. Surely a basic fundamental of the library service in this province is that it is free. I appreciate the minister pointing out

section 46 to me, but it seems to me that "free" should appear in the purposes

section of this act to make it clear to anybody reading the act that they have a free library service in this province; they shouldn't have to dig further back into the act to find it. What was the reason the minister's legislative writers decided not to include it in the purposes section?

Hon. D. Marzari: Under

part 5 of the act, which is

section 46, the rules laid down apply to all library boards. These came under the regulatory

section of the act, rather than under the statement of purpose. But I take the member's point.

Section 46 is well worth supporting, and it sets down a framework and guidelines for library boards throughout the province.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Fox: I have a very brief observation.

Section 3 allows that a municipality may establish a municipal library, but a

pre-existing library may veto that. I would like some explanation of what the ministry envisions and of the necessity for that clause. It would seem to me that if a service is already offered in the community that is meeting their needs, it's not likely that municipalities would start an initiative which would cost them tax dollars in order to develop a duplicate process. Perhaps the minister can explain to me the necessity of this section.

Hon. D. Marzari: The act is not to do library associations out of business; it's simply to encourage municipalities to recognize that libraries have an important role to play in their communities, and to structure for communities that have been looking for a more stable library arrangement a form of governance which is more stable across the province. It basically defines a municipal library board and gives municipalities the power to establish one.

It does not pre-empt or take away from those library associations which presently exist in many communities -- which are perfectly adequate and over the years have built the backbone of the library system. The municipal library is a form of governance which gives the association some stability, should the association wish to plug into the municipal status.

C. Tanner: I have a quick question to the minister about

section 3(3): "When a bylaw is adopted under this section, the municipal council must send the minister a copy of the bylaw." Is the legislation calling for the minister to give permission, acceptance, or recognition in that particular section?

Hon. D. Marzari: That's purely an information-granting activity so the municipality might give the association a grant.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Tyabji: I have two main subjects to canvass. Why aren't members of the local library association able to elect a voice to the board? I notice there could be five to 13 people appointed to the board by the municipal council, and there's no room for someone from the local association.

Hon. D. Marzari: There is nothing to prevent the library association from becoming involved with the municipal library, but the rules are that the municipal library must advertise for the positions so that appropriate choices can be made, which seems appropriate.

J. Tyabji: As I understand it, unless I'm mistaken, as I understand it, there are actually parts of the act that protect associations later on. We'll be getting there a bit later, obviously. I think there is a protection under

part 4 that recognizes the importance of a local association, yet in

part 2, the municipal council may appoint all the members of the board without any representation from the association. Later on, in

part 4, we can ask why there's such a discrepancy. In one we're entrenching the power, and in the other there's no power at all.

Hon. D. Marzari: There are two separate models that operate here, and I think the member is setting up the possibility of the two models conflicting. I don't believe that's the case. Here we're dealing with the situation where a municipal library board such as the one in Vancouver is to be established. In Cranbrook, for example, there's an association that obviously runs its library and will continue to do so until there's an agreement to do otherwise. This is not an assumption of this municipal model moving in and taking over; it's simply establishing a new model that can service municipalities if they so choose.

[4:30]

J. Tyabji: As I understand it, then, the library board appointed by the municipal council would only be put in place in the absence of an existing library board. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Marzari: I am informed that there are 18 municipal libraries functioning now. The procedures and regulations around municipal libraries will apply to them, and there are other communities that have library associations. They do not compete, and there is no overlap between them.

[ Page 11556 ]

J. Tyabji: The last question on this is that I note that the uneven number of members is "not fewer than five or more than 13." Then when we get into the regional library districts and look at the board, as I read it the board is going to have three members. I'm a little curious about why there would be a discrepancy. In this one we have up to 13 members on the board, and then a dramatic change to possibly only three. Is there a reason for such a difference, especially when the regional board has such a large jurisdiction?

Hon. D. Marzari: At the regional level, the number of people on the board will be determined by the number of participants actually paying into the service itself. So each participant will have a vote, obviously, on the regional library board. At the municipal level, five to 13 is a reasonable number for a board.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

J. Tyabji: I understand that many of the duties that have been given to the library board in this

section are similar to the duties of library boards or associations as they exist now. The minister might want to correct me on that.

But the question that I have is a more general one: why wouldn't there be an executive director function to take them over, especially things like hiring and dismissing employees, collective agreements, terms of employment and some of the details? When you have a board of possibly 13, there are quite a lot of duties that would normally be under a manager or an executive director.

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe it's generally felt that a chief librarian could easily take on that function of managing. As I say, one of the principal objectives of the act is to make the powers of the library boards consistent, one with the other. So you have here

an act which basically promotes consistency and activities that define the library functions.

J. Tyabji: When the minister says that these functions could be performed by a chief librarian, I would agree, and I would say further that a chief librarian more or less functions as an executive director. Yet these duties are given to the board rather than the chief librarian, and we haven't defined a librarian in the act, which makes it a bit problematic. The minister is saying that this is here for consistency. I would suggest that this could have been an opportunity to define a chief librarian and then put some of those duties there, making it a more effective model than what has existed or what we see here.

Hon. D. Marzari: The power is vested in the board itself; I mean that the corporate power of leasing buildings and doing the various other tasks which a library must do is vested with the board. How the board wishes to delegate that responsibility to whichever staff member is its own business, but the important thing is that the power is established here for the board itself.

J. Tyabji: Under subsection 9(f), we see that the library board "may acquire personal property for library purposes and dispose of personal property...." The language is a bit strange. I wonder why the adjective "personal" was included.

Hon. D. Marzari: Property, in this sense, means books, not real estate.

J. Tyabji: Yes, I do understand that. When someone has a library at home, I was imagining that the public library might want to acquire the personal property. I was just concerned to ask: why would they be disposing of personal property? How would the library have ownership of personal property to dispose of?

Hon. D. Marzari: Libraries turn over their inventory on a regular basis, and I would imagine that having this legal power to acquire and dispose just firms up the ability to acquire donations. To be able to dispose of that inventory is all part and parcel of what a board should be able to do. They do that now, and always have.

J. Tyabji: So when we read "dispose of personal property," that is pretty well the same concept, and "personal" is something that might be personal to the library.

Is it standard for libraries to prepare annual reports with copies sent to the minister each year? Is that new?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

J. Tyabji: What will the minister do with the reports? Will there be an annual report to the Legislature by the minister or some form of communication to the members of the assembly on the provincial picture of all the libraries reporting to the office?

Hon. D. Marzari: When annual reports arrive at the chief librarian's office, they are generally reviewed and offers are made to consult about any areas of concern. They generally come under the purview of the ministry staff. No annual report is put forward by the provincial ministry or the minister, but these reports are intended to be helpful to the ministry staff and to the libraries.

J. Tyabji: I would assume that the minister will allow the reports to be part of the public library that's also accessible by all the libraries.

The last question on this is: why did the minister need to put in subsection 9(h) "may sue and be sued," when the library board is a corporation and therefore would already be able to do that?

Hon. D. Marzari: I gather that the libraries will not have the power to own property outright -- that is, real estate. That was not the case before, and it isn't the case now under the new act.

J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if I misunderstood the answer -- or maybe I didn't ask the question. The question was actually under subsection 9(h), where it says that the library board may sue and be sued. Since it is a corporation, the minister wouldn't have to put that in the bill. The minister is saying that they can't actually own real estate property. I don't understand how that's relevant.

Hon. D. Marzari: Subsection 9(

h) was put in to clarify the powers of the municipal library. They would come under some forms of liability, as other corporations do. A library board is not a full corporation in the sense of it having the traditional powers that one would expect of a municipal council or of other public agencies that are considered to be full corporations.

[ Page 11557 ]

L. Fox: I have one brief question on this section, and it also falls in

section 8. Is that different than what exists in the present act? Is there something new in this legislation compared to what was in the last legislation?

Hon. D. Marzari: It is new.

L. Fox: In that this is under the municipal libraries section, and given that the municipalities would be held responsible, has the minister had any discussions with the Municipal Insurance Association about the liability concerns that may flow out of this section?

Hon. D. Marzari: The MIA has not been specifically contacted on this, but since the municipal library board usually conducts its business on municipal property, that would be the case now -- and previous to now. This is a new clause in the act, but the property on which libraries rest is usually municipal property. Nothing would have changed in terms of the status vis-a-vis the municipality. There would be limited new exposure for library boards having this clause in their act.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

L. Fox: It would appear to me that given that libraries have had the opportunity to own or lease their own property -- subsection 9(

e) gives them that opportunity -- a municipality would have been able to limit its liability if that property were wholly owned by the library association or board. By putting this clause in, you've now exposed the library board and the municipality to the same liability that it would have had in the previous legislation. Was that the intent of the act?

Hon. D. Marzari: In most of these cases -- in fact, in all that I'm advised about -- we're talking about leasing arrangements, not an arrangement where the municipal library board actually owns its property. The important thing here is that municipal library boards need a legal status that is consistent with their role as autonomous bodies. Corporate status is appropriate for a library board, which is empowered to employ staff to acquire various assets and to engage in contracts. So

section 8 is not out of keeping with what we would expect to put into provisions for a municipal library board. As I say, we're not exposing the board or the municipality to any greater liability than they would already be experiencing at this point in time.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

J. Weisgerber: The questions that I have on

section 10 deal with the question of sufficient funds for the library. Under

section 19 the existing act requires the municipality to provide sufficient funds for a library to operate.

Section 10 under this act -- and I assume that we can deal with all of the subsections as one unit -- essentially provides for the municipality only to approve a budget that may well have been amended by that same council. There doesn't appear to be any requirement for sufficiency in this act. I can only assume that the minister has deliberately changed the intent of the legislation, which no longer obliges a municipality to provide sufficient funds to a library but only to provide an approved budget that may have been amended by a municipal council.

Can the minister tell us what assurances there are for libraries that either municipalities or the province...will ensure sufficient funds for a library to operate?

[4:45]

Hon. D. Marzari: I think we can assume that sufficiency is assumed here -- that "sufficient to provide a library fund" under the old

section 19, and "a sum sufficient to finance the...approved budget" are, in effect, clauses around sufficiency. I think you can also assume that this act, which is well supported by libraries across the province and by municipalities and regional districts, is not intended to curtail or in any way drastically reduce the amount of funding for libraries. In fact, I think this act is a testimony to the provincial government and to municipal governments, which want to see libraries take their place in the sun and have appropriate recognition. The phraseology around sufficiency of funding....

We must assume there is going to be that commitment. There certainly is that commitment from the provincial level, in bringing this act forward in the first place. I think we can assume that municipal boards, when they're properly and duly structured -- or as they sit duly structured now by municipal councils -- are as much a part of the departments of municipal structure or functioning as any other function, and are possibly more important, because they are given a special governance. So let us just assume that sufficient is sufficient and assumed.

J. Weisgerber: I'm aware of at least one library that wasn't as confident as the minister would suggest. My own Dawson Creek library has raised this issue. They are not at all convinced that municipal governments, as they continue to face off-loading from the provincial government -- which has become the practice over the last couple of years -- will not be forced into cutting back in areas such as library funding, to the degree that libraries wouldn't be able to operate. They believe that this sufficiency issue has been quite deliberately taken out of this legislation.

Read together, sections 2 and 4 only oblige a municipal council to fund a library to the degree to which they may feel is appropriate. I think many libraries would like to see some amendment to this legislation or, at the very least, a very strong statement from the minister with regard to the intent of this legislation. A literal reading of the legislation certainly undermines the notion of sufficiency as it was outlined in the previous legislation.

Hon. D. Marzari: If the library board was having difficulty under previous legislation, it's possible they will have difficulty under the new legislation. All I can assure the citizens of Dawson Creek and the library board of is that this legislation is not going to take away any protection they already have. In fact, I would make the statement that subsection 10(4) does protect them by firmly putting the onus on the municipality to properly fund the library itself; that is the intent of subsection 10(4).

The bickering around whether sufficient is properly sufficient between the old and the new acts has nothing to do with any suggestion that there is going to be an insistence that libraries go it on their own. In fact, as I say, the commitment to bringing this act into the House should provide further stability to the library system in our province.

J. Weisgerber: The library board wasn't suggesting that they were having an ongoing problem with the act as it exists; they expressed concerns to me and to you, hon. minister, about the intent of the new

section 10.

[ Page 11558 ]

Perhaps we can become a bit more specific in our questions. If subsection (4) obligates the municipal council to finance the library's approved budget, could the minister tell us what kinds of constraints there are on the municipal council under subsection (2) to amend the budget? Under subsection (2), what would prevent a municipal council from amending the budget and reducing it by 50 percent, for example?

Hon. D. Marzari: The protection comes from the sheer business of local government. The whole reason for encouraging municipal library boards to take care of their libraries has to do with the municipal government actually being accountable to the taxpayers and the electorate. With the libraries accountable to the municipal councils, and the municipal councils accountable to their local electorate, one can assume that the triangle will kick in at a certain point and that we will not be looking at amendments to budget processes which cut back on library budgets.

It may be that they are, but at the present point in time, any municipal council can do the same, and most municipal library associations are facing similar difficulties.

We have never required a municipal council to fund a library at a specific level. This is not a money bill that will guarantee a certain level of funding to all libraries; rather, it's a guideline to municipal councils, in an attempt to bring a level of governance into the business of libraries and library boards, which I believe will stabilize libraries across the province and their relationship to municipal councils.

J. Weisgerber: Just so I'm clear, under

section 10 there are no constraints on a municipal council to amend the library budget in any way they might see fit. It seems to me, then, that the province is stepping away from any commitment or responsibility for maintaining a given level of library services in the community. The minister is saying -- rightly or wrongly -- that municipal councils and voters within the municipal council are going to be the sole arbitrators of library services, even though there may well be a fairly significant population outside the municipal council.

People who are not voters in municipal elections, and who have no influence over municipal governments, are going to be affected by these decision, but the province simply does not accept any responsibility for the level of library services in a community or municipality.

Hon. D. Marzari: Nothing has changed.

J. Weisgerber: I have a suspicion that this could last for a long time. What has changed is this: the previous legislation required the municipal government to provide sufficient funds for a library to operate.

Section 10, as it's laid out under subsections (2) and (4), removes any obligation of the municipal government. If the minister wants to defend that, that's fine. But I think it's important to understand that

section 10 takes away any obligation of a municipal government to maintain any level of service other than that which council may feel is within its own mandate to do.

Hon. D. Marzari: At present, the province pays grants only to libraries which are receiving, as a minimum, a matching level of local support from their municipal councils -- from their communities. This is not a money bill; this is a governance issue. The existing bill has been extant for many decades, and the issue of sufficiency has not arisen. It is a question of finding the appropriate level, and the municipal library board budgets for that appropriate level. The municipal council negotiates, obviously -- as they always do -- and a sum is agreed upon. That sum must obviously be sufficient to run the library.

If that sum is not sufficient to run the library, then there will be difficulties in the community electorally -- just as there would be for health services, for capital infrastructure or for any other service, except police, in most of the municipalities.

L. Fox: I have just one observation. I suppose one avenue that the minister has with respect to the concerns raised by the member for Peace River South is that considerable payments are made through her ministry to the respective library. If those obligations to fund the library weren't being met by the municipality in a way that makes good sense from a provincial perspective, perhaps there would be some opportunity at that point for the minister to provide some assurance to those people in that community.

Hon. D. Marzari: Well, not to change its policy in any way, shape, or form around the provision of grants to library associations or municipal library boards. The formulas are there and have been for some time, and our provincial government has been very clear in doing the best we can in a difficult fiscal situation to maintain those grants to libraries.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

L. Fox: I just have a very brief point here in that I understand that this board should have the opportunity, once the budget is set, to control its expenditures. My experience with the regional district was that we funded many societies, and requests for small capital improvements were approved on the basis of need. But oftentimes those societies, which are similar to this board, decided to change the priorities of those spending requests some time during the year. It se