1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 16, Number 25

[ Page 14405 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Campbell: I would just like to recognize the return of our colleague and friend from Delta North and say: welcome back.

The Speaker: Indeed, welcome.

K. Whittred: It is my pleasure today to welcome to the House my husband Don Whittred. Would the House please make him welcome.

[1410]

Hon. I. Waddell: May I also, on behalf of this side, welcome back my friend the member for Delta North. We're pleased to see him back.

You've heard a lot about Hollywood North this week, but we shouldn't forget our own B.C. documentary filmmakers. There are two of them in the gallery here today. Cari Green is a veteran documentary producer; she's joined by Steve Carruthers, who is with Nimpkish Wind Productions. Both Cari and Steve are active members of the Canadian Independent Film Caucus. They will be joining me at 3 o'clock this afternoon to make an important announcement affecting documentary film producers in British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm very pleased to introduce two good friends who are visiting in Victoria today from Kamloops: Derek Cook, who's an instructor at the University College of the Cariboo and teaches political science, and his friend and partner Isabel McLeod, who teaches at Kwantlen University College. Would the House please make them welcome -- up there in the corner.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce the wife of my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton: Yasmin Thorpe. They're down here for their anniversary, so would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I would just like to recognize four of our staff members in the gallery today who've worked very hard for us over the last number of months: Nicki Doggett, Letitia Bavinton, Rishi Sharma and Jocelyn Stanton.

Oral Questions

FOUR CORNERS BANK PERFORMANCE AND GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT

G. Farrell-Collins: Over the last number of years the NDP have produced a litany of failures, from the fudge-it budget to Hydrogate to the fast ferries to the more recent convention centre overspending. Today we get to add another NDP boondoggle to the list. The 1999 financial statements of the Premier's Four Corners bank -- the Jim Green bank -- in Vancouver shows that the Four Corners bank has lost $2.3 million in just three years and that the bank now projects losses until at least the year 2004. Will the minister tell us why, once again, one of the Premier's pet projects has failed and B.C. taxpayers are left holding the bag?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the fact that the bank is serving one of the poorest communities in Canada, the fact that deposits are up in the bank, the fact that Maclean's magazine did an

article on the bank about how innovative it was and the fact that it's been successful in meeting the needs of the poorest neighbourhood in Canada . . . . Four Corners bank is a success, and it's an initiative that this side of the House is proud of.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the minister say . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1415]

G. Farrell-Collins: . . . that the deposits are up. Well, according to the business plan, Four Corners bank was supposed to have $62 million on deposit at this point in time. However, the financial statements show that they have $20 million in deposits, less than a third of what was in the business plan. What's even more interesting is where the deposits came from. Almost half of that $20 million came from a Crown corporation. It came from Forest Renewal B.C. Can the minister tell us why Forest Renewal B.C. is propping up the Four Corners bank?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order so I can recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Four Corners bank has a business plan which sets out a goal for where it wants to be in four years, which is to start to break even and start to turn a profit. There's been an aggressive campaign to increase the number of deposits, to expand the services that the bank offers so that we can get more deposits and more people and more account holders. You know what? We're being successful.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members. You are making it difficult to hear.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there's a Crown corporation on deposit there. There are churches, and there are labour groups, and there are community groups, and there are individuals, and there are people from other provinces. You know, if we judge it by the standards of the opposition -- the standards of humongous banks -- that's not the thing to do.

[ Page 14406 ]

They represent humongous banks; we represent people. We're proud of an initiative that's serving the poorest communities in Canada.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And, hon. Speaker, we're going to continue, because there's a business plan in place that's on track for 2004.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, in fact, what that side of the House represents is humongous screwups, and we've got another one.

Can the Minister of Forests tell us why, of the scarce resources of FRBC, $10 million -- half of the deposits in this community bank -- has come from Forest Renewal B.C.? Can he tell us why he thinks that's appropriate for Forest Renewal B.C.?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Forest Renewal board makes decisions to invest dollars in a number of places. They have invested money to assist municipalities in putting forth infrastructure programs. They have invested money in a number of places, and it is appropriate that a government agency assist poor people in areas in Vancouver. It is a deposit, and Forest Renewal expects that it will have its deposit kept in good order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. It's difficult to hear.

I. Chong: Among the fascinating tidbits buried in the financial statements is the fact that $32,000 in services from the provincial government agencies was given to the NDP bank for "no consideration." Can the minister tell us why Four Corners is being subsidized by the government in order to hide its red ink?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, once again the opposition is showing its true colours. They're complaining because Forest Renewal B.C. has an account there with $10 million. They don't like that. They think it should be in a regular bank, because they don't like the fact that this bank serves the poorest neighbourhood in Canada.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Do you know what, hon. Speaker? If it was "Humongous Bank," which is where they'd like FRBC to put its money, it would receive a lower rate of interest. FRBC gets more money because it's got it in Four Corners Community Savings; they get a higher rate of interest. We're enabling the poorest neighbourhood in Canada to get the services they need . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . which other financial institutions weren't willing to provide. That's why we're standing up for the poorest neighbourhood in Canada.

[1420]

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Clearly they're not.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, come to order.

The Chair would be happy to recognize the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head when there's some order in the chamber.

I. Chong: I hope the minister has had a chance to read the financial statements or the business plan. But in case he hasn't, I'll provide him with some more interesting facts. The 1999 business plan states that in total . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

I. Chong: . . . six senior staff people were seconded on an informal basis from the Ministry of Employment and Investment and from the Ministry of Human Resources. These six staffers included a corporate secretary, a senior marketing strategist, a marketing representative, a senior marketing coordinator and his assistant and an investment officer. Can the minister explain why government ministries are being forced to cover labour costs to prop up the NDP's latest financial fiasco?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! The member for North Vancouver-Seymour will come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: The line of questioning by members of the opposition says a lot about their party and about them as individuals. The downtown east side of Vancouver had and has a serious problem with banks vacating the field; and if members there would like to go down when welfare cheques are issued, they will see people lined up for blocks in the rain. They will see people lined up at cheque-cashing operations. They will see the crime that goes along with that, when people have to cash their welfare cheques and go to a bar or go down the street with all of their monthly income.

Most of the people in the downtown east side had no bank accounts. We are trying to deal with a very serious

[ Page 14407 ]

problem. We've worked with the banks to do that. They have been supportive of us setting up this institution. Yes, the Human Resources ministry is involved in this -- of course -- because they're concerned about savings for people on welfare. They're concerned about the crime rate in the downtown east side. Yes, there is some money that goes to help set up that operation in the downtown east side, and we are proud of that -- not like the members opposite.

We have set it up so that we are attempting to secure $80 million in deposits -- it's true -- at commercial interest rates. There is no subsidy to that bank from Forest Renewal or any government agency. The money is deposited in that bank. It is paid commercial interest rates. They then buy mortgage money. They take the difference on the spread; that's why you need $80 million to make it self-financing. We're working towards that. What members opposite should do is tell their corporate friends to deposit in this bank at commercial interest rates. Then we'll break even. Then we'll help the people who live in the downtown east side.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, order!

[1425]

G. Plant: The real tragedy is that even when the NDP get hold of part of a good idea, they manage it into a disaster. Even when the NDP write a business plan, even when the NDP set expectations for their boondoggles, they fail repeatedly. They fail -- failure after failure. Now we have an NDP bank that gets free marketing expertise from the government, that gets $10 million worth of deposits from an unrelated Crown corporation and $32,000 worth of free government services, and it still won't make money until years into the next century. My question for the Premier . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, so we can hear the question.

G. Plant: Is this part of a deliberate plan to inflict British Columbia taxpayers with an endless series of disasters? Or is this just one more example of his government's complete incompetence?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: If we have seen a better display of how elitist the members opposite are, I don't know what it is. I want those members and the Leader of the Opposition to know what it's like. These people have never had a bank account. They have a welfare cheque. It goes to deposit at the beginning of the month; at the end of the month there is nothing left. That's why banks can't make money in the downtown east side, and that's why we're trying to solve that problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: People who have never had bank accounts -- whose bank account at the end of the month goes to zero -- the banks don't want. That's why this is a serious social problem for the people in the downtown east side.

I want the members to know that for welfare recipients who get rolled, we replace their cheque. You're probably opposed to that as well. But we replace that money if it's stolen from them.

This is not just an economic initiative; this is a social initiative. This is an attempt to do something innovative and different in the downtown east side that saves money, saves society money and makes life better for the people in the downtown east side. Any independent analysis would show that.

The Speaker: Finish up, Premier, please.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I don't care if it costs us some money, because it's the right thing to do for the people in the downtown east side and for British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Members will come to order.

First supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: So if the cause is good, the promises are irrelevant. If the idea is a good one, then it doesn't matter whether you manage it into the ground. If it's for a cause that the Premier likes, then damn the torpedoes. Who cares what it costs?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

G. Plant: It's unbelievable. Why bother with a business plan when you don't have the slightest intention of following a single line of it?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The member has a question. The member is going to put the question right now. The member said that he was going to ask his question, so he is to ask his question.

G. Plant: Is the Premier saying that when his pet project designs a business plan, it's intended to be completely irrelevant? Is the Premier saying that not one single financial commitment matters when it's his own reputation on the line? Is the Premier saying that even though this project is not fulfilling anybody's reasonable expectations, he'll stand here at the end of his career and defend it?

Hon. G. Clark: How do you know it's not fulfilling the expectations of the people of the downtown east side? Have you ever been there, hon. member? Have you ever been there and talked to them? Hundreds of people have bank accounts now who didn't have them before, who weren't serviced by the banks, who had to line up with loan sharks and cheque-cashing agencies, who were rolled.

[ Page 14408 ]

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Richmond-Steveston, you have asked your question.

Hon. G. Clark: This opposition will oppose every single step to help the poor citizens of British Columbia. This is a significant . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order on both sides of the House. Premier, finish up, please.

Hon. G. Clark: If the members opposite would like to attend a meeting where they vote to elect the majority of the advisory board of the bank, they will see how proud they are of this institution, which is making a contribution to the social and economic life of the people who live there. This is a significant innovation in public policy. Instead of criticizing . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . . as they do every single initiative to help the poorest people in British Columbia, they should be trying to work . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . . to help to make this a success. Instead of supporting $2 billion in tax cuts for the richest 4 percent of the province, they should support $2 million for the poorest citizens of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, on a point of order . . . . I'm wondering if, by leave, we might suspend the rules of the House to extend question period.

The Speaker: I think we've got plenty on our plates now.

Tabling Documents

Hon. L. Boone: I have the honour to present the annual report for 1996-97 and for 1997-98 for the Ministry for Children and Families.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move the following: by consent of the official opposition, I move that the following bill -- namely, Bill 98, Cooperative Association Act -- be considered forthwith in

Section A of Committee of the Whole.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: For the information of the members, Committee of the Whole will consider Bill 98; Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act; and Bill 94, Fee Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 89.

[1435]

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading continued)

On the amendment (continued).

The Speaker: Hon. members, we will resume second reading of Bill 89, and we're in the middle of a hoist amendment. Seeing no further speakers on the amendment . . . . Is there a minister who wants to close debate on the amendment? No? Thank you. Then we'll put the question on the amendment.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 32

Whittred

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

Dalton

J. Reid

McKinnon

J. Wilson

NAYS -- 37

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Conroy

Priddy

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Sihota

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Janssen

The Speaker: On the main motion, seeing no further speakers, I put the question on second reading of Bill 89.

Second reading of Bill 89 approved on division.

Bill 89, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 95.

[1440]

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS ACT

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

[ Page 14409 ]

The Public Sector Pension Plans Act replaces the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Teachers) Act. This bill is another important step in the continuing evolution of the organizational structure for the management of public sector pension plans. Changes made to the public sector pension statutes in 1994 laid a solid foundation for cooperation between plan members and plan sponsors.

The 1994 amendments established advisory boards that have provided a structured approach to managing pension issues. These boards, which have equal representation from plan members and plan sponsors, have made recommendations on many pension-related issues over the last six years. The boards believe it is important to continue to take steps to improve the management of the public sector pension plans. I'm pleased with the goodwill and cooperation that the parties have brought to the process leading to the recommendations contained in the bill.

The bill has two primary purposes. First, the bill provides a restructured, modern pension statute. Noteworthy in this regard are changes that provide for plan rules to be enacted through regulation, making it easier to administer the pension plans by allowing the plans to be updated in a more effective and efficient manner. Any changes to plan rules will have to be recommended by the appropriate pension board. The bill also provides that the budget of the plan administrator and the investment manager will have to be approved by the respective pension boards.

As well, the bill provides for the appointment of a trustee for the public service pension plan, consistent with the other public sector pension plans.

[1445]

The second purpose of the bill is to provide an option for joint trusteeship of pension plans. Joint trusteeship is based on the premise that plan members should share in the responsibility for and control over the pension plans in which they participate. Pension plans are an integral part of an employee's compensation package, and it has long been recognized that a pension benefit is a form of deferred wage. As such, it makes abundant sense to allow plan members to be actively and directly involved in the comanagement of their pension plan.

All plan members have a legitimate interest in the management, administration and content of their pension plan. There are many pension plans across the country, both in the private and public sectors, in which the management is shared. These plans have demonstrated the positive benefits for plan members and plan employers that can occur through joint trusteeship.

The bill provides for the possibility of transferring full responsibility for the operation of each of the public sector pension plans to a board of pension trustees, which would have equal representation from plan members and plan employers. The transfer of this responsibility will result in the pension plans being operated at arm's length from government. The legislative framework for discussing possible joint management of the public sector pension plans is set out in this bill.

In addition to this legislated framework, the government has advised the major public sector unions of the principles that must be considered in any joint-trusteeship agreement. These principles include equal sharing of responsibility for the management of pension assets in the best financial interests of plan beneficiaries, agreed-to sharing of plan member and plan employer contributions, equal sharing of responsibility for any unfunded liabilities generated during the period of joint trusteeship, equal ownership of any surpluses generated during the period of joint trusteeship and protection of the plan from unilateral actions by plan sponsors or plan member groups.

It is important to note at this time that no agreement has been reached, nor have discussions been initiated, with regard to the implementation of a joint-trusteeship agreement for members of the municipal pension plan, the public service pension plan or the teachers pension plan. The bill simply provides a framework and a process for reviewing financial governance and other related issues necessary to implement joint trusteeship. That process will commence when the parties determine that the time is right.

As I noted when the bill was introduced, the government has reached an agreement with the College-Institute Educators Association and the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union on joint management of the college pension plan. The joint-trusteeship agreement with the college plan member representatives adheres fully to the principles that I have just described to you as being a necessary starting point for discussions with plan members in other pension plans.

[1450]

The bill implements the joint management agreement of the college pension plan. The bill provides that ten trustees will be appointed, with equal representation from plan members and plan employers. The trustees will be fully responsible for managing administration and investment activities of the college pension plan and for ensuring that the pension plan and fund continue to be financially viable. The bill provides the framework for how trustees are to carry out these responsibilities. The bill also establishes how changes to the pension plan rules will occur under a joint-trusteeship arrangement.

The bill establishes the British Columbia Pension Corporation and the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation. Establishment of these agencies is an essential step in building the organizational framework for joint trusteeship. An arm's-length relationship to government is necessary, since the pension trustees must have the unfettered ability to determine the quality and timeliness of the service provided to plan members in order to carry out their responsibilities.

The British Columbia Pension Corporation will be the successor organization to the Superannuation Commission. It will provide pension plan administration services to the four statutory public sector pension plans and will continue to provide pension administration services to other pension plans currently administered by the Superannuation Commission. The British Columbia Investment Management Corporation will be the successor organization to the office of the chief investment officer. It will provide investment management services to the public sector pension plans and other non-pension clients.

In conclusion, I would note that the four statutory public sector pension plans cover over 220,000 public sector employees working with approximately 800 public sector employers. Currently, 71,000 individuals receive a monthly pension. The invested assets for these plans currently exceed $30 billion. The public sector pension plans are a very valuable component of an employee's compensation package, as they provide part of the means by which the employee can prepare for a financially secure retirement. The changes that are being proposed in the bill are progressive advances in the way in

[ Page 14410 ]

which the college, municipal, public service and teachers' pension plans and funds are managed on behalf of the plan members.

I. Chong: I am pleased to rise in response on second reading of Bill 95, the Public Sector Pension Plans Act. I thank the minister for her opening comments and for outlining what the two basic changes in this plan are for.

The first one I would like to discuss is the option for joint trusteeship, which she has indicated is to provide for the comanagement of public sector pension plans. As stated in a previous bill that was introduced yesterday, Bill 89, the idea and concept of joint trusteeship is not a bad idea. In fact, it is a progressive idea, provided that the plan members are in agreement that this is what should occur.

So we on this side of the House want to ensure that plan members have the benefit of making that decision and have the benefit of working towards a joint management agreement which would move towards joint trusteeship. Unfortunately, that hasn't occurred. It didn't occur in the amendments that were introduced in Bill 89, and now I see, in Bill 95 also, with these four statutory pension plans, that this has not occurred.

However, it has occurred for one of those statutory pension plans, and that's the one under the Pension (College) Act. I think I can applaud the ministry and, in particular, the superannuation commissioner, Mr. Cook, for allowing that to proceed and take its normal course. It ensured that the process was duly completed and followed, it ensured that all plan members had knowledge of what was happening, and it ensured that they had a voice in how their pension plan would be administered. For that reason, certainly the component in Bill 95 that implements what has been agreed upon should in fact proceed.

I was curious as to why that was not introduced in isolation, on its own -- and for the other three pension plans to come forth in due course when they have also done their due diligence and proper consultation.

As I mentioned, I believe the trustee agreement for the college pension plan has been drafted. There was extensive dialogue. There were meetings held with the various provincial college boards; there are a number of them. I understand that the draft legislation was looked upon, and all those who had interest in this were able to provide their input to allow for changes. Therefore the uniqueness of their plan is important, because they have been the drafters of that. So the sections contained within Bill 95 will allow for unique treatment for the college pension plan.

Unfortunately, it's not so for the other three plans. There have been no detailed consultations regarding proposed legislation for those other three plans, and I think those other three plans . . . . The membership are looking to see how this particular plan evolves over time. I'm sure that if it is successful, then there will be no difficulty in having the necessary legislation brought forward. It would be appropriate for this government or for a successor government to bring forward such legislation, because it would have had the full extent of consultation and the full acceptance and canvassing of its members to allow for legislation to be brought forward.

[1455]

But again, because of the limited timetable and apparent rush to have this brought forward, there has been no input sought by the memberships at large, except through perhaps a few informal discussions with the executives of various provincial and local chapters or branches of the organizations affected.

I know that I myself did receive two booklets. One, of the college pension board, was prepared, I believe, at the end of April. That was provided to its members. The second booklet that I received is, I believe, from the public service pension plan, which was drafted at the end of May and circulated to some of its members. After it was published, I'm not sure how many members actually received this. I hope that a number of them did and that they are also paying attention to this piece of legislation.

But again, being at the end of May, perhaps with a delivery date of sometime in June, it's hard to imagine that there would have been an opportunity for those plan members to review their pension plan's proposed changes.

I note that I received, as well, the "Public Service Pension Plan 1998 Annual Report." As the minister stated, this particular pension plan has 54,000-some active plan members, of which, I think, 22,000 are pensioners. That also begs the question of whether the pensioners have been privy to some of these informal discussions or whether they were aware of informal discussions occurring. Also, there are some 9,000 inactive or invested and deferred members -- those who are no longer employed but who still have money in the plan. How have they been contacted, and how have they been informed as to some of these changes that have been proposed?

In respect of the public service pension plan, I'm concerned that the proposed legislation that will enable the joint trusteeship to proceed doesn't provide, as I mentioned, the necessary involvement of all those plan members -- the retirees, excluded managers, etc. -- for their ideas to be considered. If in fact we were to decide to proceed, you would think that it is important that all those who have that interest in their pension plan would be given that opportunity to offer any possible changes.

The concern that I've also heard back -- in regard to the public service pension plan, in particular -- is the fact that the agreement will be negotiated by the three unions represented. They are the BCGEU, the PEA, and the Union of Psychiatric Nurses in B.C. That begs the question, as well, of those plan members who are not a part of these three particular unions. They are concerned that the negotiated trustee agreement will, in fact, leave their voices unheard.

There will be no representation provided for the interests and concerns of those excluded government staff, of the retired government employees or of other possible minor union groups. They will not have their voices heard through these three unions. Also contained within this legislation . . . . Although it sets out the framework and is in fact enabling legislation, once established, there is no guaranteed representation for the retirees of Crown corporations or boards of directors as well. That is of great concern to those people, who have paid into this plan.

I have had the benefit of speaking to a number of individuals who have contacted me. As I stated earlier, all of them are in agreement that if we were to move ahead in the direction of joint trusteeship, it warrants full consultation, and that if it is in fact presented to them as a good idea, there should be no delay. There should be ample opportunity for this to proceed quickly. But again, they need to have their voices heard.

[1500]

[ Page 14411 ]

I am also aware of other jurisdictions -- as the minister is also aware -- that have a joint-trustee situation in place, primarily in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Not very many organizations or government bodies in British Columbia have a joint trusteeship. The only one that I am aware of -- and that I was informed of -- is the Workers Compensation Board. It appears to be, as I understand it, working well. If that is the case and it has been in joint trusteeship for a number of years, you have to wonder why we haven't moved to this sooner. Were there in fact concerns raised at some point?

Have we addressed all those concerns? I know the minister will allow me an opportunity for a full canvassing of this during committee stage should this proceed through second reading. But as I stated, I am concerned about those issues, particularly that of representation.

I am also concerned about the cost factors of the pension boards that will be established. I question whether or not the idea of two new agencies being created is the appropriate mechanism to follow -- whether, in fact, it's appropriate to have a new agency formed and to have a new Crown corporation evolve. Often, when a new agency or a Crown corporation is established, the questions naturally occur and arise as to who is going to be on the boards of these agencies or Crown corporations.

I guess I am somewhat comforted, after having spoken to staff, that there will in fact be an opportunity for people to be elected to these boards -- as opposed to appointments, which is what has occurred in the past. As long as the plan members have an opportunity to put their members forward for representation to protect their interests, I think that would be a good thing. If that were not to occur, then I think we have some very serious problems. Once again, more control has been lost by the plan members.

I also want to read into the record a comment from someone who wrote to me concerning Bill 95. What the minister alluded to in her comments was that the changes in Bill 95 allow for changes to be made to pension plans through regulation. I guess that is somewhat of a concern for those who feel that a change to pension plans should be brought in through legislation, where there is a full airing of those views and where we in this House can in fact debate those changes on behalf of pension plan members. But when changes are brought in through regulation to pension plans, again, I think we diminish the decision-making that should rightfully be in the hands of the pension plan members.

So those are some of my concerns. Those are the concerns that I hope perhaps the minister is willing to address if we do move into committee stage. But I do believe, as I've stated in the comments I made on the previous bill, that we are moving too quickly on this piece of legislation. I do feel that we should in fact allow for appropriate consultation, an appropriate full airing of the views.

It is for that reason that I am prepared at this time, again, to move an amendment to this bill. The amendment I would like to move is as follows: that the motion for second reading of Bill 95 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."

The Speaker: I take due note of the amendment. If you wish to speak to the amendment, of course, you may proceed.

On the amendment.

I. Chong: I will speak briefly on it, because I am sure that the minister has heard my comments on second reading, and she is fully aware of why I am proceeding in this manner. It is no different than the procedure I took for Bill 89. I feel that members on this side of the House do in fact feel that although Bills 89 and 95 may appear worthy in the eyes of government and may appear to be beneficial, we don't know that.

We need to allow the appropriate time for consultation. I do believe a six-month time frame would allow for that. I do believe that those who are currently away on holidays would benefit from this six-month delay or hoist of this bill. Those who would return in the next few months would be able to provide the information that they think is necessary, or that is lacking, to the minister and to the staff, to ensure that we have the appropriate legislation in place to ensure that their pension plans are in fact being protected.

[1505]

It is about democracy; it is about fairness. The opportunity for democracy to take place and for fairness to be implemented would certainly be appreciated and highlighted -- if in fact this hoist motion were supported by the members opposite. I'm hoping that the minister will agree with this, although I'm not going to lay any concrete foundation on that. I would hope that through these debates she's heard the reasons that the members on this side of the House have given last evening and today, the reasons why we want to proceed in this fashion. It is very simple, and it is very clear.

We believe that we need to assist by protecting the rights of pension plan members, whether they're current as active members, whether they're retirees, whether they're excluded members or whether they're managers and professionals. Each and every member of a pension plan needs to have their voice heard, regardless of what their membership in a plan is in proportion to other members in that plan. Without that, I feel that they have not had their democratic rights protected.

I'm hoping, again, that the minister will support this motion, but I won't be surprised if she does not. With that, I'll conclude my comments on the amendment.

[1510]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 30

Whittred

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

Dalton

J. Reid

J. Wilson

NAYS -- 36

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Conroy

Priddy

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

[ Page 14412 ]

MacPhail

Sihota

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Janssen

Second reading of Bill 95 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Conroy

Priddy

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Janssen

NAYS -- 30

Whittred

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

Dalton

J. Reid

J. Wilson

[1515]

Bill 95, Public Sector Pension Plans Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 84.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 84; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

L. Reid: The questions I have relate to

section 1(b), "plan for independence." I would just like a little further explanation as to what that might include and whether or not there's going to be any priority placed upon children who are currently on the street and those who are at risk for that lifestyle -- if that will be taken into consideration when those plans for independence are devised.

Hon. L. Boone: The plan for independence will be worked out with youth to determine what they need to give them the ability to move on into the world. If you've got a 16-year-old, he or she may have to be upgraded and perhaps go through some educational programs. They may need to have some ability to go into a rehab program so that they can deal with some addiction problems. It may mean that they have to work out some counselling problems, so they may need to go into counselling. So there will be a plan that is put together with the youth and the worker to say that this is the . . . .

It's almost like a contract with the worker that says: "This is what you will do in order to receive certain services." Those services may be independent living on a temporary basis, or what have you. So it's a plan to move them out so that they're not constantly in the control of the state -- in government care, actually.

[1520]

L. Reid: The second part of my question was about priority. Will any priority be placed upon children that we would like to prevent from seeking that particular lifestyle? Is there some ability for the ministry to intervene for the children who are at risk but who are today on the periphery of that lifestyle?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, of course. That's what this whole legislation is for: to work with those kids, the street kids. But it has to be with kids who are willing to work with us to make sure that they have an agreement in place, so that they say: "Yes, I want to change my life. I am willing to do certain things. As a result of that, will you support me? Will you give me some help?" It is aimed at those street kids there.

L. Reid: So a "plan for independence" and a "plan of care," which are in section (1)(c) -- are those terms going to replace what we currently understand to be a voluntary care agreement?

Hon. L. Boone: This is something entirely different from voluntary care agreements. Voluntary care agreements will still be in place for a small number of people: some of the younger people, people who are in need of coming into care. The plan is to return them to their parents, ultimately. This is a separate item for those kids who won't necessarily be returning to their parents but who will be moving on to independent living themselves.

L. Reid: The minister will know that it's that particular aspect that is causing great angst among family members today. They see this new aspect, if you will, taking precedence over voluntary care agreements. I think the minister did suggest that in fact there would be fewer children who will now participate in voluntary care agreements. So maybe we can canvass that for a moment or two. How many children today are on voluntary care agreements, and how will that number differ as a result of this legislation?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not really the intent of this debate here to canvass the number of kids in voluntary care agreements. We did that in our estimates. That's not the bill. The bill will enable us to work into an agreement with a youth, rather than taking a youth into care. Currently we have no ability to enter into an agreement. If there's a disagreement between a youth and his parent and the parent comes to us and says, "I cannot cope with this youth anymore. He or she is not listening to rules, regulations, etc. I can't have him in my house anymore," then the only option that we have is to take that child into care and place him into a foster home or a group

[ Page 14413 ]

home or some such setting like that -- which is a high-cost setting, and it doesn't give us any opportunity to enter into an agreement. This is an entirely new process that will enable us to say to those people: "We do not believe that this child is in need of protection, but we will enter into an agreement with that child to say that in exchange for support and a move to independence, we have expectations of them. They must do certain things, and therefore we will support them in independent living."

L. Reid: The issue, I think, for clarification for families in this province today . . . . What I believe the minister is saying is that in the past, it was parents who entered into voluntary care agreements on behalf of their children. What this bill will allow is those very same children to enter into agreements in partnership with the ministry without being in the care of the ministry. Would the minister confirm?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's true.

L. Reid: So again, if I might just reference this for the record, the parental concern today is that children who will now be denied voluntary care agreements under the ministry are in no position to live independently and that the agreement they now reach with the ministry will see them having far more independence than they've been able to handle in the past. There are a number of parents today who don't see this initiative as a good thing. They have serious concerns. I'm asking the minister how she might mitigate that level of concern in her response to me.

[1525]

Hon. L. Boone: Parents' views will be taken into consideration, but I think what's important here is that there is an obligation by the youth to perform certain tasks. If those certain tasks are not performed -- such as attending school, going into drug rehab, doing certain things -- then they will not be supported in an independent life. We've not been able to do that. This enables us to say we will support a child or a youth in living on their own for a short period of time. There are very tight restrictions on this. It has to be reviewed every six months, I think. It's initially three and then six months.

So we will be reviewing these cases very carefully to make sure that those youth are living up to their obligations. Where they're not doing so, we won't be supporting them in living independently.

L. Reid: Certainly, if that's the case and these children are not supported to live independently, what is their option at that juncture?

Hon. L. Boone: If these individuals are already sufficiently independent, they may in fact just receive some support through Human Resources. But they wouldn't be receiving support from us as a ministry to say that they would get the extras, the support in terms of educational support or drug rehab or counselling. We believe very strongly that there must be some accountability and that youth who are coming into this agreement must be accountable. This is the way that we can in fact hold them accountable.

As I said in my opening remarks, we also believe that we will be able to save substantial dollars by not putting them into a more expensive group home type of setting and that we can transfer those resources into providing supports for these children, whether it be through additional counselling services, rehab, parenting counselling for them and their own parents or whatever is necessary to assist them in moving them on toward independence.

L. Reid: The minister did not respond when I asked about the number of voluntary care agreements, and I'm happy to receive that information at a later time. I think the issue is valid: is this an enormous philosophical shift in terms of what percentage of children today under voluntary care agreements will somehow find themselves affected by this particular legislation? I will await that information.

My understanding is that there are approximately 3,000 children today on income assistance -- young people under the age of 19 -- through the Ministry of Human Resources and that this particular tenet of this act will attempt to address somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 to 500 of those young people and to provide that extra layer of service, if you will. Is that the minister's understanding?

[1530]

Hon. L. Boone: We believe that 300 is a conservative estimate. They were mentioned in the press conference, I understand. Jeremy Berland mentioned them, but he mentioned them in respect to those who are sexually exploited. So we believe that there will probably be more than that coming into youth agreements. Pilot projects on youth agreements have been in place throughout the province, and they've been very well received. For example, there was a pilot project in Prince George. The youth are doing very well by these agreements. The workers are very . . . .

It provides them with a tool that says: "Hey, we need to move you forward. You can't just come into care, sit in a group home and do nothing to prepare for your life. You've got to start to make preparations to move into independence." That's what these youth agreements will be doing.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I think that was the information provided. It was certainly a range. It was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 to 500 young people. So I have no difficulty with that.

For confirmation, as indicated that day, does the price tag for this intervention under the act still remain at $18 million?

Hon. L. Boone: The number given during the briefing was $18 million.

D. Jarvis: Minister, I feel that . . . . Let me put it this way. I guess you don't have enough beds or places to put these children in as it is now. We're probably short; I assume that I can assume we're short. How many beds are we going to require down the line if we have, say, a maximum of 300 to 500 children out there that go into care on a voluntary basis and that need this? Those that don't go into it -- where's the room for them? Do you know what I'm trying to get at? I wonder if you could respond.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not going to be building hostels or anything like that in order to accommodate these youth. When they go into independent living -- whether it's semi-independent or what have you -- they may be supported in their own apartments or basement suites. Some individuals may do what university students do: get a room someplace

[ Page 14414 ]

where they are rooming with somebody. Those are the sorts of places. We won't be developing accommodation. We will be providing them with support so that they can live in a semi-independent or an independent state.

D. Jarvis: In a previous bill, you put forward that you were going to add approximately another 70, plus or minus, detox beds of various degrees. Has that been included in what you're now offering for these children?

Hon. L. Boone: Those are some of the support programs that we need to have in place for these kids. It's not part of the program. I mean, everything is part of the program, but it's not where we will be housing these youth. They will be housed, as I said, semi-independently or independently. But certainly the resources that we need are the alcohol and drug programs and all of those things that will help these kids get back on their feet and into a normal life.

D. Jarvis: If we have about 300-plus children in care now and we're not going to try to expand to meet the potential 500 out there, it seems to me that we're going to be maybe 100 to 200 short accommodation-wise. Where are these coming from? If we haven't got enough beds or locations for children who are out there now, where are we going to get the new ones from -- other than having to go out and build a place?

[1535]

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I was very clear on this. This is independent living. These youth will be living as my daughter was. She moved into a mobile home with another friend. My other daughter lived in an apartment with another friend. These are accommodations that these children will have out in the world. It's not accommodation that we will be supplying or that is needed to be out there. It's accommodation that they would find if they were in an independent life -- what they would find when any child moves out on their own.

D. Jarvis: How about I put it this way? This is strictly a voluntary program . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: . . . and that means a lot of accommodation, as my associate is yelling at me. As I say, it's voluntary. What if these children are sort of non-conformists and don't want to go into the program and therefore revert back to the ministry group homes? I'm not getting through to you properly, I guess. It's not being explained to us as to the . . . . The proposal right now, I guess, is that . . . . We have about 300 children in care now, and we feel that with this new program coming in, we could possibly go up to 500. So there's a shortage out there.

Hon. L. Boone: These kids wouldn't be going into group homes, because they are not children in care. We only put children in care into foster homes; we only put children in care into group homes. These children would be separate; they would not be children in care. They are not in . . . by voluntary agreement. They are in a youth agreement, which is totally separate from any other kind of care agreement that we have. If somebody says, "I'm out of here. I'm not abiding by these rules. I'm going back to live with so and so," then that's what they would probably do. So be it.

But they would not be coming into a group home. They would not be a child in care, because we wouldn't be protecting them.

D. Jarvis: What percentage of these 500 children do you anticipate will require drug and alcohol treatment?

Hon. L. Boone: This is sort of conjecture, because I don't know. I would say that a good portion of the kids we're dealing with . . . . We're talking with high-risk kids, we're talking with kids on the street, and we're talking with kids who have been on the streets. A good portion of them would in fact need alcohol and drug treatment. That's one of the reasons why we've actually increased our alcohol and drug program -- so that we can have some of those resources available for those kids, whether it be off-site counselling services . . . . Not all of them need rehab beds. It may just mean counselling services.

That's why we've increased it, and that's why we need the new resources -- so we can continue to build on those programs.

D. Jarvis: Do you anticipate having to go out and get some more contracts? I understand there are centres out there that will take children, which are having very good success with regard to alcohol and drug treatment. I was quickly going through my papers to find the name of one in particular, because I'm going to visit there one of these days.

If the ministry hasn't got any more, are they going to start expanding again as far as trying to find contract places to place children?

Hon. L. Boone: I think we've only just put out the contracts, so we will deal with that right now -- get those contracts up and running -- and see how that meets our needs. At that time we would be dealing with it at Treasury Board, but right now this is what we have. We have no intention right now to expand on those.

[1540]

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Section 4,

section 12.1 approved.

section 4,

section 12.2.

L. Reid: I'm going to make my remarks with reference to subsections (7), (8) and (9), for the minister's clarification. Subsection (7) reads: "An agreement made by the director under this

section with a youth is enforceable against the youth." I need some explanation on what that means.

Hon. L. Boone: Subsection (7) gives us the legal right to enter into an agreement with a youth.

L. Reid: I'm seeking this clarification because I believe that this might have some bearing on the Infants Act that was debated in this House some years earlier. I think that at that juncture we gave children those opportunities to make those decisions. Does this coincide? Is this reconciled with what the Infants Act currently says?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's consistent.

[ Page 14415 ]

L. Reid: Again, I'm seeking clarification on subsection (8): "An agreement made by the director under this

section with a youth does not limit the court's power to hear an application and make an order about the youth." If the minister could provide some explanation.

Hon. L. Boone: We wouldn't want an agreement to prevent us from coming in to do protection orders, if in fact there was a protection issue, or to do a restraining order -- any legal order. This basically says that this doesn't hinder us from doing those orders.

L. Reid: So everything that this act will do will be considered a youth agreement, as opposed to a voluntary care agreement. I believe we've canvassed that fairly extensively. If the minister could confirm.

Hon. L. Boone: If you look back, I very clearly said that there will still be voluntary care agreements. There may be situations . . . . They have to be taken into consideration. Each case will be considered separately, but there may be cases with younger youth where we want to return that youth to his or her family. Then it may be a case for which a voluntary care agreement is the correct procedure.

Each case will be taken individually. This is another tool for us to use with those children who are needing protection and who we think we could service better through a voluntary care agreement.

L. Reid: I think the minister and I might actually agree. I'm saying that this bill refers to youth agreements separate and distinct from voluntary care agreements, which are contained in other aspects of legislation. She's nodding. I'm going to assume that that's the case.

The last one I want to query on this

section is subsection (9): "For the purpose of this section, youth includes a person who (

a) is under 16 years of age, and (

b) is married or is a parent or expectant parent." I know that in the briefing we discussed children who may come to this country as part of an arranged marriage situation. Are there any other examples that would allow someone to qualify under this section?

Hon. L. Boone: No, there's nothing else. It's everything that is mentioned here.

L. Reid: So the jurisdiction of this act pertains to people resident in British Columbia. It's in no way tied to citizenship or landed immigrant status. If you are resident in British Columbia, the tools in this particular act could come to your aid.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess you don't necessarily even have to be a resident. You just have to be here. But it would be pretty hard to be here and not be a resident, wouldn't it? It could be somebody . . . . I don't know whether you consider somebody that's living on the street as having a residence, you know. That's the . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Or vacationing, yeah. So as long you're in British Columbia, this act could apply to you.

Section 4,

section 12.2 approved.

[1545]

section 4,

section 12.3.

L. Reid:

Section 12.3(3) says: "The agreement may be renewed or the parties may, after an interval, make another agreement under this section, but, whether one or more agreements are made . . . . " My question is around the interval. Is that an extended period of time? Could that be more than a number of months, more than a number of years, where the child would come back, enter into the agreement and have the services that were provided carry forward?

Hon. L. Boone: This

section actually pertains to extending beyond the age of 19. So it could be any interval within that period after the age of 19. It could be a couple of months; it could be two or three months. The end term we have is that it can't go past 24 months, and no agreement may extend beyond the person's twenty-fourth birthday. So we're putting an end limit on this. But it could be any time; you know, there's no set interval period in there.

L. Reid: So my understanding is that these agreements could be as long as 24 months and cannot go beyond someone being 24 years of age. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's what it says.

Section 4,

section 12.3 approved.

section 5.

L. Reid:

Section 5, which is amending

section 13, has in (1.1): " . . . (

b) coerced or inveigled into engaging in prostitution." Now, even the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has a query about the term "inveigled." So I would like an explanation as to how that ended up in this particular act and if there is a synonym for that particular term.

Hon. L. Boone: Good question, and one I'm glad to get the answer for myself. It means fooled or co-opted. But surely your legal mind to the right of you could have told you this.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Yeah. He's not your legal mind, you say.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

L. Reid: I'm on

section 8(a): " . . . authorize the director, a police officer or a person specified in the order to, by force if necessary, enter the premises . . . . " The concern that was raised to me directly by a number of parents in the province and that I raised at the briefing was that parents want the ability to activate this mechanism. If it's going to be useful and their child has not had contact with a social worker or with the justice system up to that point, why is it that they cannot make a call and have this process unfold for them -- as it would, according to the briefing information, for a social worker?

Hon. L. Boone: The

section you're talking about doesn't actually relate to that. It's further on. This deals with the

[ Page 14416 ]

director or the police. Just going on about that, the act actually pertains to the need to protect. The ministry is charged with the responsibility of the protection of children -- the director specifically, the director of child protection. The changes we're making in this act are specific, allowing us to say that a child is needing protection if they are sexually exploited or if they may be sexually exploited or they're being lured into being sexually exploited. That's a protection issue. The director of child protection is the person that is responsible for that.

[1550]

L. Reid: I do accept that answer. I think that the concern on behalf of parents is absolutely justified. In lots of cases, they do not yet have a relationship with the Ministry for Children and Families; it is not yet a child protection issue. Frankly, they want to avoid it becoming a child protection issue. That's their concern. What the minister is saying is that indeed it has to be characterized as a child protection issue for the director to implement, or at least initiate, this process.

If I can do only one thing today in terms of putting this on the record . . . . If the ministry, perhaps in other areas of service delivery, can recognize that most parents don't want their child to be in the heartland of prostitution before services are in place . . . . They want to be able to access drug and alcohol services prior to their children coming into such dire straits. What this says is that once you're there, a number of things will be activated. But until you're there, you have no priority for drug and alcohol beds -- for the points that my hon. colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour was raising.

I'm not expecting this particular bill to answer all things for all time But I simply want to put on the record that that's the concern that I know the minister has received, because it's a concern that's come to my office readily -- that most families don't wish this to become a full-blown child protection issue before their child receives some sense of priority. They truly believe, as do I, that the very fact that they're a child places some priority on the fact that these services should be available.

I simply put that on the record because I indicated that I would do so and to give a heads-up to the ministry that that's the issue when future legislation is drafted: that no one wishes it to come to the point where it's crisis intervention. People want the ability as parents to activate some services long before it reaches this particular stage. That is my comment.

Hon. L. Boone: This

section doesn't actually deal with that at all. In fact, one of the reasons that we did the first section, the youth agreement, was so that we could act in an intervention effort and so that we could provide services before it reached a crisis situation. This is dealing strictly with sexually exploited youth and trying to prevent them from being lured into the sex trade. That's the entire intent of this portion of the bill.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. But if they're sexually exploited, it's too late. They've already been lured into having sex before they were over the age of 14 in many, many cases. So I will leave the point on the record because I believe that the point is valid.

Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

L. Reid: The question I have is on

section 14,

section 36 (d)(2.1): "The director must, if practicable, inform the following of the time, date and place of the presentation hearing relating to the child's removal under subsection (1): (

a) the child, if 12 years of age or over . . . . " My understanding during the briefing was that that would be a verbal communiqué if the child were under 12 and would be somehow different if the child were over 12. I simply want some clarification.

[1555]

Hon. L. Boone: There is no change from the existing act. It is always verbal.

L. Reid: The discussions that I've had surrounding that . . . . Maybe it's just children of that age, no matter their circumstance. Is there any way to put that information in writing to them? Is there any way to remind them of those kinds of hearing dates etc., other than just verbally communicating that? I'm not suggesting this population over any other adolescent population, but there seems to be some difficulty with young people being in the right place at the right time in terms of participating in those presentation hearings. Is there any consideration given to ensuring that that information is communicated more effectively?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll consider it. I'll look into that issue for you.

Sections 14 to 24 inclusive passed.

section 25.

L. Reid: I'm on

section 25, and again, I'm seeking clarification regarding the discussion in the briefing. The sense I had was that the intention of this

section was to provide a clearer path for consent. It seems somewhat convoluted as it's laid out. That may be simply drafting language. Can the minister, for my clarification, just walk me through what the path of consent would be and how it's improved as a result of this section?

Hon. L. Boone: In the past we had to get written consent from all of these individuals that were listed here. If we didn't get that, then we didn't get the order, and the judges said that this was too high a test. With the changes that we're making here, we will try to get the written consent, and we will advise individuals that we're going for the order. If they do not object, then I guess the judge will consider that as consent given, and the order would proceed. But it is not necessary for us to get the written consent from everybody.

L. Reid: So when I referenced verbal consents in

section . . . . Does this

section also allow for verbal consents, as opposed to written consent?

Hon. L. Boone: If the person is there and present, but not otherwise.

Sections 25 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

The Chair: Member, I believe there is an amendment on the order paper.

[ Page 14417 ]

L. Reid: The Chair is correct; there is an amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which reads:

[SECTION 34 (a) (1) (c), to delete paragraph 1(c).]

I will put my argument on the record, and then I will certainly await the minister's response.

[1600]

On the amendment.

L. Reid: Numbers of these issues come up in the realm of civil liberty issues. We did contact the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and this is their comment in terms of the delicacy of that particular section: "(1)(c), 'has otherwise exploited, abused or intimidated,' is much broader and could include a host of behaviour having nothing to do with prostitution, even behaviour which is perfectly legal." So our take on that was that the problematic term in subsection (1)(

c) was "has otherwise exploited." If you look at 34(a)(1)(b), "has inveigled or coerced, or is likely to inveigle or coerce, a child or youth mentioned in paragraph (

a) into engaging in prostitution," you have in fact covered off very well in (

b) the prostitution question. The fact that it refers to prostitution-related behaviour in (

c) is redundant. And to the extent that it does not, it is problematic.

That is their discussion; that is the discussion that I am prepared to have with the minister today. So perhaps she can start by convincing me that there is indeed a necessity for (c). My argument is that (

b) covers off all aspects of the prostitution question which this bill is intending to remedy.

Hon. L. Boone: This is pretty well the part that was in the act prior to this, and this is what we need to enable us to protect not just those children that are being drawn into prostitution but those who are abused or exploited otherwise. For example, if there's a child in a group home and if someone they know is a sexual predator comes to that home or if they know that this child has been abused by a certain person, and we want keep that person away from that child, then this is necessary for us to do that protection.

This is similar to what was in the act prior to this. The only thing we've done is add the

section above, which was to make it so that we could do the protection order against people who inveigle or coerce somebody into the trade.

L. Reid: So the minister is basically saying that the child protection section, (c), has simply been attached to the prostitution sections (

a) and (b). Frankly, (

a) and (

b) stand alone, as I read this. So if indeed the minister is looking to suggest that the child protection piece makes sense under that section, I would query that. But not being a legislative drafter . . . . I mean, the entire

section refers to prostitution and looks at that, and then there's (c): " . . . has otherwise exploited . . . . " I'm curious as to why it would be found as (c), in that it has basically no relation to (

a) or (b). If the minister could explain.

Hon. L. Boone: We've got it all around . . . . The prostitution stuff has been added to this bill. The bill currently has restraining orders -- a

section that says: "The court may make a restraining order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is likely to exploit, abuse or intimidate any of the following: (

a) a child in care; (

b) a child in the custody . . . " etc., etc. So we have added the

section that deals with prostitution and coercion into prostitution to this bill to enable us to expand our protection orders, not just to those children who have somebody that may abuse them -- who is stalking them, etc. -- but to those who are being coerced into the sex trade.

[1605]

L. Reid: I accept the minister's contention that this

section is about the sex trade. To put (

c) in there, "has otherwise exploited," is truly a child protection issue, and I don't dispute that. Not being a legislative drafter . . . . You folks will carry on as you see fit. In terms of it being a sensible place to locate that, the minister's response was: "Well, in fact, the other sections were added to it." I would make the case that it probably wasn't the most sensible place to add those particular sections, if that was the original stand-alone section. However, I will leave it at that.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is.

Section 98, which is the

section that's being amended, is the

section that deals with restraining orders and has a whole list . . . . The sections that deal with sexual exploitation -- or inveigling, coercing, etc. -- have been added in to strengthen this bill.

L. Reid: We have no difficulty with the child prostitution aspects; we have no difficulty with the coercion and inveigling aspects. We do have some difficulty with that particular term, "has otherwise exploited," being left in that particular section. I would simply call the question on my motion, and my motion is to delete that section.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't support that, because if we were to delete this section, then we would, in fact, be leaving all of those children who are at risk of being stalked . . . . It would leave us without the ability to protect children in group homes or any of those kids that are requiring those. If this

section is deleted, then that takes out the ability to do that. I'm sorry -- I really can't support this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 34 to 42 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. L. Boone: I move the committee report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 84, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: Members, I think we'll take a few moments' recess to sort out which is the next bill for committee.

The House recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 100.

[ Page 14418 ]

DEFINITION OF SPOUSE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 100; W. Hartley in the chair.

G. Plant: I would ask if, by leave, we could stand down sections 1, 2 and 3 and begin the debate with

section 4, after which we would return to

section 1.

[1615]

The Chair: That's by agreement.

section 4.

G. Plant: This is a bill to amend five statutes of British Columbia to change the definition of spouse. It happens to be a bill about which I have said all that I want to say in second reading debate, including all that I really need to say about the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. I have explained, during second reading debate on this bill, why I think this amendment would be a good step. I have actually also talked about the ideas represented by this amendment in other contexts, when other bills have been debated.

For all of these reasons -- in particular, for the reason that I think the introduction of this additional term would be a way of improving Bill 100 -- I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 4, (section 1 of the Estate Administration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 122) in subparagraph (b), by adding the following definition:

"domestic partner" means a person who has lived with another person, for a period of at least 2 years immediately before the other person's death, in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence;]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1620]

YEAS -- 31

Whittred

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

J. Wilson

J. Reid

Dalton

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Krueger

Hansen

Stephens

Coleman

Hawkins

Hogg

Nebbeling

Weisbeck

NAYS -- 36

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Janssen

[1625]

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 59

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Janssen

Weisgerber

Nettleton

Anderson

Jarvis

Sanders

Chong

Coell

L. Reid

Abbott

Plant

de Jong

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

C. Clark

Whittred

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Stephens

Hansen

Symons

J. Wilson

NAYS -- 8

Coleman

Krueger

Thorpe

van Dongen

Barisoff

J. Reid

Penner

Dalton

section 1.

G. Plant: Substantially all of this statute deals with the definition of spouse. It's not entirely all of this statute. That is, there is one subsection that I believe deals with another issue. That is subparagraph (a), which amends

section 51 of the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act by adding the phrase "or cremated remains" after the words "human remains." Could the minister explain the purpose of this particular amendment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm given to understand that human remains, in practice and in law, do not include the cremated remains. For that reason . . . . When human beings are cremated, only the cremated remains remain. There is sometimes an issue as to who should get the cremated remains so that they can be disposed of. In some cultures, as it is in mine, they are disposed of in a particular way, and therefore it's an important addition.

G. Plant: The intent of the additional language is to ensure that the provisions of

section 51 of the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, which currently apply to human remains, are extended to be sure that they also apply to cremated remains. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

[ Page 14419 ]

Sections 5 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[1630]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 100, Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee on Bill 96.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 96; W. Hartley in the chair.

G. Plant: This act is moderately particular about the way it comes into force, and I want to ask a question about that. The commencement section, which is

section 18, says that sections 1 to 6, 15 and 16, come into force on the day the thirty-sixth parliament is dissolved. Well, we are here in the thirty-sixth parliament, and the question -- which, I suppose, is asked in practical terms -- is: will the new electoral districts in fact apply in the next general provincial election? It appears to me that the operation of

section 18 means that the answer to that question is yes, but I want to have the minister's view on that. Will the electoral districts that are the subject matter of this bill -- the 79 new electoral districts -- be in force for the next general provincial election?

[1635]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The next question I have is a question that should probably be asked after the amendments are made to schedules 1 and 2. I'm assuming that a question will be in order when we get to the amendments to the schedules. So we can move to the schedules.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

On

schedule 1.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is an amendment in my name which is in your possession, hon. Chair, and I believe the opposition has copies. I move those amendments to schedules 1 and 2.

[SCHEDULE 1, by deleting "Burnaby-North" and substituting "Burnaby North".

SCHEDULE 2,

(

a) in the proposed description of the Abbotsford-Clayburn Electoral District, by deleting "Commencing at the intersection of the centrelines of Gladwin Road and Highway 1;" and substituting "Commencing at the intersection of the southerly prolongation of the centreline of Gladwyn Road and the centreline of Highway 1;",

(

b) in the proposed description of the Abbotsford-Mount Lehman Electoral District, by deleting "Commencing at the intersection of the centrelines of Gladwin Road and Highway 1;" and substituting "Commencing at the intersection of the southerly prolongation of the centreline of Gladwyn Road and the centreline of Highway 1;",

(

c) in the proposed description of the Alberni-Qualicum Electoral District, by deleting "Lot" and substituting "District Lot", by deleting "Lots" and substituting "District Lots", wherever they appear,

(

d) in the proposed description of the Alberni-Qualicum Electoral District, by adding "and the said middle line produced" before "to the intersection with the northerly boundary of the watershed of the streams flowing into Cowichan Lake;",

(

e) in the proposed description of the Burnaby-Edmonds Electoral District, by deleting "Dufferin Road" and substituting "Dufferin Avenue",

(

f) in the title and in the proposed description of Burnaby North Electoral District, by deleting "Burnaby-North" and substituting "Burnaby North",

(

g) in the proposed description of the Burnaby North Electoral District, by deleting "thence northwesterly along the centreline of Inlet Drive" and substituting "thence northeasterly along the centreline of Inlet Drive",

(

h) in the proposed description of Burnaby-Willingdon District, by deleting "Dufferin Road" and substituting "Dufferin Avenue",

(

i) in the proposed description of the Cariboo South Electoral District, by deleting "Townships 19" and substituting "Township 19",

(

j) in the proposed description of the Cariboo South Electoral District, by deleting "then in generally" and substituting "thence generally",

(

k) in the proposed description of the Chilliwack-Sumas Electoral District, by deleting "old Clayburn Road" and substituting "Old Clayburn Road",

(

l) in the proposed description of the Comox Valley Electoral District, by deleting "Lot" and substituting "District Lot" wherever it appears,

(

m) in the proposed description of the Cowichan-Ladysmith Electoral District, by deleting "thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of the said Block 1079 to the easterly boundary thereof;" and substituting "thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of the said Block 1079 to the westerly boundary of Block 1028, Dunsmuir and Cowichan Lake Land Districts;",

(

n) in the proposed description of the Kamloops-North Thompson Electoral District, by deleting "thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of said

Section 7 and

Section 6" and substituting "thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of the east half of said

Section 7 and the east half of

Section 6",

(

o) in the proposed description of the Maple Ridge-Mission Electoral District, by deleting "Alouatta River" and substituting "Alouette River",

(

p) in the proposed description of the Maple Ridge-Mission Electoral District, by deleting "Kanakas Creek" and substituting "Kanaka Creek" in both places,

(p.1) in the proposed description of the Maple Ridge-Mission Electoral District, by deleting "thence easterly to and along the westerly prolongation of the northerly boundary of said District Lot 6110 to the northeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the shore of Pitt Lake" and substituting "thence easterly along the said westerly

[ Page 14420 ]

prolongation of District Lot 6110 to the easterly shore of Pitt Lake; thence southwesterly along the easterly shore of Pitt Lake",

(

q) in the proposed description of the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Electoral District, by deleting "northerly boundary of Lot 6110, Group 1, New Westminster Land District; thence easterly to and along the westerly prolongation of the northerly boundary of said Lot 6110 to the northeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the shore of Pitt Lake" and substituting "northerly boundary of District Lot 6110, Group 1, New Westminster Land District; thence easterly along the westerly prolongation District Lot 6110 to the easterly short of Pitt Lake; thence southwesterly along the easterly shore of Pitt Lake",

(q.1) in the proposed description of the Nanaimo Electoral District, by deleting "to the westerly boundary of Block 1079, Cowichan Lake Land District;" and substituting "to the westerly boundary of Block 1028, Cowichan Lake Land District;",

(

r) in the proposed description of the Nanaimo-Parksville Electoral District, by adding "the northeasterly prolongation of the middle line of" after "thence southeasterly along the prolongation of the centreline of the Strait of Georgia to an intersection with",

(r.1) in the proposed description of the North Coast Electoral District, by deleting "lying due South of the to a point lying thereon due South of the southwest corner" and substituting "lying due South of the southwest corner", and

(

s) in the proposed description of the Peace River South Electoral District, by deleting "Highway 97 the northwesterly along" and substituting "Highway 97; thence northwesterly along",

(s.1) in the proposed description of the Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain Electoral District, by deleting "Lot 1720" and substituting "District Lot 1720", and by deleting "Lot 1721" and substituting "District Lot 1721" wherever they appear,

(

t) in the proposed description of the Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain Electoral District, by deleting "Lots 1721 and 1720" and substituting "District Lots 1721 and 1720",

(t.1) in the proposed description of the Prince George North Electoral District, by deleting "easterly boundaries District Lots" and substituting "easterly boundaries of District Lots",

(

u) in the proposed description of the Prince George North Electoral District, by deleting "Philip Creek to District Lot a point lying due North of the middle line of Philip Creek at the confluence of Philip Creek into Nation River; thence due West to a point on the natural boundary of Nation River," and substituting "Philip Creek to a point lying due North of the middle line of Philip creek at the confluence of Philip Creek into Nation River; thence due South to the middle line of Philip Creek; thence due West to a point on the northerly boundary of the watershed of Nation River;",

(u.1) in the proposed description of the Prince George-Omineca Electoral District, by deleting "to a point on the natural boundary of Nation River, lying due West" and substituting "to a point on the said watershed of Nation River, lying due West",

(

v) in the proposed description of the Prince George-Omineca Electoral District, by deleting "thence in general easterly, southerly and westerly directions along the northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries of Philip Creek" and substituting "thence in general easterly, southerly and westerly directions along the northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries of the watershed of Philip Creek",

(v.1) in the proposed description of the Prince George-Omineca Electoral District, by deleting "along the middle line of Nechako Rover to the to the centreline of Foothills Boulevard;" and substituting "along the middle line of Nechako River to the centreline of Foothills Boulevard;",

(

w) in the proposed description of the Saanich North and the Islands Electoral District, by deleting "Hall Island and Secretary Island;" and substituting "Hall Island and Secretary Islands;",

(w.1) in the proposed description of the Shuswap Electoral District, by deleting "thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of said

Section 7 and

Section 6" and substituting "thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of the east half of said

Section 7 and the east half of

Section 6",

(w.2) in the proposed description of the Surrey-Panorama Ridge, by deleting "The Surrey-Panorama Ridge is all that portion" and substituting "The Surrey-Panorama Ridge Electoral District is all that portion",

(

x) in the proposed description of the Vancouver-Point Grey Electoral District, by deleting "thence easterly to along said prolongation of the centreline of 18th Avenue West" and substituting "thence easterly to and along the centreline of 18th Avenue West",

(x.1) in the proposed description of the Vancouver-Quilchena Electoral District, by deleting "thence easterly to along said prolongation of the centreline of 18th Avenue West" and substituting "thence easterly to and along the centreline of 18th Avenue West",

(

y) in the proposed description of the West Vancouver-Garibaldi Electoral District, by deleting "The West Vancouver-Garibaldi is all that portion" and substituting "The West Vancouver-Garibaldi Electoral District is all that portion",

(y.1) in the proposed description of the West Vancouver-Garibaldi Electoral District, by deleting "thence northwesterly along the westerly boundary of the said watershed and continuing southeasterly along the easterly boundary of the watershed of Pitt River; thence due West to a point lying due East of the northeast corner of Lot 1720, Group 1, New Westminster Land District;" and substituting "thence northerly along the westerly boundary of the watersheds of Harrison Lake and Lillooet River to an intersection with the easterly boundary of the watershed of Pitt River; thence in a general southerly direction along the easterly boundary of the watershed of Pitt River to a point lying due East of the northeast corner of Lot 1720, Group 1, New Westminster Land District;",

(

z) in the proposed description of the Yale-Lillooet Electoral District, by adding "thence due north to the said southeast corner;" after "thence westerly along the northerly boundary of said District Lot 2897 to a point lying due south of the southeast corner of District Lot 287, Similkameen Division of Yale Land District;", and

(z.1) in the proposed description of the Yale-Lillooet Electoral District, by deleting "thence in generally westerly and southerly directions along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of Yalakom Creek" and substituting "thence generally westerly and southerly along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of Yalakom Creek".]

On the amendment.

G. Plant: Actually, I suppose what we have before us is the amendment . . . . The amendment to these two schedules, I take it, is to correct certain errors that have been identified in Bill 96 as it was presented to the House for first reading.

[ Page 14421 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The deputy chief electoral officer, who is sitting to my left, indicates that that's the case. These are corrections that are being made to reflect the commissioner's report.

Amendment approved.

On

schedule 1 as amended.

G. Plant: Let me ask this. There's an amendment to

schedule 1. We've done it. There's an amendment to

schedule 2, which we are about to do. When both of the schedules have been amended as proposed by the minister, will the names and the boundaries of the 79 electoral districts -- as set out with considerable precision and detail in Bill 96 -- accurately and completely conform in all respects to the names, boundaries and descriptions of the electoral districts contained in the amended report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which has been endorsed by this legislation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The deputy chief electoral officer advises me that that's her understanding, and I stand by that.

Schedule 1 as amended approved.

On

schedule 2.

Amendment approved.

Schedule 2 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[1640]

Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 78.

MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 78; W. Hartley in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

D. Symons: Just a brief question to the minister. I note, in

section 2,

section 30.1(1)(a), that you are now substituting "335, 344, 354." The number 344 was not in the old act, where you're substituting; it's been added in there. I'm wondering if the minister might just give me a little clarification as to why that particular

section that deals with the Criminal Code is being added now, since it wasn't there before.

Hon. H. Lali: This was added in there because it gives us the debt collection remedies against those who may have committed an offence under the statute.

Sections 2 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

D. Symons: You're repealing

section 39(3) of the Motor Carrier Act. I'm wondering, since subsection (3) refers to safety, why that particular

section is being repealed.

Hon. H. Lali: All we're doing is removing the reference to freight, because we're no longer regulating that.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

[1645]

R. Neufeld:

Section 17 deals with identification numbers on vehicles. I just wonder how ICBC handles vehicles that have engines substituted in them. If a new engine is put in a vehicle, what does that do to the vehicle identification? Someone could quite easily go to a shop and have a new engine put in their car or pickup. And all of a sudden they're in contravention of the act, as I read it. What I read into the new vehicle identification numbers is if they don't change identification on the vehicle, then they're in contravention of the act, or of this particular section. Would that be correct or not?

Hon. H. Lali: The vehicle identification numbers, regardless of whether it's a new part or an old part, would have to be stamped on each one of those parts. Or else, if you're applying for a brand-new number, all of those could be eliminated, and the new number would then have to be on all of those parts.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

section 19.

R. Neufeld: My question is about the documentary proof satisfactory to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for an applicant for a licence. What is required? What is acceptable?

Hon. H. Lali: There are two pieces of ID that are required: primary ID such as a birth certificate, plus one other secondary one, which could be a passport or driver's licence.

R. Neufeld: Why would a passport not be a primary ID? It's picture ID. You can travel all over the world on a Canadian passport, but ICBC won't accept it as a primary piece of identification.

[ Page 14422 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member asked: "Why not a passport?" A passport can be issued in a name which is not necessarily your legal name,

whereas a birth certificate is something that has your legal name right from day one.

R. Neufeld: This issue has come forward quite a few times in my constituency with people trying to obtain a British Columbia driver's licence. They're Canadian citizens, have a driver's licence from another province, come to British Columbia and have a passport, and that's not accepted as a primary ID. The minister says that a passport may not have your correct name on it. Yet just recently I went and reapplied for my passport to bring it up to date again. You have to have your birth certificate, and you have another piece of identification to get your passport.

[1650]

So when you go to get your passport, you do it with your birth certificate. All of a sudden ICBC comes along and says: "We won't accept that as a primary piece of identification." I want to put on the record -- whether you agree with me or not -- that I think that's wrong. As I said, to get a passport in the first place you have to have your birth certificate. So you have the correct name on your passport. You can travel all over the world with a Canadian passport, but you can't use it as a primary piece of identification to get a driver's licence in British Columbia.

Hon. H. Lali: With all due respect, what the hon. member is talking about today is not what we're changing as a result of these amendments. We're simply making the changes to provide for the address.

R. Neufeld: With all due respect to the minister, what we're doing is . . . . It's in the bill that we're dealing with in this section. I know it's already in place, and the regulation is with ICBC. I thought that this would be pretty good place to bring up this issue with the minister. We can't seem to get anywhere with ICBC. I'm not the only one that's experienced this kind of problem. Others on my side of the House have experienced this kind of problem in their constituency offices.

I guess what I'm doing is asking the minister for some kind of assurance that he will look seriously at the issue around using a passport -- which is accepted by just about any other place that you want to go to -- as a primary piece of identification to get a driver's licence in British Columbia. There's already a problem with a lot of people with ICBC, and when ICBC starts telling people: "We don't care whether you've got a passport or not, it doesn't count with us . . . .

" It would be some reassurance to me and to my constituents if the minister would stand today and say: "Yes, we will look seriously at this issue and start thinking that if you can obtain a Canadian passport, the least we can do in British Columbia is have ICBC accept it as a primary piece of identification to obtain a driver's licence."

Hon. H. Lali: I think the hon. member has a good suggestion, even though subsection (

b) says: " . . . documentary proof satisfactory to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia of the applicant's identity." But the suggestion that the hon. member makes is a good one, and certainly I will talk to the Minister Responsible for ICBC about having a serious look at this.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

R. Neufeld: I got a bit ahead of myself. We got in a big hurry to get back into the House here and do this bill. I earlier discussed with the minister the issue around engine numbers under a different section, and that's why I was quick to acknowledge his answer. Actually, it's dealt with in this

section --

section 22,

section 58(2) -- and it has to do with vehicle identification numbers. Again I'm going to ask the minister: if someone changes . . . ? It says here that you're not supposed to change the engine number in your vehicle without the express permission of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I basically understand why that's there; I mean, it's so people can't dismantle vehicles and change VIN numbers and all those kinds of things.

But what I don't want to have happen is someone actually purchasing a new engine for their car, and they get it put in, in the garage, and it's got a different number on it than what was originally in the vehicle. Who's responsibility is it? Would we ask the person or the shop that put the engine in to actually inform the owner of the vehicle that they should change that identification so they're not in contravention of the act? Or is it just something that everyone should know because it's fairly important, and they should do it on their own?

[1655]

Hon. H. Lali: The responsibility to make an application lies with the owner.

R. Neufeld: How do we notify the owner that this is actually in force? How would an owner of a motor vehicle know that when they went to change the engine in their car, they actually had to get some kind of a form from ICBC and submit it so that the vehicle identification was consistent, as ICBC would like it to be?

Hon. H. Lali: It's standard practice for the brokers to know the information, because that's what the law is. But certainly we'll have to do a communication plan around this as well.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to know where you'd record the information. ICBC has no record of engine numbers on any of the vehicles that are insured. Only the manufacturer has a record. It seems to me like an enormous bureaucratic waste to suggest that owners have to advise ICBC of a change in information that they don't already have. Can the minister give me some assurance that there's some practical application for this? It seems to me totally redundant.

Hon. H. Lali: The VIN numbers are on the owner's certificate. If there's a change, then you have to update the certificate.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the VIN number is on the vehicle; the VIN number is on the registration. The VIN number has absolutely no relationship at all to the engine-block number. There are a number of identification numbers on the vehicle, but engines blocks are assembled entirely separately. There's no reference at all in the registration to the block number in the car. I can't imagine why you would want to try and pursue that information.

[ Page 14423 ]

Hon. H. Lali: We're only concerned with the vehicle identification numbers.

J. Weisgerber: With all due respect, (1) says that you can't "remove or obliterate the manufacturer's engine number or the vehicle identification number . . . . " Those are two separate numbers. The act itself distinguishes between them. Then it goes on in (2) to say that you can't break up, dismantle, exchange, buy or sell these items without the consent of ICBC -- which is Big Brother gone mad.

[1700]

Hon. H. Lali: Subsection (2) is limited to vehicle identification numbers. It is stated right there. Engine numbers are not referred to in (2); they are in (1).

J. Weisgerber: Just to be absolutely certain, what this

section does, then, is make it an offence for someone to remove or obliterate a manufacturer's engine number -- which seems entirely reasonable, as long as everyone is very clear that "exchange" under (2) doesn't refer to the manufacturer's engine number. If this debate has clarified that, then I'm satisfied.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member is correct in his

interpretation. This

section here actually does not create an offence -- that was the earlier part of the hon. member's question.

R. Neufeld: Further to (2), what it says is: "If, with respect to a motor vehicle, any of the circumstances referred to in

section 16 (1) (

a) to (

c) exist and a new vehicle identification number has not been assigned to and applied on the motor vehicle under

section 16, a person must not without the written consent of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia buy, sell, exchange, dismantle or break up that motor vehicle." Can the minister just explain a little bit more in depth to me what that

section actually means? I read it that you're not supposed to buy, sell, exchange, dismantle or break up a motor vehicle without the consent of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. H. Lali: It's actually fairly clear in that subsection. Without the written consent of ICBC an individual cannot buy, sell, exchange, dismantle or break up that motor vehicle. That's to protect the consumer from being conned into buying parts that may be acquired through some fraudulent means.

R. Neufeld: I think I understand, and I believe I know where the minister is going. I'm not trying to be difficult. Without the written consent of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to buy a vehicle . . . . You have to have the written consent of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to buy a vehicle?

[1705]

Hon. H. Lali: In the event that the vehicle's VIN number is illegible or removed or obliterated, or if it's not the same VIN number, then they need the consent of ICBC before a vehicle can be purchased.

D. Symons: Just following along that same vein of thought about the engine number, I can see the reason for this. As the minister said, you don't want to be receiving stolen goods when you're buying, and you don't want to encourage the sale of these or encourage people to steal vehicles, dismantle them and then sell the parts.

But if nobody has a record -- and I gather neither ICBC nor the motor vehicle branch has a record of engine numbers; they do have the VIN numbers -- then how is that going to help in recovery of stolen property or identifying that it indeed is not the property of the person selling or purchasing it? So if you don't have a record of the engine numbers, all this requirement over engine numbers seems to be irrelevant as far as capturing or holding back on the theft of automobiles and the dismantling and selling of the engines.

Hon. H. Lali: In subsection (1) the only thing that's changed is that "serial number" has been dropped and been replaced by "vehicle identification number." Otherwise, that subsection is exactly the same as it was before.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

D. Symons: It's

section 118.93 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and it's subsection (2) that I have some concerns about, where it says: "An action for damages may not be brought against the superintendent" -- that being the superintendent of motor vehicles, I assume -- "because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the performance or purported performance of any duty under subsection (1)" -- which refers to suspension or cancellation of certificates -- "or in the exercise or purported exercise of any power under subsection (1)."

Basically this seems to be absolving the superintendent of motor vehicles of any responsibility whatsoever for mistakes, incompetence or any other sort of action they take. I would think that if somebody has their licence cancelled or suspended because somebody got the wrong digit in there somewhere and contacted the wrong person and they lose money because their business is affected by their vehicle having a suspension . . . . Isn't somebody responsible for that? You're basically saying here: "No. We absolve them of any responsibility for any action they take." It seems wrong.

Hon. H. Lali: The superintendent is not making a decision on his own. He'd be doing it at the recommendation of ICBC. ICBC will take responsibility for the decision, and it's only done in high-risk situations and not every day.

D. Symons: Maybe the minister might correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the superintendent is the actual person that does the cancellation or suspension of a certificate. Whether or not he received the information from ICBC that he's going on, in order to do that, the person who is doing it is the superintendent, or it is the superintendent of motor vehicles office, therefore that would be the person who theoretically should be responsible. I'm not quite sure how your suggestion that that may flow back to ICBC . . . .

They'll morally be responsible, but legally they wouldn't be, because they didn't actually commit the act of cancelling or suspending that licence. It was the superintendent that did it, and this absolves him of all that responsibility. If ICBC gives him bad information and he acts on it, it's still his fault, and you're basically saying that he doesn't have to take responsibility for that, that ICBC gave him bad information, and that gee, it's too bad that guy lost a month of his business because his licence was suspended. I don't think that's good enough.

[ Page 14424 ]

[1710]

Hon. H. Lali: This is only done on an official application by ICBC. The superintendent has to be acting in good faith when he does so.

D. Symons: For the record, is the minister saying that if somebody's licence is suspended or cancelled on this recommendation from ICBC to the superintendent and it turns out that somewhere along the line a mistake was made -- although it was done in good faith -- and somebody has suffered some consequences for it one way or the other, he or she will now be able to go back to ICBC and receive compensation for the damages that they've received because of the mistakes or the incompetence of ICBC in referring this matter to the motor vehicles superintendent? Are you saying that they will have recourse to ICBC?

This says that the superintendent is the person who's responsible. You're passing it back to ICBC. Will ICBC accept responsibility, legally, for any wrong information or anything that they've done that turns out to be wrong that the superintendent's acted upon?

Hon. H. Lali: The superintendent is a public servant, and he's guided by the rules of the public service. Each case has to be determined on its own merits; you can't just make a sweeping kind of a judgment about them all.

D. Symons: The minister is dancing around answering the question I'm asking. This seems to absolve them, because it says that no action for damages can be brought against them. I'm saying that in the event of irresponsibility, mistakes, incompetence or whatever you want to name it -- something is done wrongly, even though done in good faith . . . . There's been a mistake made and somebody suffers consequences for it. You're saying, "Well, that person just has to suffer the consequences," and I'm saying that's not good enough.

You have not explained that -- as to who that person could go back to for damages, for livelihood lost or something else while their licence may have been suspended incorrectly.

Hon. H. Lali: The superintendent makes his decisions based on recommendations from ICBC. He's acting in good faith and needs to be able to act unfettered. That's why this

section is in there: to provide protection for the superintendent so he can carry out his duties unfettered.

[1715]

D. Symons: You're basically indicating that if they make a mistake, there's no liability attached to it whatsoever. Obviously we've gone around this a few times now, and we keep getting the same answer back from the minister. I find the minister's answer just as unsatisfactory as I find this particular

section of the amendment in this act.

So I'll just repeat once more. I certainly have no problem with suspending licences of people who have committed offences that require that their licence should be suspended or that their licence should be cancelled. That's quite possible. But occasionally there's going to be a mistake made. Occasionally we actually hang people that haven't committed the crime; we make mistakes.

And you're basically saying that if a mistake is made here, the person who suffers the consequences of that mistake has no recourse at all, other than to accept the fact that he may have been put out of business because his licence has been taken away for a period of time until he manages to get a hearing on it, at which time he might end up proving his case that there's been a mistake. You might have had two John Smiths, for all I know, and you picked the wrong one. Or you've got a mistake in copying down a vehicle licence number, and you're attacking the wrong person.

There could be a variety of ways in which a mistake could be made, and you're basically saying that the person who might be the unfortunate recipient of one of these mistakes is not going to have any recourse at all.

You say: "Well, the superintendent must move unfettered." Well, indeed, this seems to be too much unfetteredness. I'll simply say that I can't support this particular

section unless you're willing to amend it in such a way that there will be somebody that you can go to -- to have recourse, to take legal action against -- if you are put in a position where something wrong has been done regarding the suspension or cancellation of your certificate.

Hon. H. Lali: Although I've answered the question already, I'll do it one more time for the hon. member. The superintendent of motor vehicles doesn't act without the recommendation and application by ICBC, although the superintendent would not be held liable. But average citizens would have the regular recourse against the government that they normally would. So it won't prevent any action by a citizen against ICBC; it just protects the superintendent.

Section 25 approved on division.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

D. Symons: I just have some concerns in subsection (1). That basically says that ICBC can require any information it wants, and you must respond to it. I'm quite concerned that this is a rather open-ended sort of situation. I would hope that, at all times, ICBC is asking for information that's related to relevant things that ICBC should be involved in -- that's relevant to insurance and safety issues. Nowhere in here do I see that.

[1720]

I would just like to make sure that ICBC doesn't get involved in surveys of sorts that are really not relevant to insurance or safety issues, or indeed that somebody might be deciding to do a thesis or something based on information that ICBC could gather for them from various people that are customers of ICBC.

So I would like to propose an amendment that would add words right after "requires," so that it would read: " . . . all information it requires relevant to insurance or safety issues, including specific answers to all questions it submits."

On the amendment.

D. Symons: I just want the minister to have a chance to take a look at the amendment there, so I can speak to it for just a second or two. I think it's rather self-evident that I'm just concerned about the open-endedness of the questions that

[ Page 14425 ]

ICBC may ask. So I was trying to restrict it to those elements that I believe ICBC should have a right to ask its customers about. Really, subsections (1), (2) and (3) all have the same sort of thing. But I guess the minister gets the intent of what I have there.

Hon. H. Lali: The intent of the regulation is to cover what the hon. member says. The amendment that he has proposed is not necessary, in our opinion, to be able to do that. I'm wondering if it's . . . . I was not aware earlier that this amendment was going to be proposed. Is it okay to have it walked in like this, or . . . ?

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

D. Symons: I wonder, if I might, because he says it's not necessary . . . . The wording here, for people who may be listening, says: "An operator must, in the manner prescribed, provide to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia all information it requires, including specific answers to all questions it submits." It's rather open-ended.

I want to take that "requires" and narrow it down to, as I've added here, "relevant to insurance or safety issues," and then it will continue, "including specific answers to all questions it submits." The way it's worded, ICBC could put any question at all to people that is not all that relevant to insurance. We hope they would; it only makes sense that they would. But let's just make sure that the act says they have to stick to that.

[1725]

Hon. H. Lali: If it pleases the member, we will accept the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

D. Symons: First, I have a question on the

definitions of business vehicle. I gather that much of this act follows from the deregulation that the federal government is doing, and it's happening across Canada. You're simply looking after the problem of freight-carrying vehicles, which are now covered in the National Safety Code and are not part of the Motor Carrier Commission anymore. I wonder why, then, you're introducing this new category of a business vehicle. It seems to be that in one sense we have deregulation, and now you're bringing in some regulation to re-regulate what had just been deregulated under this new definition of business vehicle.

I'm wondering if you might give me a little bit of the background and the thought behind why this is being brought in, in this manner, when deregulation was unregulating, and now we're just sort of bringing them back in through the back door.

Hon. H. Lali: That's actually not the case. The purpose of the deregulation was for economic deregulation at the request of industry. Safety was never meant to be a part of the deregulation. All stakeholders are in support of the safety side of this whole issue. Economic deregulation was done to remove the economic barriers that had existed.

D. Symons: My question leads into subsection (

a) of "business vehicle," which describes a business vehicle as basically one that's used for compensation on the part of the owner. So they're carrying somebody else's goods. I can agree with that. It's when we get into subsection (b), which says: " . . . that is operated at any time on a highway . . . . "

Section (b)(

i) states: " . . . transportation of freight that is genuinely the property of the owner of the motor vehicle." As that stands -- and the way it's written here -- I have the concern that it will now be bringing into the motor vehicle branch . . . . The regulations involved through the National Safety Code will be bringing vehicles into that bureaucracy and regulation, shall we say, that they weren't previously included in. In particular, farm vehicles -- as I read this -- could be brought into that.

I know that we had a discussion prior to the bill being brought forward here, but I'm still not quite convinced that the way the act is worded . . . . We're assured that somewhere in the regulations this will be dealt with. But it's the act that we're dealing with in this House today and not regulations that may be brought in later on. I have concerns, by the way this is worded, that farm vehicles and a lot of other vehicles that weren't normally covered under the bureaucracy and regulations that might come with the National Safety Code . . . .

The keeping of a logbook, cargo insurance and all the regulations that go with that could affect people that really aren't in the business of trucking. It says here " . . . freight that is genuinely the property of the owner of the motor vehicle." A farmer could be using it incidentally to his business. He's taking cattle to market, or he's picking up supplies for the farm. He could be caught under this definition as it's currently worded.

[1730]

I've got a proposed amendment on the order paper, and I would ask that that amendment be brought forward. It will amend this to break up that part at the very end.

[SECTION 237, in defining "business vehicle" to add the words in boldface:

(

c) that is operated at any time on a highway by, for or on behalf of any person who charges or collects compensation for the transportation of freight in or on the motor vehicle,

but does not include:

(

a) farm vehicles which display an A or G licence plate;

(

b) commercial vehicles up to a licenced weight of 18,000 K.G. and

(

c) a motor vehicle operated for hire while used extensively in carrying pupils or teachers to or from school;]

I would move that that motion be brought on the floor.

On the amendment.

Hon. H. Lali: As we discussed earlier with the hon. member before the bill came into the House for discussion, nothing in this act changes the regulatory environment for farmers. I think that was made quite clear to the hon. member.

R. Neufeld: I know we had those discussions briefly in the minister's office. I disagree with the assertion that the minister just made. Farmers have not had to have a National Safety Code number previous to just recently, I believe. That's because of an Insurance Corporation of British Columbia requirement. It does place them in a position where they would, at some point in time, be required to use logbooks. I

[ Page 14426 ]

don't think anybody has any problem that you have to be part of the National Safety Code. Really, when you hear the name National Safety Code, everyone thinks that -- oh, boy -- this has a lot to do with safety. What it has to do with, mainly, is regulation of hours of work.

We already have a safety program in British Columbia for commercial vehicles, but if you go to the National Safety Code applications, in division 37 they do say . . . . The minister is partly correct. I'm going to read into the record

section 37.11. Under "Hours of Service" it says: "This part does not apply to a driver who is driving (

a) a two- or three-axle commercial motor vehicle that is being used for the transportation of primary products of a farm, forest, sea or lake where the driver or his employer is the producer of the products." Now, one would automatically think that that absolves farmers from having the hours of service and logbooks, but that's only for two- or three-axle combination vehicles. Farmers today