1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 19

[ Page 10377 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to rise in the House today and welcome 28 grade 6 students from Langley Central Fundamental School in Langley and their teacher, Mr. Hillson. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Jackson: In the gallery today are two of my constituents visiting from Clearwater: Pauline and Arnold Gregory. Pauline is very active in the community of Clearwater. She's here to attend the British Columbia Health Association conference. I would like the House to make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure today to introduce to the House two people from Vernon who are related to me: Janice and Mike Arthur. They came to Victoria to see what the sunshine is like. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We have some very special guests in the gallery today. We have the newly appointed consul general of Japan, who is located in Vancouver. Would the House please welcome Mr. Yasuo Nozaka and Mrs. Chiyomi Nozaka.

D. Streifel: I've had visitors twice this week, and this one was a surprise to me. In the gallery is a councillor from Mission, Mr. Doug Adair. Doug has been very active in the community for some 30 years. He's a strong advocate on behalf of his community. He is here for the Health Association conference. Doug has become a friend of mine, and I have a very deep respect for this individual and his love for his community. He also happens to be the father of Robin Adair, one of the intrepid reporters in the press gallery. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the precincts today are 50 students from Princess Margaret high school in my riding. As I've actually mentioned before in the House, that school is leading this province in terms of the work it does in combating racism and violence in the school. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

S. O'Neill: I would like the House to welcome a number of constituency assistants who are here with us today. They're down in Victoria on their annual convention. They're here for question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like members of the House to give a warm welcome to some visitors to the gallery, who are the board of directors and publishers of the British Columbia and Yukon Community Newspapers Association. I'm sure all members of the House would say that this is indeed a very wise investment: to use these papers to communicate information to the citizens of British Columbia.

C. Evans: I'd like to introduce one of those people personally, Dennis Stanley of Nakusp, who I don't think is of my political persuasion, but is my personal friend and a darn good newspaper person.

Introduction of Bills

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, this bill makes a number of important amendments to the statute which governs the practice of medicine in British Columbia. Problems related to sexual misconduct by a small number of physicians prompted the College of Physicians and Surgeons to conduct an internal review of the process for handling complaints of this nature. The college's report, entitled "Crossing the Boundaries," made nearly 100 recommendations to improve the handling of sexual misconduct matters. The college has implemented the majority of these recommendations, but some require statutory amendment.

With this bill we are completing the implementation of the recommendations from "Crossing the Boundaries."

Important changes made by this bill include: the establishment of a sexual misconduct review committee of the council of the college, of which one-third will be members of the general public; the creation of the new position of special deputy registrar with responsibility for sexual misconduct matters within the college; mandatory reporting by physicians of suspected sexual misconduct by other physicians; and mandatory suspension or cancellation of registration where there has been a finding of sexual misconduct at a hearing. And the investigation and discipline proceedings may now be extended to former members.

I am pleased to table this legislation today, and I'd like to acknowledge the considerable assistance provided by the college in the development of these amendments.

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.

Oral Questions

LAND PURCHASE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. In today's Williams Lake Tribune, the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying: "I spoke to Ms. Brady not as an MLA, but as a private citizen." Can the Premier tell the constituents of British Columbia at what point government members sitting in their constituency offices are allowed to take off their hats as MLAs and act as private citizens, and how in the heck the constituents are supposed to know the difference?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is: when they walk into the constituency office of the MLA who represents them because they live in that particular riding. This is a situation where the member was not the MLA who represented Ms. Brady. The member for Cariboo North represented Ms. Brady. The member for Cariboo South said that, and referred Ms. Brady to the MLA for Cariboo North, as he properly should have done.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

[ Page 10378 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: That is simply outrageous. We all, as MLAs, get calls from constituents from right around this province. That is the most disgraceful comment by the Premier I could imagine.

[2:15]

Hon. Speaker, I have a further question to the Premier with regard to the Minister of Agriculture. When asked why he did not disclose to Ms. Brady that the property was up for sale, the minister said: "I didn't need to tell her, because it wasn't a file I had as an MLA." The fact is that Ms. Brady did go to the minister as an elected official; she went to him as a cabinet minister and an MLA. She may not even have known who her MLA was. How was she supposed to know what he had in his files? How was she supposed to know what his role was for that day?

Hon. M. Harcourt: She did know that she lived in Cariboo North. After she spoke with the member for Cariboo South she knew that her MLA was the MLA for Cariboo North, who very properly helped Ms. Brady deal with the highways department to get an answer on a right-of-way. That is entirely appropriate.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The NDP has just out-Socreded the Socreds. That is the most ridiculous, ludicrous answer we've ever heard in this House. According to both Linda Brady and Carol Baker, two offended constituents, the Minister of Agriculture wrote a letter to Tracy Cooper, the district highways manager in Williams Lake, stating the minister's opposition to any road through the property. In fact, at a meeting with Mr. Cooper, they were shown the letter to the Transportation and Highways ministry.

My question is to the Premier. At any time during the four-hour meeting he had with the minister, did the minister advise him, with regard to that letter, that he had written to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If the member has new information, I would be pleased to look at it. But under the tough conflict laws we have, this should quite properly be passed to the conflict commissioner, who is investigating this matter and investigating the allegations made by the Liberal opposition. If there is new information, I'd be more than pleased to look at it.

M. de Jong: If the Premier doesn't know, maybe he could kick-start his research department, and they can find out for him.

CALL FOR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

M. de Jong: The Attorney General is aware that

section 122 of the Criminal Code creates the offence of breach of trust by a public officer. He should also be aware of the 1992 decision in Regina v. Perrault. It confirms that criminal law prohibits the use of public office for promotion of private ends. My question to the Attorney General is: has he appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations of criminal activity by the Minister of Agriculture, and if not, why not?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member should know that the Attorney General does not appoint special prosecutors.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General's answer indicates one thing clearly, and that is that he doesn't understand the

conflict-of-interest legislation that he parades in front of this House.

Section 17 of that act indicates what options are available to the conflict commissioner. One of the options that isn't available is to recommend the laying of criminal charges. Enforcement of the Criminal Code of Canada is the responsibility of the Attorney General. Is this Attorney General going to do his duty and direct the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate these allegations of criminal activity?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member, who is a lawyer and who, I hope, understands the law, has any suggestion in his mind that criminal wrongdoing has been committed, he should report those facts to the police immediately.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The truth lies in the Attorney General's response. This government, this Premier and this Attorney General can't tell right from wrong on their own. They have to have it pointed out to them. Is this another example of the Attorney General asleep at the wheel? Why hasn't he ordered the appointment of a special prosecutor? Is it negligence, another mistake or is it just another favour for a colleague in cabinet?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the things I have tried to do in my time in this House is act with a little dignity. The new member would be wise to try to follow that lead.

The member should read the Crown Counsel Act. If the member were to read the Crown Counsel Act, he would be able to read that the Attorney General does not appoint special prosecutors. Special prosecutors can be appointed, in appropriate circumstances, by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, with no interference....

An Hon. Member: On your recommendation.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member wasn't in the House in 1991, when the former government, to their credit, followed, for the most part, most of the recommendations of the Owen report and, in so doing, created an independent criminal justice branch in respect of allegations made against public officials. Since that date there has been no political interference in any matter where it is appropriate to appoint a special prosecutor. I as Attorney General do not play a role -- no role whatsoever -- in respect of the appointment of special prosecutors, nor has any Attorney General since that act was passed. That is the law, and the member should know it.

FOREST RENEWAL PLAN FUNDING

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Forests. The forest renewal plan refers to $400 million as the estimated annual expenditure on the reforestation program. Are these new dollars, or does this amount include current spending levels?

Hon. A. Petter: It's nice to get a substantive question on this side for a change. The answer is that the $400 million that is going toward Forest Renewal B.C., an investment program that this government is moving forward with, are entirely

[ Page 10379 ]

new dollars. It does not entail any juggling or shuffling of existing dollars, as previous governments have sometimes tried to do. It's entirely new funds.

H. De Jong: Supplemental, then, hon. Speaker. It would appear that the forest executives who accepted the government's plan had no idea at that time of the $100 million royalty increase. I wonder if another $300 million shoe is going to drop on the industry.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member for Abbotsford please take his seat. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order? Please proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know it's customary to wait until the end of question period, but this question is out of order because this bill is before the House this morning and this afternoon.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, for your point of order. Under our standing orders, matters that are before the House, such as Bill 32, are normally out of order if a member is talking about specifics. Collateral matters are generally dealt with at any time. Certainly it's a matter of discretion, and the Speaker finds that the member's questions are such that they are permissible.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the official opposition has trouble when substantive issues arise in this House, because it requires them to consider what their position might be.

The answer to the member's question is that at the time of the announcement it was well understood that there would be a stumpage and royalty increase in the order of slightly less than $600 million, apportioned between them. There has been some subsequent controversy about that

apportionment, but everyone understood that that was the case. Obviously those companies that hold timber licences and pay through royalty would prefer more to be done through stumpage, and those that hold stumpage would prefer more to be done through royalty. That's part of the controversy. But the basic commitment is that this is entirely new money. All the additional money being raised through stumpage and royalty is going to fund this plan.

ABSENCE OF AGRICULTURE MINISTER

R. Chisholm: The Minister of Agriculture is once again absent from this chamber. He's running like a wounded animal. He hid in his office two days ago, and now the coward from the Cariboo is nowhere to be found.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: My question to the Premier....

The Speaker: Order! Please take your seat, hon. member.

Hon. members, I don't think there's any question that calling someone a cowardly whatever is totally unparliamentary, and the member should know that. I think there is plenty of latitude allowed for questions and for a fair amount of expression, without a member insulting another member. I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw any reference to the individual's character.

R. Chisholm: I withdraw the word "coward."

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

R. Chisholm: My question is still to the Premier. You have kept your Minister of Agriculture in cabinet while he's under investigation, yet the minster is hiding from the public and this House. Does the Premier condone his minister's actions?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That shows how little the Fisheries critic for the opposition thinks of fisheries. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is in Prince Rupert as a keynote speaker, meeting with people who are part of one of the major industries in this province: fisheries. With the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, he is meeting with the Nisga'a and with other aboriginal leaders throughout northwestern British Columbia. He is meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries to deal with the very important negotiations going on with Washington and Alaska regarding fisheries. If that member doesn't think that's important, then what does he think is important?

The Speaker: A supplementary, hon. member?

R. Chisholm: I happen to be meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries at 4 o'clock, too. I know where your minister is: he's hiding. He's speaking tomorrow in Prince Rupert.

The Speaker: Question.

R. Chisholm: When the minister found out that he was in trouble, he abandoned his constituents...

The Speaker: Question, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: ...the industry he is supposed to protect and the trust of the people of British Columbia. My question to the Premier is: how can people have any trust in a minister who abandons his responsibility and in a Premier who condones his actions?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The commitment to be in Prince Rupert was made in January. I'm not going to see my ministers abandoning commitments they've made to meet with people involved in the very important fisheries industry. My ministers carry out their commitments. They're not on the phone to Liberal constituency presidents...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...in the Cariboo trying to create more allegations and then sitting in this House and trying to puff more air into the puffery.

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

R. Chisholm: I would like to table the minister's statement of April 26, the one he was supposed to give three days ago.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I would like to ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement that I just tabled.

Leave not granted.

[2:30]

[ Page 10380 ]

Ministerial Statement

CHILD CARE MONTH

Hon. P. Priddy: Since 1982, when the city of Vancouver first declared Day Care Week, people have begun to see the month of May as a time to celebrate child care in B.C. People have begun to see this month as a time to celebrate the contributions of parents, child care providers, community organizations and, most of all, children.

It is with great pleasure that I tell the members of this House today that the province of British Columbia is officially proclaiming May as Child Care Month. It is to honour the women and men in communities throughout B.C. who work so hard for child care, and to announce to the province that our government is reaffirming its commitment to making child care a priority.

Quality child care that meets the needs of families, at a cost they can afford, is essential to our government plan to invest in jobs and the economy. In 1994 we are building on the partnership that we started two years ago. It was this time of year two years ago when I had the opportunity, along with the Premier, to announce a new child care strategy for our government, aimed at making quality, affordable child care available to more families in B.C.

Since that time we have taken many important steps. We have introduced five new child care programs, including the first-ever funding of child care spaces for infants and toddlers. We've expanded 11 other programs to help give communities the resources they need to provide safe, quality child care that better meets the needs of families. We created over 5,000 new child care spaces in our first year of these new programs. Under B.C. 21, we are building 7,500 new spaces over the next three years.

With funds to help increase low wages, we're also working to acknowledge the contribution of child care workers. We're working to make sure that parents have access to services that help them find the child care they need, and we are providing children with a chance to grow and learn in safe and caring environments.

But the job is not yet complete. The cost of child care sometimes makes it difficult for families to find child care. For others, the spaces they need are not available in their communities. Child care across the province, while less fragile than it was two years ago, still needs our help to meet the needs of more families. Child Care Month is a time for all of us to celebrate the contribution of all those who make our child care system work in B.C., and to learn from them what we need to do to make our investment in child care work even better for more people. This month I will be making several announcements about our government's investment in child care.

Today I'm very pleased to announce that with the help of capital funding from the Ministry of Women's Equality, six new child care centres will soon open their doors to families in Vancouver, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Fulford Harbour. Building on the partnership started two years ago, our child care strategy will continue to bring government resources and communities together to help parents and families across B.C. Investing in child care makes good economic sense for B.C. Our government is showing its commitment.

I urge all members of this House to show theirs by learning about child care in their communities and by joining parents, child care providers, families and children in Child Care Month activities across this province.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure to rise in response to the ministerial statement from the Minister of Women's Equality, and to thank her for the outline of her statement prior to her rising here in the House.

non-profit participants, as well, to provide the choice that many parents want. I would like to say that I'm pleased to support the six new child care centres. I urge the government to make sure that private and non-profit child care providers receive equal consideration and support from the minister and this government.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise for clarification on a point of order pertaining to today's question period in the House. The rules, I think, are fairly clear. MacMinn's second edition, dealing with standing order 47 and question period, says very clearly that the raising of points of order during question period has been disapproved of in British Columbia. It is suggested that the proper course is to defer such points of order until question period has expired.

Question period is very precious; there is only 15 minutes a day. If we're going to allow valuable minutes to be wasted by the raising of spurious points of order, where members of the official opposition harass their fellow opposition members, it's a clear waste of time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for some direction on this. I would hope that we would follow the rules of this Legislative Assembly, and if points of order are to be raised about matters that arise during question period, they should wait until the expiration of question period, as MacMinn's second edition clearly states.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

I want to thank the hon. member for raising the matter. Normally the practice is, as the member has suggested, that points of order are deferred until the end of question period. However, there are times when even the Chair finds there may be some concern. I heard the member, and in light of what he was complaining about, I had to get clarification myself. It was one of those times when an exception was made. But you are quite correct. Normally points of order detract from the question period flow and also take time away. It's not a practice we want to encourage, and I thank the member for raising the matter.

C. Tanner: On the point of order, I think the objection raised by the opposition in this case -- when the first order of business this afternoon is Bill 32, the Forest Renewal Act -- was a reasonable objection, and I think the Speaker's recognition of a point of order in this particular circumstance was warranted.

Hon. A. Petter: On the point of order, hon. Speaker. Given the comments just made, I have to respond. The question raised dealt with a stumpage and royalty increase. While it is referred to in the act, it is quite independent of the act. It was quite proper as a subject for question period, and legitimately so.

The Speaker: The Speaker thanks everyone for their input on the matter.

[ Page 10381 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Government Services, and Ministry Responsible for Sports and Commonwealth Games; in the House, I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

(continued)

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

G. Janssen: A beautiful British Columbia day it is today! I'm pleased to respond to Bill 32, the Forest Renewal Act, coming, as I do, from a resource-based constituency such as Alberni, a proud community with a proud history of serving this province. Its constituents have worked in the forest industry since Alberni was founded. They supported and served this province by going to work every day, raising families, paying taxes and creating community. Communities such as Alberni were the backbone of British Columbia.

Times changed from the days of horse logging, oxen and whipsaws to steam donkeys, chainsaws and logging railroads; and then to logging trucks, and now to laser-powered and laser-directed sawmills. Some of these innovations were first used in Alberni. Franklin River Camp and the Alberni mills were the first to start replanting, crop tending, skyline logging and now helilogging. They were innovators.

In fact, just this past month the Minister of Forests of Malaysia and two Malaysian members of parliament were visiting Coulson Aircrane -- who are truly leaders in heli-logging in British Columbia, if not the world -- to see if that innovative technology could be used in Malaysia. The Anderson mill, one of the first mills in Alberni, gave way to Stewart and Welch, then to the Bloedels and now MacMillan Bloedel. These communities prospered and grew, and we continued to harvest and process those raw materials and those forests.

Those forests supported a proud community. My parents moved there in 1956, started a jewelry business and became part of that truly living community. But governments neglected the forest industry. Social Credit didn't put anything back into those forests for years. They harvested and they reaped, but they didn't sow. In fact, every time somebody came to that former government, to Social Credit, with an order for a 2-by-4, they were handed a cutting permit.

In 1982 it was time to face the music and recognize that the technology of bygone eras was no longer sufficient to sustain those communities. The economy took a turn, and 2,500 people lost their jobs in Alberni. Thousands more lost their jobs across this province. Was there help? No, there was no help from Social Credit. Instead we got the restraint program, and it made matters worse. Families were broken. There was a breakdown in families and communities. Abuse problems skyrocketed. Homes were gone. Houses plummeted in value; banks acted and took back those houses.

How do the free enterprise parties, the Social Credit and Liberal parties, respond? The destruction of communities and values and families is called free enterprise by those parties. I say this to the opposition parties: tell it to the children, to the mothers and fathers, to the husbands and to the men and women who were proud to contribute to society by working in those resource-based communities. Tell them that free enterprise will take care of them. It didn't then and it won't now. And that's why Bill 32 is so important to this province. This bill ensures that that will never happen again in British Columbia.

It is security for communities, families, children and small businesses that are dependent on those resources and on those forests.

[2:45]

The opposition indicates that they are going to vote against this bill. They're going to vote against those workers, communities and businesses. I invite the opposition leader to visit those communities. I invite him to go back to Duncan, which is where he was just a few weeks ago, speaking to a very small group of people. After hearing him, they virtually ran him out of town. I invite him to come to Alberni, where there is another message waiting for the opposition leader. They're waiting to hear where the opposition stands. But you'll have to come clean there -- no more waffling on your position. The people in Alberni want to know where you stand.

What about the other opposition members? On Tuesday the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said: "It's truly the start of the resource nationalization of this province. That is their bible...." I know he comes from the big city, and perhaps he doesn't recognize, as people in the smaller communities recognize, that 93 percent of the province is owned by the people. The member also said that the government is looking to control investment.

The member for Langley spoke for a mere seven minutes on this very important bill. The member for Delta South spoke for ten minutes. The member for Surrey-White Rock didn't say much more, but he spoke longer. He said that we were going to take $400 million or $500 million from the companies, put it in the provincial coffers and not make those investments. The companies would no longer invest that money in the forest industry. City folk just don't understand resource-based communities in rural B.C. They don't have the confidence that those communities have.

MacMillan Bloedel is investing $200 million in the pulp mill in Alberni for the Nexgen project. Doman is investing $50 million in a new sawmill in Chemainus. Westcoast Energy announced today a $1.5 billion investment in the northeast sector. These companies have confidence. They know that this is a strong British Columbia and that this is the best government in Canada, because we lead the way with jobs and investments. The workers have confidence. They are staying in those communities, they know that money will be invested, and they know that they are living in the best province, governed by the best government, in the country.

The member for Surrey-White Rock said: "This is bad legislation. We should vote against it." Well, show those resource-based communities where you stand. We know where your federal buddies, the Liberals in Ottawa, stand. They want to save the Clayoquot and put it into a park. They want to lay off over 1,000 people from those resource-based communities. Where do the provincial Liberals stand on Clayoquot? One member says one thing, another member says another. We don't know where they stand. They say: "Mine the Tatshenshini." Save one park, mine another. It's a flip-flop.

The opposition leader says one thing in Prince George, another thing in Vancouver, and he changes his statement again in this Legislature. It's the flip-flop party: one statement one day, another statement the next; one position in the House, one outside the House. You could call it the pancake party.

The opposition leader talks about investments. "Governments won't invest in those communities that generated that wealth," he said this morning. As mayor of Vancouver, he was in charge. Those city slickers have been

[ Page 10382 ]

sucking more and more out of rural-based communities, the real communities of British Columbia where the real people of this province live. Their resources have been sucked out by those city slickers, and now he says: "Let's put some money back." Another

flip-flop; another pancake in the frying pan.

The opposition leader says that he recognizes forestry as a vital industry in British Columbia -- as the number one industry. Where is the Leader of the Opposition's background? He's cutting real estate and development deals for the big-city boys in the back rooms. They're clearcutting the suburbs and replanting them with houses, not trees. Another flip-flop; another pancake. They're alienating those lands from forestry forever, forcing families into substandard living conditions by raising prices. Another flip-flop; another pancake. Those resource-based communities are saying "no, thanks" to the

flip-flop policy, "no, thanks" to the pancake party, "no, thanks" to those ideas. The opposition ideas are foreign to resource-based communities like Alberni, Prince George, Canoe Creek, Kamloops and Duncan. That's why they're not welcome there.

The Leader of the Opposition was the mayor of Vancouver. We have a proud working relationship in the communities outside the lower mainland. But what did the mayor of Vancouver do? He eliminated the fair-wage policy, lowering the standard of living. Well, that's not for the resource-based communities. It may be all right for city slickers out of Vancouver, but it's "no, thanks" from the

resource-based communities in this province.

He wouldn't allow their caucus workers to organize -- in fact, he fired them outright. As a matter of fact, he didn't even have the nerve to do that; they hired somebody to do that. And now they're in court over that indecent act of taking out their workers and not offering them any protection. That's not the way resource-based communities operate; that's how city slickers out of Vancouver operate. They advocate that essential workers should not have the right to strike. Do they include forestry workers in the

resource-based communities? We believe that people have a right to organize. We from the resource-based communities believe in decent wages and living conditions for a decent family life.

They advocate right-to-work. The opposition says: "Let's have right-to-work legislation. Let's be like some of the states in the United States that have that legislation" -- where some of the lowest standards of living in North America exist. We have statements like this from opposition members in this House: "Don't organize our workers, because you get more work out of a non-union worker than you do out of a union worker. Let's keep their wages low, and if they don't like it, we'll run them out the door." That's not what the resource-based communities want. There's a message here, and the message to those city slickers and their ideas is: no, thanks.

We want to see Bill 32 so the resource-based communities remain strong and healthy and so there are good jobs, good working conditions and good communities with healthy environments to raise families in. We don't need any flip-flops or pancake parties. We need to support those communities. We have needed to do that for years and years, but nobody took any action.

The free enterprise party said: "Let business do it. They'll take care of you." And look what happened. We have 2,371 people out of work in Alberni. The average age of those folks is 37 for males and 36 for females. There are hundreds of employables on social assistance. Where was the help in those days? The opposition party sits and says: "That's free enterprise, folks. You shouldn't interfere. If those folks can't find a job, that's too bad. Go ask industry for those jobs." We're taking action. We're putting a bill forth that has been embraced around this province.

I invite the opposition to vote against this bill. I invite them to come to those resource-based communities, stand up and say what they mean, not say one thing in one community and another thing in this House. Let's quit the flip-flop; let's come clean. Let's all support this bill, so that this province can move and lead the country even more than it presently is. The opposition should come clean. Where do they stand? Hopefully, we're going to take a vote this afternoon on this bill, and we'll see where they stand. We'll see if they have the nerve after that to go back to those communities -- if those city slickers can find any votes out there in the rest of British Columbia.

Port Alberni is looking forward to this bill, as are other resource-based communities in this province. The sooner we pass this bill, the sooner this government can get to work, and the sooner those communities can find the security they've been looking for.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Forests to close debate.

Hon. A. Petter: On the day the forest renewal plan was announced, I spoke about two values: partnership and renewal. Those two concepts are very much at the heart of this legislation -- partnerships with communities, businesses, workers, first nations and environmentalists; and renewal of our forests, forest communities and the British Columbia economy, which depends on our forests.

As I listened to the debate in this House over the past few days, I understood that what we're also discussing here is the question of vision: the vision of those who see the future of this province as being one in which we build together for a better future, and the vision of those who continue to be mired in the conflicts of the past and wish to exploit those for short-term political gain. That, I think, is very much the essence of this debate.

I felt sorry at times for members of the opposition as they struggled to manufacture reasons to be concerned about this legislation. I sat in admiration as members of this House, particularly on the government side, but not only.... I noted the comments of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who stood up and spoke to the finer aspirations of British Columbians and to the vision of this bill.

However, given the number of concerns raised, I feel an obligation to review some of the points of the legislation and its purpose, simply to clarify and set the record straight in order that there be no misconceptions about what this bill is about and what the vision that it holds for British Columbians is about.

We've heard a lot from members of the opposition about Crown corporations and bureaucracies. We've heard all sorts of fanciful tales. Yet those who have criticized this bill have not understood why Forest Renewal B.C., the agency established under the bill, is absolutely essential for the success of this enterprise. Either that, or they have chosen not to understand. Forest Renewal B.C. is a partnership agency. If this is to be a partnership, we need a vehicle by which the partners can come together and work together. That's why Forest Renewal B.C. is absolutely essential.

Secondly, Forest Renewal B.C. is the vehicle we need in order to ensure continuity and in order to ensure that we have a vehicle through which investment can be made, not for one, two or three years but over the next generations. I think this point was made very well in the speech by the member for West

[ Page 10383 ]

Vancouver-Garibaldi, and it has been made by other members. It has also been discussed by royal commissions. But we know all too well, from experience in this House, that there is an unfortunate tendency of members to think in two-, three- or four-year intervals. I think the member for Nelson-Creston also made the same point.

[3:00]

Because this agency has a dedicated source of revenue provided by the legislation, because it can accumulate funds when times are good in terms of timber prices and can pay those down when times are not as good, and because, without sacrificing accountability, it has some independence from the day-to-day politics of this Legislature, we have an agency that can look to, speak to and work for the long term in a way that has never been done. That will ensure the relationship that we're providing for in this bill between the value of the resource and the need to reinvest in it.

That relationship will not be short-term, for one year or for this budget; it will endure and provide for generations to come. That's why, on the day of the announcement, Mr. Bentley stood up and said, in an extraordinary acknowledgment by a member of industry on behalf of any government:

"It's the first instance I'm aware of in my 45 years in the industry of any provincial government coming up with a plan that goes beyond the political cycle between elections. It's the first time that this province has committed to reinvestment in the forest land base, and I think that all foresters and environmentalists should rejoice in that."

That's not a political, self-serving statement. Despite his position and self-interest, that's someone who understands that without a vehicle and without legislation of this kind, the fine words of the opposition are so much smoke. They don't add up to anything. They have been said a hundred times before, and they have not produced the kind of long-term commitment that we need.

There's been a lot of talk about bureaucracy. This is not a bureaucratic agency; this is a partnership, and the partners will work together very hard to ensure that it is small and effective, and that it will work with communities and existing structures. It won't try to reinvent the wheel, but it will try to make use of all the wheels that are out there and some of the wheels that can be created out there.

When we talk about Crown corporations and ignore the realities of what this legislation is about and why Forest Renewal B.C. is essential, and then we tie it back to royal commission recommendations and statements such as those I just quoted, we start to understand what's really going on here. We see that the opposition's concerns are simply political. They don't speak to the real, substantive issue at hand.

I heard a number of comments about stumpage and royalties. People talked about this as a tax increase. My God, we live in a province where I thought everyone knew and took pride in the fact that these are government-controlled Crown resources. The industry is private -- absolutely. But the resource base is public, for the most part, and that's something that previous governments have taken pride in; W.A.C. Bennett took pride in it.

The opposition doesn't seem to understand that as the owner of that resource, the public is entitled to a return when the value of that resource increases, as it has over the past two years. I don't understand why they, as stewards of that resource on behalf of the public, would not feel comfortable joining with the government in saying yes, the public deserves a return from that resource. That's what this is all about. It's not about increasing taxes; it's about ensuring that the owners of the resource, the public of British Columbia, receive a fair and adequate return from that resource.

Some have said that the government is counting on high prices; that this is all smoke and mirrors because it is all predicated on high stumpage prices. That's absolutely not true. I've explained how the agency works. We believe, and most in the industry believe, that there has been a structural shift in prices. We also know that even with that structural shift, prices will continue to be cyclical. At times they'll be high; at times they'll be low -- not as low as they were perhaps five or six years ago, but lower than they are today. We need this agency, because it can take account of that.

It can plan through that. It can accumulate during the high prices and pay down during the low, and maintain a continuity of investment that will not only ensure stability of investment but will act as a positive, stabilizing force on the economy.

Some have cried crocodile tears about the small business impacts. I really can't add much to what the member for Nelson-Creston said about that, except that those crocodile tears are obviously clouding their vision of what has really been going on. Most of the small business operators who have to compete through the small business program have been paying, through their bonus bids, much more than the upset price represented by stumpage. They're not going to be affected by this in any way. So let us not cry crocodile tears when we don't understand how the system works.

We have gone the extra mile, because we believe in accountability. While it's important that the agency have independence and continuity, we want it to be an agency that can achieve that without sacrificing accountability, and that's why those provisions are there. Beyond that, the commitment of this government to a community-based approach -- and we can debate this during third reading -- will itself provide for accountability. Many members have said -- and my goodness, they are absolutely right -- that this is not an initiative the government can do alone. That's why we proceeded in this way.

That's why, frankly, we don't have all the answers ahead of time. Those answers are going to have to be worked out in partnership with communities,

[ Page 10384 ]

first nations, industry, workers and environmentalists. That's what it's about, and that also should provide some assurance to British Columbians.

C. Evans: It's called a flip-flop.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, there are a lot of flip-flops in what I've heard from the opposition. I'm going to talk about flip-flops in a minute, but I'm trying to deal with each argument as best I can, thin though they may be.

The process that brought us to this point included the committee established by the Premier and the former minister, the Forest Sector Strategy Committee. It was representative of all sectors of the industry as well as groups beyond the industry. Small business, truck loggers, interior loggers and the value-added sector were all represented. To suggest that this initiative is somehow responsive to large companies but not small is to ignore the whole process that brought this about, in which the voices of the small and the independent companies were heard, and heard very well, by this government.

They too have joined the chorus of those who now say that this plan does speak to their needs and to the future of this province. In addition, we have spoken about the need to expand woodlots and increase community licence opportunities through this plan -- hardly something the major companies are going to rejoice about.

There was a category that I'll call miscellaneous misconceptions. I probably gave too much coherence to the other misconceptions by lumping them thematically together, but I've tried to give what credit I can. One is on regional equity. A lot of the opposition are saying: "Oh, regional equity." When we announced this plan, we said one of the five core principles was regional equity. Under this legislation, we have charged committees with a responsibility to make recommendations on regional distribution and equity. It's very clear this plan is about returning the value of the land to the land in an equitable way. That's what this plan is about; regional equity is very much at the heart of it.

Having said that, it would not make sense to ensure that each component of the plan was delivered to each part of the province in exactly the same way. It would be a bad investment. For example, in parts of the plan we've talked about reclaiming marginal agricultural land for forestry. That kind of land just doesn't exist everywhere in the province. A lot of it exists near Prince George, and I think there will be many around Prince George who will say that they want to get a very sizable portion of that funding. More power to them; they should. In other parts of the province there are other concerns.

If by regional equity, the notion is that the fund overall should speak equitably to all regions -- absolutely. But let's not fall in the trap of saying that that means each and every component of the plan must treat each region as though it were the same. We have an incredibly diverse province; we have an incredibly diverse resource. The needs are different, and the plan must be sensitive to that as well.

I've even heard some members suggest that this is going to have an impact on prices. My God, does it take me to lecture members of

so-called free enterprise parties on how the market works in lumber? The stumpage isn't driving the prices; the prices are driving the stumpage. You've got it backwards, hon. members. When the value of the resource goes up, then the owner of the resource has an added opportunity. People who have gone to their lumber store to buy lumber in the last two years will have noted that they're paying a lot more today than they were two or three years ago. This plan is not saying that they're going to pay more still. They won't. The international market price is not going to change.

What it means is that they will have the assurance that more of the dollar they spend will go back into the resource, communities and jobs right here in British Columbia. It will not be channelled away offshore; it will be reinvested for their future and their children's future. That's what this is about. Take a course in economics.

I've heard lots of concern about silviculture workers. Let me say what I've made clear so many times -- perhaps the official opposition has chosen not to take account of it. All of the funding in this program is new, incremental funding. I know they find that hard to understand, because whenever the federal Liberals or the former Socreds used to announce a "new plan," it turned out that it was just an old plan with a bunch of dollars moved around and some new window dressing. That isn't the case here. These are all new dollars.

They do not displace one dollar of expenditure that's in current budgets for silviculture or forest management. Therefore silvicultural workers who currently enjoy jobs through existing programs need not fear; those programs will continue. This will be an addition and will provide additional opportunities, not only for them but for other British Columbians.

There's a whole category of other miscellaneous misconceptions under what the plan doesn't do. Very often they are assertions that the plan should have done something or pretended to do something. For example, some have talked about how the plan does absolutely nothing about forest inventories. One member said that. It's true, but this government has pioneered a timber supply review that addresses that issue. It's true it doesn't do anything specifically about regulating forest practices, because we have a Forest Practices Code initiative underway.

I want to urge members to not play the old game of talking about what the plan doesn't do. Let's talk about what it does do. Then we can talk about all the other initiatives this government has pioneered to meet their other concerns.

Finally, there's been some concern about affordability. Is this affordable? The stumpage and royalty structure being put in place is price-sensitive. That means that when the rates go up, the industry will pay more; when they go down, they will pay less. For that reason it is affordable. In fact, I saw in the newspaper, in the last week or so, some companies reporting that even after this plan their expectation was for increased profits over the next year.

[3:15]

That isn't to say that whenever you make an increase, there may not be some whose circumstances have not been

[ Page 10385 ]

fully taken account of. For that reason, we said at the time of the announcement that there is a technical committee prepared to sit down and deal with those problems; we don't want anyone to suffer unduly. Whenever you make a change in the structure of stumpage or royalties, there will be unforeseen circumstances. But over the course, clearly this is affordable. The industry, both big and small, wouldn't have supported it if it weren't.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: The member opposite asks: "Who picks up the shortfall when the price is down?" This is like an insurance fund, hon. member. This fund will build up funds when times are good and pay them down when times aren't so good. This is like an insurance fund for the future of British Columbia. It's going to have to be an actuarially sound and sensitive fund. But we believe that it is and will be, and so do those who support it.

I want to close by talking about that third element I started with: the element of vision. I think we as elected members are charged with the responsibility not only to come and represent constituents, but to present a vision of the future. I believe this initiative does present such a vision. It's a vision of a relationship between a resource and its value and the future of this province. It says we have a vision in which the benefit of that resource not only will be realized in the short term, but will be reinvested to realize that benefit for the long term.

That is the ultimate vision: a vision of sustainability -- economic sustainability along with environmental sustainability. It's also a vision about the future of the resource, of forest communities, of the B.C. economy and of jobs.

What I found most depressing during this debate -- in some ways really sad -- was the lack of vision forthcoming from the official opposition. I had some hopes early on. The quote has been referred to earlier, but maybe it bears repeating. A few days after the announcement in Prince George, the Leader of the Opposition said: "I think the concept is a good concept. It's something that we've needed in British Columbia for some time.

We need to have a long-term forest strategy that will provide for the long-term health of the forests, the forest communities and the forest economy." The Leader of the Opposition for a moment was thinking in the long term. But now, apparently, it doesn't appear to appear to him as it appeared to appear to him them. He got back together with his caucus in Victoria. I don't know what happened. Maybe he got a call from a hotline show host, and they said, "Think short term!" and he did. Now, apparently -- I can't believe it -- the leader stands up in the House and says he's going to vote against it.

I had hopes for the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition party.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi stood up and said: "This is an issue that's too important to play politics with." Mr. Bentley said the same thing the first day. The Leader of the Opposition apparently agreed for a moment. Then he turned around and said, "Hey, just a second, nothing's too important to play politics with," and he started to play it. I think the people of British Columbia have had it with the naysayers, doomsdayers and those who have no vision for the future and who prefer to mire us in the conflicts of the past rather than move forward with a positive new partnership for tomorrow.

This is a debate about the principle of this bill. That's what second reading debate is about. If you read the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in Prince George, there is no way to interpret it other than to say that he supported this initiative in principle. When I heard the Leader of the Opposition today, there was no way to interpret his statement other than to say that he opposed this initiative in principle. One day he supports it in principle; one day he opposes it in principle. My only conclusion is that he and his party have no principles, and that's why they are not able to support this initiative.

The people of this province are tired of those games; they're tired of those flip-flops and that short-term political thinking. They are ready to come together; they are ready to build a partnership for the future; they are ready to put aside the petty politics of the past. The one thing that has been asked of me by members of the press as I've travelled this province is: why is it that the opposition and the opposition alone seems to be the only organized group in this province that opposes this initiative? Out of generosity, I have said: "Reach your own conclusions."

I think the people of British Columbia will reach their own conclusions once we take this vote. We have a vision. It's a vision we can all work with together. It's a vision that big and small industry, workers, environmentalists and first nations can all work on together. Communities have an important role, and yes, we can do something good for the future and for future generations. We can do it together, or we can play politics and put our short-term interests ahead of our long-term needs. Therefore I hope that the opposition will think again. I hope that they will find that they do have a principle and a position, and that they do have some vision.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 32.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 42

Petter

Sihota

Priddy

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Smallwood

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Blencoe

Lovick

Janssen

Evans

Randall

Beattie

Farnworth

Doyle

Lord

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Jackson

Kasper

Krog

Brewin

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Mitchell

Hanson

H. De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

NAYS -- 10

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Stephens

Symons

M. de Jong

K. Jones

Warnke

Tanner

Wilson

[3:30]

Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 10.

[ Page 10386 ]

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the Minister of Education, we will allow members who are going to Committee A to do so.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: This bill makes a number of changes to the School Act, reflecting the public's desire for increased accountability and cost-efficiency in the education system. The proposed amendments are designed to improve access to information on financial decisions made by boards, to ensure that plain language is used in financial reporting and to provide consistent procedures for the adoption of bylaws, in keeping with the public's demand for greater accountability.

Under

definitions, an amendment is proposed to clearly define vehicles as buses only. Other vehicle purchases being made by the board, such as trucks and tractors, are more appropriately accounted for in a manner similar to all other equipment purchases by the board, which are accounted for as capital only when new, and operating when they are replacement.

Under passage of bylaws, the current School Act does not set out any procedure for the passage of board bylaws, nor is a consistent procedure followed by all boards. It is proposed that boards be required to follow specific procedures for the reading and passage of bylaws, which is in keeping with the government's aim for higher standards of public accountability.

[S. O'Neill in the chair.]

With respect to debt-servicing costs, the proposed amendments would reduce debt-financing costs of government and encourage better cash management by school boards. Government currently pays the interest on funds borrowed by school boards to cover operating expenses. The province has no control over the financing arrangements made by local school boards for operating expenditures, other than limiting the borrowing time to six months unless otherwise approved by the minister. The proposed amendment allows boards to continue to meet operating expenses through borrowing.

However, the interest on the borrowed money would have to be charged against the board's operating budget instead of being paid for by the province as part of the

debt-financing costs. These changes would improve accountability and ensure effective use of tax dollars.

A board's operating budget is currently based on projected enrolment information and is adopted by budget bylaw on or before April 27 of a given school year. In order for boards to ascertain a more realistic operating budget, it is proposed to allow boards to pass a second budget bylaw on or before February 28 of the fiscal year in question. This procedure would reflect a more accurate and updated operating budget based on actual enrolment figures and any other changes for spending decisions.

Financial reporting. In addition, an amendment is proposed to ensure that the accounting records of boards are kept in a consistent manner and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for local governments. In particular, this amendment will ensure that deviation from the consistent manner is reported to the minister and to the public.

In the consultation that has occurred in drafting these amendments, approximately 400 written and oral briefs were presented to the education funding review panel in 1992, indicating that there must be improved accountability for school board spending decisions and improved financial reporting by boards. The auditor general has reviewed the appointment of school board auditors. Education partners have been consulted through the financial reporting and accountability committee and the education finance advisory committee. School board officials have been consulted through the accounting advisory committee.

Discussions have taken place with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. on the accounting principles for school boards and on consistency with municipalities, hospitals, colleges and universities.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to respond in second reading of Bill 10, School Amendment Act, 1994, and to say that the bill amends and substitutes sections within the School Act to clarify and increase the fiscal accountability of school boards. The official opposition is pleased that the minister has increased the accountability of the education system. We would have been even more pleased if the NDP government had made education an essential service, which would have kept children in schools last year. The level of accountability in education services must be addressed not only at the administrative level but also by teachers.

This bill principally addresses the fiscal accountability of school boards. This comes at a time when the increases to school funding by this government do not address increases in teachers' salaries, and school boards are in the position of cutting positions and programs to accommodate the government's irresponsible actions in this direction.

The opposition looks forward to committee stage of this bill.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 10, School Amendment Act, 1994, 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. C. Gabelmann: On behalf of the House Leader, I call committee on Bill 11.

CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 11; G. Janssen in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to submit an amendment to

section 1(c). It has been tabled; the Clerk has it at the table.

The Chair: The amendment is as follows: "Section 1(c), in the proposed definition of 'funeral director' by deleting 'to arrange, conduct or direct funerals, burials or the disposition or transfer of human remains', and substituting 'to arrange, conduct or direct funerals or the transfer or disposition of human remains, or to arrange burials'."

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

[ Page 10387 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: As we go through this, I'm just wondering if the minister can give us a few comments about the pertinent sections, as far as what she's heard in the requests for this legislation is concerned as opposed to just flying through them like that.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I appreciate the member's interest. But in second reading of the bill, your critic for Consumer Services put some questions. As we get to those sections, we will be happy to reference them.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

V. Anderson:

Section 3(b)(

f) mentions standards of operation for funeral homes, but it doesn't give any description of those. I'm wondering if the minister would give an indication of the kinds of standards they are thinking about under this particular section.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The standards themselves will come in the regs. We have an advisory committee made up of both consumers and industry representatives. They will be part of the process of establishing standards.

V. Anderson: At this point perhaps the minister could tell us about the nature of the advisory committee that's going to be establishing those standards. Under

section 1 you've done away with the advisory council.

Hon. J. Smallwood: As I said, the council itself is made up of a number of industry representatives, as well as consumers. Included in that consultation group are the B.C. Funeral Service Association, the Cemetery and Crematorium Association of B.C., the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Council of Christian Churches.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that. I'm wondering if, in our multicultural and multifaith society, religious groups other than the Council of Christian Churches should also have representation on the advisory council. It seems to me that it should be broader than just the Christian churches.

Hon. J. Smallwood: We've looked at that very issue, and we're looking at including other representatives, to represent a broader faith.

[3:45]

L. Hanson: Mr. Chairman, is it possible, with the minister's indulgence, to ask a question on

section 1? I'm not disputing the passage of it, but I'd like some clarification.

The Chair: Agreed. Shall we pass

section 3 first?

Section 3 approved.

L. Hanson: In

section 1, "funeral director" is interpreted to mean "an individual licensed under this Act to arrange, conduct or direct funerals, burials or the disposition or transfer of human remains." I've had some concern expressed to me that the direction of funerals or the conducting of funerals sometimes is....

Interjection.

L. Hanson: This was passed. My apologies for missing the section. Could you just give me a moment to read it?

The concern, I think, is still there. It's been expressed to me by some members of the clergy that the definition of funeral director is a concern with respect to the conducting of funerals, in the sense of the actual service itself. If the minister could just clarify that for the record, it would be appreciated.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not altogether sure that I understand the question. The amendment that was put forward just changes the order of the words in the original proposal to emphasize the role of arranging over the direct conducting of the services.

L. Hanson: I understand the change in emphasis that the minister is suggesting, but the concern is that the direction of funerals might be interpreted to mean the actual carrying on of the service in the case of a burial. The clergy feel that it should be clearly stated that that isn't the intention of this

section of the act.

Hon. J. Smallwood: If it provides the member with some comfort, that is not the intent of the act.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

V. Anderson: The question that arises here perhaps regards rural places particularly, and that's the question of funeral directors who may be using a number of satellite locations. They have the one main funeral home and a number of satellites in smaller communities, or there may be a local funeral provider who is working on behalf of the funeral director. Does 69.1(3), "licensed for each location," mean that there would have to be a separate licence for each of those satellite areas, even though they're operating in a rural area out of one major funeral home?

There might be a small chapel or an office or whatever, but it's simply for services. What does "location" mean? Does it mean the main office out of which they operate, or does it mean each of those smaller locations?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Each location, including satellite locations, is licensed. The professionals operating out of those licensed premises will be licensed as well.

V. Anderson: Is the minister indicating that they would need to have a separate licence for each satellite office they might use as they reach out into smaller communities? Those smaller community offices are usually more for the benefit of the people than for the benefit of the funeral director. So does one funeral director require a separate licence for each location?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, that's correct, although it would not necessarily be a full-service licence if full service is not provided in each satellite.

V. Anderson: The minister has indicated that there is a range of licences, depending on the circumstances in each location.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The registrar has some discretion to impose conditions, and the licence would be subject to those conditions. In the member's example, where the full funeral service is provided in one community and then separate or partial services are provided in satellite locations, the licence

[ Page 10388 ]

would not be the same for the partial, satellite service as for the full service.

L. Fox: This actually relates to 72.3, under

section 11. It seems like it's flowing together here. With respect to funeral services, as was being discussed by the member for Vancouver-Langara, I happen to have two communities in my riding that have only partial services for the convenience of residents in those respective communities. It's basically a service-oriented facility. As the minister pointed out earlier, these things are going to come out in the regulations. But are there going to be substantive differences in the fees, or are the fees going to be so expensive that it might discourage funeral homes from having these satellite facilities in smaller communities?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This legislation actually supports the examples you've given,

whereas other models would require and support larger corporations functioning in the province. For a full licence, Bill 11 requires a funeral provider to licence all funeral professionals within that place of business. The examples that were given by the previous member -- and I understand they are similar in your riding -- are such that while the full-service site will be fully licensed, including all the professionals operating at that site, smaller satellite sites that only provide partial service will simply be required to license the premises and the professional who is situated in those premises.

The difference in the cost of licensing the full service versus the partial service will be impacted by the number of professionals on site, full service needing more professionals to be licensed to facilitate the services provided.

L. Fox: I thank the minister for answering the question and helping to clarify it.

Just one final question. It's my understanding that presently the company only requires one licence, irrespective of whether it has two or three partial-service offices. Is that not correct? Isn't this an expansion to where now they'll have to license all the reduced-service offices,

whereas previously they didn't have to license them?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm going to ask the member to restate his question, but let me provide a little bit of information about the makeup of the funeral industry in the province. It gives me an opportunity, recognizing that we flew into this bill and that all members were not able to be here for some of the introductory remarks.

The funeral industry in this province has changed a great deal over the last few years. This legislation was developed as a piece of consumer protection legislation with the support of the funeral industry because of their desire to standardize across the industry. This legislation is supported, as I said, by funeral professionals and in no way undermines the funeral industry in the province, but indeed supports what we have in place currently. The reality is that there are about 100 funeral homes currently operating in the province that will require a funeral provider's licence.

About 55 funeral homes in British Columbia are owned by three large corporations. About 45 funeral homes continue to operate as independents, and about 15 are one-person operations. Just to recap, approximately 75 percent of the funeral services businesses in British Columbia are conducted by three corporations alone. So the member can see that there has been a tremendous centralization of funeral services in the province.

The support that the province has given both to the industry and consumers in bringing this legislation forward is necessary not only to protect consumers but to manage all the small interests, the small service providers, alongside the large corporations. So these amendments are supported by the industry. They support the small funeral providers and ensure that there is a level playing field.

V. Anderson: In

section 69.1(4), from the point of view of efficiency, I'm wondering what the reason is for a one-year licence, as opposed to a three-year or a five-year licence. As you've indicated, the majority of these people are there over a period of time. Why wouldn't the licence be for a longer period, rather than having to renew it every year?

[4:00]

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I remind the member that

section 6 has passed.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm more than happy to answer the member's question. Currently, under licensing procedures with our ministry in other industries, as well as licensing procedures at the municipal level, those licences are reviewed each and every year. That's not to say that down the road we might not look at the option of allowing businesses to prepay or pay over a longer period of time.

It will be very important for consumer confidence, should there be difficulties with a professional or a practitioner, that they have the opportunity to file those issues. Then the registrar has the opportunity to review the licence with that information.

V. Anderson: Perhaps, hon. Chair, we should declare when we're passing.... I wasn't aware that when you said

section 6, you had passed the next three pages. I would beg your indulgence to go back and look at those.

The Chair: The member continues.

V. Anderson: Turning over to

section 69.2, I would like some clarification about the wide-open statement that when "it is not in the public interest," the registrar has jurisdiction to refuse a licence. That's a fairly broad designation. If the registrar does refuse a licence, what is the basis of appeal?

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are two aspects: the registrar, if refusing a licence, will provide a written explanation; and the appeal process is Commercial Appeals.

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, in response to the minister's answer, I just want to follow up on one question that I asked previously. Her answer did help to clarify what I could see was perhaps a protection of the small business part of this industry. That leads me to ask whether this licensing agency, or the advisory group that is going to be struck, will have the ability to limit the number of licences in a geographical area, or if everybody who is qualified is going to be free to apply for a licence irrespective of how many licences already exist in a community.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The intent of this bill is not to restrict competition. Quite the contrary. As the member emphasized, it is to support small business and small operators. There is no power with the registrar or within this legislation that would inhibit funeral professionals, once they have qualified for licensing, to obtain those licences.

V. Anderson: On

section 69.3, when the registrar refuses a licence under subsection (2): "On receipt of a written

[ Page 10389 ]

reply...the registrar must confirm or vary the registrar's decision...." What is a time limit for that? There's no time limit there, so there's no suggestion about when that has to be done, or how quickly.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is correct, there is no time outlined in the legislation, although administrative law would establish what is a fair expectation for issuing licences.

V. Anderson: In

section 10, what is the reason for changing "funeral provider" to "licensee" in each of those designations under

section 72?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The changes will license both the director and the embalmer, and the change will provide an opportunity for the director to license the organization as well. The changes will not only provide the director opportunity to license each individually but to act if those licences are in any way violated by not living up to the standards. The director may then act against an organization as well as an individual.

V. Anderson: I have the same question with respect to

section 72.3, where we talk about funeral directors and embalmers. Where a person has a variety of funeral outlets but only one central embalming location, it is not clear that an embalmer is required "for each location" of service, rather than for the central location where embalming actually takes place.

The Chair: Before the minister responds, we are now on

section 11.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

Hon. J. Smallwood: We canvassed this area earlier. It's the same answer as for the satellite service provider.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

V. Anderson: This has to do with the current price list of all goods and services that is to be displayed in a conspicuous place on the premises. Is any particular standard or format for that being recommended in this, or will that come out in regulations? I know there often is a concern that this may not be public or visible, so I just want to ask in passing.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I refer the member to the language in the act. It says: "...display the current price list in a conspicuous place."

L. Hanson: I certainly have no argument with the display of the price list. Can the minister comment on why this

section was put in? Has some problem been arising that we are not aware of?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I really emphasize again that the legislation brings standards to the industry, supports some of the issues around smaller operators and brings balance to consumer protection. The fundamental principle we hold to be very important in consumer protection legislation is full disclosure, so that consumers are making informed decisions based on appropriate information.

The listing of prices provides consumers the opportunity to have the information before them when they're perhaps at their most vulnerable -- when they have lost a loved one. I've gone so far as to recommend to consumers that they take the price list away and make their decision in the privacy of their own home. It gives them the opportunity to shop around and compare other funeral services' prices.

It is in no way meant to inhibit a service provider from being competitive or offering a number of different products at different prices. Instead, as I said, it is based on the fundamental principle of full disclosure and providing consumers with information.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

L. Fox: Then what is the rationale for having to file the price list with the registrar?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The filing is simply to provide the registrar with information for comparative purposes. If there is a complaint where a funeral provider has listed their price and then charged the consumer a different price, the registrar can look at the information and say: "They charged you $600. The information we have is that their price is $500." It again enables the registrar to keep track of any potential violations in the field.

V. Anderson: With regard to the same

section of the act, is there any comment about funeral directors being able to advertise their prices or products? Is there any limitation, freedom or direction in that regard? Or is that completely up to the directors themselves?

Hon. J. Smallwood: There is no prohibition on advertising. Indeed, making information available to consumers is something we encourage. The only restriction is around false advertising or misrepresentation.

L. Fox: So the requirement to file the price list with the registrar does not connote scrutinizing the level of pricing. That's still up to the individual enterprise.

Hon. J. Smallwood: There's absolutely no intent with this legislation to restrict or govern prices in this area. The member may not be aware that cemeteries are already required by law to file with the registrar.

[4:15]

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

V. Anderson: In 75.1 under

section 16, the registrar has the ability to inspect and copy records with respect to a complaint. I'm wondering about the question of privacy and about what may be done with those records. What would govern the copying of those records, which are often very private and confidential? I'm wondering about that concern. The inspecting I can see, but copying and taking them away could be of concern if the records were made available beyond the registrar.

Hon. J. Smallwood: This legislation and the role of the registrar are governed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[ Page 10390 ]

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

V. Anderson:

Section 19 has to do with prepaid funeral services and the money on deposit. Could the minister give some explanation of the changes involved here?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The current act allows the funeral provider to retain 20 percent of the total contract. If an individual has partially paid that contract, the change simply means that the funeral provider may retain 20 percent of that which was paid. The change simply brings about some fairness. Individuals could find themselves in a situation where the amount paid equals 20 percent of the total, and under the current provisions they wouldn't recover the full amount.

V. Anderson: Just to follow up, then, if I understand subsection (

b) correctly, where costs have been incurred for goods, those would be subtracted from the part to be returned. Is that right?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The answer is yes, for personal items such as an engraved headstone. That sort of service can be subtracted from that.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

V. Anderson:

Section 22 apparently repeals the establishment of the Cemetery and Funeral Services Advisory Council, yet the minister commented on having an advisory council. Is this being replaced by another advisory council? If so, where does that come in, and what's the nature of that advisory council?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The advisory council was legislated. The repeal simply recognizes the fact that government has put in place a consultation committee that will help with the development of regulations in support of this legislation.

V. Anderson: So instead of a legislated advisory committee, am I to understand that it's a volunteer advisory committee, which may or may not exist -- at the whim of any particular minister?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The legislation was permissive; it wasn't directive. It said that the minister may have.... The committee is a task-oriented group with the specific task of advising government on the formation of standards.

L. Hanson: Then with the repealing of sections 99 and 100, and the advisory committee becoming a thing of the past, how would the minister anticipate that the industry would have an opportunity to influence regulations, future legislation and any problems? There's really nothing, other than the discretion of the minister, who, I realize, is very keen to hear the impressions of the industry. It's subject to the will or whim of the minister, whoever that might be at the time.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I can assure the member that in all areas of consumer protection legislation and regulation of the marketplace, our ministry has a very good relationship with each industrial sector in the province that we are responsible for. This industry will be no exception. I am confident that we will continue to have that good working relationship, even after the task of advising government on the formation of standards has concluded.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

V. Anderson: Would the minister indicate the reason for changing the sums of penalties from $2,000 to $10,000?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This is for directors. It recognizes that they are the management, who are responsible for operations. The change in the amount brings the penalty

section into line with other consumer protection legislation.

V. Anderson: A new paragraph is added under 26(c), (1)(x), "the standards of operation of, and facilities required by, a funeral provider." Am I to understand that there was no category to allow for this previously, and that this is a new section? If so, why is it inserted at this time?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This

section was requested by the industry. The industry wants cross-industry standards. It provides government with the opportunity to set regulations, in consultation with our committee.

V. Anderson: One of the concerns I have is that I could see where large operators would be happy with certain standards, because they could rationalize those in the larger operation. These could easily be standards that would make it very difficult for the small operator to participate with some equity.

Hon. J. Smallwood: In our earlier discussion we referenced the role of government as a regulatory body bringing fairness and balance to regulations in the marketplace. This is a prime example of balancing interests and the role of government. The registrar has discretion and can order adherence to standards based on the specific site or service provided.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

V. Anderson: Under

section 26(e), (3) has to do with fees. I can't help but ask where the fees are at present. Have they increased in the last year or so, or have they increased more recently, like fees in every other category have done at this time? Is there a distinction between the larger and the smaller operators with regard to fees?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The fees that will be introduced are new. They don't currently exist, because we don't have the ability to license these professionals until the legislation is passed.

V. Anderson: If these are new fees coming into place, could you indicate their nature or type, or the reason for these fees?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The fees are to enable some recovery of costs for administering the licensing procedure. The fees will be considerably less than in other provinces. A funeral home in Ontario would pay approximately $22,000. Ours are

[ Page 10391 ]

radically less than that. In Alberta the same funeral home would pay $750. While the industry is aware of and has been part of setting the fees, we will not introduce the fees through OIC until the legislation has been put forward and gives us that authority.

V. Anderson: If I understand the minister, these are fees for services that the funeral homes provide. Are the fees different than the licences? If so, how are these fees and the fees for the licences different?

Hon. J. Smallwood: It's simply a fee for the licence. I'd like to correct the record. In my previous answer, I heard myself say $22,000 for Ontario; it's $2,200.

V. Anderson: I'm sure everyone would like that one corrected. What about the fees for burial permits? Are you talking about fees for burial permits that the family needs, or are burial fees separate and in another category under vital statistics?

Hon. J. Smallwood: That is separate and covered by vital statistics. Let me try to provide some information around the licensing. There will be a licence for the funeral provider, a licence for the funeral director and a licence for the embalmer. So from our earlier discussion, where there is a full-service funeral home, there will be licences for all of the professionals, and the funeral home will be licensed as well. Some of the satellites or smaller businesses that would purchase those services off-site will simply be licensed. The funeral home will be licensed, and then the director, who I assume would be situated in one of those satellites, would be licensed.

[4:30]

V. Anderson: I have two questions that relate to that. In the small home, the funeral provider, the funeral director and the funeral embalmer are probably all the same person, so do they have three fees, or one? In the larger homes, where you have a funeral director who has a number of persons working for them, does every person who is not a secretary or an accountant in that facility need an independent licence?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This is a good example of how this legislation supports small businesses and smaller sites where, using the member's example of the funeral home where the director and the embalmer are the same person, the licence would cover the funeral home and one person. In the larger corporations, where there is a funeral home and possibly a number of directors and embalmers, then each of the accredited professionals at that site would require licensing. There would be a licence for the home, and in the example I gave where there are three directors, they would be licensed separately, and the accredited embalmers also would be licensed separately.

[S. O'Neill in the chair.]

V. Anderson: Perhaps a final question just to clarify, then. You used the word "accredited" to describe the director and the embalmer. There could be unaccredited assistants who work in the home -- drive and perform other services half-time or help out at the funeral services directing people -- and they would not all need to be licensed with this kind of fee.

Hon. J. Smallwood: That's correct. It emphasizes the important role that the director plays in being responsible for the management of....

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 11, Cemetery and Funeral Services Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 5.

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This legislation amends

part 3 of the Family Relations Act to provide for a division of pensions, and repeals and replaces sections 74 and 74.1 to allow separation agreements to be filed in court without consent.

First of all, on division of pensions, existing legislation provides for division of family assets on marriage breakdown. It also defines family assets to specifically include pensions. The existing legislation is based on the presumption that each spouse is entitled to a half interest in each family asset. While the existing legislation recognizes that a spouse has an interest in a pension earned by the other spouse during the time of their marriage, the legislation does not provide a method by which the spouse's share of the pension is calculated or how the spouse's share is going to be paid out.

Because no mechanism exists to divide pension benefits, it has been left to the parties to divide pensions by agreement. Where no agreement can be reached, the courts must give effect to the policy. Because of the complexity of pensions, their highly technical nature and the different kinds of pensions which provide different options, the courts have struggled to develop legal principles which would apply to all pensions. This has resulted in principles which are complex and it has made it necessary for parties to retain counsel for lengthy and expensive court proceedings.

The current legislation forces former spouses to maintain financial ties for years after their marriage has ended and to be involved in complicated accounting and reporting responsibilities. If the pension plan member fails to pay the share to the spouse as required by the court or by the agreement, a spouse has to incur the expense of going to court to enforce the order or agreement. In addition, the current scheme requires the pension plan member who receives the whole pension benefit, as a trustee for the former spouse, to pay income tax on the whole amount; accounting then has to be made between the spouses for the spouse's share of the tax liability.

Bill 5 adds a new part to the Family Relations Act that provides a formula for determining a spouse's share of a pension and specifies how the pension entitlement is to be paid to the spouse. The amended legislation will apply to all types of pensions registered in British Columbia. It will eliminate the need to have actuarial and economic issues

[ Page 10392 ]

resolved through litigation, by directly involving pension plans in dividing the pension.

The new bill will involve the plans directly in dividing pensions; require the spouse and the member to pay a prescribed amount to offset the cost that the plan will incur in administering a divided pension; provide a streamlined pension division model to minimize the administrative demands on the plans while continuing to protect the interests of the spouse and the member; in some cases establish two accounts in a pension plan, one for the member and one for the spouse; where there is a mature pension, pay out two separate cheques -- one to the member and one to the spouse -- and make separate source deductions with respect to deductions required under the Income Tax Act; and entitle a spouse to receive information from the plan about the status of the pension.

Nothing in this amendment will detract from the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will be able to adjudicate in matters of pension division and reapportionment of family assets under parts 3 and 3.1 of the Family Relations Act.

Turning to filing of separation agreements, this legislation repeals and replaces

section 74(2) to (5) and

section 74.1(1) and (2). The existing legislation entitles separating couples to file an agreement with the Provincial Court or the Supreme Court upon filing a consent form executed by both parties. This gives the agreement the force of an order and allows the parties to enforce the terms of the agreement as if they were contained in an order of the court.

Often consents will not be obtained from both parties at the time the separation agreement is signed. Once there has been a default on a term in the agreement, the party wanting to enforce it is not likely to obtain the consent of the other party and must therefore enforce the agreement in the Supreme Court. This is time-consuming and expensive and requires the assistance of legal counsel.

Often the party wanting to enforce the terms of the agreement is the custodial parent, with insufficient funds to pursue this avenue. Consequently many parties, particularly women, have been unable to reap the benefits of agreements executed in good faith. An agreement which has not been filed with the court cannot be registered for enforcement with the family maintenance enforcement program. Custodial parents are therefore unable to take advantage of the services provided by that program.

The new legislation will allow parties in agreement to file the agreement with the Provincial Court, the Supreme Court or both without the consent of the other party. Separation agreements filed with the court can therefore be registered with the family maintenance enforcement program, and the maintenance provisions can be enforced.

Separation agreements filed with the Provincial Court can also be varied or rescinded in that court. This allows a party that does not have the resources to pursue Supreme Court relief to proceed through the Provincial Court, where it is possible to appear in person without legal representation. This amendment will correct an unfairness which allowed the most affluent of the two parties -- usually the

non-custodial parent -- to keep the proceedings in the Supreme Court, to the disadvantage of the custodial parent, who in most cases is a woman with limited income.

I urge all members to give support to this very important bill.

M. de Jong: I will say at the outset that the hon. Attorney General has, in my view, correctly identified the two themes that emerge from the legislation: firstly, the pension issue, and secondly, the question of the registration of separation agreements with the courts. I would also like to say at the outset that, in principle at least, one is compelled to accede to the logic of the legislation. Therefore we are inclined to offer our support. I will put the Attorney General on notice that there are some drafting issues that we will question him and the government on in committee stage.

Dealing in the reverse order that he dealt with the issues, insofar as the issue of filing separation agreements with the court is concerned, the Attorney General correctly identifies a problem that has arisen in the past: a situation where both parties -- but more often than not one of the parties -- neglect to obtain the consent required to file the separation agreement with the courts. Part of the difficulty as well.... I'm not certain that Bill 5, the legislation presently before us, addresses this. Well, it does, because it goes beyond the need for any sort of consent.

Part of the difficulty was that before the consent was valid, the party was required to take an oath before a solicitor or a commissioner. That represented an obstacle. It often wasn't obtained, and it left the other party unable to file the agreement with the court.

The members should know that the significance of filing that document with the court is that it becomes an order of the court and is enforceable as such. Again, the Attorney General correctly points out that where that does not take place, the enforcement, maintenance and custody provisions of the order and the property division sections of the agreement become very difficult. Facilitating registration with the court is something that we on this side of the House welcome. This legislation, insofar as that aspect of it is concerned, seems to provide for that.

The questions one would have for the Attorney General respecting the second part of the legislation centre around the discretionary authority the legislation and the amended Family Relations Act will confer upon the registrar, the clerks of the various courts and the registry itself to determine what form constitutes an appropriate separation agreement.

The incidental effect of requiring consent documents to be signed was that it generally required attendance before either a solicitor or a commissioner for taking the oath. Inherent in that was the understanding that the agreement would take a certain form. The difficulty one can imagine is that of two parties getting together in their kitchen and drafting what they believe to be an entirely valid separation agreement and then attempting to file that document with the court. Nothing should preclude individuals from drafting an agreement in a form they are comfortable with.

The question will become whether or not it is in a form that is enforceable by the court. One wonders to what extent the court registries will be granted discretionary authority to require agreements to be in a particular form. That is something we will explore further in committee. The principle of facilitating the registration of separation agreements with the court is a good one, and therefore it is worthy of support.

[4:45]

The first issue that the Attorney General dealt with, which represents the bulk of the document, focuses on pension entitlement and division. The Attorney General correctly summarizes

part 3 of the Family Relations Act as it deals with matrimonial assets. There is the presumption that these assets will be divided equally. It appears to me that the intent of the legislation is to codify a similar presumption in favour of equal division insofar as pensions are concerned. The courts have long wrestled with this problem. It is fair to say that what has emerged and what is generally now applied by the courts is something called the Rutherford formula. The Attorney General correctly identified that the Rutherford

[ Page 10393 ]

formula is fine, but it's not always applicable, given that private pension plans differ in many ways, shapes and forms. As I see it, this is an attempt to codify that approach. Whenever one attempts to codify something, there is a danger that some of the flexibility we might otherwise expect to have will be lost. We will pursue that aspect at committee stage in order to ensure that in applying the codification of the Rutherford formula, that flexibility is maintained, and the courts don't find themselves hamstrung by what appears in the legislation.

The big question -- and I think the legislation does address it -- centres on the issue of source deduction. Members will understand that this area of matrimonial law automatically involves parties who are, in most cases, hostile to one another. Whatever the courts and this Legislature can do to limit contact and the need for contact between two parties who have come to an end in their relationship is, on the face of it at least, something to be welcomed. Often it's all two parties can do to maintain a civil relationship, insofar as children are concerned, once they have separated.

The expectation we have is that those parties will maintain an ongoing, presumably civil, relationship so that they can deal with one another on economic matters when, in many of these cases, it was economic circumstances that led to their growing apart in the first place and ultimately separating and divorcing. To expect that they would feel comfortable having to deal with one another on an ongoing basis....

The reality is that individuals may have been married or cohabiting for ten or 15 years and are 30 or 40 years of age before they go their separate ways. There is a pension. That pension is a valuable matrimonial asset that won't be vested until one of the parties reaches age 55 or 60. Those two parties remain linked at the hip, so to speak, until that pension is vested, and they continue to remain linked long after that. There are remarriages and extended families, and it becomes a very difficult situation. On top of that, of course, it's very nearly impossible for the receiving spouse, particularly....

An Hon. Member: Objection, Your Honour -- this is tangentially irrelevant and boring.

M. de Jong: They're unhappy when you oppose the legislation and apparently unsatisfied when you offer words of support.

I have a few comments. The principle, as I've said, is a good one. The one

section that the Attorney General referred to very briefly.... He commented that parties would continue to enjoy the option of contracting out. That, I believe, is contained in

section 55.91, which, if I read it correctly, suggests that this is the codification of the formula for division. But if two separating spouses wish to adopt a different approach and divide along different principles or in terms of different percentages, this legislation will not preclude them from doing that. If that is the case, then that also represents a positive aspect of the legislation.

The legislation may have implications as well -- again, this is something we will explore at committee stage -- for the Canada Pension Plan. British Columbia is unique to some extent in that parties are precluded from contracting out of spousal benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, as our matrimonial property division laws presently exist. I don't think this legislation addresses that issue; it should. Again, that will be something we will address for the reasons I've just enunciated vis-a-vis private pension plans. There is a similar argument to be made in favour of allowing individuals to contract as they wish, insofar as the Canada Pension Plan is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I'll bring my remarks to a close, again emphasizing agreement in principle with what is being pursued by Bill 5 and the Attorney General, reserving further comment for committee stage of debate.

L. Stephens: I was listening to the debate on my speaker, and I had to come in and make my remarks. This is an issue that I have a great deal of interest in, to put it mildly. I must say that I have a particularly strong interest in this issue, and the Attorney General knows that. I've been advocating this, and I'm very pleased to see that it has come forward.

These changes to

part 3.1 -- the division of the pension entitlement that will govern calculation of each spouse's share of a pension -- provide for separate, direct payments to each spouse. It is a very important change that needed to be done. The other one is that Bill 5 includes necessary amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, in particular the new

section 64, which will require that all entitlements to pension benefits be subject to the new

part 3.1 of the Family Relations Act, as well as entitlements arising under a separation agreement or court order. These are changes that I certainly support. I think that almost any woman who has had to deal with these kinds of difficulties will support them as well.

My understanding is that federal legislation was passed last September, but the regulations are still not complete and won't be until July 1, 1994. If the Attorney General has any influence with the federal minister to....

L. Fox: You've probably got more than he has.

L. Stephens: Whether or not I have more influence than the Attorney General would be debatable, hon. member. If all of us make representation to whichever level of government has the ability to make these much-needed changes, it would be very appreciated.

With those few words, I will take my place.

L. Fox: I don't intend to speak long, but I am pleased to take my place and speak on the principles of the Family Relations Amendment Act. I'll do so not as a lawyer giving a lecture or as an individual who has had a lot of experience in this, but through the eyes of a couple of constituents with respect to the issues they brought to my attention. What I don't see in this bill is the process to deal with that. There are hundreds of situations where mutual consent has been given by the two individuals at the time of a divorce to share the pension benefits through the existing mechanism.

That is, of course, done on a voluntary basis, with income tax obligations to the individual who in fact has had those dollars paid to him. But in a case where that volunteer contract was broken by the individual, there is no process for the spouse who is due the percentage to collect it.

This bill appears not to respect those cases in existence today and those prior to this legislation being brought forward except by mutual consent. When you have a situation where two parties will not mutually consent to an agreement made some time ago, then this will not deal with those sad situations out there at present. This is an issue we can canvass at some length, and we might find some ways of accommodating those kinds of situations. The two constituents who have come before me in the last six months on this very issue still have concerns with this legislation. It is not meeting their needs and will not give them the opportunities to achieve what is rightfully theirs from within

[ Page 10394 ]

those pensions. So I look forward to the discussion at committee stage. Perhaps I or they might be misunderstanding the legislation, and we can find ways and means of resolving some of those conflicts that presently exist.

G. Wilson: By way of introduction to my remarks to Bill 5, under standing order 18, I declare a pecuniary interest in this bill and therefore will not vote on it, but I am not precluded from speaking to it. While I certainly don't see that I stand to gain by this particular bill -- I stand to lose -- I have a potential spouse who may stand to gain, and, in that sense, I have a potential pecuniary interest and therefore declare that potential conflict. Therefore I will not be voting on this bill, but I do want to speak to it because I think its passage is really important in this province.

It's important that we look at three primary aspects of it, and I have a concern around one particular area that I'd like to raise in committee.

First of all, I think that anything that can streamline the process of separation and ultimate divorce between people, and take the litigation and legal cost out of it, is absolutely desirable. There is only one winner in divorce actions, and it is the lawyers who seem to make enormous profits for the services they provide. Many lawyers make a very lucrative practice out of hooking into people who are going through these very difficult times, and they seek to gain in many ways. That's another issue that we might raise at another time -- what we might do to limit the lawyer's capacity to impoverish people in this process.

[5:00]

The second question, however, and the more important one that speaks specifically to this bill, is about retirement. I think we have to look at when retirement engages. It is one thing to talk about pensions and the division of assets. It's also possible with respect to the provisions in this bill on how those divisions are going to be made....

However, I think we need to analyze and look at the definition of "retirement" or "retire," where it suggests that it's when somebody "commences to receive a pension under a plan." However, one member may in fact drive the date the retirement can take place and, by doing so, affect the overall worth of the plan that may be invested. I think this is an important point to consider, because a whole series of pension plans may be affected by this bill.

There may well be an impact as a result of a person's choice to move into early retirement or through an industry-driven early retirement plan or propositions providing for retirement at a date other than one that would maximize benefit at maturity.

So I think that's something we need to clarify in committee stage, because it may impact on substantial amounts of money. In a divorce action, one spouse may be completely dependent upon that source of income,

whereas the other may have had a greater earning potential. Over the period of separation, from the time of the divorce to retirement, that individual may have been able to generate, through retirement savings plans or other methods, a retirement fund that would negate any concern about a loss of income due to early retirement. I would guess that the spouse will more often be the woman, because to date in our society -- regrettably so, and hopefully we can change this -- women tend to have the lesser earning potential.

That is a point that I'd like to flag for the Attorney General, and I think we really need to look at it. Even within the agreements that are coming down now through divorce actions in the courts of the province, there has to be some process for an agreement as to the commencement of retirement and how that's going to impact the overall value of the fund at maturity and therefore when division of assets occurs, if it happens at that time.

Having said that, there is only one other point that I would suggest we start to look at. That is the question under

section 55.91. I know we can't, in principle, get into this in detail, but it has to do with the transfer of the commuted value of separated pensions, or share of pensions, that is established. I would flag that as an area where we want to look at what the Pension Benefits Standards Act says with respect to the intent of this particular bill and what may be realistically available to us in the courts if litigation is the only avenue to determine that particular transfer or division of share.

I think there may be a point at which, through a very simple amendment, we could clarify that at the time the divorce is granted, that transfer can happen almost by way of a pro forma text of law as opposed to being subject to the vagaries of the judiciary. That's also an important point that I would like to raise and maybe hear from the Attorney General on.

Having said that, I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is for us to amend the Family Relations Act not just in this particular area but in many other areas. At a time when individuals are in conflict and emotions tend to run high, the very last thing they need is an enormously complex litigation process that simply graces the pockets of the lawyers. I would say on the record that in my particular case I was quite fortunate to have a lawyer with an outstanding conscience with respect to that kind of concern. But there are many people who were not as fortunate as I and who therefore are now suffering enormous legal costs as a result of the litigation process that was required.

So I would speak strongly in favour of this bill -- although I have suggested that by virtue of a pecuniary interest, I will not be voting on it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: A number of good and interesting points have been raised by various members of the opposition. I'm going to ask my staff to review the Blues of this debate and make whatever comments are required to me before we come to committee stage. At that point I will respond in one way or another in respect of the issues that have been raised. At that time we can canvass these issues in some detail, and we can discuss other issues that have been raised.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Family Relations Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:06 p.m.

[ Page 10395 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES, AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SPORTS AND COMMONWEALTH GAMES

On vote 39: minister's office, $350,717.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a pleasure for me to present to the committee the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services, and the Ministry Responsible for Sports and Commonwealth Games. Before I begin, I'd like to introduce the ministry staff I have with me today. On my left is the deputy minister, Maureen Nicholls; Howard Thomas; Carol Beaver; Howard Hilton; and Assistant Deputy Minister David Richardson is here as well.

Government Services is a ministry which makes a very big contribution to good government. This ministry has a direct and very substantial impact on how well government runs. We are responsible for a significant amount of taxpayers' dollars, and we save taxpayers millions of dollars by spending that money wisely and effectively.

Traditionally, Government Services has three main roles: first, to support the executive branch of government, including the Lieutenant-Governor and legislative precinct, the Premier's office, protocol and events, ministers' travel, and cabinet committee expenses; second -- another major traditional role -- to minimize the cost of core services to the rest of government by providing such central services as purchasing, distribution and warehousing of supplies, printing and postal services, vehicles and air services; third, to manage government information, including archives and records services and B.C.

Stats, and to ensure access to government information and the protection of personal privacy rights.

In addition, the ministry houses key programs of strategic value to government: the government communications office; public issues and consultation; the cabinet planning secretariat office; the environmental assessment project; and the coordination of agencies, boards and commissions. The ministry also plays an important role in coordinating cross-government initiatives such as Enquiry B.C. and the implementation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

With the last major government reorganization in September '93, the ministry's mandate was expanded to incorporate responsibility for new programs and for developing significant new policy frameworks, giving it a more outward-looking focus than it has had in the past.

While our mission to create service solutions which contribute to affordable government remains, our traditional focus inward to government has been broadened to include services direct to taxpayers, such as sports delivery programs and the Commonwealth Games; public policy issues such as the development of a comprehensive gaming policy; and initiating changes to make government better and more accessible, such as B.C. Buy Smart in the Purchasing Commission and, of course, Enquiry B.C.

The new programs include gaming and sport programs. They create an important new focus for the ministry to provide services directly to taxpayers and to support communities through a legacy of sports programs and facilities and through licensing, regulating and managing charitable gaming.

Two specific new responsibilities for this ministry, but not for this minister, are the Commonwealth Games and aspects of the Victoria accord. The members may know that although the accord rests with my colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment, in terms of daily direction I chair the Victoria accord and its policy development.

B.C. Systems Corporation, at the forefront of many exciting new developments in redefining government, also falls under the ministry's responsibilities. B.C. Systems is the government's electronic service agency, providing information technology solutions that assist B.C. public sector organizations to maintain and improve the quality of service to the public.

The thread that holds all these functions and responsibilities together is a commitment to providing services, whether to government or to the public, in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible. This commitment runs from the operation of Government House, to the purchasing policies that touch every ministry in government and many Crown corporations, to the auditing of sports delivery programs in the communities.

The estimates, which I have the honour to present this year, are shaped by this commitment to streamlining government wherever possible and to spending taxpayers' dollars more wisely, and by the rather dramatic changes that have taken place in the responsibilities assigned to my ministry.

The ministry has incorporated significant support for these new priorities within our base budget, even though the ministry's overall budget for this year is down 24 percent from its restated budget for the last fiscal year. I must say, though, that even with that reduction we deliver, I think, remarkable services in a very frugal way.

In this introduction I would like to touch on some of the ways this ministry will make significant contributions to the strategic priorities of government and to the future prosperity of the province.

We are participating in maintaining economic strength in the regions through a new purchasing policy which supports government priorities, the B.C. Buy Smart program, charitable gaming, sports delivery, and the B.C. archives and records services community archives program assistance grants. Our government recognizes that in order for our economy to be strong, our communities must be strong. There is much more to this magnificent province than Victoria and the lower mainland. I'm reminded of that every time I go travelling in the far reaches of this province.

This ministry reaches out to communities in a variety of ways that support a fair distribution of government resources. We have a direct impact on the economic health of communities all across the province -- not least because we still do buy the paper-clips, the toner cartridges and the chainsaws that government needs to function. We work very hard to ensure that B.C. businesses are well positioned to take advantage of these opportunities.

As a result, the vast majority of our purchases are made from businesses in this province, and I can tell you, hon. members, that in my travels and my discussions with members of the business community, I try to find ways to ensure that even more of our needs are purchased in the province of British Columbia. By using the dollars that government spends as a tool to develop and strengthen the business infrastructure of the

[ Page 10396 ]

province, we are obviously contributing to th