2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26)

Hon. M. Coell

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

Hon. M. Coell

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Hon. S. Hagen

Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32)

Hon. J. Murray

School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34)

Hon. C. Clark

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

AIDS Vancouver Island

S. Orr

Women of Distinction Award recipients

H. Bloy

Vancouver Canucks and Chilliwack Chiefs hockey teams

J. Les

Oral Questions

Health care facility closings

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Effectiveness of referendum on treaty negotiations

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Clark

Powers of municipal governments

J. Kwan

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Recruitment of foreign-trained nurses

W. McMahon

Hon. S. Hawkins

Foster parent system in B.C.

J. Bray

Hon. G. Hogg

200th Street interchange project in Langley

D. Hayer

Hon. J. Reid

Status of rockfish industry

R. Visser

Hon. J. van Dongen

Petitions

Hon. J. van Dongen

P. Nettleton

Second Reading of Bills

Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31)

Hon. J. Murray

B. Bennett

J. Kwan

B. Lekstrom

B. Penner

R. Harris

Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17)

Hon. G. Hogg

V. Anderson

A. Hamilton

T. Christensen

J. Bray

J. Kwan

Community Care Facility Act (Bill 16)

Hon. K. Whittred

R. Hawes

T. Christensen

I. Chong

Hon. L. Reid

Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15)

Hon. S. Bond

J. Les

R. Masi

J. Kwan

[ Page 2813 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, visiting the Legislative Assembly today is Peggy

Brooks, an editorial supervisor with Hansard Services at the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario. Ms. Brooks is accompanied by her husband, Derek Fletcher, a

former MPP who represented Guelph. Would you please welcome them.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'd like to make two introductions today. Reggi Balabanov, who is the

president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, is joining us,

as is Brenda Turner, all the way from Castlegar, who is the second

vice-president of BCCPAC. I hope the House will make them both very welcome.

In addition

to that, I'd like to offer my congratulations to the 160 British Columbians who

entered the Boston Marathon this morning. That included Victoria's own Marcia

McNeil, who is married to press gallery president Scott Sutherland. Despite that

fact, she has finished the marathon, and her time was four hours and 19 minutes.

I hope the House will join me in congratulating her and every other British

Columbian.

[1405]

Hon. L.

Stephens: Visiting in the Legislature today are some friends and supporters

of mine from Langley. Both of these individuals work tirelessly for our

community, which is one of the reasons why Langley is such a wonderful place to

live. They're here to attend the annual general meeting of the Manufactured

Housing Association of British Columbia tomorrow. Would the House please make

welcome Mary and Dale Ball.

P. Bell:

I hate to contradict the Minister of Energy and Mines, but I'd be happy to offer

him leave if he'd like to run in a marathon.

We have a

very special guest in the precincts today. This particular gentleman —

speaking of Vimy Ridge last week — flew over 65 missions in France during

World War II in a Spitfire and came back from all of those missions. On top of

that, he was able to manage my campaign successfully in the last provincial

election. Would the House please make Tom Michael very welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: I want to take the opportunity to welcome back one of the members

of the Legislature who has been away for some time. I want to send our warmest

welcome and best wishes to the member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

MacKay: Today I'm pleased to introduce two visitors from the beautiful

Bulkley Valley in the northwestern part of our province. Visiting in the gallery

today I have Her Worship Mayor Sharon Hartwell from the village of Telkwa and

His Worship Mayor Brian Northup from the town of Smithers. I'd ask the House to

please make them welcome.

S. Orr:

I have two very special people here today in the gallery. One is Miki Hansen.

She is the executive director of AIDS Vancouver Island. The second is someone

who is no stranger to this House, Mr. Bert Hick, who is a board member. Would

the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. M.

Coell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Employment and Assistance Act.

Hon. M.

Coell: I move that Bill 26 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[1410]

Hon. M.

Coell: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce Bill 26, Employment and

Assistance Act. This act and a companion act for people with disabilities will

help the Ministry of Human Resources carry out its mandate to redefine income

assistance in British Columbia. This act is part of a fundamental shift towards

a culture of personal responsibility, self-reliance and employment. The

legislation will give the ministry the tools it needs to provide assistance,

create opportunity and support independence.

This act

will be the cornerstone of our new focus on employment first. It includes

employment plans for income assistance clients who are expected to work. These

plans will provide support and direction to clients as they carry out their job

search and take

part in job training. The act also addresses employment-related

programs to help our clients compete for the hundreds of thousands of jobs that

change hands every year in British Columbia.

We have

already committed $300 million for job placement and job training over the next

three years. This bill includes other measures that will encourage employment,

such as a two-year independence test prior to eligibility for income assistance

and time limits for employable people receiving income assistance. It

establishes a new independent, single-level appeal system that will lead to

faster appeal decisions. It is an important step towards a new era of

self-reliance and prosperity in British Columbia. I am proud to introduce it for

first reading.

[1415]

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[ Page 2814 ]

Motion

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 67

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Collins

Clark

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Bray

McMahon

Christensen

Hayer

Belsey

Bennett

Johnston

Mayencourt

Long

Chutter

Bell

R. Stewart

Brenzinger

Nuraney

Harris

Orr

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Visser

Lekstrom

MacKay

K. Stewart

Bloy

Suffredine

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 26

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.

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE FOR

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Hon. M.

Coell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.

Hon. M.

Coell: I move that Bill 27 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

Coell: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 27, Employment and Assistance for

Persons with Disabilities Act. This act is companion legislation to the

Employment and Assistance Act. It is specifically for people with disabilities,

people who share our universal desire to lead more independent and fuller lives.

establishing a separate act for people with disabilities, we are recognizing the

distinct needs of this community. We are recognizing that they face special

challenges in daily living and barriers to employment, but we also recognize

that many people with disabilities have a desire to work and have tremendous

skills they can bring to the workplace. We want to support and encourage them to

take their rightful place in the workforce. We will provide the tools to help

them develop their skills and guide them towards employment so that they may be

more financially independent and enjoy a more secure future.

At the same

time, we will continue to provide assistance to those who are unable to work

because of their disability. By maintaining this vital support while providing a

full range of mainstream and specialized employment programs, we are embarking

on a new era in the way government serves people with disabilities. The act will

be an important tool as we move forward, and I'm proud to introduce this bill

for first reading today.

I move the

bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[1420]

Motion

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 67

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Collins

Clark

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[ Page 2815 ]

Bill 27

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.

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT

Hon. S.

Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Agricultural Land Commission Act.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Bill 21, Agricultural Land

Commission Act, an important step in facilitating improved management of both

our agricultural and private forest lands.

Our

government believes the agricultural land reserve serves a compelling public

interest. British Columbians expect government to affirm the historic role of

the agricultural land reserve and to ensure the Land Reserve Commission reflects

the values and aspirations of our communities. British Columbians also believe

that the institutions of government should be continually improving, bringing

government closer to the people and finding new ways to improve services.

This bill

meets both of those goals. The commission will be more regionally responsive to

community needs by bringing decision-makers closer to those affected. The bill

also improves efficiencies by providing for more flexibility and new

opportunities for local governments and authorities to assume limited

decision-making powers under voluntary agreements. The bill also provides for a

dispute resolution mechanism with local governments and stronger enforcement

provisions. The commission's role in the forest land reserve will be phased out

responsibly over the coming year.

With the

implementation of the changes proposed in this bill, I believe our government

will have successfully fulfilled our new-era commitment to make the commission

more regionally responsive to community needs. I am pleased to present this bill

in the House today.

I move the

bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Bill 21

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.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. J.

Murray presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. J.

Murray: I move that Bill 32 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Murray: This bill amends the legislation governing contaminated sites in

order to accomplish three important goals. First and most importantly, it

eliminates duplication and counterproductive provisions in the regulation of

contaminated minesites in British Columbia. Second, it clarifies the

prerequisites to recover the costs of remediation in court. Third, the bill

clarifies the requirements needed to obtain authorization to conduct various

activities on land that may have been contaminated.

These

changes are an important step to ensure that the regulation of contaminated

sites is efficient and effective for all parties involved.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[1425]

Bill 32

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. C.

Clark presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled School Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. C.

Clark: I move that Bill 34 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

Clark: I am pleased to introduce Bill 34, the School Amendment Act, 2002.

This act makes a number of changes to the School Act, which is administered by

the Ministry of Education. The bill follows through on our commitments to

improve student achievement by enhancing parental involvement in children's

schools, by providing parents and students with more choice about what school

they would like to attend, by lifting spending restrictions that have tied the

hands of school boards and by giving school boards more autonomy in the

management of their local affairs while making them more publicly accountable

for student success.

It enables

a new level of involvement for parents by establishing school planning councils

on which parents must constitute the majority. It acknowledges the right of

district parent advisory councils to advise school boards on educational issues,

something that the BCCPAC has been asking for, for a long time. It provides

students the right to attend any school in the province, subject to space

availability, and it establishes catchment areas to ensure that students have

the right to attend their neighbourhood school.

It provides

school boards with greater local autonomy by enhancing their capacity to manage

local decisions, decisions such as opening and closing schools. It permits

boards to share in the proceeds from the sale of

[ Page 2816 ]

capital assets. It enhances boards' ability to share administrative services

with other school boards. It enables boards to create separate entities to

engage in entrepreneurial activities such as offshore schools. It addresses a

promise to school boards for more flexibility by fulfilling the government's

commitment to develop a new funding allocation system.

It enables

the implementation of generally accepted accounting principles for school

boards. It requires school boards to complete accountability contracts. It

permits the appointment of a special adviser to review the progress of boards

where they are not meeting the goals of student achievement. It expands the

power of the Lieutenant-Governor to replace a school board for more than just

financial reasons. It changes the title of administrative officer back to the

titles of principals and vice-principals so that we can recognize that

principals and vice-principals are leaders in education in their schools.

It requires

certified teachers to assess every enrolled student to ensure that all students

are being treated equitably. It enhances the ability of the Francophone

Education Authority to manage its finances by requiring that it have a chief

financial officer.

Mr.

Speaker, education is the cornerstone of our society, and this bill continues

our commitment to make the system accountable at every level and indeed to put

students first.

I move that

the School Amendment Act, 2002, be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) AIDS VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Orr:

I rise today to tell you about a wonderful organization in my community, called

AIDS Vancouver Island. This organization now services about 30 clients per day,

and, sadly, it has had a 25 percent increase in HIV-positive clients over the

last year. Their volunteer program last year logged 19,000 hours of volunteer

time. Since 1986 they have successfully operated a needle exchange in Victoria

and the Cowichan Valley. This was the first needle exchange in Canada.

[1430]

The

Victoria facility has a kitchen that offers hot daily lunches. AIDS Vancouver

Island works with not only people who are HIV-positive or have AIDS but also

people with hepatitis C and other communicable diseases. Their outreach service

covers the south and central Island, and they have facilities in Victoria,

Duncan and Nanaimo. One exceptional service is their speakers bureau on health

promotion and education and particularly their involvement with school

districts, where they offer a program called AIDS 101.

The reason

this so very important is because of the onslaught of drug company, television

and print advertising coming up through the United States showing young people

climbing, hiking, rock climbing and snowboarding, who are HIV-positive. This is

a concern because the message it sends is that this disease is nothing to be

worried about. All you need to do is take their drugs, and you will be able to

live a life as shown on the television ads. Our young people see these ads and

think the same. This is very dangerous, so AIDS Vancouver Island, through their

program AIDS 101, are making sure our young people know the truth: yes, you can

live a normal life but not as portrayed in this advertising. If you contract

HIV, life changes drastically, and you must take precautions.

AIDS

Vancouver Island, under the wonderful care of their executive director, Miki

Hansen, makes our community more educated and understanding, and her

organization offers support that is non-judgmental. Their clients have a sense

of belonging where they feel safe. We can learn from them.

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION

AWARD RECIPIENTS

H. Bloy:

I rise today to recognize the winners of this year's Tri-Cities Soroptimist

International Women of Distinction awards. The following winners were honoured

for their dedication and devotion within their communities this past Sunday,

April 14.

First,

Jacqueline Kassa is the founder and manager of Relay for a Friend. I will

personally be participating with my wife on Ann's team this year. The second

winner is Shawn Bayes, who is the executive director of the Elizabeth Fry

Society. Third is Janet Milne, who is the co-founder of Glory House. Janet is

recognized for her devotion to help women make the transition to independent

living. The fourth recipient is the Port Coquitlam Area Women's Centre. It is

awarded for its efforts to advance the status of women by providing them with

supportive counselling, information and referrals to appropriate services. The

fifth recipient is Colleen Chapman, a registered nurse who is recognized for

being a positive role model for young women entering the nursing profession.

In addition

to honouring these five Women of Distinction recipients, the Tri-Cities

Soroptimists presented two Women's Opportunity awards to Frieda Lalja and Noreen

Prescott to continue their studies and improve their skills. Also, a young

student, Lindsay Francis, received the Soroptimist Violet Richardson award for

outstanding volunteerism in the community. I would like to congratulate all the

winners.

VANCOUVER CANUCKS AND

CHILLIWACK CHIEFS HOCKEY TEAMS

J. Les:

Hockey fans throughout British Columbia are excited today about the fact that

the Vancouver Canucks have qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs. The Canucks

this year have demonstrated that hard

[ Page 2817 ]

work, determination and an absolute commitment to "never quit" pays

off in the end. I'm sure all members of this House join me in wishing the

Canucks every success in the upcoming playoffs. For starters, the Canucks' next

assignment is to clip the Detroit Red Wings. Can they do it? You bet they can.

I'd like to

turn, however, to another set of hockey playoffs: the junior A hockey

championships in the British Columbia Hockey League. For many years the

Chilliwack Chiefs have entertained Chilliwack hockey fans. This year was no

exception. The Chiefs burned up the league with their regular season record of

46 wins, only ten losses and four ties — easily the best in the league. They

continue their success in the playoffs. Firstly, the Chiefs derailed the

Coquitlam Express, then went on to declaw the South Surrey Eagles. Next they

scuttled the Nanaimo Clippers, and just this past weekend they defanged the

Vipers from Vernon. As a result, the Chiefs have won the B.C. Hockey League

junior A provincial championship and the Fred Page Cup.

[1435]

Next, the

Chilliwack Chiefs will be playing the Alberta Junior Hockey League champion

Drayton Valley Thunder in a seven-game series starting tomorrow, April 16. The

winner of this series will head for Halifax to compete for the Royal Bank Cup,

Canada's national junior A hockey championship. I have no doubt that Chilliwack

will prevail in these playoffs.

We are

justly proud of our provincial champions. Coach Harvey Smeyl and his team have

been a real credit to the city of Chilliwack. I know that they will be

first-class ambassadors for the province in the upcoming series. We congratulate

them on their magnificent season and look forward to seeing the Royal Bank Cup

on display in Chilliwack and welcoming the team back as national champions. Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to junior A hockey in British Columbia, the Chilliwack

Chiefs rule.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE FACILITY CLOSINGS

MacPhail: This government's getting set to take the axe to patient care,

breaking its single most important promise to British Columbians. They're taking

very special care to make sure they get the spin right. Over the weekend the

Liberal caucus met with the health region CEOs. They met in a secret caucus

meeting to prepare their lines for the pending announcements of cuts to health

care.

To the

Minister of Health Services: can he tell British Columbians when the

announcements will be made about what cuts in health care are coming to their

communities?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It's actually good news for British Columbians. We went into the

election promising to maintain the health budget of $9.3 billion. We've, in

fact, increased it to $10.4 billion. I don't call that a cut.

Clearly,

for the first time, we actually have a caucus of 77 individuals who are

interested in solving some of the challenges in health care. Not once in the ten

years that the previous government was in place did they ever have a caucus

meeting where they brought everybody in to help find solutions to the problems

that patients are facing throughout British Columbia.

I'm proud

of the work that's being done by this caucus. We're going to put in place a

sustainable, integrated health care system that's actually going to meet the

needs of British Columbians in every community throughout this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Let's take the minister at his word. Let's hear what he told his

caucus during the weekend in the most open and accountable government. For

months now, British Columbians have been told that hospitals in B.C. will close,

but they haven't been told which hospitals are on the block. That was discussed

this weekend.

The last

time we asked this minister about which hospitals were going to close, the

government took the question on notice. We all know that the announcement is

coming within days. The special secret caucus meeting took place, so I know the

minister now knows what's going on. To the Minister of Health Services: will he

tell British Columbians if, as a part of his announcement within days, he will

finally come clean and tell all British Columbians which hospitals are going to

close?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It's interesting that the member has previously criticized our open

cabinet meetings, which is the most transparent government we've ever had in the

history of Canada, and now she wants us to have open caucus meetings as well.

Clearly, I

think this is an exciting time for British Columbians. It is the first time that

we've actually taken a comprehensive look at how health care services should be

delivered in this province so that we get rid of this disjointed system we've

had up to now that has not met the needs of patients throughout the province.

We've put together integrated systems where one hospital complements the other

hospital, which complements community care, where mental health programs are

integrated into those systems. That's the kind of system we're putting in place

so that we can actually have a sustainable health care system and move forward

in this province so that the needs of patients can get met.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: All I'm asking is for this minister to come clean with the rest of

British Columbians about

[ Page 2818 ]

what he told his caucus this weekend. All over the province people are in a

state of high anxiety and worry about the future of their hospital. They've had

no input into the decisions. Now the big shoe is about to drop on them.

[1440]

preparation for this announcement, what has this minister done? He's allowed the

interior health authority to hire grief counsellors. Maybe it's the Liberal

backbenchers that decided they needed grief counsellors for their smaller

communities.

So let me

again ask the minister: instead of preparing spin lines, instead of hiring grief

counsellors, will the minister open up his secret caucus meeting to the rest of

British Columbia and finally ask British Columbians for input on what they want

to see for the future of their public health care system, rather than the cuts

that he is going to impose on them?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have had one of the most transparent consultation programs that

this province has ever had. The last time that the Health Committee of this

Legislature met was in 1993, and the previous government should be ashamed of

that track record.

Last fall

this government…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …activated the Health Committee. Actually, the…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …member for Vancouver-Hastings was a member of that Health

Committee. How many hearings did she actually attend throughout this province

when we went out and consulted with communities and health workers? She did not

take the time to attend one single hearing.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

EFFECTIVENESS OF REFERENDUM

ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

J. Kwan:

The Liberal government wouldn't know the word "consultation" if it hit

them square in the face. Just ask the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the editor on the weekend, the Attorney General made

yet another muddled attempt to clear up this government's position on the

referendum. After saying for weeks that the government will only be bound by a

yes vote, the Attorney General is now saying: "All votes count." But

the question remains: count for what? According to the Attorney General, a no

vote means that the government can advance a negotiating position that is not

linked to any particular principle, and a yes vote does not prevent the

government from negotiating an exception to the principle. So now we have

confirmation that regardless of the vote, the government is going to do whatever

it wants.

Will the

Deputy Premier tell us: just why are we going through a $9 million exercise if

neither a yes nor a no vote determines the government's position?

Hon. C.

Clark: On behalf of the Attorney General, I'd be delighted to take that

question on notice.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

POWERS OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

J. Kwan:

Maybe at the caucus meetings you can share the letter to the editor from the

Attorney General.

The Premier

wants first nations…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…to be just like municipalities…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan:

…but the government is planning on taking control away from municipalities

over land use decisions with respect to the ALR, the agricultural land reserve.

The mayor of Delta is calling this a brutal attack on the powers of all local

governments. On the one hand, the Premier's saying that first nations should

have the delegated powers of municipalities, yet on the other hand, he's

eliminating the powers of municipalities when it comes to land use.

Will the

Minister of State for Community Charter just be straight with the first nations

and tell them what municipal powers this government is trying to take away from

them at the treaty table?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: In the near future we'll deposit in the House a draft of the

community charter. It will not include land use planning or land use policies,

as that will be part of a further review.

[ Page 2819 ]

RECRUITMENT OF

FOREIGN-TRAINED NURSES

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. It has been

reported that the B.C. Nurses Union has withdrawn from a federal program which

facilitated the hiring of foreign nurses to work in British Columbia. As a

result, I understand that the program has been suspended. Can the Minister of

Health Planning tell us if this will result in foreign nurses no longer being

recruited to work in British Columbia?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I want to say that our government values nurses. We want to make

sure our working nurses are supported with the staff that they need at the

bedside to do their job and make sure patients get the safe and quality care

that they deserve.

[1445]

I'm aware

of this development, and I am disappointed, because I think we all know that we

need specialty care nurses in specialized areas like cardiac and intensive care

units. I am advised that the parties close to this issue are working very hard

to resolve it.

The good

news is that we are actively utilizing the provincial nominee program to recruit

foreign-trained nurses, and this program allows us to speed up the landed

immigration process. To date we've received over 100 applications in that

program. Of them, 50 have been health care–related, and 45 of them have been

approved for nursing, and that's good news for patients.

FOSTER PARENT SYSTEM IN B.C.

J. Bray:

Recent media reports have suggested that financial assistance to foster parents

is being reduced. Foster parents play an important role in our society, assuming

responsibility for the upbringing of children whose own parents may not be able

to care for them. Can the Minister of Children and Family Development tell us

whether or not these reports are accurate?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Clearly, foster parents are the core of the services we provide to

children in this province. The reports have been that there has been a cut in

the amount to be paid to those foster parents who are at level 2 and level 3.

That is in fact not true. There was an agreement struck in 1992 with the B.C.

Federation of Foster Parent Associations, and they set out the policies by which

foster parents would be remunerated across this province. There was a 10 percent

increase in that number, which was given approximately one year ago, and there

has been an inequitable application of that policy.

About

one-third of the 1,700 foster parents at level 2 and level 3 have been receiving

payments at both the core level and the program level. There is an economy of

scale which is generated and which was agreed upon. You get a certain amount for

maintenance, and that reduces slightly with each subsequent child up to three

children. That has not been applied across the province equitably. We've now

asked that it is applied equitably across the province so that all foster

parents who are providing similar services are compensated in a similar manner.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has a supplementary question.

J. Bray:

I appreciate that clarity. Foster parents, as the minister knows, are chosen

with great care, and particular attention is being paid to their ability to

provide a stable home for children and children in need. These foster parents

should be consulted in any changes government is considering. Will the Minister

of Children and Family Development consult with foster parents if changes are

contemplated to the foster care system, and can he outline for us the process by

which they can get involved with his ministry to develop these community-based

programs?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The director of child protection has been meeting with the B.C.

Federation of Foster Parent Associations since September, talking about the

programs, talking about the processes. There have been some problems with

respect to that organization and its ability to fully represent all of its

members. I can assure you that we have been continuing to meet with them and

will continue to meet with them to look at changes which will make our system

even better.

The system

in British Columbia today is seen as one of the very best in terms of

recruitment, support and compensation for foster parents across Canada and is

looked to as a model within that. As we move to our new governance models and

are looking at five regions, we'll be looking at support systems which will

exist and support foster parents within those regions, and we'll be consulting

with them to make sure we have a system that supports them in the most effective

method possible.

200TH STREET INTERCHANGE

PROJECT IN LANGLEY

Hayer: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The province has

provided….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hayer: The province has been involved in negotiations with the city of

Langley over the changes to the 200th Street interchange. Many of my

constituents have been calling my office concerning the status of this project

due to the high volume of traffic in this area. Can the Ministry of

Transportation please tell my constituents what the status is of the 200th

Street interchange?

Hon. J.

Reid: Mr. Speaker, this is an important project. Just two weeks ago a

supplementary agreement

[ Page 2820 ]

was signed with a contractor that allows this project to go ahead, and the

design phase is once again underway.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Surrey-Tynehead has a supplementary question.

[1450]

Hayer: Like so many of their other promises, the previous government failed

to deliver on the commitment to move forward on this project. My constituents

are concerned and wondering when this project will be complete. Can the Minister

of Transportation please tell my constituents when this project will begin and

when it will be completed?

Hon. J.

Reid: The project is underway now with the design phase. The contractor does

have to get certain permits that are related to the work that has to be done.

They apply for those permits and obtain them. As well, there are still

discussions with the township of Langley that have to take place. We expect the

project to be completed within the next two years.

STATUS OF ROCKFISH INDUSTRY

Visser: British Columbians have always acknowledged the need to manage our

fish stocks in a responsible manner. Over the last couple of months there have

been numerous reports of a declining number of rockfish on B.C.'s coast, and the

federal Department of Fisheries is now poised to close this fishery. Can the

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries tell us what his ministry has been

doing to monitor this issue and what role they may be playing in this debate?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Certainly, we're concerned about the status of rockfish. This is

a very long-lived fish, and it is caught in a lot of bycatch in a lot of

fisheries. We are concerned that the conservation measures that the federal

government is implementing be done in a phased-in manner. I've had some

conversations with the federal Fisheries minister. He's certainly receptive to

that idea. We are concerned that these conservation measures are done in a

manner that does not very negatively and immediately impact the recreational

fishery, the commercial fishery and the first nations fishery.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I have a petition to present. This petition is signed by 8,373

British Columbians. It is asking the government to proceed immediately with the

construction of a new publicly financed and publicly owned hospital and health

care centre in the Fraser Valley.

Nettleton: I ask leave to present a petition.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Nettleton: I have a petition from a number of Prince George landlords asking

for a review of the Residential Tenancy Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 31.

Second Reading of Bills

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. J.

Murray: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill

is an important step in ensuring that British Columbia's conservation officers

are able to provide efficient and effective environmental enforcement services.

British Columbians depend on the conservation officer service to protect and

support the management of the province's environment and wildlife. In order to

meet the expectations of British Columbians and in order to deliver services

effectively, it's essential to have the best possible organization of the

conservation officer service.

[1455]

important part of effective service delivery is an efficient administrative

process. However, under the current legislation the enforcement powers of

conservation officers are distributed among the Environment Management Act and

21 other provincial statutes.

These

statutes are not consistent in terms of the enforcement powers they grant to

conservation officers. This has led to a need for multiple administrative

processes to support various enforcement activities. This bill consolidates and

harmonizes the enforcement powers of conservation officers in a single statute,

the Environment Management Act. It brings together, in a

schedule to the act, a

list of all the provincial statutes under which conservation officers have

enforcement authorities and applies specified enforcement powers consistently to

all of the listed statutes. These changes create a one-window reference point

for the range and scope of conservation officer powers.

The bill

also makes it possible for the

schedule to be amended by regulation. This will

enable more efficient and timely updating of the conservation officer

authorities in response to changing needs and future changes to the legislation.

This bill

also transfers the power to appoint conservation officers from the minister to

the chief conservation officer. This change will eliminate appointment

procedures that are unnecessarily high-level and bureaucratic. The chief

conservation officer will have the primary operational responsibility for making

appointments, although this authority will remain subject to my direction. This

delegation of authority will allow the chief conservation officer to respond in

a timely

[ Page 2821 ]

manner to changing enforcement needs across the province.

addition, the chief conservation officer will be given the authority to empower

special classes of conservation officers. These auxiliary and special

conservation officers will provide supplementary environmental enforcement

services as needed. The powers of each of these classes of conservation officers

will be determined by the chief conservation officer in accordance with their

designated duties.

The working

partnerships with other jurisdictions are an important part of enforcement

services generally, and environmental enforcement is no exception. Flexible

management and delivery of environmental protection and enforcement are needed

to ensure the highest level of service delivery. This bill enables the creation

of operational partnerships between the conservation officer service and other

enforcement agencies.

The

province's conservation officer service has benefited from enforcement

authorities granted by other jurisdictions. However, our current legislation

does not provide the conservation officer service with adequate statutory

authority and flexibility to fully utilize those partnership opportunities. To

do so, the conservation officer service needs to be able to reciprocate with

grants of provincial enforcement powers to agency partners. This bill will

correct that deficiency. Potential agency partners include bylaw enforcement

departments in local governments in the province, enforcement agencies in other

provinces such as Alberta's environmental enforcement service and federal

agencies such as the enforcement arm of Environment Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, Bill 31 is an important step in meeting the ministry's mandate. It

supports this government's commitments to ensure a high state of environmental

management of provincial land and resources and to ensure that all laws are

applied and enforced consistently across British Columbia. In short, this bill

will help us deliver improved and more cost-effective environmental enforcement

services.

Mr.

Speaker: Any further debate on Bill 31?

Bennett: I just had a few words I wanted to say today in response to the

introduction of Bill 31. First of all, the purpose or advantage of the bill is

to streamline administrative procedures within the conservation service by

creating more efficient processes for appointing COs. That is, of course,

consistent with our new-era direction of making government more responsive to

the needs of British Columbians. It's also consistent with the laudable goal of

simplifying and reducing regulations.

[1500]

The bill

also consolidates and harmonizes conservation officer empowerment, enforcement

powers and immunities, which will make it easier for the ministry to provide

enforcement services across B.C., especially in the vast rural areas of B.C.

where the CO is often the only provincial government presence for hundreds of

miles.

More

importantly, those changes will make it easier for all British Columbians to

understand the enforcement roles of conservation officers and to assist them in

their conservation duties. In the riding that I come from in East Kootenay, the

people who live there have very positive relationships with the local

conservation officers, so this will be good news to them.

Thirdly and

finally, this act enables more effective partnerships with environmental

protection agencies in other jurisdictions and at other levels of government. I

refer specifically to

section 8.2 of the act, where it says: "…the chief

conservation officer…may enter into agreements with other agencies of

government, including those of the federal government and of provincial,

municipal and first nations governments, respecting (

a) law enforcement delivery

related to environmental protection or natural resource use…."

That

applies quite specifically in the East Kootenay, because we are obviously

adjacent to Alberta, and a lot of the federal and provincial parks use the

provincial boundary as the boundary for those parks. We do have a lot of

situations where it's almost impossible for the Alberta government to access

certain of their areas and impossible for our conservation officers to access

some of our own areas, so we have a relationship developed there with Alberta.

Secondly,

this act allows for activities that are normally carried out by conservation

officers to be carried out by another delegated officer, particularly with

respect to wildlife-human conflict response and management, which again is a

problem that we have in the East Kootenay with grizzly bears, black bears and

cougars. Once again, this ought to allow the ministry to provide a higher level

of service to the people of rural B.C.

In general,

I wanted to say that anything that simplifies the public's dealings with the

provincial bureaucracy is a good thing, and anything that redirects money to the

important work of conservation officers is also a good thing. I applaud the

ministry for bringing forward this very positive bill.

Mr.

Speaker: On second reading of Bill 31, the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

The main point of this bill, as we understand it, is to centralize the role and

definition of the conservation officers under one act instead of the various

different statutes. It removes the main definition from the Wildlife Act and

replaces it with a new one in this present act introduced by the minister.

Essentially,

there are no significant statutory changes to any of the bills consequentially

amended. Rightfully, this is a bill that ought to fit under the miscellaneous

bill that government generally puts together.

This act is

meant to make the conservation service more efficient, the minister says. Of

course, as the minister said, in my view this is an important step to meet

[ Page 2822 ]

the ministry's mandate. One has to ask, though, what is going on within the

ministry. Particularly, how is this minister going to meet her mandate?

You would

think her central mandate would be to ensure there is protection of the air

quality, the water quality, the environmental integrity and the ecosystem.

However, what this minister is faced with…. I think the first and primary

objective within the mandate of her ministry is, quite frankly, to meet the

bottom line. With that, she has to look for ways to cut programs. Under the

new-era approach, of course, that is all disguised as efficiency.

Let's just

take a look at the budget for this area in '01-02. We see the budget starting at

$17 million for '01-02. In '02-03 it does increase to $19 million, but then for

'03-04 it reduces down to $15 million and then in '04-05 to $11 million.

The

question then becomes: where are the enforcement officers going to be funded

from, and how much of a cut will they be faced with? I think these are the big

questions that need to be addressed by the minister when she says it is an

important step to meet the ministry's mandate with respect to this bill.

[1505]

In the

estimates process we canvassed with the minister, and she advised that within

the ministry there are about 120 enforcement officers and 35 compliance

officers. I can only presume that under this act the enforcement officers and

the compliance officers will be rolled into one. That brings us to 155

enforcement individuals in this area for conservation. The opposition will

canvass with the minister, when we get into committee stage, under what

definition the compliance officers are and whether they are included in this

piece of legislation.

The bill

also appears to grant the conservation officers powers to break the law in the

performance of their duties, presumably for undercover work. The issue for

committee debate will be to examine the powers granted to the conservation

officers. The

schedule under

section 9 outlines the different officials that

will have different powers. Some include peace officers, which presumably means

that they will have similar powers to police officers. We will be canvassing

this issue with the minister in committee stage to determine whether or not

conservation officers will indeed be given the power to break laws in the

performance of their duties, under what auspices they would be able to do that

and what powers will be granted to them.

Really, the

bill, as you look at it substantively, has no significant statutory changes.

Essentially, it ought to be a bill that the government would introduce under the

miscellaneous act.

Lekstrom: I rise today to support second reading of Bill 31. Looking after

our environment and our wildlife is of utmost importance and of utmost

significance not just to this government but, I would hope, to each and every

British Columbian that values the tremendous province we live in.

This bill

is going to allow flexibility, a flexibility that for a long time hasn't been

there and what I consider to be one of the most important factors in this bill.

It's going to allow our conservation officers to spend more time in the field.

That's really what it's all about. The partnerships that are going to be gained

through this piece of legislation, I think, are going to be immense. When we

look at what the bill offers, it's going to allow our conservation officers to

partner with many other individuals within the sector so that we can get out

there and be in the field.

I represent

Peace River South, a very vast riding. We have three conservation officers in

the entire riding of Peace River South, an area that's very difficult to cover.

I can tell you that with the flexibility that's allowed under this new piece of

legislation and the partnerships that will be put forward, we're going to stand

a much better chance of doing a greater job of looking after our environment and

our wildlife sector. In doing so, we're going to do that for each and every one

of us.

I want to

speak briefly about what this means to the wildlife aspect. I'm going to touch

on the hunting, something that is very important to the people not just of Peace

River South and Peace River North but of the entire province. Hunting isn't just

for the people that live in these areas. We have many people who come to our

region to experience the great outdoors, experience the beauty and experience

the true issue of getting out into the wilderness and hunting and fishing and

carrying on.

What we

need, though, is the ability to make sure that these are carried out in a manner

which is sustainable, one that carries certain issues with it that we have to

maintain. Some people don't always come well prepared, for instance, and there

are violations that take place. We need the ability as a government, through our

conservation officers, to address those and enforce what we need to enforce when

the time arises.

That brings

me back to the issue of having three conservation officers — and I'm going to

reflect Peace River South in particular — being able to cover the entire area.

Those three individuals, as hard as they work — and I know they work hard day

in and day out, because the environment and the wildlife are in their hearts,

and they want to make sure it's maintained — need the ability to partner. I

can't stress that enough.

When you

look at the issue of the red tape and what took place before, this eliminates

all kinds of red tape, which is in line with our government's commitment to

streamline the processes so that when we're looking after our environment or our

wildlife or any other aspect of government in British Columbia and its

functions, we're going to make it easy to do business with the government. That

doesn't mean we're going to overlook the needs of the citizens of our province.

What it does mean is that we're going to recognize those needs and service those

needs in a way that's friendly and that works. Far too often we've seen times

when something that would seem very simple to the average person, in order to

approach government, has

[ Page 2823 ]

taken months — many times much longer than that — to achieve.

[1510]

I want to

stand and reiterate my support for Bill 31 today. Not only does it enhance our

ability to look after our environment and our wildlife, it is actually going to

streamline a process and, at the end of the day, deliver a better service to

British Columbians.

That's what

providing good government is all about. It's not about putting a piece of

legislation together so that we can bring it forward, if it has no meaning. I am

going to have to differ. I think this is a very significant issue for the

province of British Columbia and Bill 31. We're streamlining a process, and

while we're streamlining that process, we're making the delivery of looking

after our wildlife and our environment better for the people of British

Columbia.

With that,

I want to commend the minister for bringing this piece of legislation forward. I

thank you.

Penner: I, too, rise in support of this bill. I think it's worthy of all of

our support, notwithstanding the comments from the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

I'd first

of all like to dispute her claim that this bill is insignificant. In fact, her

own comments tend to refute her allegations, when she raises the spectre, in an

attempt at fearmongering, that somehow the conservation officer service will

engage in unlawful activities. I think it's a reprehensible comment from the

member opposite. It reflects a lack of understanding and lack of knowledge about

the individual members who work as conservation officers on behalf of the

citizens of British Columbia.

This bill

is important because it does pull together the various provisions in 22 separate

laws of British Columbia that govern the activities, the mandate and the

jurisdiction of conservation officers. That is a step forward in terms of

openness and accountability, making it easier for the public to understand what

truly are significant powers that have been bestowed upon conservation officers.

Yes, to

reflect the comments of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, conservation

officers in British Columbia do have significant legal authority. That is how it

must be. We're taking a step forward, in terms of public accountability and

legislation that confer powers on conservation officers into one bill — this

bill that we're debating here in the Legislature today. That is a step forward

for accountability and making it easier for the public to understand the roles

and powers of conservation officers.

I perhaps

approach this bill a little differently than the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant because, unlike her, I have worked on the front lines of environmental

protection prior to being elected here to the Legislature. In the late 1980s I

worked as a park ranger for what was then the Ministry of Environment, Lands and

Parks. I can attest to the fact that there are some people that frequent the

wilderness areas of British Columbia who don't have much respect for the

wilderness, the wildlife and the parks of our province. It is important that the

people we hire to go out there and protect these public assets be given legal

authority to uphold the integrity of our valued institutions such as parks,

wildlife and other wilderness areas in the province.

It is not a

pleasant task, I can tell you, to confront somebody late at night who may have

had too much to drink, who is armed with a shotgun and who is taking issue with

you when you're telling them that they shouldn't be setting fire to a park

picnic table or cutting down trees in a provincial park. Similarly, I can assure

you that conservation officers in remote locations take little pleasure in

having to confront people who are armed, who are violating various statutes of

British Columbia when it comes to hunting and fishing. Unfortunately, that does

happen. That's not the majority of people who hunt or fish, but occasionally

there are bad apples that need to be dealt with.

We have

asked conservation officers to go into harm's way, and it's important that they

have the support of the Legislative Assembly in terms of proper authority to lay

charges, when necessary, and to uphold the law when we ask them to do that.

Otherwise, we're simply being completely unfair to those good individuals who

have devoted their lives to protecting assets and wilderness and wildlife in

British Columbia.

[1515]

Specifically,

I'm interested in, I think,

section 8.2(1)(a). That provision gives me some

optimism, and I'll tell you why. In the late 1980s the former Ministry of

Environment was merged with what was then a stand-alone Ministry of Parks under

a previous Social Credit administration. You may remember something about this,

Mr. Speaker. At the time there was great hope that by bringing the Ministry of

Parks under the umbrella of the Ministry of Environment, certain efficiencies

would be gained in terms of law enforcement between the conservation officers

and the park ranger service in the province. Unfortunately, we didn't see a lot

of on-the-ground coordination take place. I'm optimistic, however, that we can

take a step forward in that goal because of

section 8.2(1)(a), which permits the

ministry or the chief conservation officer to designate auxiliary conservation

officers with other levels of government or other agencies of the provincial

government. I'm hopeful that the conservation officer service will take

advantage of opportunities for partnering with trained and experienced park

rangers who work, in many ways, in the same capacity but have a somewhat more

limited legal jurisdiction in terms of enforcing provincial statutes in British

Columbia.

The legal

effect of being conferred auxiliary conservation officer status is that for the

purposes of that designation, the person who may not normally be a conservation

officer is given that legal mandate to go out and enforce those other statutes

that conservation officers who are full time in that capacity are able to. That

is important to make sure we maximize the resources in this time of difficulty

facing the province, due to the

[ Page 2824 ]

legacy of NDP mismanagement which the province has suffered from for the

previous ten years.

We've been

left with an incredible deficit, an incredible debt and an incredible amount of

annual interest payments that we're struggling to pay. That means we have

limited resources to hire additional people. That's why it's so fundamentally

important that we take advantage of partnering opportunities to maximize the

value of every single tax dollar that hard-working British Columbians send our

way, so that we can maximize those resources to protect our wilderness, our park

areas and the people that use those park areas. We want to protect that so we

can help promote tourism and all the other good things British Columbians have

come to count on over the years.

With that,

I'm happy to say that I look forward to voting in support of this bill.

Harris: I also rise today to speak in support of this bill. I agree with my

colleagues in the House who have said that this actually is a significant piece

of legislation. A significant part for me is

section 8.2(1)(c), where we talk

about how it enables conservation officers to work more effectively in

partnerships with other environmental protection agencies and other

jurisdictions. This is a key aspect of this particular piece of legislation that

I think goes a long way to enabling business to function in a more effective

manner in this province.

As most of

us know, the forest industry in this province has become very uncompetitive over

the last ten years. We've moved from being the lowest fibre producer in the

world in 1990 to a situation where we were the highest fibre producer in the

world in 1999, and today it continues. A big part of that cost structure and the

penalties the industry received was specifically related to the high regulatory

environment but, more so, the web of regulations and requirements that flowed

from that situation.

For

business to be successful in this province, it has to be able to work in a very

predictable framework. That doesn't mean that when we talk about…. I think the

fear most people have is that every time legislation comes forward dealing with

environment, we're talking about lowering standards. It isn't about lowering

standards; it's about maintaining and actually raising standards by providing a

manner where they themselves become manageable.

I remember,

in my time in the logging industry, the difficulty we had in securing operating

permits and cutting permits within the forestry sector. A big component of that

process is that the Ministry of Forests along with proponents, along with the

conservation officer, along with DFO and a number of other agencies may all have

to come together and meet in order to do field inspections. If one agent or one

particular agency was unable to make that trip, the meeting got postponed and

then postponed again. If it did, you had one field trip, and then you came back,

and then you had to take another field trip. The whole process created an

environment that gave no security at all, no predictability. This isn't about

standards; this is about process.

This

particular section, 8.2, which allows conservation officers to get into

arrangements with other environmental agencies to provide overlapping services,

actually helps facilitate that kind of predictability in the industry not just

for employers but also for their employees. The logging industry, as an example,

has been significantly hard hit. It needs to be able to find those kinds of

flexibilities.

[1520]

I think

this bill goes a long way to start to create that single-window agency we're

looking for within this province to actually get us away from…. I know we've

all heard those stories of going to events and seeing six or seven different

vehicles all parked at the end of the road belonging to six or seven different

agencies within this province or within the country.

This is a

good start. I think it's a significant piece of legislation because it does do

that. I think it's the kind of change in regulation or certainly the direction

that the people of this province were looking for when they came to us to help

them find efficiencies to get business back on track. I think that when we

finally get these more cooperative relationships between our own agencies and

the federal ones — and I'm certainly hoping that's the area where we see the

greatest advancement — it'll actually help us to harmonize some of the

regulations. I hope this will happen someday down the road, because I think

that's another part of providing a very secure and sound regulatory environment.

The most

important thing is that by having this kind of cooperative effort, it starts to

bring some common sense to the whole aspect of field inspections. It allows for

people to start to work together a little more cooperatively instead of, in many

cases — certainly within agencies themselves…. I've been on a lot of field

inspections where the agencies themselves develop interagency conflicts which,

again, hold up the processes.

To me, this

is a significant document. It's a start in the right direction of moving to a

single agency. I think it starts that process. It creates a framework where we

will engage in cooperative relationships with other environmental organizations

and agencies. I think it's in fact just the right thing to do.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to say also that I support the initiative here. I certainly

support the bill, and I'd urge every member of this House to support it also.

Mr.

Speaker: Further debate on Bill 31? The minister closes debate.

Hon. J.

Murray: I just want to thank the members for their reiteration of the

importance to all of us, all British Columbians, of environmental and wildlife

protection and also for the words in support of what I think is very important

— that is, continually making improvements to our processes so they make sense

given the challenges of today.

[ Page 2825 ]

My ministry

has the setting of environmental standards and ensuring that they're respected

as a core part of how we can carry out our mandate to protect the environment.

This bill, I'm very pleased to say, is one of several ways we will be improving

the effectiveness of our compliance and enforcement service, which is a very

important part of that standard setting and of ensuring that standards are being

respected.

I just

wanted to say that I appreciate those words of support today.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the question is second reading of Bill 31.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Murray: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31,

Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002, 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. G.

Hogg: I call second reading on Bill 17.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Hogg: One of the central goals of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development is to go out and develop the capacity of families and communities to

care for and protect vulnerable children and youth. In order to better meet this

goal, we are proposing changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act,

which in British Columbia is our child welfare legislation.

It is a

lengthy act which authorizes the provision of voluntary support services to

parents and families and outlines government's obligation pertaining to children

at risk of harm as a result of acts or omissions by their parents or guardians.

The principles upon which the act is based are that the safety and well-being of

children is of paramount concern, that children are entitled to be protected

from abuse and neglect, that the family is the preferred environment for the

care of children and that parents are responsible for protecting children from

harm.

[1525]

Since the

act came into force into 1996, it has been used as the harbinger of child

welfare legislation in Canada, and it's been used by other provinces as a useful

precedent in amending or rewriting their child welfare laws. However, the act

cannot remain static, as it addresses many social policy issues — issues which

are ever-changing. Ongoing legislative maintenance of the act is necessary to

keep the Child, Family and Community Service Act as up to date and efficient as

possible to fulfil British Columbians' expectations of state involvement in

child welfare matters.

As part of

the fine-tuning of B.C.'s child welfare legislation, Bill 17 assists the

Ministry of Children and Family Development to further build family community

and capacity by providing for effective support to families, facilitate moving

children back to their families and communities, eliminate unnecessary or

ambiguous reports of children at risk and facilitate regionally based service

delivery. These changes are all consistent with the government's commitment to

focus on early intervention of children at risk and measures aimed at preventing

crisis situations before they arise.

In this

bill we have tried to balance the ministry's responsibility for fully protecting

vulnerable children and youth at risk, while at the same time making more

efficient use of child protection resources and available family and community

resources. It also reflects the ministry's commitment to the ongoing review and

improvement of child protection services in the province. Bill 17 contains the

following package of amendments: three major amendments, two minor amendments

and several housekeeping amendments.

The major

amendments are, firstly, an amendment which clarifies what must be reported to

child protection social workers for assessment and investigation. At present the

act requires every person who believes a child has been or is likely to be

harmed by the child's parent or another person to contact a child protection

social worker. This obligation to report causes confusion and the expenditure of

child protection resources where the director of child protection does not have

a mandate to intervene. The proposed rewording of

section 14 of the act would

require a person to report abuse or neglect which arises from acts or omissions

of the child's parent or guardian. This is consistent with child welfare

legislation in every other jurisdiction in Canada and with the mandate of the

ministry.

The second

major amendment creates a new provision which will allow for the director of

child protection to apply to the court to transfer the custody of a child in

care to a person other than the child's parent. At present, children in the

custody of the director under a continuing custody order generally remain in the

care of the ministry until they reach the age of majority. The proposed

amendment would allow children to return to their communities when it is deemed

to be beneficial to them.

The third

major amendment repeals the legislative requirements pertaining to the transfer

of guardianship or supervision between directors of child protection. The

ministry is currently developing a regional service delivery model. The current

consent and notice requirements would be extremely onerous and overly

bureaucratic when all 10,000 children in care are transferred from one director

of child protection to five regional directors. This amendment would facilitate

that transfer.

The two

minor amendments to the bill make the following further improvements to our

child welfare system. The first minor amendment allows the court to place a

child in the interim custody of a person other than the child's parent following

removal of the child.

[ Page 2826 ]

This amendment is consistent with the guiding principle of the Child, Family

and Community Service Act of encouraging and preserving the child's kinship

ties. This amendment would assist the court and the director to explore extended

family and community placement resources for the child before considering foster

care.

The second

minor amendment creates a new offence and a corresponding penalty for improperly

disclosing information obtained under the act. This provision would allow the

director to ensure that privacy rights of children and families receiving child

welfare services are protected.

The

remaining proposed changes to the act are all housekeeping amendments. These

clarify the intentions of certain provisions and their

interpretation and

application. An example is an amendment which would require a person to give the

director not only the access to a child but also to provide all information that

may assist the director in locating the child. Another example is an amendment

which would clarify when judges may dispense with a notice requirement when an

application is made for a consent order.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

The

provisions of this bill will increase the use of family and community

capabilities to create safe and caring places for vulnerable children and youth.

The bill will allow the Ministry of Children and Family Development to better

serve these children and youth at risk by maximizing family community resources,

reducing the administrative burden and clarifying the parameters of the

ministry's work.

Hon.

Speaker, I look forward to further discussion with respect to this matter from

members of the House.

[1530]

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: We are joined today in the gallery by Carol Romanow from the

Action Committee of People with Disabilities. She was here during the

introduction of Bills 26 and 27, and as of today I hope the House will still

make her feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Anderson: I rise to speak to the Child, Family and Community Service

Amendment Act, 2002. It was my privilege at the time when the original Child,

Family and Community Service Act was introduced and accepted by this House to be

involved as the critic on the opposition for a great deal of the discussion we

had at that particular time. I think as a Legislature we were very pleased with

the following result of the act that came forward at that particular time.

Over these

years the act has been very well received by the community. They wanted it to be

implemented and maintained, and I'm glad the minister has undertaken to do that.

They also wanted certain amendments, and some of them are being brought forward

today at this particular time. The concern the community has is that the act

does not stand by itself. Rather, it's involved with other acts of the

Legislature, and often in the interrelationship between those acts there comes

confusion. So we also will need to look at it in the broader context, instead of

just the context of the act itself.

The act

brings forth the emphasis on the protection of children, but I'd like to

elaborate a little on that. Protection needs more than just bringing people out

of the position of harm. It also needs to provide support — support to the

child that's involved, support to the family and support to the community. I'm

delighted that in the emphasis of this ministry that holistic support is being

considered and discussed so the act is seen not as something that just the

ministry does or is involved in with its support systems. It's involving a new

relationship with families and with community groups, agencies and persons so

that all of the community and families can work together when circumstances, for

whatever reason, make it difficult for a family or a child and when some abuse

which leads to the need of protection comes about.

One of the

realities we've had in the implementation of this act in past years that has

caused a great deal of difficulty in the community was the regulations that went

along with it. The regulations made it impossible in many cases for the

front-line workers to really protect and give the children the support they

needed. One of my concerns was that the act needed to be interpreted in a way

that support went for the child — the regulations were to support the child

rather than, as it appeared sometimes, that the child was there to support the

regulations.

I'm glad to

see the new direction the ministry is taking in defining in a clearer way how

the ministry is working with families and communities. They're concerned that

there be a flexibility and a freedom and an obligation, or a responsibility, of

front-line workers to have the resources and the time in order to completely

fulfil their duties in support of the child and of the families.

[1535]

One of the

other realities in the original act which made it difficult was that there was

the opportunity for family conferences. Those conferences, in my experience with

the cases that came to us in our office, had never really taken place, partly

because of the lack of resources and time that was available.

Also, as I

mentioned earlier in the estimates, in talking with the minister and raising

questions, there was the reliance on the use of the courts in the system, again

because of resources, time factors and regulations. I'm pleased to see the shift

in the concern of the

[ Page 2827 ]

ministry, where the place of the courts is pre-eminent and prominent for

those things it can do best, but it will be supplied with the documentation from

all aspects of the child's life so that they have a full and complete picture

from which to make their decision.

I'm also

pleased that the minister has indicated — and I think it's an important

context for the implementation of the act at the present time — that the UN

charter of the rights of the child is a background resource for the ministry and

for those who work on behalf of the ministry and the community. When children

are brought forth for protection, it does not mean that they then lose their

heritage, their history and their family relationships. That has happened to

many children in the past, and they have lost their real identity, which is a

primary reality that no child should have to lose. It's important that we keep

this act and the changes that are made in that kind of context.

I'm also

pleased that there seems to be a new awareness of the place of foster families

in relationship to the support of children. In a process not just where, once

children were taken into protection, it was automatically concluded that they

would lose their family…. The whole process is to bring them back to their

family if it is at all possible, if the difficulties can be overcome. I think

that's a very important process that we need to keep in mind all of the time.

The act and

the changes brought forward have a focus that recognizes that there are a number

of concerns here. There is a concern for the children, and if they are youths,

there is a concern for their particular circumstances. There is a concern for

the family and the community. These are interactive forces that work together in

the activities to protect, support and follow up when children have to go into

the terrible experience of protection. They then have to have the opportunity to

renew and re-engage themselves in their families or in their community.

Always

we've talked about the best interests of the child, but in the time that I have

been in the Legislature we have gone back and forth. The child was pre-eminent,

and therefore the family and the community should be kept out of the picture as

much as possible. Then the family was pre-eminent, and therefore the interests

of the child came second to that. As I understand it, now we've come to the

balance where one is not more important than the other, but the best interests

of the child depend upon the values of the community, the values of the family

and our ability to work together.

I would

like to commend the direction in which these amendments are moving. I would

particularly like to refer to

section 54.1 briefly for the principles involved

there. This amendment allows the director of child protection to apply for an

order to transfer the guardianship of a child in continuing care to a person

other than the child's parent.

In the past

the director or the court did not have this kind of freedom. A child, as I

understood it, could be taken and put into the care of the ministry. Therefore,

they might be in a foster home or a service as part of that process, but they

were not allowed to go to the care of a family member or to a grandparent — a

grandfather or grandmother. They were not allowed to go to another relative

within the family, nor were they allowed to go to a community member, if that

community had the resources and the desire for the well-being of that child.

[1540]

Now, it's

my understanding that if a child is given the privilege of going to one of these

other sources, which may keep them in their own community — indeed, enable

them to go to their own school without major breaks from family and supportive

community members — these two persons would have to be examined and evaluated

to make sure they were able to carry the responsibility for this particular

child. It isn't that one would go automatically — and I think that's important

to recognize — to a parent or a grandparent or another member of the family.

They would have to apply. They would have to prove that they had the ability and

the resources to care for them so that the child does not go from one difficult

situation to another, but the opportunity is there for support for that kind of

undertaking.

I think

it's very important that if a child has been taken, the child has the

opportunity — and it gives the opportunity in the writing of this particular

act and that there is a better process for that child — of being able to be

returned to their own home. It's my understanding that over the years protection

has taken so long that the process itself goes on for months and sometimes

years. Under the system here, which is more flexible, that process can be

speeded up because those days or weeks, much less months and years, are very

important in the life of a child.

The

amendment extends the options available to courts and the ministry social

workers. That's very important, because every child is different, and therefore

there needs to be a variety of options offered for the variety of needs of the

children. One amendment that's being proposed would mean that the guardianship

of a child in continuing care could be transferred, as I mentioned, to a family

member such as a grandparent. These opportunities are extremely important and

will give a whole new complexion to the opportunity for these children.

Here is

another reality that I think is addressed in this legislation, both in the total

context and in some of the flexibility that's created here. In the past we have

met many parents — either single parents or two-parent families — who were

having difficulty, and they needed help for a time. They would need to go to the

Ministry of Social Services for that help. They were very reluctant to go to

them for the help they needed over a short period of time, because it was their

fear — often well-founded, as it turned out — that if they went for help,

there would automatically be a protection order. Instead of getting help for the

family to come together, they were given assistance, if you like, to break

themselves apart.

[ Page 2828 ]

It gives

opportunity in the new governance structure to enable the directorship under

which a child has been placed to be divided among a number of five directors in

the province. In the past there has been one child protection director, and all

of the 10,000 children, if you like, that we had then in the province were the

responsibility of that one person — an impossible task, particularly with all

the variety of circumstances across the province.

It enables

the ministry now to transfer that care to these directors throughout the

province, which makes it far more relevant. It brings it closer to home and to

the community where the child lives, and at the same time it means that the load

of any one of those directors is reduced to 20 percent automatically so that

they have a closer connection with the people who are serving the children. They

have a closer connection to hear the particular needs of the children, and they

have a closer connection to respond in good time and in good order.

I commend

the ministry for the changes they have brought forth at this time, and I look

forward to other changes that, as the years proceed, they will also bring

forward. I commend them for what they have done and thank them for the excellent

thought and consideration and planning that have gone into this legislation for

the sake of the children, the parents and the community of which they are a

part.

[1545]

Hamilton: I rise today to speak in favour of the proposed amendments to

section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

The

mission of the Ministry of Children and Family Development is to promote and

develop the capacity of families and children to care for and protect vulnerable

children and youth.

Section 14 as it is currently worded is at best ambiguous.

At worst it has placed the ministry and its child protection workers in

impossible positions and caused the diversion of valuable time and resources

away from the original intent of the act.

Three

principles underpinned the Child, Family and Community Service Act when it was

passed in 1996. They are that the safety and well-being of children is

paramount, that family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing

of a child, and that the responsibility for the protection of a child lies

primarily with the parents.

The

minister has brought forward an amendment that both strengthens and clarifies

the intention of the act. This amendment clarifies the duty of all members of

the public to report to the ministry when a child may be in need of protection.

In the past

the wording of the act has been too broad. In fact, the public had a duty to

report a wide range of circumstances to the ministry, no matter where or when.

So for years the ministry has taken an average of 100 child protection calls

every day, seven days a week. The ministry would investigate, and very often

investigation would reveal that in many cases the ministry had no legal power to

act upon them because the reported risks were happening outside the home.

The

proposed amendment to

section 14 would require that a person report child abuse

or neglect which arises from acts or omissions of a child's parent or guardian.

The amendment reinforces the third principle of the 1996 act: the responsibility

for the protection of a child lies primarily with the parent.

A concerned

member of the public should certainly report circumstances where a child is at

risk or harmed. But unless that risk is due to acts or omissions by the child's

parents or guardian, then the right place to report that risk is either the

child's parents, extended family, the child's school or, in very extreme

circumstances, the local police department.

The role of

the ministry is quite specifically to investigate when the child's home is

unsafe, when parents are abusive and neglectful. The duty report will no longer

extend to harm caused by another person when there is a parent available to

protect the child and provide care.

With

passage of this amendment, the public's duty to report will be consistent with

section 13 of this act, when there are concerns about acts and omissions of

parents or guardians, and the B.C. language will be consistent with child

welfare legislation in every other jurisdiction in Canada.

The

amendment will maximize family and community resources that enhance the safety

and well-being of children. It will reduce the tremendous administrative burden

carried by social workers by clarifying the parameters of the work of the

Ministry of Child and Family Development. This amendment is a step forward on

behalf of children, families and communities in B.C., and I am very pleased to

support its passage.

Christensen: I, too, rise today to speak in support of Bill 17, the proposed

changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. I particularly want to

address changes to

section 102 of the act. Before doing that, I do want to just

briefly comment on the general changes that are undertaken here by Bill 17.

I think all

of us in the House can agree that this legislation in particular is some of the

most important legislation that we deal with here in that it specifically

addresses or tries to protect a group in our society that is absolutely the most

vulnerable: children who may be in situations of neglect or abuse. Over the last

number of years we've certainly seen the headlines and circumstances about the

simply terrible situations that children sometimes find themselves in. I think

most of us will remember in detail the Gove inquiry, which certainly had a

particular impact on my constituency of Okanagan-Vernon given that Matthew

Vaudreuil had resided with his mother in Vernon for a number of years. The child

welfare workers in my community were involved in the Gove inquiry. That has had

lasting impacts on how they do their jobs.

[1550]

I must say

that I am always incredibly impressed by the work that people involved in child

protection do. I really can't think of a more difficult area to work in on a

day-to-day basis in terms of the decisions that

[ Page 2829 ]

need to be made, the circumstances you find yourself faced with and, really,

the judgment calls that need to be made.

In my

existence previous to this House I did have occasion in practising law to work

under the previous legislation to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

There's no question that the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act,

2002, is a dramatic improvement over that previous act, which really limited

options available to the courts and to dealing with matters of child protection.

There's no question that the legislation that we're proposing to amend or that

Bill 17 makes amendments to is very good legislation. It is a dramatic

improvement over what was there before.

The Child,

Family and Community Service Act was enacted in 1994, and certainly the

provisions came into force over a period of time since 1994. There have been a

number of amendments prior to these that are before us today. I think in

general, though — and this is what's critical — the goals of the legislation

remain the same: to protect children from abuse and, in doing so, to ensure that

when we're looking at situations, in every case the best interests of the child

remain paramount. What perhaps shifts from time to time is what we consider to

be in the best interests of the child or the factors that come into play in

determining the best interests of the child. There's no question that at any

point in time, whether you're the social worker that is looking into a

particular case or you're a judge that is faced with facts being presented to

you and you have to make a decision, you are fundamentally guided by what is

best for the child that you find before you.

I think,

from my perspective, that a number of the amendments that are proposed in Bill

17 address some very practical needs that have arisen through experience with

this legislation in the courts in particular. The member for Vancouver-Langara

has commented on the addition of

section 54.1 to the act, under

section 17 of

the bill, which acknowledges that need to be able to consider a range of

alternatives for a child who is in need of protection. Perhaps it's not

appropriate to return them to their parent, but there may be a range of other

options that are available to that child which will retain a very strong link to

family or to community but, to date, have not been readily available for either

the director or the courts to consider.

I was

certainly particularly pleased to see the amendment embodied by

section 8 of the

bill, which is an amendment to

section 35(2) of the act. There it's the same

principle as is embodied in the addition of

section 54.1; that is, there are a

range of options that a court should be able to consider. I think

section 35 is

critical because it deals with an interim order. That means it is, hopefully,

relatively early on in the process of the ministry having seen a need to remove

that child from his or her home.

It's

critically important in those early days that both the director and the courts

that may be involved early on do have a broad range of options they can consider

to ensure they are able to meet the best interests of that child and, to the

greatest extent possible, retain the connection of that child to his or her

family, even though they may not be living at home with the parent. Certainly,

in my view, those amendments that allow that broader representation of the

community or those broader opportunities for placement of the child are long

overdue.

[1555]

As I

indicated, I do want to focus in particular on

section 102 of the act. It's easy

when we're dealing with this legislation to talk about the general principles,

because I think we all hold them so strongly, given the importance.

Section 102

of the act is the

section that deals with offences and penalties. It's sort of a

one-liner in Bill 17, but I think it's an important amendment that's set out in

section 29 of the bill — that is, that it makes it an offence to disclose

information that's been obtained under the act.

What that

typically is, certainly, is private and personal information about the children

and the families that are served by the ministry in its capacity of child

protection and family support. Under the amendment any person disclosing

information obtained under the act would, in the future, be subject to a fine of

up to $10,000, six months in jail or both. Hopefully, we won't see a great need

to be using this provision, but certainly I think it's an important deterrent to

those who might be tempted to go over the bounds in disclosing private

information. Really, it allows the director of child protection to ensure the

privacy rights of children and the families who are receiving child welfare

services. There is certainly some need for this protection. It's not something

that's simply brought in out of the blue.

Over the

course of the last two years we've seen the pictures or images of approximately

40 children in care that have been printed or broadcast without the permission

of the director of child protection. Obviously, that then has the potential to

have a very significant impact on those children and their families. They have

to face their friends at school; they have to somehow come to terms with their

family histories and their family relationships. That disclosure has the

potential — and I would suggest that in most cases it's the reality — to

interfere significantly with the ability of that family — the child, the

parents and perhaps the extended family — to heal the situation they face and

to mature and to really reintegrate and, hopefully, see that family situation

improve so that the child is safe staying with their own family.

There's no

question that exposure of that information, particularly if it's in the media,

can follow them for a very long time — particularly, I would suggest, in

smaller communities around the province. I think it's clear to all of us that

vulnerable children deserve better protection than that, and this amendment

strengthens the government's ability to protect the privacy of a child who

really has no other means of protection. It's also, I think, very necessary to

provide confidence to families who may find themselves having a struggle dealing

with their children, having a struggle dealing

[ Page 2830 ]

with their parenting and needing the confidence that they can go to the

ministry, seek some assistance, try and work with the ministry to ensure that

their family situation stabilizes and improves, and be confident that the

information that may be disclosed in the course of that discussion with the

ministry isn't going to go any further.

Those who

distribute identifying information about these children can now be subject to

fines or jail terms. There are a number of other offences that can be legally

penalized under the terms of this act. There's quite a broad range. Certainly,

those include a failure to report the circumstances where a child needs

protection, reporting to a child protection worker, or in fact knowingly making

a false report that a child needs protection. Unfortunately, we do see

circumstances where that happens. It's also an offence to contravene an order

made under

section 55 or 56 of the act with regards to access to a child. It's

an offence to prevent a police officer from enforcing a custody order made under

the act or to refuse to produce records when the records are necessary to

determine if a child needs protection.

There are

also provisions in the act that protect whistle-blowers. In particular,

section

101.1 makes it an offence to discriminate against or to discipline another

person who has requested a review of a decision made under the act. That

whistle-blower

section is perhaps particularly important in the context of

making it an offence to disclose personal information, because it does still

allow for some protection within the ministry itself where one worker may have a

concern about how a particular matter is being handled. There are certainly

safeguards there that go along with the addition of this offence.

[1600]

It's also

worth noting that the offence provisions in this legislation are certainly

consistent with similar legislation in other provinces and are, in fact,

necessary to support a quality child protection system. As well, they are

consistent with the provisions of the Young Offenders Act.

Responsibility

for enforcing offences under provincial law lies with the police and other law

enforcement officials. It will not be a case of the ministry deciding whether or

not a particular charge will be pursued in respect of an alleged offence. The

independent local Crown counsel continues to be the one to determine whether or

not to approve charges. They definitely do that based on the likelihood of

conviction and whether a conviction would be in the public's interest.

The

Ministry of Children and Family Development officials are not involved in the

decision as to whether or not to charge a person, although they may certainly

bring circumstances to the attention of local Crown counsel, who can then make a

decision.

The

minister, over the last number of weeks and months, has set out some of the

strategic shifts that this ministry is undergoing. The first strategic shift of

the ministry is a commitment to openness, transparency and accountability. That

statement was right up front and featured in the ministry's three-year service

plan that was set out back in February. I know from my own conversations with

the minister that this is a commitment that staff right through the ministry

take most seriously.

Having said

that, while there is this very definite commitment to be open, transparent and

accountable for the work they do, and while that translates right through to

being transparent and accountable for the decisions they make on behalf of

children before the courts throughout the province, that transparency does not

mean that it is simply open season to look at whatever information you like or

open season on the private lives, joys and sorrows of the people that are served

by the ministry, people who find themselves in some very difficult

circumstances. The details of individuals and families who have dealings with

the ministry must be held in a very sacred trust to ensure that the ministry can

do the very important work and maintain the confidence of the families who are

dealing with them.

We need to

honour the rights of these children to be resilient, to heal and to contribute

their energies and talents to the communities of the future. One of the ways we

do that is ensuring that the ministry is providing the support they need,

providing the support to their families to ensure that to the greatest extent

possible, we can maintain that family bond. I think a number of the amendments

that are proposed in Bill 17, as well as the very strong amendments to ensure

protection of privacy rights for people dealing with the ministry, go a long way

to reaching those goals.

I'm very

pleased to support the minister in these amendments set out in Bill 17. I

appreciate the comments that others have made. I think we have a couple more

people that may add to this.

J. Bray:

It's a pleasure to see you up in the chair again, sir.

I also rise

to support Bill 17. I won't repeat some of the comments that my colleagues have

made, because I think they've spoken very well to it.

Certainly,

I'm coming at this from the perspective of a civil servant who's worked in the

social service field for 13 years and has worked very closely in the field with

social workers as well as financial assistance workers.

I want to

start my comments by just noting that we're dealing with children in this bill

and amendments to protections for children and supports for family. I've said

before in this chamber that children are not political. So I would be rising to

support this legislation, regardless of any other political circumstances. I

think these amendments go a long way towards improving the services that we

provide to children at risk as well as to the families and the community that is

needed to support families, especially in times of crisis.

[1605]

I feel that

one of the strengths of this bill is that it recognizes that one of the great

assets that we have in the community around the province is our front-line

staff. It recognizes their professionalism. It recognizes the skills, education

and commitment they bring to the

[ Page 2831 ]

work they do every day. It provides for their assessments to be broader than

A or B, yes or no, in or out. It allows them to do the kind of assessments for

the supports that are in the community that can help a family in crisis and keep

children as close to home as possible. It ensures that social workers are

allowed to do better assessments and look at more options that may exist out in

the community. I think that's a tremendous advantage. It's something that I know

many in the field have been asking for, for many years.

It also

recognizes there's a need for partnerships when we're dealing with children at

risk and families in crisis. There needs to be partnerships between the family,

the ministry front-line staff, the director, community agencies and also

extended family members. This is something that has been talked about for many

years, and I'm very pleased that it's finally to come to fruition. It recognizes

the bond that children have with their families — not just the mother, not

just the father, but with the family. Although they may not be able to stay in

the direct parental home, their connection to their family is now a possibility

if those supports are appropriate. I think that moves a long way to helping the

healing process once a family is out of crisis and the return of children is

going to be possible.

The

extended family has often said: "We could provide the supports. We could

provide the security for those children during a time of crisis, and we have

been excluded from the process." Now they're going to be part of the

process. They're going to be an option that's available, and I'm very pleased to

see that.

This also

is the first step in the ministry's strategic shift from a centralized,

policy-driven model to a community-based delivery model that focuses on each

community in and of itself and allows for each community to meet its own needs.

The community service providers will know the extended family, the front-line

ministry staff, the other supports that family has or needs and will work for a

much more integrated model to ensure that children, if they do need to be

removed, are not removed any further than necessary and can be returned as soon

as possible.

I've had a

great deal of positive support for the strategic plan the ministry has put

forward. I've met with several service providers, and they are very encouraged

by this. At this time, I must repeat some of the comments they have provided to

me about their concerns with the strategic shift. They're happy with the shift.

Their only concern is that as the ministry moves forward with this shift, some

of the issues with respect to each individual family can get lost in the shift.

As we go from centralized to community, from policy-driven to community

reaction, in fact those most vulnerable might actually get missed in the shuffle

and might fall through the cracks, if you will.

I encourage

the ministry as they go through their strategic shift, as these amendments are

implemented, that they pay particular attention to what's happening in the

community, that they listen to extended family members, front-line workers,

community agencies to ensure that those most vulnerable are getting greater

protection, not less protection, and that children are receiving more acute

services rather than less or more sporadic services.

I know that

the minister has addressed this in estimates, but I think it's worth repeating

because it is one of the concerns that members of my community in Victoria

raise. It is important that as we make this cultural and strategic shift, we

include the community in this change and that we consult with the experts out in

the field. The experts are front-line staff, but they're also parents, service

providers, associations such as the Association of Foster Parents and the B.C.

Association for Community Living, who are also experts at dealing with children,

children at risk and families in crisis. They will often be the first people

that can highlight any potential problems as this shift happens.

We must

ensure that we're ready to listen and we're ready to act on any of those

situations to ensure that children receive the care they deserve and that the

maximum benefit for these amendments and the future changes are realized,

because it will be the community delivering it and the community responsible for

it. As we go through this process, we owe it to the community to make sure

they're fully involved.

I'm very

pleased with Bill 17 and very pleased to stand in support of it.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, welcome back.

Most of the

proposed amendments are to clarify or add detail to the existing legislation, as

we understand it. Therefore, they do not change the original intent of the

legislation. As we heard from many members of the House, the best interests of

this piece of legislation and, I would argue, in the work we do as members is to

ensure that children have the best opportunities afforded them and that they too

enjoy the best protection from the ministry side. There are, however, some

pieces in the legislation that I think raise questions, and members of the

opposition will be asking the minister these questions during committee stage.

One area

which I think may highlight questions for the opposition would be amendments

that relate to the empowerment of third parties to gain interim or permanent

custody of a child where little or no input from the child's parents is

afforded. I think we need to canvass that area a little bit in terms of seeking

out the intent of the legislation and what ramifications that would have for

children, given that what we want to do is ensure that legislation is in place

in the best interests of the child.

The other

piece, of course, that relates to this kind of amendment would be where a

warrant is used not only for removing a child from a potentially dangerous

situation but also for selecting a new custodian for that child. In that

instance, in what circumstances would that be used? How would it be utilized?

What kind of powers are being conferred to the custodian, for example? I think

those are important questions we need to canvass in committee stage.

[ Page 2832 ]

The current

legislation only allows for the child to be placed in the custody of the

director or the custody of a parent. It does not allow for a person other than a

parent to have custody of the child. I think questions that arise around that

would be: who is a suitable person to take custody of the child? How is the

suitability of that person determined? Is this person a family member or a

family friend, as an example? If it is a person the child does not know, how

would one determine what is better in terms of placing the child in custody?

Would it be placing the child in the custody of the director or with a person

whom the child does not know? How would that process unfold?

There are

other questions which are raised, particularly in amendment 12 which speaks to

section 42.1 of the bill. The original language of the original bill is one that

is broader and allows for the person to be a custodian or caregiver. The new

language seems to restrict it and return only to the custodian, as an example.

On the one hand, the bill is looking at allowing for more categories or

individuals, if you will, to have custody of the child. On the other hand, it

seems to be restricting it, and it seems to go contrary to the original thrust

of the bill. We'll be canvassing that area with the minister in committee stage.

There is no

mention of the screening process for determining who is eligible to seek

permanent custody of the child. I think this area raises some questions for the

minister, and I'd be interested in understanding what kind of screening process

would be in place, once again, to ensure that the best interest of the child is

acted upon.

[1615]

The

section

does not identify whether or not the purpose of the amendment is to allow family

members other than the parents to seek custody of the child. Is that the intent

— to allow for family members to seek custody of the child? Is it broader than

that? What is the intent of the legislation? If the amendment is intended to

make it easier for extended family members to gain permanent custody of the

child, what measures will be taken to ensure that the child will be safe and

that the danger that led to the child's removal from the home will not be a

threat to the child if he or she is in the custody of a family member? How would

we ensure that? What are the measurements that would be in place? How would one

assess these kinds of situations?

There is no

explicit mention of whether or not parental consent is required before permanent

custody of the child may be awarded to a third party. To what extent would a

parent have a say in this issue? How would they be involved in that process?

Will they be involved in that process?

Once again,

I think it all goes to the issue around how we ensure that the best interests of

the child are afforded and protected in the amendments to this legislation. In

the committee stage the opposition members will be canvassing some of these

areas with the minister, hopefully, to shed some light and get some answers on

these areas so that we can see that the current legislation is in fact being

amended to enhance the safety and protection of children who are faced with

difficulties in their home and who would be needing others to take care of them

to ensure that they have a future and opportunities afforded to them for full

development. We will be canvassing these questions with the minister at the

appropriate time.

Deputy

Speaker: Closing second reading debate on Bill 17, the Minister of Children

and Family Development.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and my thanks to the many members who've

provided comments and queries with respect to this and, in particular, to the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with the queries and questions she has,

which we'll look forward to dealing with at the committee stage.

In the

broad spectrum of services that are provided, many involved with child welfare

have been frustrated and in some cases disappointed by the intrusions and, in

many cases, the ineffectiveness of current practices. Brian Wharf, a professor

emeritus at the University of Victoria, has written: "Those being served

are often dealt with as cases to be inspected and assessed by risk-assessment

instruments and by case management schemes and, not surprisingly, resent being

treated as objects…. Policy-makers cling tenaciously to the assumption that

the enterprise can be improved by increasing the control and surveillance over

both staff and those being served." He argues that community social work

and community organizing are often neglected but are potentially powerful

strategies for improving child welfare.

The

amendments before this House, combined with the strategic shifts and the

organizational shifts previously announced, will give greater flexibility and

more options to social workers. It will give them more latitude in exercising

their skills, education and training, and more latitude in their ability to

respond to the needs of children and families.

It will, in

conjunction with many community partners, facilitate a more locally based and

more sensitive and responsive system, one that honours and respects the role of

local communities in dealing with challenges which exist in the communities at

the individual and family level. It will, most importantly, provide more

legislative support and focus on the best interests of children and their

families within the context of their own kith, kin and communities.

With that,

I call the question on second reading of Bill 17.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I move that Bill 17 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be dealt with at the next sitting after today.

Bill 17,

Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and

referred

[ Page 2833 ]

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I now call second reading of Bill 16.

[1620]

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY ACT

Hon. K.

Whittred: I am pleased to now move the commencement of second reading of

Bill 16.

The

Community Care Facility Act governs the licensing of community care facilities

in the province. The primary purpose of the legislation, together with its

regulations, is to protect the health and safety of vulnerable and dependent

people who are cared for in licensed facilities. This bill affects a number of

people, and it is very important for British Columbians to understand the

changes we are proposing before we seek public consultation during the spring

and summer.

The

existing Community Care Facility Act, which is substantially in the same form as

originally enacted in 1969, has not kept pace with current trends in community

care. In fact, I find it very interesting that the act actually dates back in

some form to 1930, when it was called the Welfare Institutions Act. Over time

the existing act has led to an overly prescriptive, complex and outdated

governing structure for community care facilities — a structure that is not

meeting the needs of today's clients.

Our

government has made a commitment to improving health care for residents of

British Columbia, no matter where they live in the province. As Minister of

State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care, one of the ways I am working to

help fulfil our government's commitment is to promote and develop enhanced and

renewed home and community care services for British Columbians.

This bill

will clarify the scope of the Community Care Facility Act and its associated

regulations as applying to only those facilities that provide care to vulnerable

and dependent people. It will allow for the development of strong provincewide

standards that are specifically focused on protecting the health and safety of

the vulnerable and dependent people in care rather than establishing

prescriptive, complex regulations for how those standards are met. It will

strengthen local authority over licensing decisions to ensure that care

facilities are able to meet the specific needs of people in communities

throughout the province.

Mr.

Speaker, allow me to elaborate on the three ways the new Community Care Facility

Act will lead to better care. First, the scope of the legislation will be

clarified. The new act will apply only to those community facilities that

provide care to the vulnerable and dependent. This will reduce unnecessary

regulation of facilities serving individuals with a greater level of

independence, such as supportive housing for seniors or supportive recovery

homes for persons with substance dependencies.

Under the

current act a licensed community care facility is broadly defined as any

facility that provides care or supervision to three or more people, regardless

of their level of independence or ability to direct their own care. This means

that supportive housing or recovery services must meet the same licensing

requirements as facilities providing a higher level of care for extremely

vulnerable and dependent persons. As a result, people with greater levels of

independence end up being institutionalized unnecessarily in facilities that

often do not meet their demands.

addition, the existing legislation impedes the creation of new care concepts. By

clarifying the scope of the Community Care Facility Act, we will be removing

some unnecessary barriers to the development of a broader range of alternatives

to institutional care that better suit the needs of clients.

[1625]

Second, the

new legislation will allow for the development of strong results-based standards

for community care that are consistent provincewide. This will include

consistent standards for child day care facilities and for the protection of

persons who have complex care needs in residential care homes.

The current

regulations contain a series of complex, obsolete and restrictive provisions for

facilities that in many cases do nothing to protect or ensure the health and

safety of individuals. For example, the regulations prescribe that facilities

must have a window area of not less than 10 percent of the bedroom's floor area.

As a result, facilities and the health authorities responsible for monitoring

them are forced to divert resources and energy to comply with narrow,

prescriptive operating rules rather than on strengthening and improving the

health and safety of the residents and children in care.

The new

provincewide results-based care standards will ensure that health authorities

are accountable for a consistent and high-level quality of care for all licensed

facilities and that the resources of facilities are devoted to meeting those

required outcomes. In particular, the provincial director of licensing will have

authority to set standards for community care facilities that local medical

The

director of licensing will also have the authority to investigate, audit and

request reports on health authority licensing programs to ensure accountability

for meeting those standards. As well, the director of licensing will be able to

issue orders to protect health and safety if deemed necessary.

Third, the

act will strengthen and improve local authorities for licensing decisions by

ensuring that local medical health officers have primary responsibility for

evaluating, reviewing, issuing and enforcing safeguards for all community care

facilities, consistent with the provincewide standards that are to be

established.

The current

legislation provides for time-consuming, complicated and inconsistent processes

for licence decisions and appeals. For example, the provincial director of

licensing has authority to cancel or suspend existing licences. However, this

authority is dele-

[ Page 2834 ]

gated to the local medical health officer