2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th 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, November 17, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Matthew Robic

R. Howard

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Aaron Webster

S. Chandra Herbert

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M205 — Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2011

B. Simpson

Bill M206 — Concussions in Youth Sport Safety Act

M. Stilwell

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Sechelt First Nations governance

N. Simons

Aspen Planers sawmill operations

J. Les

Aboriginal friendship centres

S. Fraser

Veterans of war and memorial for Tara Singh Hayer

D. Hayer

Barbara Wallace

D. Routley

Community of Ruskin and dam upgrade project

M. Dalton

Oral Questions

Mental health and addiction treatment services for youth

C. Trevena

Hon. G. Abbott

Electronic billboard at B.C. Place

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. P. Bell

Adult basic education

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Denman Island cable ferry proposal

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Funding for aboriginal friendship centres

S. Fraser

Hon. M. Polak

Extreme weather and emergency shelter beds in Vancouver

S. Simpson

Hon. T. Lake

Release of hunting allocation policy

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Thomson

Snowmobiling regulation

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

M. Farnworth

Auditor General access to information in B.C. Rail court case

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

Petitions

Hon. N. Yamamoto

C. Trevena

N. Macdonald

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report, fiscal year ended March 31 , 2011

Labour Relations Board, 2010 annual report

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Family Law Act (continued)

N. Simons

J. McIntyre

M. Sather

R. Hawes

H. Bains

Hon. M. McNeil

K. Corrigan

N. Letnick

S. Chandra Herbert

R. Sultan

G. Gentner

B. Penner

B. Routley

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Bond

[ Page 8863 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2011

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a group of students from the King's School in Langley. It's always a pleasure for me to visit that school, and I always enjoy a pretty lively discussion with the students. They're always very well informed, and I think a few of them have their eyes on a future in politics. You never know.

I was able today to join them for lunch in the legislative dining room. In the gallery today we have two grade 11 students — Ryan Mameral and Adele Martins; and three grade 12 students — Marsa Rezvani, Jacob Anderson and Christina Tomison. They are joined by their teacher, Loraina Hensell. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: Joining us in the precinct today we have representatives from the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. Joining Paul Lacerte, the executive director, and Annette Morgan, the president, are Willie Abrahams, Barb Ward-Burkitt, Richard Samuel from Port Alberni, Christopher Phillips, Rikki Wylie, Laura Hockman, Bruce Parisian, Kari Hutchison, Amy Woodruffe, Ellen Newman, Warren Clarmont, Jeannette MacInnis and, also from Port Alberni, Cyndi Stevens. Would you please all join me in making them feel very, very welcome.

E. Foster: Joining us in the House today is a young man that's a Rotary International student visiting us from Germany. He's staying with friends of mine in Vernon and has taken a few days to come to Victoria. He's here to see how we do business. So would the House please make Luki Viebahn very welcome.

D. Routley: Joining us in the House today is a group of students from Park Avenue Community School in my constituency — 25 students and five adults with their teacher. I'd like the House to help me make them welcome.

[1335]

They've been warned about question period, but also, I've related to them the story Mr. MacMinn told me with a high school student once — that there's anger and passion in the chamber of this House so that there isn't blood on the streets of this province. So I think they're well warned as to what they're going to experience. Help me make them welcome.

R. Howard: Two reasons to stand before you today. The first is to introduce my most important constituent on the occasion of our 30th anniversary. Joining us today in the House is my wife Trudy. I wish the House to please make her feel welcome.

Tributes

MATTHEW ROBIC

R. Howard: Secondly, on a sad note, I would like the House to recognize today the passing of Matthew Robic, the co-pilot of the airplane that crashed in Richmond on October 27. Mr. Robic had remained in hospital since the crash, and despite all possible medical efforts, he passed away yesterday afternoon.

As members will know, the valiant efforts of Matt Robic and pilot Luc Fortin to land safely helped to prevent the loss of any of the passengers in their care on that day. Matt was also our Finance Committee's co-pilot on the second leg of our recent tour, and we will well remember his enthusiasm for his job.

I know that the House and all British Columbians will join me in extending our sympathies to the family, friends and colleagues of Mr. Robic.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I, too, would like to welcome the folks from the friendship centres. I'd also like to welcome Chief Garry Feschuk from the Sechelt Nation, who has just returned from Kamloops where, along with Chief Gottfriedson, he has sought justice for the day scholars of residential schools. Will the House please make Chief Garry Feschuk of the Sechelt Nation welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: In the precinct today is Jim Mullin, who is the director of marketing and communications for the Vanier Cup 2011. He is joined by Clint Hamilton, the athletic director of the University of Victoria. Clint, as well, is a representative of the CIS, which is the Canadian Interuniversity Sport.

The Vanier Cup, as many will know, is the championship game for collegiate football in Canada and will be held at B.C. Place Stadium on Friday. That's next Friday, November 25. As part of the promotion of this event, the Vanier Cup trophy has made a trip here to Victoria. I will be officially welcoming the trophy to Victoria later today in front of the Legislature.

With that, I would ask the House to please make Jim and Clint very welcome — and the Vanier Cup as well.

Tributes

aaron webster

S. Chandra Herbert: It was ten years ago today that Aaron Webster was brutally murdered in my community

[ Page 8864 ]

of Vancouver–West End. His final words were: "That's enough, guys." Our community has taken up that call to speak out against violence, to speak out against homophobia. Indeed, many communities across all of British Columbia have taken up that call.

I'd like to acknowledge his family and say that on behalf of this House we are sending them our love — to the family, to his friends and, indeed, to everybody who was affected by his murder.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: I just want to join with colleagues across the way in welcoming members from the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres — in particular, Paul Lacerte. Of course, our caucus had an opportunity to meet with them on Wednesday morning, and we're very much looking forward to working with them as we develop the off-reserve aboriginal action plan.

P. Pimm: In the gallery today we have one of the longer-serving mayors of the province. Please help me to welcome Mayor Fred Jarvis from Taylor. Fred has come down from Taylor to be part of the PNWER conference. Fred has been the mayor of Taylor for 25 years, going on to 28 years. Would the House please help me welcome him.

[1340]

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm delighted today to welcome to the gallery one of the staff members from my legislative office. John Manning is my executive assistant and is a valued part of the team. He's enthusiastic and sharp and often goes above and beyond, but more than that, he puts up with six women in the office. So let's give John our absolute best and welcome him today.

M. Dalton: In the gallery today we have Bob O'Neal and Bill Brooks. This is Bob's first visit to the Legislature. He's a resident of Mission and the forestry manager for the district. We met with the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, discussing recreational development in the newly approved Mission interpretive forest site.

Also Bill Brooks. He is more of a frequent flyer of this place and can't get enough, so glad to have him here. He's with Tim Horton's foundation working towards establishing an exciting camp for British Columbia children here in my constituency. Would the House please make them both feel welcome.

G. Hogg: There are probably few groups that deserve four introductions in this House, but I think the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres is one of those groups. They have 23 friendship centres across this province. They represent over 50 percent of the First Nations people who live off reserve, and I have the good fortune of trying to provide some of their traditional names as well.

Willie Abrahams is on the board of directors of the Kermode Friendship Society. Willie's traditional name is Guudsandlass, which means "eagle at daybreak." Paul Lacerte has been introduced a number of times and is a good friend of this Legislature and has shown extreme leadership in aboriginal issues and, certainly, has shown extreme leadership on the Innovation Council for the province of British Columbia.

Annette Morgan is president and executive director of Dze L K'ant Friendship Centre. Barb Ward-Burkitt is first vice-president and executive director of the Prince George Native Friendship Centre, and Barb's traditional name is Wahiyow Wapatane Espquáo.

It gets better. Richard Samuel, the second vice-president. Richard's traditional name is Kii xah nis; Christopher Phillips, treasurer and executive director of the Interior Friendship Centre; Rikki Wylie, the youth representative; Laura Hockman, treasurer, and Bruce Parisian, the executive director of the Victoria Native Friendship Centre; Kari Hutchison from Victoria Native Friendship Centre; and Cyndi Stevens, executive director of the Port Alberni Friendship Center. She has two traditional names. They are Seechpa-utzka, which mean "woman of the cougars," and Waakaafvvsess, which means "never gives up."

I'm almost finished. Warren Clarmont, Jeannette MacInnis and Amy Woodruffe with the B.C. Association of Friendship Centres; and finally, Ellen Newman. Ellen's traditional name is Kugwi'si'logwa. Would the House please make them all very welcome for a fourth time.

Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us today in the precincts are some staff from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. They're from the corporate services division, and they serve the overall natural resource sector in corporate services across ministries. So I'd like to make them welcome to the House today. John Sedun, Diane St. Hilair, Tina St. Hilaire, Kevin Doran, Brenda McKinley, Rod Bergen, Mark Griffin, Susan Penner-Davis, Dannielle Kitt, Tammy Anderson, Will Aldridge and Susan Coutts. Would the House please make them welcome today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M205 — Fall Fixed Election

Amendment Act, 2011

B. Simpson presented a bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2011.

B. Simpson: I move that the bill be introduced and read now for a first time.

Motion approved.

[ Page 8865 ]

B. Simpson: The spring 2013 budget will be a critical turning point for British Columbia, as it will be the first truly post-HST budget, and it must be, by law, a balanced budget. Therefore, it is essential that the 2013 budget gets debated, scrutinized and passed into law before an election is held that year. That will not happen if the fixed election date remains May 2013.

Spring elections also mean that every four years the government may use the budget as an election platform because it doesn't get examined by the opposition and passed into law. Not passing the spring budget every four years means government agencies and organizations that depend on public money do not know what their budgets are until at least September, unnecessarily disrupting the delivery of public services.

[1345]

Moving the fixed election date to the fall will also give the public access to the comptroller general's and Auditor General's independent assessments of the government's finances and accounting practices. The bill I introduced last spring had a fall 2012 election date. This bill moves the date to October 2013, as this is the only way to guarantee British Columbians a truly post-HST election.

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

Bill M205, Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2011, 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.

Bill M206 — Concussions in Youth

Sport Safety Act

M. Stilwell presented a bill intituled Concussions in Youth Sport Safety Act.

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

Motion approved.

M. Stilwell: The bill protects young athletes participating in high-impact sports by outlining specific guidelines for managing sport-related concussions to protect their developing brains. It leverages modern advances in our understanding of how the brain functions and the dangers of concussions, specifically in young persons.

The facts are clear. Once an individual suffers a concussion, he or she is more likely to sustain a second one. Impacts to the head of someone who has not yet fully recovered from an initial concussion can be devastating, potentially resulting in lifelong brain damage or death.

It also recognizes that the majority of sport-related head injuries occur in athletes younger than the age of 20 and that the frequency of these injuries is increasing. This bill seeks to address these issues by outlining three principles to protect young athletes and their brains.

First, it makes mandatory to remove a child or youth athlete from play if a concussion is suspected. Second, it ensures that the child or youth athlete does not return to play until he or she has received medical clearance. And third, it ensures that concussion-related education materials are distributed to athletes, coaches and parents prior to competition to empower them with knowledge on the severity of head injuries.

This bill was drafted after reviewing similar legislation in the United States and concussion protocols of certain sports organizations. Over the next few months I plan to meet with youth sports organizations, health professionals around the province and MLAs from both sides of the House to explain the bill's intent and work out the details on how it should be implemented.

This bill is an opportunity for British Columbia to be a national leader with regard to protecting the brains of young athletes from the serious dangers of concussion. It's my privilege to be sponsoring the bill and, by doing so, protecting the minds of young athletes from unnecessary injury and permanent damage.

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

Bill M206, Concussions in Youth Sport Safety Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SECHELT FIRST NATIONS GOVERNANCE

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, first of all, thank you for the permission to wear this Sechelt vest. The elders in Sechelt said when I had something important to say, I should wear it. And you'll note it's the first time I'm wearing it in this House. But I would like to thank them for that.

Twenty-five years ago the Sechelt nation became the first First Nation to reassert its self-governing authority in British Columbia and the first in Canada to do so outside of the treaty process. The Sechelt nation's constitution made Sechelt the first to shed the restrictions of the Indian Act and restored their self-government authority.

In 1986 going this path alone was courageous and innovative. Not many other First Nations were supportive at the time, in large part because the form of govern-

[ Page 8866 ]

ment was misinterpreted as municipal style. But under the Sechelt self-government act Sechelt has law-making authority that extends beyond the responsibilities of local government to education, membership, taxation and land use.

Sechelt land is held in fee simple that remains reserves under

section 91.24 of the Constitution Act. Led by the chiefs in councils of time before and the chief in council of the time, Sechelt found a unique and practical solution to the challenges that it faced. Land claims and reconciliation are still on the agenda.

[1350]

Sechelt has always contended that every First Nation has a right to determine its own path away from the Indian Act toward a better quality of life. This principled stand promotes respect for the cultural and historical diversity of First Nations.

Judging by the celebrations in the longhouse recently and the presence of dignitaries from all levels of government and other First Nations, there's no doubt that Sechelt enjoys widespread support and is actually looked toward for advice for future other bands.

So I join the people of British Columbia in congratulating Chief Garry Feschuk, the Sechelt Nation, recognizing the elders and the chiefs in council for their foresight, resilience and courage 25 years ago.

ASPEN PLANERS SAWMILL OPERATIONS

J. Les: I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about a family-owned business which has called British Columbia home for over five decades. Last week I had the opportunity to tour the Aspen Planers sawmill in Merritt. The company was founded by the Ghog family in 1959 and now employs 300 people — 150 in the bush and another 150 at their sawmill and planer operations.

Together they produce close to one million board feet of lumber per day and roughly 300 million board feet per year. To sustain itself the mill must bring in between 75 and 80 truckloads of logs every day. The majority of those logs come from within a 100-mile radius from the hills surrounding the community of Merritt. They've also managed to develop a great and respectful working relationship with local First Nations and have a joint venture partnership with four separate bands.

Over the past few years the mill has found great success, mainly due to increased exports to the Asia-Pacific. Today the Aspen Planers Merritt division is only exporting about 10 percent of its product to the United States; 80 percent of their product now makes its way to China.

All of this underlines the importance of increasing and strengthening trade ties with the Asia-Pacific and emphasizes the significance of our B.C. jobs plan. Without the hard work that government has done and continues to do to build these trade relationships, companies like Aspen would not have been able to capitalize on these amazing opportunities.

ABORIGINAL FRIENDSHIP CENTRES

Mr. Speaker: Member for Alberni–Pacific Rim. [Applause.]

S. Fraser: Thanks for the applause.

It's been many years since I first visited the Port Alberni Friendship Center. Executive director Cyndi Stevens began my education on that day, and I have become a big fan and supporter ever since.

Almost 70 percent of aboriginal people in B.C. live off reserve, predominantly in cities. The essential work that aboriginal friendship centres do is crucial to so many who make that move. My visits to the other centres in the province have certainly affirmed that to me.

In early October I took the opportunity to visit six more centres. These latest were located in Mission, Merritt, Vernon, Kelowna, Kamloops and Lillooet, and I was so impressed by the work that they do. Many of the centres have been around for decades. While the number of people that they serve has increased dramatically, funding has certainly not, creating a challenge for all the centres in the province.

There are two issues that I have been advocating for as opposition critic. The first is to urge government to ensure necessary funding for aboriginal friendship centres. This is not an expense, hon. Speaker, but an investment that will pay huge dividends. The second is to develop an off-reserve urban aboriginal strategy that incorporates and involves the 23 friendship centres that have already been filling the historic provincial policy void.

During the throne speech I was pleased to hear a commitment made to develop an off-reserve aboriginal action plan. I applaud that commitment.

Aboriginal people are the province's fastest-growing population group, but they face disproportionate risks and barriers to living long, healthy and productive lives on and off reserves. Without aboriginal friendship centres the situation would be far, far worse.

Let us all in this House ensure that an inclusive strategy is developed to support the great work of our aboriginal friendship centres and that sufficient resources are brought to bear to invest in a bright future that will ultimately benefit all British Columbians.

VETERANS OF WAR AND

MEMORIAL FOR TARA SINGH HAYER

D. Hayer: Last Friday, November 11, people across this great nation and around the world paid homage to the brave men and women who fought, who were

[ Page 8867 ]

wounded and who died in wars, past and present, to preserve the democracy that we hold so precious.

If it were not for their sacrifices, we would not be here in this chamber today. We would not have the society that we have today — a society that is controlled by the people, for the people. We have the freedom to move, freedom to vote, freedom to choose and freedom to speak because of those young men and women.

[1355]

Our courageous soldiers, sailors, aviators, peacekeepers and others fought and died around the world for us, such as World War I, World War II, Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

Personally, I want to recognize two of those veterans, my father-in-law, Jose Martinez, who served in France during the Second World War, and my father, Tara Singh Hayer, who was a captain in the Indian Army.

My father did not lose his life in combat. It was taken right here in Surrey, British Columbia, in

an act of terrorism to silence him in his effort to bring justice to the victims of the Air India bombing. My father died in his garage in Surrey on November 18, 1998.

To recognize our loss and his devotion to free speech, to our democracy and to preserve our Canadian way of life, we will be holding the 13th memorial for his death on Sunday, November 20, at the Gurdwara Sahib Brookside in Surrey. I invite all members in the House to join me with my family in commemorating his passing and his valiant effort to preserve democracy and the freedom of speech and thought, through his newspaper, against the plague of terrorism.

BARBARA WALLACE

D. Routley: I rise today to speak of a former member of this House who passed recently, Barbara Brookman Wallace. Barbara was born in Coronation, Alberta, on March 24, 1917, and died in Ladysmith, B.C., November 12, 2011, at the age of 93. She was predeceased by her husband Bob and her daughter Lynne.

Barbara was an active member of the Cedar Women's Institute and a B.C. Hydro retiree, after many years of employment. She was the New Democratic Party member of the B.C. Legislature from 1975 to 1987 for the riding of the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat.

Left to mourn Barbara are her son Greg, daughter-in-law Judy, granddaughter Jessica, grandson Jordon and great-grandson Ezra. Barbara was a beacon of our community. She was a constant and consistent reminder of the principles we in the NDP pursue: equity, social justice, environmental responsibility and a pursuit of excellence.

Barbara always had time and patience for those who followed her, the youth of our community and me, as an MLA. Her gentle way was accompanied by a solid expectation that we always work to advance those principles. Barbara was a beacon of leadership for young women, was a woman who excelled, who spoke her mind with courage, a woman who sat in this House at a time when that was not such a usual occurrence. Barbara, even once she required extended support, carried herself with grace, elegance and dignity.

To Barbara, and on behalf of all of us in the NDP, I say thank you. Barbara will be missed by many old friends. The family would like to extend their thanks to the caring staff at Lodge on 4th.

COMMUNITY OF RUSKIN

AND DAM UPGRADE PROJECT

Logging became the economic mainstay, and Ruskin's many sawmills made it a cedar shake capital of the world, employing hundreds of people With industrial activity flourishing and the community growing, Ruskin was in need of increased power. In 1927 construction began on the Ruskin dam and powerhouse.

I toured the dam last week. It was certainly a blast from the past. Still functioning is an 80-year-old lightbulb that has never been turned off. I kept my distance from it. B.C. Hydro is planning on a major renovation of the Ruskin station, which will improve its seismic performance and restore the building's heritage façade, replace the aging powerhouse equipment and enhance the protection of fish and wildlife in the area. Once upgraded, the facility will provide safe, reliable electricity for more than 33,000 homes.

The project has strong support in the Mission business community, which recognizes the very positive economic impact that it will have. Ruskin residents have told me that they appreciate the importance of the upgrade for their personal safety.

[1400]

Ruskin's dam and quaint houses have become a staple for film and television productions, such as The X Files and Smallville . Next time you're around Ruskin drop by Whonnock's Shake and Shingle Pub, maybe after reeling in a day's catch of salmon off the Stave.

Oral Questions

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION

TREATMENT SERVICES FOR YOUTH

C. Trevena: The Cory family from Vancouver were desperate for addictions treatment for their teenage son,

[ Page 8868 ]

but the only place for intensive psychiatry, the CAPE unit at Children's Hospital, has four beds for the entire province and told the family they couldn't help them. They were told: "We have nothing to offer you. Find something else."

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing else available in the public sector for kids and young people with mental health and addictions problems in B.C., so I'd like to ask, through you, the Minister of Children and Family Development, to explain why her ministry does not ensure there is adequate care for mental health problems in our province.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll take that question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, Member?

C. Trevena: The Ministry of Children and Family Development does have responsibility for mental health and addictions issues in the province, and I'd just like to continue with a separate question about how the ministry….

Mr. Speaker: New question, Member.

C. Trevena: It is a new question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Proceed.

C. Trevena: The family had to leave B.C. to try and find care. The mother commutes now from Alberta to her job at Women's Hospital in Vancouver. I think everybody in this House would agree it's a ridiculous situation. Families who do need help are being told to first find their own help, and then they have to leave the province to find help.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Children and Family Development, who has responsibility through Ledger House and a number of other facilities for mental health and addictions problems for our young people in our province, what she is going to do to ensure that families who do need that sort of help don't have to uproot their entire lives and don't have to leave the province to get the help.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, as the purview for this area of responsibility resides with the Minister of Health, I take the question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Health.

ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD AT B.C. PLACE

S. Chandra Herbert: B.C. PavCo decided to erect a giant electronic billboard right on Terry Fox Plaza, destroying the quality of life for residents of nearby Vancouver condos, dishonouring the Terry Fox memorial and, most importantly, breaking Vancouver's city bylaw. My question to the minister responsible for PavCo: does he agree with PavCo breaking Vancouver's law?

Hon. P. Bell: There have been challenges with the technology implemented at the new B.C. Place Stadium. PavCo has been dealing with that, and I understand that they have now come to a successful conclusion on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Modifying how you break the law is still breaking the law. This billboard is nearly 2,000 square feet, when the law allows 200 square feet. It dominates Terry Fox plaza with Budweiser ads, and it dominates residents' homes with blinding and flashing lights. This billboard needs to be taken down now. Will this Liberal government listen to the city of Vancouver, which has requested that the sign be removed, and stop breaking the law today?

Hon. P. Bell: PavCo has been working with the city of Vancouver to ensure that we're working within the structure of the approved bylaws. They have ramped down the number of hours per day that the sign is lit, and I believe they've come to a successful conclusion.

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION

M. Mungall: Adult basic education is a ticket out of poverty for many British Columbians. It gives them access to post-secondary education and literacy necessary for most jobs. However, the B.C. Liberals are letting students down when it comes to adult basic education seats. The ongoing funding freeze and recent cuts have made it difficult for institutions to meet demand for the program.

[1405]

Last year Capilano University, in the minister's own backyard, had to cut many of its adult basic education courses. The president said: "We are honouring our commitment in the ABE at least to the level that the ministry has financed us to."

To the minister: why are the Liberals leaving people out of the economy and failing to properly fund adult basic education?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The ministry has maintained funding for public post-secondary institutions, and our expectation for the delivery of adult basic education programs has not changed. Since 2008 tuition has been free for adult basic education….

Interjections.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'll just repeat that, in case the member opposite didn't hear. Since 2008 the tuition has

[ Page 8869 ]

been made free for adult basic education at 18 of our public post-secondary institutions, including colleges, universities and institutes.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: I'd be happy to give the member opposite a bit of a history lesson. ABE courses were first offered for free in the 1990s under the NDP, and then schools had to charge for them because of this Liberal government and their cutbacks when they came into power in 2001. They only reinstated three ABE programs in 2007 and since that time have failed to fund to the level of demand that is wanted in this province.

People want to get into today's labour force, where 78 percent of jobs are going to be requiring a post-secondary education. But as the vice-president of the Camosun College said: "Our problem is: how do we deal with too little money and too much demand?" Too little money for adult basic education because this government will not honour its commitment.

Last month Camosun College Student Society held a yard sale on the lawn of this building just to get the Liberals' attention on this issue.

To the minister: when is she going to step up to the plate and ensure that people who need adult basic education get it and have the chance to be a part of today's economy?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In addition to the tuition-free courses available for adult basic education, I'd just like to remind the member opposite that we've also provided $5.7 million, which is available through the adult basic education student assistance program, which provides students in need with funds for other expenses such as transportation and child care, in order to actually attend those adult basic education programs.

DENMAN ISLAND CABLE FERRY PROPOSAL

G. Coons: The B.C. Liberals' million-dollar man David Hahn has a parting gift to Denman Island residents. It's the imposition of a 2.2-kilometre-long cable ferry experiment across the often treacherous Baynes Sound from Buckley Bay.

Residents have serious concerns about service, safety, significant employment loss and many other issues, but because of the lack of consultation with the regional district, the Denman-Hornby ferry advisory committee, the school parent advisory committee, and residents, none of the concerns have been addressed.

Will the Minister of Transportation direct B.C. Ferries to not proceed until full consultation has been done and all issues have been identified and addressed?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: B.C. Ferries is doing what I believe the public of British Columbia are asking them to do: look for services that are affordable, sustainable, safe, meet the requirements and the demands of the travelling public. And that's what they've done in this case, Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: Well, that answer doesn't pass muster with the over 80 percent of Denman Island residents who oppose this one-off experiment. B.C. Ferries and this B.C. Liberal government clearly won't consult with residents until they're forced to.

The Denman Island residents advisory association said in a letter to B.C. Ferries: "In fact, no meaningful consultation whatsoever has occurred with the residents of Denman Island."

Graham Johnson, a retired B.C. Ferries mate who operated the ferry on this route for over 30 years, says: "It's a bad idea. There's no manoeuvrability to avoid debris in the water or obstacles like tugs hauling logbooms. The vessel will not be able to assist in marine emergencies."

[1410]

Again to the Minister of Transportation: will he direct B.C. Ferries to postpone any final decision until genuine consultation has been done on all outstanding issues?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There were consultations in both 2010 and 2011. If the member was unaware of that, hopefully that will help clear that up. But I do want to reiterate first and foremost: safety is the highest priority, whether we're travelling by ferry or on our road system, by rail or in the air in this province and around the country.

The issue of affordability, sustainability, is obviously at the forefront right now on the minds of the people that use our ferry system in this province. This actually can deliver a service that's affordable and cost-effective and that meets the needs and the demands of the people of the islands.

FUNDING FOR

ABORIGINAL FRIENDSHIP CENTRES

S. Fraser: Aboriginal friendship centres provide services to thousands of aboriginal people living off reserve or away from traditional territories. Nearly 70 percent of the aboriginal people live off reserve in this province. Friendship centres have been asking for years for stable, long-term funding. The Finance Committee agrees — that's the second year in a row — and we probed this well in estimates last year.

In the throne speech there was a commitment made for an off-reserve aboriginal action plan. To the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: will the minister explain what actions have been taken in the action plan, and will she commit to stable, long-term funding for friendship centres in British Columbia?

[ Page 8870 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm very proud to get up in this House and talk about the beginnings of our off-reserve aboriginal action plan. In fact, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation has completed a preliminary analysis of many of the programs and services that are delivered across the province, cross-ministry. We look forward now to moving into the stage of working with ministries and aboriginal agencies, including friendship centres, in order to develop the workplan going forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Did I mention funding — long-term, stable funding? I didn't hear an answer there.

Hon. Speaker, it's about priorities. You know, $30 million to pay off Boss Power — no problem; $6 million to pay the legal fees for convicted Liberal insiders — done; $600 million for a roof on B.C. Place Stadium — done. When an association that provides direct, vital supports to the aboriginal population and addresses their needs…. The minister doesn't have an answer.

The B.C. Association of Friendship Centres does essential work. We know that; all members know that. But they need the support of government. So will the minister offer that support today? Will she commit to support the B.C. Association of Friendship Centres and provide them with stable, long-term funding?

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, we do provide ongoing funding to friendship centres and others through the first citizens fund — which, by the way, in 2001 we doubled from $36 million to $72 million.

EXTREME WEATHER AND

EMERGENCY SHELTER BEDS IN VANCOUVER

S. Simpson: In Vancouver the emergency weather response planners announced today that they expect they will be declaring an extreme weather alert for tomorrow as it affects the homeless in Vancouver. That is their expectation. They've said that they're looking at that as temperatures drop.

Hon. Speaker, you'll know that the Minister for Housing chose not to fund the 160 beds, shelter beds and the HEAT shelters. There are about 238 beds funded in the city today. The planners have been quoted in the media as saying that they've found about another 25 beds to supplement those 238, but there still is a significant shortage of beds if this emergency is declared.

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This is an emergency, if it's deemed so by those folks. I would ask the minister if she's prepared to commit to ensure there are sufficient shelter beds if an extreme weather alert is declared.

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: Since the Minister Responsible for Housing is not here today, I would be happy to take that on notice for the minister, but if I could just add that no one has done more to reduce homelessness in this province than the current Minister for Housing.

Mr. Speaker: The question was taken on notice. Does the member have a new question?

S. Simpson: I do.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Simpson: I'm not asking about the housing issue. I'm asking the minister responsible for emergency preparedness if she deems this situation to be an emergency. Does she consider that if the extreme weather response planners in Vancouver and potentially in other communities around this province declare an emergency that could affect the health and safety of the homeless in Vancouver and elsewhere, it is enough of an emergency for this government and this minister or any minister to say: "We will supply the resources to produce the shelters to keep people out of the cold in extreme weather"?

Hon. T. Lake: As the Out of the Cold program falls under the Minister Responsible for Housing, I will take that question on notice for the minister.

RELEASE OF

HUNTING ALLOCATION POLICY

D. Donaldson: The Trumpy report has been on the desk of the Minister of Natural Resource Operations for eight months. That's how long guide-outfitters and local hunters have been waiting for a decision from the B.C. Liberals on changes to hunting allocations. It's a matter of weeks before guide-outfitters hit the trade show circuit to sell their hunts to clients, and they still don't know their numbers. B.C. hunters are planning their own trips for 2012, and they don't know the numbers they have either. The executive director of the Guide Outfitters Association, Scott Ellis, says: "We are anxiously awaiting a decision by the minister." So are hunters with the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

Why is the minister waiting so long on a decision of such impact to hunters and small businesses across the province?

Hon. S. Thomson: I recognize the urgency and the need to deal with the decisions around this. We've had an extensive process over the summer involving both the guide-outfitters and the B.C. Wildlife Federation in discussions on policy options related to the report. Those meetings have included joint meetings with both organizations as we work through the policy options. We're in

[ Page 8871 ]

the final stages of making those policy decisions. Those decisions will be made next week and communicated to both organizations at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, I'm glad the minister recognizes the problem. What the people want, what the hunters want, is for him to do something about it. For eight months the report has been sitting on the minister's desk. That's 240 days. They've been considering this issue for five years.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation hunters make a valuable contribution to local businesses. The guide-outfitters are important small businesses in rural communities across the province. Why hasn't the minister made a decision? When will he make this decision?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I just indicated to the member opposite, that decision will be made next week. We've been through an extensive consultation process with both parties to make sure that we have the policy options and the policy responses correct. We recognize the value that both of those organizations bring to the province and bring to rural British Columbia. We've been working through it. The decisions will be made next week and communicated to both organizations.

SNOWMOBILING REGULATION

K. Corrigan: The snowmobile season has started again. In 2009 the Solicitor General at the time said we needed to look at legislation for people who ignore back-country warnings. Then in March 2010 the next year's Solicitor General promised that legislation would be in place by autumn of 2011.

To this year's Solicitor General: what happened to the legislation to protect the safety of snowmobilers in the back country?

[1420]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the work that has been done…. There has been significant consultation. We've worked very closely with snowmobilers and associations right across the province, and we will continue to contemplate what form future legislation might take.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: The promise was, the promise has been for years, that there was going to be legislation to protect the safety of snowmobilers in the back country. In 2008 and 2009 alone there were 24 avalanche-related deaths in B.C. mountains. There were more again the following year. Again to the Solicitor General: where is the legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said in my previous answer, we continue to contemplate the issue and how we would look at what is reasonable regulation. Just the other day we heard a significant tirade by members on the other side of the House about the number of regulations that were being considered in the Metal Dealers Act, which actually looks at public safety. So we're going to take our time and make sure we get the regulation right.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I'll tell you this much, hon. Member. Stick you in the rain, and you rust pretty darn quick.

You know, I can understand why the current Solicitor General has said she's still contemplating what the legislation might be, because it's been so many Solicitors General ago in this House…. When the former Solicitor General, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, addressed a very serious issue — back in 2008-2009, 24 people died in the back country in this province because of a lack of regulation — and made….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: He recognized a very serious issue — a lack of regulation — and made a commitment to change that issue, to change those problems and to bring in regulations. The government, those numbers of Solicitors General ago, said that they would consult, that they had been doing that. They said there would be regulations in place this November. They would be in place this November.

My question to the Solicitor General: has she talked with the former Solicitor General — or the other one or the other one or the other one? And can she tell this House why those regulations that this government committed would be in place by this November aren't in place yet?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, if the legislation and the regulations were so important and related to public safety, the member opposite had a decade of opportunity to actually take care of putting regulations in place.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Once again, this government has proved that a commitment that they make is worth absolutely nothing.

[1425]

[ Page 8872 ]

This government committed that there would be regulations in place to address such basic issues as whether or not children should be going into high-risk avalanche areas. Those are the types of commitments the former Solicitor General said would be dealt with by this November.

Now, the Solicitor General may want to laugh it off. Her colleagues may want to laugh it off. The bottom line is this. We're entering avalanche season in this province. People come in from Alberta and other places expecting some sort of safety. The government committed to putting in place those regulations, and they failed to do so.

Will the minister tell this House when we will get those regulations in place for back-country safety regarding snowmobiling that the former Solicitor General committed the House to do?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, public safety is a priority for this government, and we are working very closely with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to make sure that an appropriate degree of regulation is put in place. In fact, there have been significant consultations. We are working in partnership with the minister responsible for Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, under whose guidance the legislation will be put in place.

We will continue to look at an appropriate degree of regulation, and in fact we have had those discussions, and we are working closely with the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

AUDITOR GENERAL ACCESS TO

INFORMATION IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

J. Horgan: While we're on the subject of keeping commitments.... Another day, another affidavit — this time, sworn on the 15th of November by the Deputy Auditor General, the same day that the Attorney General stood in this place and talked about the overwhelming amounts of cooperation, the abundance of cooperation, mountains of cooperation.

That very day the Deputy Auditor General was back in court, swearing an affidavit that said the following: "These delays are too great, and the withholding of documents inhibits the Auditor General from effectively planning and conducting the audit. The audit in this case has been significantly delayed."

A year since the Auditor started his investigation, and he's still in court trying to get access to documents. My question to the Attorney General: why don't you trust the Auditor General?

Hon. S. Bond: The government has, for the third day in a row, the same answer it had, which is that we have a legal responsibility. It's not a matter of whether or not we want to trust the Auditor General. There is a legal responsibility to protect third-party, solicitor-client information.

Let me list what we have done. We have waived our own government's solicitor-client privilege. We have waived cabinet privilege, and we have repeatedly advised the Auditor General that as soon as we can release the documents that we are able to, we will do precisely that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I know that yesterday the minister was anxious to answer Tuesday's question on Wednesday, but let's try and focus on Thursday's question today.

The question is quite simple. The Auditor General Act clearly states that he is bound by confidentiality to any materials he may find, whether he's looking at health authorities, whether he's looking at school boards or whether he's looking at personal information.

Why is it that the B.C. Liberals won't allow the Auditor General to do his job? Let him have access. He's protected under his own act. Surely you've all read it. Let's be clear about this. He has a right to look at the documents. Let him have a peek.

Hon. S. Bond: The courts have been clear. The courts have been clear that privilege, solicitor-client privilege…. It is essential that we respect privilege. Once the courts make the ruling about our ability to release those documents, we have given absolutely every single indication to the Auditor General that we will do exactly what the courts permit us to do.

L. Krog: You know, unlike the way the Liberals would like to portray this, this is not some intellectual exercise in court being carried out with tremendous cooperation. The fact is that the affidavit my friend the House Leader refers to is an affidavit filed in response to the factual allegations made in the response of the Attorney General's ministry.

[1430]

In that affidavit the Deputy Auditor General states:

"Due to the lack of information provided and delays over the past 3½ months, the Auditor General has not been able to complete the planning for the indemnities performance audit, has not interviewed relevant witnesses, including those persons who have received indemnities, nor has he been permitted to review the legal accounts rendered pursuant to the indemnities. Without access to the documents and information sought by the Auditor General, the Auditor General will be unable to complete the planned audit."

Very simply, does the Attorney General want the Auditor General to do his statutory duty — yes or no?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I have a simple question for the member opposite. Would the member opposite, when he was…?

Interjections.

[ Page 8873 ]

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. S. Bond: When the member opposite was practising law, the question would simply be: would he have released third-party billing information on his own accord? I highly think not.

[End of question period.]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by 28 people entitled "Petition to Improve Milk Container Recycling in British Columbia." They would like milk containers added to the deposit refund system.

C. Trevena: I have a petition to table from residents on Denman Island who are concerned about the potential of a new ferry — for job reasons, safety reasons, health reasons, lack of consultation reasons. It's been signed by a thousand residents.

N. Macdonald: I'm presenting a petition signed by more than 7,000 people asking the provincial government to amend

section 78 of the Wildlife Act to permit trained Karelian bear dog teams to perform bear shepherding on problem bears.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: I respectfully present some reports. Firstly, the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31 , 2011, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act,

section 72(8).

Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2010-11.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Respectfully, I am presenting the 2010 annual report of the Labour Relations Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: I call continued second reading of Bill 16, intituled the Family Law Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Family law act

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no speakers….

Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast continues.

N. Simons: I am pleased to be able to resume my spot speaking to the Family Law Act, Bill 16. It's nice to have such a good crowd in the House. I'm not used to that, as I've said, as a classical musician.

However, I do want to at least conclude my remarks by reassuring those who may be concerned that, in fact, I do have a lot…. There are a lot of parts of this bill that deserve full support. I do think it's necessary to go through it quite carefully, because there are many issues in it that I think cause a bit of concern without further elaboration. As I've mentioned prior to our adjournment, those relate to family violence.

[1435]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Having worked in the area of child protection for a number of years and having seen a lot of family violence and the impacts of family violence, I think that we must consider the range of legal options available to address family violence.

Perhaps, the Family Law Act will do that better than the Family Relations Act. In fact, there's no doubt that it will. However, I do wonder about where it overlaps with the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which specifically defines what harm to a child is and what the best interest of a child might be.

The issue that I see as problematic is in the blurring of responsibilities between officials and the blurring between the social worker's responsibility and those other individuals who are appointed by the court or by third-party mediators to address specific issues.

I do support any opportunity to promote the resolution of family disputes outside of the court for many reasons. But at the same time I think it's important to recognize that the experts on family dynamics, and those who have expertise in the various types of behaviours that lead to harm to a child, are social workers. Those social workers can't have their voices muted in order to simply see another act take their place.

I do see that many people have supported this legislation. It's a very lengthy piece of legislation. I mentioned earlier, and I would like to repeat, that I think this is the kind of legislation that would serve British Columbians better if it were actually written and created with the participation of 85 members duly elected by the people of this province.

[ Page 8874 ]

I think there needs to be, perhaps, a change of attitude in terms of how legislation is created. If this is essentially what will be best for our various constituencies, perhaps those constituencies should be specifically consulted through a committee or through other mechanisms available to us as legislators.

As it stands, the government went through some extensive consultation with various interest groups and agencies and societies, and I respect that. I do think, though, that we as individual MLAs and as private members have had individuals contact us with respect to issues around separation, access, custody, guardianship and the like.

Perhaps in the committee stage of this bill, we'll be able to further pursue some of those concerns and perhaps get some answers to specific questions. That's the intent of committee stage, and I look forward to that opportunity.

With that, Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues.

J. McIntyre: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of Bill 16, the Family Law Act, replacing the Family Relations Act of 1978. I'm speaking today wearing a number of hats: as a legislator, of course; the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth; a mom; a wife; and a woman. I'm very proud today that this government has tackled complex reform of B.C. family law, reflecting over 30 years of evolution in family life.

This process has involved years of consultation and engagement with British Columbians, the legal community and a White Paper that was introduced in July, 2010, that's quite rare in our province, actually, which I think pays tribute to a topic that's so important, far-reaching and complicated that it was really deserving of such an elaborate process.

One of the key features for me is that it brings a new approach to the law, so that the court is not — and I repeat, not — the starting point; so that we take the adversarial nature that is so detrimental to family unions, we take it out of the process or at least minimize the impact. Most importantly, this new act is centred on children's best interest. When making decisions, in fact, it will be the sole consideration.

[1440]

In addition to this new approach, this act is going to update family law and make it easier to understand. It will be reflecting the current needs of families as well as the changing nature of families.

It describes parents' roles and responsibilities in much less adversarial terms. It actually changes the language. For instance, it rids us of dehumanizing terms like "custody" and "access." Instead, it refers to "guardianship" and "parental responsibilities" and allows for more customized parenting arrangements, which I think is much needed in today's world, when two working parents is the norm.

I'm pleased to see that under the new act, both parents retain guardianship of their children after separation, unless they agree or the court directs differently. The proposal also provides a range of remedies and tools to enforce agreements or orders for time with a child.

I think another important aspect is that the act will provide a much-needed framework and clarification for determining legal parentage, including where assisted conception is used. It's in a way that will protect the child's best interest and also promote stable family relationships. I think this is a very important tool, as many families today need to rely on reproductive technology to create their family.

In the past there was little guidance in law, leading to ad hoc decisions being made and to outdated situations where, for example, donors were by law declared the natural parent, instead of the intended parent. You can just imagine, for a moment, the stressful and heartbreaking scenarios that that's been creating for families for years.

This act also looks at the financial implications of relationship breakdowns. It includes major reforms to property divisions, and it uses an excluded property model to make it easier to identify which assets should be divided, with exclusions, for example, like gifts, inheritance received by a spouse and property that a spouse brings into the relationship. I think that only makes sense, in many instances. People will have control over those divisions.

Many today will be interested to know that this regime will also apply to unmarried spouses, who have lived in marriage-like relationships for at least two years, in a time when common-law relationships are growing at a rate three times faster than that of married couples. So this brings us into today's family situation.

It also brings us consistency with other areas of law: wills, estates, taxation, spousal support. Pension division provisions will also be extended to common-law spouses. These, Madam Speaker, are very important issues, especially as we baby boomers age, and not always so gracefully. It's important that the law is catching up.

Before I close, I would also like to highlight one of the other key areas of the act, from my perspective. It increases the law's ability to deal with family violence and safety issues. This is a very serious issue that the Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, and our Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth have been wrestling for many years — for some time, sad to say. This law will now identify children's safety as an overarching objective in "the best interests of the child" test.

It's also going to include the impact of family violence and the consideration of civil and criminal proceedings that are relevant to the safety or the well-being of the child.

For the first time, I believe, it actually defines family violence, and it sets out factors that are to be considered in parenting cases that involve violence. It also creates a

[ Page 8875 ]

brand-new type of order, called a protection order, that replaces the existing restraining orders, and which will now be applied where there is deemed risk of family violence. These are huge steps forward.

I appreciate that the Representative for Children and Youth has been a keen supporter of the introduction of this modernized act. I want to spend a few moments about that. In her recent CBC Early Edition interview on November 15, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond terms it a big step on the family justice side. She adds that she is "going to work hard to try and see we get this implemented fully, because I think it will make a big difference for many children and families in British Columbia." I could not agree more.

[1445]

I would like to publicly thank her for her support and the efforts she has given us, as government, to help us ensure the public and all of the stakeholders that are engaged in this to fully understand the benefits, because this is very important. It's complicated, and it touches all of us personally one way or another. It's very important, from my perspective, that the public fully understands how this act is going to benefit them going forward.

I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to the many people who have contributed for years to such a much-needed, far-reaching revamping of our approach to family law in this province. I'm confident that these changes are in the right direction. They place the best interests of the child at the heart of the changes, and they recognize and support the changing nature of families today.

I'd like to thank specifically the Attorney General and her very knowledgable and committed staff for taking a courageous step in tackling the law that touches us all, as I say, so very personally. I'm proud as a legislator to stand in support of something so significant. I say: "What a privilege."

I hope this bill receives unanimous support in this House to send a unified message that we are listening to families and are wholeheartedly desirous of a new approach to providing support in times of family dysfunction. In the past children too often have paid the price. Let's hope these days are behind us.

M. Sather: I rise to join the debate on Bill 16, the Family Law Act. This is a considerable piece of legislation that touches a number of areas and advances some new ideas or new orientations towards dealing with age-old societal problems.

I'm not going to attempt to cover the gamut of what this bill covers. Other speakers have addressed some of those issues. But I do want to put on the record what the bill does cover. It covers things like resolution of family law disputes, certainly a hugely contentious area. The language throughout, I think, is a more conciliatory and, I believe, a more productive approach to dealing with these very contentious issues.

It addresses determining parentage. You know, assisted reproduction is becoming much more common today than it used to be. Parents are sometimes finding, for example, that pregnancy is not as easy to achieve as they would have hoped.

I know our daughter was convinced on some medical evidence, actually, that she wouldn't become pregnant and so had gone to reproductive technologies to achieve that end. I guess it's not so uncommon that this happens. But sure enough, after she had set that all up, she got pregnant. But a lot of couples find that it doesn't happen and they do need these steps that they need to take, whether it's use of sperm donation or other technologies.

It brings up some sensitive areas and some areas that I think previously we didn't have on the radar so much, so we hadn't begun to deal with them in previous legislation. That's a welcome addition that Bill 16 brings in.

Bill 16 also talks about care of and time with children. As we've heard previous speakers say, there is a lot of messaging in this bill about children coming first in the decision-making that we do around their welfare and the welfare of their families. Similarly, there's a

section on property division and pension divisions. These issues are also hugely contentious, often, in the dissolution of marriages.

[1450]

I think also bringing into effect that common-law relationships will have similar rights as legal marriages do is a very good and necessary move because, let's face it, a lot of couples now are choosing to live common law rather than to be legally married. Some, like my wife and I, moved from one to the other. So it's a good move there.

Child and spousal support — exceedingly important when there's a separation, for whatever reason. There can be a number of reasons why that happens. There, again, it becomes…. I don't know.

I'm sure any MLA that has been an MLA for any length of time, like we have here in this House, will have found those difficult cases that come to your attention, that are brought to your attention by our constituents, who have gotten into this very warlike situation with spousal support and the pursuit of that support and that support not forthcoming and finding it very difficult to obtain that support. It's very contentious and difficult to resolve. So it's a welcome addition that this bill addresses that particular issue.

It also addresses children's property, protection from family violence, court processes and a few other issues. But I'm going to address the remainder of my remarks to the

section on the protection from family violence.

Prior to becoming an MLA my career was as a counselling psychologist. Over a number of years I had been involved with treatment programs for men who had been abusive in their relationships. It's extremely difficult work to do.

[ Page 8876 ]

Most of the work that I did was not with individuals who had come forward voluntarily for treatment but with those that were mandated by the courts. Oftentimes it's a choice of avoiding a criminal record and accepting treatment. That isn't what always happens, but that would happen in most of the work I did with these men.

You can imagine that it's not a place that any man wants to find himself. There is a lot of resentment, typically, a lot of denial and a lot of shame, actually — unspoken, primarily. But it's important work, and it's one that needs to be continued.

I think that

part 9, "Protection from Family Violence," is definitely speaking the right language here and is heading in the right direction towards us being able to deal with family violence in a more positive manner. It needs to be understood, and oftentimes it's not — that when there is an issue of family violence, whoever is the perpetrator, if you will, what's not called for is family counselling off the bat. That simply is counter-indicated.

There are specific issues around family violence and the beliefs that are part of that syndrome that have to be addressed first. Family counselling is a venue, if I may say, whereby there's an equal partnership, I suppose, is a good way of putting it.

[1455]

Family counselling is very important, but unfortunately, it's not the place that you can start, not in the work that I did with the men who had, unfortunately, been violent in their relationships. So the person has to come to the place, first of all, where they accept responsibility for their actions, and that's a very, very difficult step, Madam Speaker, let me tell you.

I suppose it's kind of human nature, in some respects, to blame others for things that we do that are, in this case, antisocial. Of course, that step has to be gotten past, and that's a tough one. That's a real tough one, and it takes a lot of work to do that. And of course, you can't move on to family counselling if the violence is still ongoing in the relationship. So number one, that has to end.

Having said that, nor does it work in treatment of men, who…. It has to be said that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of physical violence in relationships, and it's not always physical violence; oftentimes it's emotional violence as well.

We're talking here about, you know, pretty extreme examples. Certainly, whenever it gets physical, that's an extreme example, but it's not an uncommon occurrence, unfortunately, and it's one that is difficult to deal with, as I say. I don't think we as a society…. Particularly for men, it's difficult to deal with. So the fact that legislation is coming forward that's talking about this issue, that's giving us new tools to deal with the issue, I think, is definitely laudable.

Now, when I was working as a counsellor in these programs…. You can't start by blaming the person for what they've done. They're already, as I say, underneath…. They don't usually show it, but they're definitely…. If they do come to a period of showing the shame that they feel underneath, then you're probably making pretty good progress.

Certainly, the counsellor can't take a position, or shouldn't…. It's not productive to take a position of blaming the person or the persons. Group therapy is what works best in this case, and the hope is, when it works best, that men get to the point — and this does happen, not uncommonly — that men help each other to take responsibility for what they've done.

Having said that, it is necessary as part of this work to hold the person responsible for what they've done. That's where I want to make some comments, because I had problems with how I saw this evolving over the last number of years, and I think it wasn't in a positive direction.

As I say, you don't want to be blaming, but you have to have the men taking responsibility. What I saw was a weakening of that resolve, where there was, actually, a movement towards more of a psychoeducational approach. But even when there was an actual treatment program…. For example, one of the things, the tools….

I think, as my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast mentioned — he has a long history as a social worker — you don't know the facts. You're not there when these issues happen. You know, you can't say: "Well, the story that you're telling me is wrong. I know it's wrong." But what we can do and what we did do in those treatment programs was to consult the record that the police had provided, the information that they had.

[1500]

Sometimes that was necessary to say to the person: "Well, you know what? Granted, I don't know exactly what happened, but here's what the police are saying happened, and it really is at odds with what you're saying happened."

I have to say that it was without any announcement of any policy change by the provider who was providing most of these treatment programs in the province, if not all of them — they may still be to this day; I don't know — that that was not permitted, that it was no longer permitted.

Well, I can tell you that it's like taking two legs of the three-legged chair out from underneath the counsellor, because these guys, these men, oftentimes are pretty good at seeing where the power balance lies. If they know that you don't have the authority to confront them on the police record, they'll just thumb their nose at you.

So I quit. I said, "I can't do this work under those circumstances," because it was not productive. I felt that it was quite counterproductive, quite counter-indicated for good treatment.

Now, I'm hoping that the positive tone and the pretty definitive measures that are laid out in this bill — particularly under

part 9, "Protection from Family Violence" — are going to be helpful and useful in mov-

[ Page 8877 ]

ing us onto more productive conclusions of these very difficult circumstances.

I want to read a statement that was made by the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. This is when they were commenting on the proposed changes. They said: "While many of the proposed changes are laudable on paper, these provisions will mean little if those working within the system have not been adequately trained on the broadened scope and legal implications of violence." I think that's very accurate. As I said, my colleague also made mention of a similar theme.

I just want to read briefly a bit about

section 183. These are in "Orders respecting protection." Under subsection (2), it says: "A court may make an order against a family member for the protection of another family member if the court determines that (

a) family violence is likely to occur, and (

b) the other family member is an at-risk family member." It goes on to give further delineation of the same theme.

I did want to bring up an issue that I was quite involved with in my community to help, I hope, exemplify the challenges with family violence and the hope that this legislation brings that we're going to be able to deal with it better.

This involves a lady named Karen Beck. Ms. Beck and her husband lived in Maple Ridge, in a nice subdivision in Maple Ridge. They had a reputable business in town.

It was clear from the discussions I had with the family that Karen was feeling a great deal of control of her activities, of her daily life, by her husband. This was becoming increasingly contentious and difficult for her, such that she actually was experiencing herself being trapped in her own home, where her husband was not wanting her to go anywhere outside of the home.

[1505]

Things had started to escalate with regard to a weapon that he had in the home, so she escaped one day, basically, after coming up with kind of an excuse. When she got out on Dewdney Trunk Road, as I'm told, she flagged down a police car and started talking to them about her concerns.

Interestingly enough, however, she…. When you think about a family, even when there's family violence going on, there's oftentimes a desire to hold your family together, and that becomes paramount.

In any event, she told the police that she was concerned that her husband was going to harm himself. She did, however, say that there were weapons in the home. This is where the information is a little bit buried. We know that she did end up in the police station. She was interviewed. I believe that she made the case that she felt threatened.

In any event, the police did suggest she go to a transition home, which she did. The police then did go to the home and retrieved the weapons from her husband — weapon or weapons; I don't recall which it was — but there was no arrest made.

I just want to say that the Beck family has done a tremendous amount over the years since what later happened. What later happened was that — it was actually some two years later — they were separated, but there was no agreement to sell the home. That was a nightmare in itself.

I'm also hopeful that this legislation will — and I think it will, from what I gather — bring speedy closure to those kinds of situations.

The fact was that they couldn't get agreement on selling the home. Then eventually, in desperation, she went to the home to do some cleaning, and what entailed was that her husband murdered her. He set the house on fire, and he killed himself. It's an absolutely tragic situation that happened.

I just wanted to mention her family and what fabulous work they've been doing, her daughter and the sons, to make people more aware of the issue of family violence. They're not doing it and blaming anyone. They're doing it with a view to solving the problem.

I think that's what's good about this legislation as well. I think it's moving in that direction of problem-solving. There can't be an area that's much more difficult than this one to solve problems in, because it's so contentious and can lead to such tragedy.

I think about the police and what they're trying to do when they're confronted with an issue like this. I know that they err, as well, sometimes, but they look at things through a legalistic point of view, as they're trained to do.

When someone like Karen Beck is before them, they understand that she's being threatened on one level, but then on the legalistic level they look at it…. What they indicated was, "Well, is there enough evidence here to arrest this person?" — her husband in that case. Sadly, they concluded at the time that there wasn't.

I think the orders that can be made respecting protection are going to be helpful. It also says: "An order under subsection (2) may include one or more of the following: (

a) a provision restraining the family member from (

i) directly or indirectly communicating with or contacting the at-risk family member or a specified person."

[1510]

That's another one where so often there are breaches of those orders. Sometimes, actually, it's consensual, which is understandable, but it's counterproductive to what society is trying to achieve. It does speak, though, to the fact that — not always, by any means — it's not uncommon that the urge to keep the relationship or the family together is so strong that they will consensually come together. More frequently, I think, the spouse who has been guilty of the family violence tends to break the order and make contact. So that one is good.

[ Page 8878 ]

It also talks about a provision restraining the family member from "attending at, nearing or entering a place regularly attended by the at-risk family member…(iii) following the at-risk family member, or (iv) possessing a weapon or firearm." That's a really good one.

I just have to say briefly…. I don't intend to get involved in any debate about the long-gun registry, but I will say that this is a case where, for the police, it was very advantageous to know, when they went to that home, as I believe they did, how many weapons were there so that they could be prepared.

They are very dangerous situations for the police, I know. My wife's ex-husband was a police officer, and he said those were the worst tasks that he had to go to and the most dangerous. Going into a home where there was reported family violence — very, very dangerous situations at times. So I give full credit to our police forces for the work they do there. I know that their training is better than it used to be. I think that this law is going to help, though, to bring us even closer to a positive resolution.

It also provides directions to a police officer to "remove the family member from the residence immediately or within a specified period of time." I don't know, in the case of Karen Beck, whether there would have been an order in that regard, but I like to think that there might have been and that that could have been a start of a happier ending than what happened. Also, directions to a police officer to "seize from the family member any weapons or firearms" — we covered that one already.

I just want to mention that the bill does state that the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration or the only consideration in making decisions involving the child. As my former colleague mentioned, I do want to say that that is a tough one.

I fully appreciate that family violence is never best for the interest of children, but it's hard for us to look through the eyes of the children. Often, for them, being moved from their home is also exceedingly traumatic, and so I give full credit to the people that drafted this legislation and the work that's going to ensue to ensure that — to make their best efforts. As my colleague said, we do want, I believe, the social workers or the professionals in this area.

We do want professionals involved — and they will make mistakes; we all will make mistakes — that can best assess what the needs of the child are and at what age the child, herself or himself, does have a say in it. I don't know the answers to that. My colleague probably understands that. Well, I know he understands that work much better than I do. It's definitely a laudable goal, a necessary goal to keep the interests of children first.

I believe there is goodwill on both sides around this legislation. Of course, we will have some discussion of the particulars. I certainly haven't delved into all of it, but I trust that others have.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for my opportunity to speak to this, and I'll take my seat for the next speaker.

[1515]

R. Hawes: Gee, it's a rare occasion when you get to stand in the House and agree with a speaker on the other side. But I do have to first mention some of the points the previous speaker, my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, had to make about the Beck family. I, too, met with Karen Beck's family, and that was indeed a really tragic situation. I'm not going to delve into that part of this bill.

I'm pleased to stand and speak in favour of this bill, as I think probably every speaker is going to. It's 33 years since the last bill was passed in this House. If you think of the changes that have taken place in society over the last 33 years, they're pretty profound. We've entered the computer age. I know — and I'm quite sure the statistics would show — that the incidence of marriage breakdown is significantly higher today, I'm sure, than it was 33 years ago. That has led to all kinds of problems.

What I just want to talk about briefly today is what goes on, I'm sure, in constituency offices all over British Columbia. Certainly, it happens in mine.

When we're sitting here, we go home on a Friday, and most of us will have meetings in our constituency office on a Friday and sometimes on a Saturday. Oftentimes it will be somebody coming in that's going to talk about custody and access. I'm pleased to see those words are being tossed out in this piece of legislation. We're going to talk about guardianship and parental responsibility rather than custody and access.

When you get into these kinds of family feuds over children, oftentimes it's the vindictive nature…. It's one side or the other that has gained the guardianship of the child, and they're being vindictive. They're going to stop the other side from ever seeing the children, and relationships get poisoned between children and one side of their parents.

It becomes kind of heartrending sometimes, when you talk to these parents who have been shut out of their children's lives and are trying to gain legal access. Often that is being denied. Even though the courts have ordered it, oftentimes things are made so difficult that that parent can't see their children.

A lot of that vindictiveness, I think, goes back to how marriage breakdown was happening. What happens so often…. I'll give an example. I'll use the names Bill and Betty, but…. They happen to be friends of mine. Their names aren't Bill and Betty. They have been married for probably 30 years, and they just grew apart. They didn't have a lot in common with each other. They started to snipe at each other a little bit, and they decided that they were going to go their separate ways.

[ Page 8879 ]

When Bill moved out of the house, not long afterwards he started to date somebody, and Betty was pretty upset about that. Very quickly she went and got a lawyer, and they started the argument. Then Bill got a lawyer. Well, they first started talking about how they would sell the house and everything would be fine. They'd split the assets.

It quickly got into a fight between lawyers, and they couldn't speak to each other anymore. It became more and more bitter. You would talk to one or the other, and it would be just vitriol. The lawyers, though, kept telling one side or the other: "Well, you don't have to do that, because we can get you this." It just escalated until a huge amount of the assets they had acquired over 30 years actually were going to legal fees, for no good purpose.

When they finally got their day in court, the judge told them to go outside in the hallway and see if they could settle it before he gave a judgment that one side or the other wasn't going to like. They went outside, and they actually settled for what they had originally talked about, but they had lost all of the legal fees. It makes no sense.

[1520]

This has been going on for a long time in this province. I suspect there are probably some in the legal profession who won't particularly like the way this act tries to deal with that kind of a marriage breakdown, where we're saying: "Rather than go to court, let's start with mediation." You know, if you can't work it out together, then go to a mediator. Then, ultimately, arbitration is going to be an option, and the very last resort is going to be to refer to the courts.

Now, to get a mediator, you don't really need to go get a lawyer. When you go into mediation, you don't have to lay out all kinds of money. I'm hoping and truly believe that what will happen in many, many cases here is that the vitriol will be parked at the door, that the relationship breakdowns will be a little bit more amicable and that, in the end, the bitterness and the vindictiveness that shuts parents away from their children actually doesn't have to take place. I think that's going to wind up being a better thing for children, for families.

Much as you don't want to see marriage breakdowns, they do happen. So that's the part of this bill that I wanted to speak about, the part that I think really makes so much sense. When we see our courts that are plugged with all kinds of cases that have been stalled and the backlog of cases, it just doesn't make sense to be pushing divorce cases into court when they could be dealt with in a completely different venue.

When marriage breakdowns can be handled so much more amicably and when there are rules spelled out, as in here, that I think make it much more clear about the division of assets and things like common-law relationships…. I think that will show itself to be extremely helpful as we move forward with this bill and as this bill finds its way into practice.

I'm quite sure that in the end, the beneficiaries are going to be not just those whose marriages, sadly, break down. The children of those relationships, I think, are going to benefit from this as well.

So mine is a very brief statement. I want to congratulate the Attorney for bringing this bill forward. I think it's long overdue.

Like others have said, the kind of consultation that went into putting this bill together…. I know an earlier speaker from the other side said he thought it was too bad that all 85 MLAs couldn't have been involved in this. Actually, a White Paper was put out to the public. It was an invitation not just to the 85 people sitting elected in this room, but indeed, everyone in British Columbia was invited to participate in that White Paper. So there was very, very broad consultation.

I think all of us ought to be pretty satisfied, and those of us on this side are extremely proud of the way that this bill was brought forward. The consultation that took place is going to stand this bill well in the eyes of the public. I know it does. I'm so pleased to be able to stand and support it, as I know, I think, all 85 members of this House would support it.

H. Bains: I, too, feel that it is my honour to stand here and speak about this very, very important and timely piece of legislation. I do want to thank the Attorney for bringing this forward. There are changes here that, as our critic put it, will affect eventually, I think, a vast segment of society as we are moving forward in a new age.

What I want to talk about is one part of it. We as British Columbians are as diverse as any other jurisdiction in the world can be, if not the most diverse — the community that we live in. That brings with it all those communities that made this province their home with their cultural and their religious values. When we are talking about family and family law, much of that is affected by what and how they think along those values.

[1525]

I'm sure that during the committee stage we could ask some more questions, and I'm sure the Attorney will also make notes.

First of all, I want to say that no matter what you do, you cannot cover every aspect of our lives in a piece of legislation, although you may try to. I think the same thing goes with this bill that is to deal with family law in the event of a breakup, in the event of family violence.

I think the parts that I want to remind the Attorney of are these. I'm hoping that when we are talking about

part 2, "Resolution of Family Law Disputes," we are cognizant of the fact that different values work in different communities and different cultural and religious issues play a major

part in whether the dispute is going to be resolved or not, based on the right type of person with the right type of training and with culturally competent people available. I think that will be the key in many of those areas.

[ Page 8880 ]

What works in one culture does not work in another culture. What is acceptable in one area of a community is totally opposite in other communities.

I have a constituency that has almost every community that made their home here, made our province as their home, whether they are Indian, Sri Lankan, Pakistani, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, Chinese. You name it; I think our constituency has it. We, too, as we sit in our community offices, hear some of those stories during the marriage breakdown and how children get affected.

I think what I would like to remind the Attorney of is that when we are talking about…. This bill expressly states that the best interests of a child must be the only consideration in making decisions involving the child. Again, I think we are venturing into an area where different cultures and different communities feel that differently and view very, very differently what the best interest is of those children involved.

What you could appreciate is that if, in the case of family violence…. In our community we have seen our fair share, where we have seen that the children have lost one parent. On one hand, they have lost their parent, and on the other hand, the law could make them a victim, as well, if it's not handled appropriately.

If we are not sensitive to the needs of that community and those children, then we're not helping and we're not keeping the best interests of the children. Although it would be inadvertent, although it's not intentional, that's the way it could end up. That would be the end result.

I think our critic mentioned a bit on that. In my own community — and there are other communities out there — they will look at their grandparents playing a major role in raising children. Even today, in my case, with my children, we have played as much a role in raising my two children as my parents and my wife's parents have played.

I think those are the things where we need to be very, very careful. To that extent, my brothers and their families played almost the same role that I played in raising my children or raising their children. We in the community feel that those children are our shared responsibility and that we all look after their interests.

When we are dealing with issues of family violence, those are the areas that we must keep in mind. We need to make sure that the law enforcement officers are trained and are culturally competent, I would say, when they're dealing with violence in different communities.

[1530]

We're talking about mediation. Those people must be trained in their cultural and religious background, be sensitive to not crossing that line, to make sure that they are, at the end of the day, helping according to those values and keeping the child's best interests front and centre.

You can achieve that, if we are putting our intentions in this bill, and make it work through regulations or whatever else is going to come after this, to make sure the implementation part, when we are talking about it, has those components covered.

As many of the people before me said, it's not something we can make long speeches on, I think, because we all agree on the main parts of the bill and the intent of the bill. But those are some of the areas that I feel we must keep in mind when we are dealing with family disputes — whether it's mediation, whether it's counselling, whether it's arbitration. I think those are the key factors that will be the determining factors, in my view, whether the dispute is resolved out of court or it ends up in court.

That would be my position, or actually, I think that would be the position of many of those communities that would be watching this debate very, very carefully. They would be sitting there, wondering what that means to them in the event that they are in that situation, knowing what could happen in a situation where people are not culturally sensitive when they are dealing with families and children and dealing with their disputes.

I think I just want to make sure that I put those concerns before this House and to make sure that when we are talking about or making statements such as "best interests of the child" that we also must view them in the eyes of those who have different cultures and different religious backgrounds, and make sure that we are sensitive about their needs.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I'm really happy that we are emphasizing in this bill to have those disputes resolved outside of the courts. I'll tell you one of the statements that someone made here — I think it was Eugene Raponi, a family lawyer and mediator in Victoria — in support of this. Basically, what he said was: "I'd like to say that if it costs as much to get divorced as it did to get married, you are doing well, and I think a mediation can accomplish that goal."

I can tell you there are some communities out there. They are spending a lot of money on marriages these days. I don't think that should be the criteria or the gauge to measure how much money is spent on divorce in order to get the dispute resolved.

All in all, I think I am really happy that this bill is before us, but I am putting those thoughts on the floor here — and I'm sure the minister has made notes — that when we are talking about implementation of this bill, when we are going to go into the next stage of this bill and talk clause by clause, I'm sure the questions can be asked, and I'm sure the minister would have those areas covered.

With that, I want to thank you for having the opportunity to speak on this and to put those thoughts here before this House.

[ Page 8881 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 16 and to emphasize the importance of the Family Law Act in promoting a cooperative and compassionate child-focused model of family law. It is obviously time to replace the current act, which was introduced well over 30 years ago, with a new act that focuses more clearly on meeting what is the best interest of the child.

[1535]

This new act better reflects current issues faced today by B.C. families. The act increases the ability of courts to deal with family violence by defining family violence in a clear and concise manner, legislating risk factors considered in parenting cases involving violence, and making the safety of children a key goal when determining what is in the best interests of the child.

The introduction of this act will enable family law problems to be resolved in a timely manner with better outcomes for the children. Perhaps most importantly, children will benefit from this act because it promotes non-court dispute resolution and agreements. Families will be encouraged to settle their affairs and move on, with the least disruption to the children, who are so vulnerable at these times.

A child's guardians will also now be clearly defined, and a list of parental responsibilities will allow for clear allocation between guardians, allowing families and parents to customize parenting arrangements.

Children will benefit from the clarity of knowing who their legal parents are, including in situations where reproductive technology has been used. There is also specific emphasis placed on strengthening the legislation around the safety of children, a commitment and value shared by the Representative for Children and Youth.

With these changes, an applicant for guardianship of a child must provide evidence to a court as to what is in the best interests of that child. The proposed legislation will also ensure that the child's best interests will be the only consideration when parents or a judge are making guardianship and parenting arrangements. The child's views must be considered unless it would be inappropriate to do so.

We need to ensure that we are doing everything we can to put our children first and protect their safety and well-being while serving children, youth and families across British Columbia in the best way possible. I am convinced that the Family Law Act will help us to do just this.

Bill 16 also proposes consequential amendments to five acts that are administered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development in order to achieve clarity and consistency with the language in the Family Law Act. Those five acts are the Adoption Act; the Child Care B.C. Act; the Child Care Subsidy Act; the Child, Family and Community Service Act; and the Youth Justice Act.

These are generally minor amendments with the exception of the amendments to the Adoption Act. Proposed amendment to this act will allow for the recognition of legal parentage when a child has been conceived through assisted reproduction.

Over the past 30-odd years reproductive technology has advanced far beyond what was, if you will pardon the expression, conceived of in 1978. The number of children born in B.C. using reproductive technology is increasing, and the law has simply not kept up with the changing reality, leaving children and parents vulnerable.

The amendments to the Adoption Act reflect that parents may not always have a biological connection with their child, such as a father in a family where donated sperm was used or where the child has parents of the same sex. These amendments are necessary to respond to the changing dynamics of British Columbia families, and I wholeheartedly support them.

Another proposed amendment is to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which will enable protective orders made under that act to be enforced by the Criminal Code of Canada. The repeal of certain portions of sections 28, 98 and 102 relating to protection orders under the CFCSA will allow for enforcement of these orders under the Criminal Code.

This will align the enforcement of protection orders made under the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Family Law Act in order to provide greater certainty for law enforcement personnel. These amendments will enhance protections for children by promoting a more effective and streamlined enforcement of safety-related orders.

The introduction of this new Family Law Act is a concrete example of this government's commitment to our families-first agenda. Thank you for allowing me to rise in the House today and give my full support to Bill 16.

[1540]

K. Corrigan: I'm rising to speak on Bill 16. This is a very significant bill, and it is important to all of us in this House.

Before I had this very fulfilling career as an MLA and before I was a trustee and before I was a researcher, and even before I spent years at home with my kids, my first career was as a lawyer, and my main area of practice was in family law. It goes to show how long it's been since these laws have been in place, as I do recall in my very early years practising law — well, there were only a couple of them — the first Family Relations Act, which a lot of the new bill covers, came into being. So it's been a long time. This was well due. I do appreciate that it's happened now.

I want to say that, overall, I'm very supportive of this act for a lot of the reasons that others have talked about — making the process through which people go through divorce, separation, dealing with kids, custody arrangements and so on, much, much improved.

[ Page 8882 ]

But first of all, I want to talk particularly about a

section of the old Family Relations Act, which is now gone and which is very important to a constituent of mine named Donna Anderson Dobco.

Section 90 of the Family Relations Act provided that children were liable to maintain and support a parent. This

section has been around but has not been used often. In considering the changes to the act and the rewriting of this Family Law Act, it is one

section that there was widespread concern about — the

section 90 of the Family Law Act, which provided for children supporting their parents.

While, on the face of it, it sounds like that is something that is reasonable, the reality of its application, according to the B.C. Law Institute that recommended to government that this

section of the act should be scrapped, the actual impact was that it was creating a devastation in families.

I wanted to pass on and spend just a few minutes talking about the impact that Donna Anderson Dobco, my constituent, said it had on her. She said that the law completely destroyed her family, both financially and in terms of the relationships within the family. In her family, according to what she told me and what she told the court, essentially the kids…. There were a number of children who had left their family homes very young and had fended for themselves from the time they were as young as 13 or 14, up to 15 or 16 and 17 and that they had no relationship with their mother, who was suing them.

I'm not commenting on that. That is the story that Donna talked about, which she talked about in court as well. But the impact of this law has been devastating on the family, not only financially but, as well, the stress that it's caused as Donna tried to continue to support her children, tried to have a healthy marriage, tried to deal with all of the things that we all have to deal with when we have families and children. Then she was trying to deal with the mental stress as well as the division that it was creating in her family as they dealt with this lawsuit from the parent.

[1545]

So Donna came to me not to ask that I in anyway interfere in the court proceedings. Of course, we made it very clear that we could not do that — that we had no ability — nor would it be appropriate for us to interfere in court proceedings, but she did want us to bring attention to the law itself. So we worked with Donna in contacting the government and laying out her concerns about

section 90 and showing the very vivid impacts that it had on her and her family.

I'm sure that Donna is going to be very, very pleased to hear that

section 90 is not in the new act. I'm not sure, frankly, what impact that's going to have, because there already were decisions in her case, and there were assessments made. I think she's still fighting it out, so I'm not sure what the legal impact is going to be, but I'm sure that she will feel very pleased that this

section is no longer in the act. So that's one thing.

The other thing I wanted to talk about — there are many, many good things in this act — is one that other members have spoken about in this House, and that is

part 4, which says: "In making an agreement or order…respecting guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child, the parties and the court must consider the best interests of the child only."

And not only must they consider the best interests of the child only, but in determining those interests, the act has said that the court must specifically include "the impact of any family violence on the child's safety, security or well-being, whether the family violence is directed toward the child or another family member" and also "whether the actions of a person responsible for family violence indicate that the person may be impaired in his or her ability to care for the child and meet the child's needs." So I am really, really pleased with this specific provision that family violence must be taken into account, as it should, in determining guardianship, parenting arrangements or contact with a child.

I am reminded of a very moving report that the Representative for Children and Youth presented just over two years ago called Honouring Christian Lee: No Private Matter — Protecting Children Living with Domestic Violence .

Everybody in this House, I think, will recall that Christian Lee, six years old, was supposed to have been, on September 4, 2007, walking into his grade 1 classroom for the first time. Instead, in the early hours that morning Christian and four members of his family died in a murder-suicide. Peter Lee murdered his son, Christian; his wife, Sunny Park; and his parents-in-law from Korea, and then killed himself.

There had been some signs of family violence. There had been a car crash. I won't go through the whole history, but the investigation essentially found that the systems of support for children and families exposed to domestic violence were not adequate to protect Christian and his family.

Family violence is a huge problem in British Columbia and across Canada. It's a deep problem. In 2007 family violence accounted for almost one-quarter of all police-reported violent crime in Canada. More than half of these incidents were perpetrated by a current or former spouse or a common-law partner with spousal violence. So it is a deep problem; it is a wide problem. It has many, many impacts.

[1550]

We know that in many, many situations where there is spousal violence, there are children who witness that violence or who are violently attacked themselves that are impacted in all sorts of deep and lasting ways. So this bill will help.

[ Page 8883 ]

It's a small piece, in this particular respect. But it's a very important piece that now when people are leaving — primarily women, because that's what the stats say — relationships, when a marriage or a common-law marriage is ending, there will at least be that knowledge that when somebody is making that very difficult decision…. And it is often a difficult decision for women to leave violent relationships because of their inability to support themselves. There are sometimes extreme economic circumstances for a whole variety of reasons — not knowing where somebody is going to go and live.

It is very difficult for people to leave violent relationships. And I believe that if women know…. The fact that there will be provisions now that assure women that if they have to go to court in order to get custody, guardianship, parenting of their child, this provision is going to be in place. And that will provide one more protection for women and their children who are in the family that is breaking up.

I do want to say, though, that there is so much more to do. I just spoke about the difficulty that women have leaving violent relationships. I salute many organizations — the transition houses and people that work in the transition houses across this province for women and children who are fleeing violence. I salute all the people that work in counselling programs that provide counselling and provide assistance, the front-line workers who deal with women and children who are fleeing violence.

I want to point out that this is an important piece of legislation, but we also have to remember that there is so much more to do — that a woman who is in court, having this determination made, cannot be fully represented if she doesn't have proper legal assistance, if she doesn't have proper and equal access to the law. The serious cuts that have been made to legal aid have seriously impacted the ability of women whose families are breaking up, whose marriages are ending, to have proper representation in those situations.

If somebody doesn't have proper legal representation, they are not able to fully access the full benefit that they can get under the law. And while this is an important piece of legislation and will provide some comfort, we need to make sure that women and children leaving violent family relationships have the ability to have access to the help that they need in order that they can get the just result.

I note that there are some people who I have a great deal of respect for that have expressed support for this bill, for this provision, and for a number of other provisions. For example, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth, who I just mentioned as the author of the Honouring Christian Lee document, says that the "bill marks a significant turning point for B.C. in addressing domestic violence by introducing an explicit definition and provisions that send a clear message about the importance of courts considering all factors that might affect a child's safety."

Tracy Porteous, who's with the Ending Violence Association of British Columbia, does wonderful work in the province of British Columbia on behalf of women and children that are trying to escape violence. She said: "I think we're beginning to realize in this province that these are life-and-death situations, that if we see those kinds of breaches, that kind of disregard for the law, we have to take it seriously."

[1555]

I think that this is phenomenally progressive that we're actually seeing coordination between family court and criminal court on breaches. Tracy Porteous also said: "This legislation has the potential to save lives." "The fact is that we're looking at safety across the board in the definition and in the best interests of the child, the fact that we're giving the judiciary and the family court justice counsellors information about domestic violence" — then a part was left out in the tape, but anyway — "that none of these people had before." It is testimony from people that I have a great deal of respect for.

I've looked at the act, at many of the provisions of the act, and was particularly drawn to the importance of

section 37 and in protecting the interests of children. I have to say that when I practised family law, I was involved in child custody cases and child protection cases, and I saw cases decided where, if this law had been in place, if these provisions of

section 37 had been in place, I think the outcome would have been different, and I think it would have been a better outcome.

With that, I am pleased to…. I am supportive of many, many of the provisions of this act. I look forward to the next round with this, which will be the committee stage. I'm going to have lots of questions in the committee stage. But with those comments, I am going to take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and recognize the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. [Applause.]

N. Letnick: Well, it's really nice to get applause before I've even spoken. That doesn't happen very often.

I'd like to also thank the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for sharing her legal knowledge with us. I'm not a lawyer — never have been and probably never will be.

Interjections.

N. Letnick: All right. We'll have to meet afterwards and find out what that was all about.

But I am a father of three wonderful children. I am a husband of a wonderful wife, Helene, for 30 years. I'm a brother to four siblings, I think two of which have gone through divorce — one several times. It is

an act which

[ Page 8884 ]

is not about creating families. It's not about putting people together. It's actually about taking care of children when people come into a situation in their lives where they need help.

It's about taking care of people who have, through their time together, amassed some form of assets and have to find a way to distribute those assets fairly amongst themselves. It's about putting the needs of the children first, and it's also about trying to reduce the workload in our court system so that we can have the resources that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake was talking about to tackle the very serious issues that we have throughout our society.

But before I start getting into the specifics of the bill, I just want to talk about the process for a moment. I don't believe that

an act has involved so many people for such a long time as this one has, at least in my brief 2½ years' tenure in this Legislature. So I just want to put on the record the process that this bill has gone through to get to this point.

Because of the way it touches all our lives — all our lives in here and our constituents and our families — so profoundly, this process also had to be a profound process. There have been exhaustive consultations throughout B.C., which raised expectations, and this bill was also announced in the throne speech just recently. But the first round of public consultations was in 2007, and a report of the results was publicly posted for all to see.

To ensure that a broad range of citizens provided their views, the Social Planning and Research Council, SPARC for short, conducted focus groups with members of the public in 21 communities across British Columbia. That included men's and women's groups, community-based organizations, multicultural and aboriginal family services. As well, SPARC surveyed 223 family-related organizations across B.C.

[1600]

A second round of public consultations occurred with the release of a White Paper in July of 2010. The White Paper included proposals for a new family law. It received media attention, most of it very positive, and significant feedback from the public, community and advocacy organizations — and the legal community, of course. That's the kind of intensive process it has gone through to bring this bill to our tables right now. As has been stated by other members, it is widely supported. The representative for children and families is supporting it, amongst others, and I'll talk about her statements in a few minutes.

Divorce is part of our culture. It is part of British Columbia. B.C. in 2005 had the second-highest level of divorce — 234 instances out of every 100,000 couples. In 2008 and 2009 we had 11,000 divorces in British Columbia. So this is

an act that obviously impacts many people throughout the province, Mr. Speaker. It impacts them at a fundamental level.

I hope, through passage of the act — because it sounds like all parties are going to be supporting it — that over the next year, year and a half, as the act becomes law and gets implemented, we will see the benefits of the act roll out — such benefits as better reflecting the current-day families that are dealing with the Family Relations Act, especially since the other one hasn't been touched since 1978, benefits that put children first, which is exactly in line with our family-first agenda.

Children's needs are placed front and centre by stating that "the best interests of a child" must be the only consideration in making decisions involving the child. It also helps to keep family disputes out of court by supporting ways for parents to resolve disputes, such as through making agreements, mediation, parenting coordination and arbitration, and the use of the courts only when necessary.

I can tell you, based on my experience not only with family members but with constituents and friends, if we can help people adjust to the reality of getting split — splitting up with the children and splitting up with their assets — a lot closer to when they've actually made the decision, without going through the acrimony of the legal system, not only can we better utilize our 2,000 or so legal graduates every year, but we can also make the process a lot better for them.

I believe that will save a lot of people from becoming alcoholics or from other abuse situations, whether it's physical abuse or abuse of themselves. It will cause some people to avoid, hopefully, going into mental illness — I've seen that happen as well — and overall, of course, keep our courts open for all those other cases that are just as important as these.

This also provides the tools necessary to address family violence. With a new protection order to help the courts more effectively deal with family violence situations, breaching a protective order will be a criminal offence. At a high level it clarifies how property is divided to improve fairness when couples break up. Certain types of property, such as pre-relationship property and inheritance, will be excluded from the 50-50 division of property upon separation. These rules are also extended to common-law spouses.

In the case of my son, for example, he has proposed to his girlfriend. They expect to get married next summer, but little does…. Well, actually he knows now. They've been living together for two years, so as far as this law is concerned, they both have the same rights and obligations today as they will have next summer once they get married under common law.

So what would happen if, for example, I provided him with an inheritance? What this law would do is it would allow him to claim that inheritance as his own if they happened to split up any time after the two years or after they get married, and it wouldn't be deemed as part of the common property — which is different than the way

[ Page 8885 ]

it is now but more in sync with what other provinces are doing.

[1605]

I remember clearly a couple years ago after getting elected to this House that a constituent came up to me and said: "Norm, if you do anything in the four years, what you need to do is make sure that if I give money to my son or my daughter and if they split up with their spouse, they can keep that money." It's not separated between the two people, the split couple. He was worried that once he provided that money to the couple and they split up, then his inheritance wouldn't go to the person that he wanted it to go to. It would go to the person's ex-wife or his son's or daughter's ex, and that was not the intent.

Here you are. I can now go back to that constituent, and many others of his generation who think this is important, and report out that, indeed, the government, through the last few years of consultation, has come up with

an act which will take care of that.

Of course, money is important, but we all know that the children are the most important piece of this act and making sure that we take care of them. The act talks about custody and access. The terms "custody" and "access" suggest that there are winners and losers when it comes to parenting.

The biggest loser in an acrimonious separation, of course, is the children, so we have to make sure that we continue to look at them. The proposed act replaces these terms with less adversarial terms such as "guardianship," "parental responsibilities" and "parenting time." This can also promote a more collaborative approach to parenting.

A list of parental responsibilities will allow for guardians to tailor their parenting arrangements by sharing or allocating parental responsibilities, and that sharing through this act provides that generally both parents will continue to be guardians after a separation, unlike the current law that says only one parent becomes the guardian. The new act does not provide a presumed starting point when making parenting decisions. Rather, the act provides flexibility