2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 16

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401)

T. Christensen

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Conference of coastal communities

G. Trumper

Chilliwack Chiefs hockey team

J. Les

Aunt Leah's Independent Life Skills Society

V. Anderson

Oral Questions

Long-term care facility closings and consultation with seniors

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Food bank usage

J. Kwan

Hon. M. Coell

Long-term care facility closings

W. McMahon

Hon. K. Whittred

Sale of Skeena Cellulose

B. Belsey

Hon. R. Thorpe

Lobbyists registry

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Petitions

R. Sultan

W. McMahon

J. Wilson

A. Hamilton

Tabling Documents

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2001

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Hogg

T. Christensen

S. Orr

V. Anderson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

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

Second Reading of Bills

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Hon. S. Hagen

J. Kwan

B. Lekstrom

Hon. L. Reid

V. Roddick

Hon. J. van Dongen

J. Les

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

Committee of the Whole House

School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34)

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Clark

Royal Assent to Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

(Bill 11)

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

Supply Act, 2002-2003 (Bill 33)

[ Page 3059 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Abbott: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a couple of friends from the

municipal realm. Hans Cunningham, of course, is the president of the Union of

B.C. Municipalities, and with him is Richard Taylor, who is the executive

director of the same organization. I'd like the House to give them a very warm

welcome. They do a great job on behalf of their local government.

Weisbeck: Mr. Speaker, today a number of us had a delightful lunch with a

number of members from the Portuguese Parliament from the Azores. It's an

independent area. I'm going to introduce these names. I had a little lesson in

Portuguese, so you'll have to bear with me. First of all, Francisco Barros,

Antonio das Neves Lopes Gomes, Paulo Manuel Avila Messias, José Humberto

Madeiros Chaves, Cleio Ribeiro Parreiro Tosta Meneses — I want to refer to him

as Bob — Raul Aguiar do Rego and Paulo Antonio de Frietas Valadao. They are

accompanied by the consul, Pedro de Sampaio. Would the House please make these

very distinguished guests welcome.

[1405]

Sultan: We have in the gallery today Steven Bright, director of public

affairs for the Toronto Stock Exchange. Would you please make him welcome.

Penner: I'd like to introduce a reporter from the Fraser Valley, Lisa Morry.

She's joining us today in the press gallery. She'll be here today and tomorrow

working on articles for the Chilliwack Times and the Abbotsford Times

newspapers, visiting both me and the member for Chilliwack-Sumas, as well as the

Minister of Agriculture. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: We have a delegation from the British Columbia Printing and Imaging

Association here in the House today. We'd ask the House to please welcome Blair

Fraser from the West Coast Reproduction Centres in Vancouver, Jack Hazeldeen

from Hemlock Printers in Burnaby, Terry Tanner from Trade Business Farms in

Burnaby and Marilyn Knock from the B.C. Printing and Imaging Association from

Surrey. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm always amazed at the network that the interns in this

Legislature have and how it passes from year to year. I'm just tracing the set

of e-mails that I have before me. I want to offer congratulations to Eldon Sala,

who's an intern with the government caucus. He and his wife, Alana, had a new

baby — I think it was about a week ago — Mya Adrianna Sala. It's their

second child and their second daughter. I'm very glad to have him back at work,

and I want to extend our congratulations to him and his wife as well.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students visiting

from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their

teacher Ms. Bodill, as well as several parent volunteers. Would the House please

make them very welcome.

Hon. K.

Falcon: In the precinct today I'm pleased to say that we have almost 80

grades 4 and 5 students from Cloverdale Catholic Elementary School. They are

joined by their teachers Doreen Brady and Jeanne Tyrrell, along with a number of

parents led by Mr. Mike Garisto. I would ask that the House please make them

welcome.

Stewart: It's my privilege today to introduce a person who's well known to

many members of the House, a person who's a longtime school trustee and alderman

in Maple Ridge, a friend of mine and neighbour for many years, a person who was

involved in the Liberal Party when there were fewer Liberal members in British

Columbia than there are members in the House today. Would the House please make

very welcome Mae Cabott.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House my niece Rachel

Hessells. Rachel has the distinction of living in a house once occupied by a

Premier of this government, Premier John Oliver. I ask the House to please make

her welcome.

Krueger: We have a particularly wonderful assistant in the Whip's office,

who I'd like to introduce in Portuguese, but I don't speak Portuguese and

neither does he. I'd just like to do the job that the Deputy Speaker did. His

name is Steven Puhallo, and with him today in the gallery is his grandmother Kay

Puhallo and her daughter, Patricia Dessau. I'd like the House to please make

them all very welcome.

Johnston: I'm just looking across the House here, and I see an old friend of

the House up there that I'd like to introduce, a gentleman who is no stranger to

this place and who helped me very much in my campaign, Mr. Art Cowie. Would the

House please make Art welcome today.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SPRING ENTERPRISES INC.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION)

ACT, 2002

Christensen presented a bill intituled Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2002.

[ Page 3060 ]

Christensen: I move that a bill intituled Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2002, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be

introduced now and read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Christensen: This bill will restore Spring Enterprises Inc. to the corporate

registry, as it was struck more than ten years ago. A special act of the

Legislature is the only means of doing that.

I move that

the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) CONFERENCE OF COASTAL COMMUNITIES

Trumper: Ten years ago coastal communities in British Columbia, frustrated

with constraints to development and with the lack of coordination and

communication with various levels of government, held the first conference of

coastal communities organized by the Coastal Community Network. At that time I

was the mayor of Port Alberni, and we were the first people to bring this group

together. This event explored opportunities for economic development for Pacific

coastal communities.

This

weekend Port Alberni is hosting the tenth anniversary of the conference of

coastal communities. The theme is a decade of change: shaping our future. It is

timely, indeed, as we face enormous changes in the shape and function of our

communities. Our resources base, fisheries, softwood lumber, aquaculture,

offshore oil and gas, tourism, the services sector all face challenges

unforeseen even one decade ago.

Many of the

challenges, however, are familiar, such as transportation, resource development,

environmental issues and jurisdictional concerns. These shared issues have

helped the Coastal Community Network develop a collective consciousness on the

coast, sharing experiences and lessons and becoming the big voice for small

communities.

This

conference does more than provide an opportunity to share stories. In its first

ten years the Coastal Community Network has organized fisheries support

programs, protected staffed lighthouses, promoted economic development

initiatives and collaborated with similar communities in Atlantic Canada. This

year they will present an updated report entitled The State of the Coastal

Economy , with regional and sectoral statistics on our coastal communities

over the past decade.

Most

importantly, members of all levels of government, including several of my

colleagues in this chamber, will gather with industry, community and first

nations representatives. Our goal: to explore the challenges facing our Pacific

coastal communities and promote creative solutions through enhanced networking.

anticipate a lively and productive gathering and look forward at a later date to

reporting back to this House on the progress of this important conference. I

urge any member of this assembly, if they have the opportunity, to attend the

session in Port Alberni. They would be most welcome.

CHILLIWACK CHIEFS HOCKEY TEAM

J. Les:

Several weeks ago I reported to the House on the fact that the Chilliwack Chiefs

of the B.C. Hockey League had won the provincial Junior A championship. The next

step in the playoffs and the advancement to the national championship was the

playoff series against the Alberta champions, the Drayton Valley Thunder.

Mr.

Speaker, I have more good news. In a seven-game series, which at one point

Drayton Valley led, two games to one, the Chilliwack Chiefs came storming back

to win the playoff series, four games to two. With the final game last Saturday

evening before a sellout crowd at the Chilliwack coliseum, the final game was

tied 3-3 at the end of regulation time, with Chilliwack's winning goal coming in

the second overtime period on a beautiful goal by David Van der Gulik.

The

integrity of the roof structure of the coliseum was seriously put to the test.

I've got to tell you that it felt really good to watch B.C.'s best beat

Alberta's best. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Chilliwack Chiefs are off to Halifax to

play in the national Junior A hockey championship, the Royal Bank Cup.

I want to

pay tribute to the great job done by coach Harvey Smyl and his staff as well as

the dedicated owners of the team, Al Brew, Heinz Hasselman and Moray Keith.

Without their unqualified dedication, support and enthusiasm, the Chiefs would

not have become the success that they are.

[1415]

Chilliwack

hockey fans have thoroughly enjoyed an excellent season of hockey. They are

extremely proud of the Chilliwack Chiefs' achievements, and I am sure that all

members of this House join them in wishing the team well in its quest for the

national championship in the playoffs starting this coming Saturday in Halifax.

AUNT LEAH'S

INDEPENDENT LIFE SKILLS SOCIETY

Anderson: I rise today to speak about Aunt Leah's Independent Life Skills

Society. The name tells the story of a society — a group of ordinary citizens

in the Marpole and south Vancouver area who volunteer their time to help others

get the skills to become capable of independent living in our society.

Mike is one

example. He is a teenager who was part of a restaurant training program — a

16-week program

[ Page 3061 ]

for 15-to-18-year-olds. It is a combination of classroom and personal

assessment and food service, including community meals. They learn by serving.

The program was half-funded by the community and half-funded by the government

— until the end of June, that is. It's going to the community now to raise the

full amount of $150,000 a year. Sixty youth are now on hold.

Aunt Leah's

is also a residential program for pregnant and parenting teens. It is an

alternative living for street youth to discover themselves and their potential

as positive family members. It's a new start towards a hopeful future because

there are people who care and understand. It's a home to grow from.

The Support

Link program, also a part, is a semi-independent living initiative for youth at

risk. Self-contained suites with practical and emotional support enable the

transition from dependence to independence by developing everyday skills and

being supported over the rough spots. Transformed lives are the result.

Community outreach established a trust relationship with these youth. They are

experiencing depression, drug and alcohol abuse or a misunderstanding of

themselves. It reconnects them with family, peers, school and community.

Oral Questions

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY CLOSINGS

AND CONSULTATION WITH SENIORS

MacPhail: Seniors and their families are in a very high state of anxiety

about the government's plan to close long-term care facilities. Last week I

visited the Kootenays, where senior health officials had promised the community

a 30-day consultation process before any decision would be made to change or

shut down any health care facilities. Those officials complained to me that the

government had blocked their plans. I guess it didn't fit in with the

government's communications strategy. The government thought it was better to

keep people in the dark, putting politics before patients.

To the

Minister of Health Services: why did the government deliberately block the

interior health authority from engaging in a 30-day public consultation process?

And will he please release all correspondence between the government and health

authorities with respect to their aborted consultation plans?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I gave no such instructions to the interior health authority.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary.

MacPhail: In fact, the government told the interior health authority not to

proceed with the consultation. Theoretically, although we're finding it less and

less so, the Minister of Health Services is in charge of this radical change in

health care.

Once again,

maybe he doesn't know. Let me tell him this: after being denied input, the

residents of the Pioneer Villa long-term care home in Creston woke up last

Tuesday to the news that their home was being closed. It came as a complete

shock. In Summerland the Kelly Care Centre and the Summerland Lodge are closing,

forcing seniors into private care arrangements that cost a fortune. These

seniors are calling for a moratorium on closure of long-term care facilities,

pending a full public consultation.

[1420]

Maybe it

was the Minister of State for Long Term Care that shut down the consultation. So

will she stand up and apologize to seniors for causing so much pain and

hardship? Will she promise seniors, at least in the interior health authority

where they're ready to go but were told to stop, that no new strategy will be

put in place until a consultation has happened? Will she stop moving seniors

around like pieces of furniture?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Quite frankly, that kind of language coming from that member is

irresponsible. Prior to the announcements…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …we encouraged all of the health authorities to engage in

consultation around this province.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. C.

Hansen: For the first time in this province we are actually laying out a

three-year plan for the redesign of health care, unlike the previous government

who used to keep the public in the dark until announcements were made. We are

looking at the stock of long-term housing in the province. We are doing a

responsible and consultative process over the next two to three years in terms

of what facilities will be phased out while we build new facilities. And as we

said a week ago today, no door will be closed before another door is opened. We

will ensure that every single senior in this province is consulted. Their

families will be consulted. There will be a plan put in place for their orderly

care, and their transition to new facilities will be better for the care they

require.

FOOD BANK USAGE

J. Kwan:

Food bank directors got together last week to compare notes, and they're seeing

the same trend. From Sooke to Vanderhoof, demand at food banks is increasing

dramatically. What's more disturbing is that it is the children and seniors that

are now, more than ever, turning to food banks for help for the first time.

[ Page 3062 ]

When this

was brought to the attention of the Minister of Human Resources, he was

unavailable for comment. He is always available for comment when he's there to

slash income assistance programs. He's available to tell the disabled that

they're on their own, and of course, he's always available to vote for tax cuts

for the wealthy.

Will the

Minister of Human Resources simply admit that his draconian changes to income

assistance are forcing children to rely on food banks?

Hon. M.

Coell: I have for years watched the ebb and flow of people using food banks

in British Columbia. I can tell you that for ten years, those members of the now

opposition ruined this government, chased jobs out of this province, mismanaged

the forest industry, chased the mining of this province. This House doesn't need

to listen to you.

For ten

years you chased the forest industry out of this province. You chased the mining

industry out of this province. You mismanaged this economy.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: What this economy needs is a government that will help rebuild it to

produce jobs for families to keep people out of food banks. The ten years of

decline are over in this province, and this government is going to help rebuild

this province to create jobs for people to keep them and their families out of

the food banks.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The fact of the matter is that the Finance minister has thrown open the doors of

the provincial treasury to the richest of British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

[1425]

J. Kwan:

In the meantime, food banks across the province are struggling to meet the new

demand created by this government's mean-spirited attack on our most vulnerable

citizens. To the Minister of Human Resources: just how much more evidence does

he need before he realizes that putting children first does not mean putting

them first at the food bank lineup? What does the minister need to understand

that assisted living does not mean helping seniors carry their groceries home?

Hon. M.

Coell: I simply wonder how many people could be fed for the half a billion

dollars that was wasted on the fast ferries. We had ten years of wasteful

government in this province, ten years of a government that didn't try and

create jobs for families. That's over. This government is rebuilding the economy

in British Columbia so that families and children will have the money and the

support they need.

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY CLOSINGS

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term

and Home Care. In recent days some have tried to deliberately stir up confusion

over how the government's recent changes to health care will affect seniors in

British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, so you may hear the question.

McMahon: Media reports in my riding have left seniors at Moberly Manor care

centre fearing that they will be removed from their home and left without care.

To the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care: will she

assure the residents of Moberly Manor that the government will not abandon them?

Hon. K.

Whittred: May I say once again that I share the regret of many that have

expressed the unnecessary fear and anxiety that has arisen amongst seniors

residents.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Whittred: A week ago, at open cabinet, I asked executive council to give

consensus to a resolution that stated that all the health authorities must have

a transition plan in place before any plan is implemented. Health authorities

know that they are required to consult with families. They know that there must

be individual plans in place. I repeat once again: these are long-term plans.

They are going to be carried out over the next several years. We will provide

better care, more comprehensive care, with a great many more choices.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has a supplementary

question.

McMahon: My constituents are also hearing reports that the government is

moving seniors out of extended care facilities and into supported living homes.

As a number of my constituents currently live in extended care facilities, what

assurances can the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care

provide to them that they will continue to receive the care they need?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This government is committed to providing 5,000 new intermediate

and long-term

[ Page 3063 ]

care beds by the year 2006. This is a long-term plan. It is a long-term plan

that will provide the best care in the most appropriate setting. We are moving

from a two-track system, where a person has to either live at home or in

long-term care, to a multi-track system that offers seniors a whole variety of

choices along a spectrum of care. Supported housing or assisted living is an

appropriate level of care for intermediate-level clients. Clients who need

extended care will receive extended care.

SALE OF SKEENA CELLULOSE

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. I understand that the Supreme Court of British Columbia has

dismissed the application by first nations requesting that the Minister of

Forests withhold his decision and consent for the transfer of Skeena Cellulose

to Northwest B.C. Timber and Pulp. Can the minister tell us what the next

actions are in returning Skeena Cellulose to the private sector?

[1430]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'm pleased to advise the House that the last hurdles in returning

Skeena Cellulose to the private sector have been removed. The Minister of

Forests has consented to the transfer. NWBC has signed the agreement to become

the new owners. We have been successful in returning Skeena Cellulose to the

private sector.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to thank a few people for all of their

efforts in this matter. First of all, I must give thanks to my ministry staff

and our advisers, who have literally worked around the clock to make this

happen. Second, to the members for North Coast, Skeena and Bulkley

Valley–Stikine: thank you for your comments, advice and guidance over the past

ten months. A very special thanks to the families, communities and community

leaders who have assisted in returning Skeena Cellulose to the private sector.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Coast has a supplementary question.

Belsey: My supplement is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. Many of the residents in my riding have been out of work for some

time while Skeena Cellulose was in bankruptcy protection. Can the minister tell

my constituents when they can expect to go back to work?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: After four years of management under the NDP and a loss of over $400

million to taxpayers of British Columbia, NWBC is now the owner of Skeena

Cellulose. They have been travelling throughout the north and meeting with

community leaders, families, workers and loggers. It will now be up to these new

owners to put a plan into place to get families and workers back to work so that

the northwest can have the economic activity that it deserves.

LOBBYISTS REGISTRY

MacPhail: We continue to await the proclamation of the Lobbyists

Registration Act, and yet representatives of various private interests are hot

on the heels of cabinet ministers.

We've seen

WCB regulations go up in smoke. We know that the Employment Standards Act is

going to be changed to keep the Independent Contractors and Businesses

Association happy. We've seen contracts in health care gutted to keep Sodexho

happy.

While the

registration isn't in place, we're going to have to ask on a case-by-case basis.

There's no registration.

Can the

minister responsible for the Lobbyists Registration Act confirm that

organizations represented by Bruce Clark have been meeting with his cabinet

colleagues?

Hon. G.

Plant: Last I heard, Bruce Clark was a lawyer who occasionally represented

some first nations in British Columbia in claims of sovereignty before the

courts. I don't think Mr. Clark is in the jurisdiction anymore. I'm sure I'll

take the opportunity to look into it.

What is

great to report is that we have the most open and accountable government in

Canada. We were a government that introduced fixed election dates. We were a

government that introduced a fixed budget date.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. G.

Plant: We were a government that introduced a parliamentary

schedule that

works for British Columbians. We have introduced a Lobbyists Registration Act.

We will bring it into force and effect.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by approximately

10,000 supporters of the Capilano Care Centre, a long-term care facility on the

North Shore. Because of the mass of paper involved, this box in front of me only

contains one-third of the petitions. I'd be glad to deliver the balance to the

Clerk's office once I recover my strength.

These

petitioners ask the government to exercise whatever encouragement it may with

the Vancouver coastal health authority to keep open this home to 217 of our

beloved seniors.

[1435]

McMahon: I also rise to present a petition. This SOS, Save Our Services,

petition is signed by 1,380 Revelstoke residents and 35 ferry users from other

communities in British Columbia who are concerned with the changes to various

services within this rural community.

[ Page 3064 ]

Wilson: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 25 constituents expressing

their concerns about school board funding.

Hamilton: I also rise to table a petition with 1,086 signatures from the

B.C. Family Network concerning people with disabilities.

Tabling Documents

Hon.

G. Collins: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2001 of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage on Bill 17.

Committee of the Whole House

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:38 p.m.

section 8 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

We were discussing

section 8 of Bill 17. Could the minister please tell the

House what the current policy is for those who have an interim order to care for

a child? In the area of government support, what is the policy that exists now?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I should take this opportunity to introduce Chris Haynes and Mark

Sieben, who are the two staff members assisting us in this discussion.

The answer

to the member's question is that in virtually all instances those would be

placements in foster homes and therefore would be paid at the foster home rates

that were commensurate with the needs of the child.

[1440]

J. Kwan:

With the passage of Bill 17 and the eventual passage of Bills 26 and 27, will

there be any difference in terms of eligibility for support for people who will

have interim custody of a child under this act?

Hon. G.

Hogg: There is no legislative link between this legislation and Bills 28 and

29. In that sense, the answer to the member's question is no.

J. Kwan:

Okay. I just want to be absolutely clear on this question.

Under

section 8 of Bill 17 the language is added to suggest "an interim order

that the child be placed in the custody of a person other than a parent with the

consent of the other person and under the director's supervision." The

operative piece that I want to canvass with the minister is, of course, the

notion that the child would be placed in the custody of a person other than the

parent.

It is my

understanding from the minister that with the interim order as such, the adult

person who will have custody of the child on an interim basis would still

qualify for income assistance support for the child that this individual will

now have custody of. That person will still qualify for income assistance if the

person is a low-income, working individual.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The member's question falls under the Ministry of Human Resources and

whether or not the ministry would be prepared to continue to provide income

assistance. I can't answer specifically for that minister and that ministry. The

determinations and decisions on the way they choose to treat any amounts for

income and maintenance that were provided for a child from this ministry would

clearly be up to them.

We want to

have a process that makes sense, which provides some continuity and does not

create undue hardship. We've been having a number of meetings with the Ministry

of Human Resources and are aware of some of the concerns that exist in terms of

how we provide maintenance for children in these circumstances and situations.

I am

confident that the legislation doesn't prevent us from providing any of the

services that children will need should they fall under the auspices of this

act. There is nothing which will prevent us from providing the continuity and

funding necessary to support a child within whatever the home of best resource

is determined to be.

J. Kwan:

Sorry, hon. Chair. I have concerns.

When I look

at the two acts, I do see the linkage. Earlier the minister said that Bills 26

and 27 were not linked with Bill 17, but I do see the linkage. Unless the

minister can tell me otherwise, there is completely no link on the issue around

assessment for financial support. Under Bills 26 and 27, and particularly a

child in the home of a relative…. When Bills 26 and 27 go through committee

stage debate and are passed in the House, then the children living with

relatives who are legal guardians are considered to be part of the family. If,

in that instance, the family unit does not qualify for family assistance, they

will not be able to get support from the government to support that additional

child. That makes a big difference in terms of the impact on the child.

[1445]

I want to

be sure that in this act, Bill 17…. The language here allows for the interim

order for a child to be placed in the custody of a person, and when the child is

placed in the custody of the person, it makes that person a legal guardian of

the child. If that person then needs income from the government to sup-

[ Page 3065 ]

port that child under the income assistance from the government to support

that child under the income assistance act, that person would not be qualified

unless that entire family unit is qualified for income assistance.

Formerly,

under the current policy prior to the change, if you are a legal guardian of the

child or have custody of the child, you don't necessarily have to have the

entire family unit be qualified for income assistance in order to get support

for that additional child who's coming into your family unit. That is a

distinctive change. Maybe I'm wrong in understanding that. Maybe in the current

policy as it exists, where a person is coming into having custody of a child,

that family unit would be qualified for income assistance for the child even if

the family unit does not qualify overall for income assistance.

I'd like to

get certainty from the minister that with an interim order, when the child is

placed in the custody of a person, that person is able to get support from the

ministry — because assessment, as I understand it, will be done by this

ministry — and that that child would be able to get income assistance support

from the ministry if they need it.

Hon. G.

Hogg: For any child who is in the care of the ministry, the ministry has the

resources to provide the supports for the placement of that child. That is

covered under

section 25 of the amendment act.

J. Kwan:

What the minister said is that when a child is in the care of the ministry,

then that child is entitled to support. With the language change here, where

you're placing the custody of the child with the person, does that mean to say

that the person is not in the care of the ministry? It would say that child is

now in the care of the person who has custody of the child. Therefore, it would

disqualify the person from getting access to support from government.

Maybe I'm

wrong in understanding that. If I'm wrong, please correct me, because I want

assurance that when a person has an interim order that the child be placed in

their custody and then when that family unit is not able to get income

assistance, they are still able to get support for that child from the ministry,

whether it be this ministry or the Ministry of Human Resources.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The change in the wording does not deter, detract or take away from

the responsibility of the ministry to that child. That wording does not change

the test or the provision of services. The answer to your question is yes, the

ministry will still provide funding in those interim circumstances and

situations, should it be needed, just as there would be today.

J. Kwan:

The minister said that the family unit will be provided the same kind of

support. Then, when the person is assigned custody of a child by the courts on

an interim basis, that family would be entitled to gain support from this

ministry. Is it the current case now, before Bills 26 and 27 have been adopted

by government, that the person who is qualified for assistance in the Ministry

of Human Resources would still be qualified for income assistance from Human

Resources after Bills 26 and 27 have passed?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Bills 26 and 27 have no impact on this legislation and what is being

provided here. The evaluation and assessment have to be made for a child coming

into care on an interim order, in terms of the types of needs for the services

required for that child to exist and live within the placement that is deemed

appropriate for the child. This ministry is not impacted by the decisions of the

Ministry of Human Resources with respect to the legislation the member refers

to. We have to make an individual assessment of need and respond to that need

according to the child and the circumstances that they are placed within.

[1450]

J. Kwan:

During the estimates process with the Minister of Human Resources, the

Minister of Human Resources advised that of the 4,530 individuals who are in the

Child in the Home of a Relative program…. I asked the question: how many will

no longer be eligible to receive income assistance support because of the

proposed changes by the government? The Minister of Human Resources advised that

he estimated that about 1,790 children who live with relatives, who are their

legal guardians and have sole custody of the children, will be affected. In this

instance, when a person is given custody of a child under this

section of the

bill, according to the Ministry of Human Resources definition, that would be a

child living in the home of a relative. If that is a low-income working family,

that family unit would not be qualified for income assistance for support for

that child.

Is the

minister saying that that child would be able to get support from this ministry

in the same amount that they would otherwise get from the Ministry of Human

Resources as a minimum?

Hon. G.

Hogg: If I may be allowed to try and interpret what the member is saying and

using some poetic licence in that, I think the member may be referring to some

of the concerns which will arise with the change in the Child in the Home of a

Relative program, and some of those children who may also be in need of

protection and as a result are being placed in the CIHR program, which is an

income support program. The Ministry of Children and Family Development's

responsibility is the issues of child protection. There's that distinguishing

point, which can become blurred, obviously, in some of the issues.

For that

reason, I've been meeting with the Minister of Human resources around that

program and looking at ways that the program can be assured to be providing the

principles which we're talking about, which are to try and keep extended

families together — that the best placement for a child is within the context

of a family and an extended family that they can be a part

[ Page 3066 ]

of. The CIHR program, in many instances, provides that type of support.

Again, that's an income support program, so the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, if there are protection needs, does have resources and funding to

be able to put into those circumstances to appropriately support a child who has

those needs.

I recognize

the member's focus and direction and concern with the 1,790 children who are in

the home of a relative, who may not be eligible for continuing support. I

understand the ministry is looking at that program and looking at the changes to

that. There may be some alternatives which are being developed. If there are no

alternatives developed, then any children who are in need of protection

issues…. Our ministry has responsibility for those issues and will provide the

appropriate support for those families. Those are protection issues as opposed

to income assistance issues.

I know at

some point they become blended in terms of those types of services where a child

is placed, perhaps, with a grandparent who may be on assistance or may be just

above the assistance level, as the member points out, at a working level but not

being able to support another child in the family. We want to make decisions

which are in the best interests of the child in those matters. We're working

with the Ministry of Human Resources on that. If it is a protection need, then

clearly we will be supportive and be involved. If it's not a protection need,

the Ministry of Human Resources is aware of those concerns. We've had meetings

with them, and they are looking at some alternatives to do that. I understand

that they've actually extended the Children in the Home of a Relative program as

it currently exists for another two months to allow that review to take place.

[1455]

J. Kwan:

Well, that's exactly what I'm concerned about. If it is a protection issue, the

minister has said that the ministry will become involved, so then the ministry

will provide assistance in that instance.

What I'm

also worried about, though, is that if it's not a protection issue and because

it's a matter of finances, it may well become a protection issue. If the family

unit is unable to have the financial support for that additional child, it may

actually put the entire family unit at risk if they have other children.

It doesn't

make sense to me. On the one hand, the mandate and what this minister is trying

to do is to place children in the home of a relative — people that the child

might have a relationship with — in the best interests of the child. But by

doing that, it could actually jeopardize the future of that child and

potentially other children in that home as well. It makes no sense to me, and it

actually goes contrary to the intent of the ministry.

I can tell

you that when I asked the Minister of Human Resources questions around this, the

minister responded by saying that it is something that he's going to monitor

with the Minister of Children and Family Development to see if there's any

change in the desire of people to become guardians. Ultimately, it could have an

even longer and worse impact as the minister is trying to get more people to

become guardians and to take custody of other children. You could potentially

have a negative impact whereby people are just saying: "You know what? We

can't do it because we don't have the financial means to do it. We may have the

capacity emotionally or otherwise to do it, but financially we're not able to do

it because of this change that's forthcoming in the Ministry of Human

Resources."

The

minister says that he'll monitor this. How will the minister monitor it? And

again, under what circumstances would the person be able to get the government

support that they need? Would it be that they actually have to reach a place

where they would be in jeopardy in terms of child protection issues, and then

there would be consideration for support from the government?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I can't answer for the Minister of Human Resources. The member has

commented on a couple of comments from Hansard which the minister made. I

don't want to get into interpreting or understanding specifically what his

response to that was.

Let me

reassure the member, firstly, that within the purview of this act and this piece

of legislation we have before the House today, we have resources for any child

who is the responsibility of this ministry and will provide the necessary

support when they are under an interim order.

If I can be

allowed to stray a little bit from this piece of legislation specifically, I

understand the difficulty that the member is in between the two ministries and

the concerns around that, but the principle which our ministry is focusing on

— the member is quite correct — is: how can we provide the best support for

a child within the best environment for that child? In British Columbia and

indeed in Canada we haven't explored, as well as a number of other jurisdictions

and countries have, the ability to use extended family or kin care for being

able to keep a family together and provide the necessary care and support for a

child. We want to be able to look at that.

There are

clearly some instances within the Ministry of Human Resources, through the CIHR

program, where they are in fact doing that. We are working with that ministry to

ensure that we don't put children at risk who are currently in the home of a

relative for income assistance or income support being provided so that it

becomes an issue of child protection.

We're

working with that ministry to coordinate that to make sure that it is the case.

We've had meetings as recently as yesterday around that matter. As I said

earlier, the Minister of Human Resources has decided that the income support

through CIHR will be continued for another two months at the current levels

while he looks at strategies that address specifically the issue that the member

is referring to.

[ Page 3067 ]

Those

issues are ones which are of great importance to our ministry as well. We don't

want a child who is living in an extended family and being supported there to

fall into a vulnerable circumstance or situation in which protection may become

an issue. We have to ensure that there is coordination between our two

ministries to in fact provide that safety net for those children. I'm confident

that over the course of the next two months in those discussions with the

Ministry of Human Resources, we'll be able to achieve exactly that.

[1500]

J. Kwan:

Given that we actually don't know how that will be sorted out…. While the

ministry may well be looking at this issue and trying to come to a resolution on

it over the next two months, given that we don't know — we the public, we the

members of the opposition, don't have the assurances right now of how that would

be sorted out and whether there would actually be financial support for these

families — then why wouldn't the minister stand down this

section until such

time as those answers are available?

I think

those answers are crucial. Prior to coming back from the lunch break, I did take

the time to phone a couple of agencies in the community who provide child

advocacy services and child support services and who deal with children who are

in these kinds of situations. I asked them if they have this concern, or am I

just being paranoid in my own mind because I am seeing the link between Bill 26,

Bill 27 and this bill and ultimately the impact potentially for children and the

family units? They advised me that they, too, share that concern. Therefore, it

wouldn't make sense for government to proceed, by a bill, by ordering an interim

order placing a child in the custody of a person other than a parent when doing

that may well jeopardize that individual's opportunity to get income assistance

support through Human Resources.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Let me just say again that the children who are on an interim order

will not need funding from the Ministry of Human Resources. They receive their

funding through our ministry. In that sense, there's a total distinct

separation. Anyone who comes under an interim order, at the presentation hearing

by the judge, and requires support will receive that support from the Ministry

of Children and Family Development. There is no reliance on the Ministry of

Human Resources. There is no reliance at all upon the CIHR program. That's

distinct and different. That's an income assistance program that will not be

coming forward at a presentation hearing where the issue is protection of a

child.

There must

be some other way I can say that more clearly. However, the issue is: at an

interim order at a presentation hearing — the issue being neglect or abuse and

the best interests of a child — and the courts making an interim order and

placing somebody, it is the responsibility of this ministry to ensure that the

supports are there for the child and that wherever that child may be placed,

there are appropriate resources from the state to ensure that that child

receives the type of financial support within the context of that family which

is required. That is distinct, separate and different from the income assistance

which is provided under the CIHR program.

While I

appreciate the member's forays into the issue of when there are issues of

protection which may arise out of an income support circumstance, this

legislation deals specifically with when issues of protection come to the fore.

There is funding in place, and it will be in place to deal with those

circumstances and those situations.

J. Kwan:

The minister said that for interim orders there is funding in place. Maybe I can

wait until we get to

section 17, which is the permanent transfer of custody.

When it's a permanent transfer of custody, is there funding in place also?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, that is exactly the same provision. In fact, where it would be a

child in care with a permanent order, a continuing order is made that those

resources would be in effect just as they are today for children in care.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

If my understanding is correct, the minister says that when a child is placed in

the custody of a person outside of the parent on an interim basis or on a

permanent basis, the adult who is taking care of that child, who has custody of

that child, is entitled to get government support to support that child even if

that person is not qualified for income assistance support. In other words, if

that adult is a low-income working person and therefore not qualified for income

assistance under the Child in the Home of a Relative program, that adult — the

extension of that adult with a child — is able to get assistance from this

ministry. There's been no policy changes in the way in which a person can access

government support through this ministry, nor are there any rate changes in

terms of that individual being able to get access to financial support for that

child.

I just want

to be absolutely clear because I'm very worried about this provision. If that's

not the case, then my intention is to not vote in support of this

section of the

bill.

Hon. G.

Hogg: With respect to the member's comments around those provisions, there

are no changes proposed in this act in terms of the support which will be

provided to a child coming into care. There are no changes as a result of the

eventual passage of this act. It will not change as to what was in effect a year

ago or two years ago. The same process and support will be in place.

Just as a

year ago there was not an entitlement, but there were individual case decisions

made around the type of support needed when a child comes into care, those same

circumstances, practices and policies will be

[ Page 3068 ]

in effect should this act pass. Those same supports will be there.

J. Kwan:

The changes in Bills 26 and 27 and the program of the child in the home of a

relative would not impact the financial support of the individuals and the

children who would otherwise be able to get the support in this bill through

this ministry.

Hon. G.

Hogg: That's correct. The children in the home of a relative is, again, the

income support part of it. This is the protection side of it and will not be

influenced by that at all.

J. Kwan:

That does clarify my concern, and I thank the minister for that.

I want to

just ask the minister a question. Earlier we canvassed the area where the child

could be placed in the custody of a person other than their parent. It could be

a relative. It could be a friend. In most instances — and I think the minister

actually confirmed that — it is expected that the child would know this

individual or have some sort of relationship with them save and except in the

example the minister pointed out in the aboriginal community. It may well be

that within the band there might be a community who could actually take care of

the child in that sense. In those situations that provision would be made to

assign custody of the child to such individuals.

In this

bill, though, under

section 10 it actually references specifically the Nisga'a

government whereby if the child is a Nisga'a child, a designated representative

of the Nisga'a government would be provided notice and therefore would be

involved and could have the opportunity to be involved. Then

section 10(

c) actually says that if it's an aboriginal child other than a Nisga'a child, a

designated representative of an Indian band or aboriginal community would be

served notice, as well, so that they too would have the opportunity to be

involved.

Outside of

the aboriginal community in that context whereby a child could be placed in the

custody of a person outside of their parents, what other examples could the

minister give where a child may not have any relationship with or knowledge of

the individual of whom he or she might be placed in the custody…?

The

Chair: We're on

section 8, but the member is referring to

section 10 and

trying to relate it to

section 8.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry. I'm raising

section 10 as an example because

section 10 actually

speaks specifically to aboriginal children. In

section 8, when we discussed the

matter earlier, the minister actually gave an example of aboriginal children

whereby the child may not have any relationship with an individual that might

get custody of the child. The minister used an example of an aboriginal child.

Section 10

actually specifically addresses that. I understand that in those instances a

child could be placed in the custody of a person with which the child has no

relationship in the aboriginal community situation, because they may well be the

band or the Nisga'a government's representatives coming forward to provide

support to that child.

[1510]

Under what

other circumstances would that scenario happen whereby a child could be placed

in the custody of an individual who that child has no relationship with or

knowledge of?

Hon. G.

Hogg: There are a number of principles that are reflected in the

best-interests tests. The member asked for some other examples. Another example

might be an uncle who perhaps lives in Ontario or Toronto, who the child has not

met in the past, but the uncle or the family wishes to provide support and the

family's in agreement. That may be an appropriate circumstance.

We used the

example of the aboriginal community. It may be an example with the Indo-Canadian

community, where they have an extended family or a relative and a cohesive

community that wants to provide support for a child that may not have met with

them. That applies to many types of community that may be defined in a number of

different ways to provide that type of support.

We don't

want to preclude those opportunities and circumstances, which were, again, in

the best interests of the child when the principles driving that are the child's

safety, the child's physical and emotional needs and level of development, the

importance of continuity in the child's care, and the quality of the

relationship with the parent or the person. They may not have a relationship in

some of the instances and examples that we have given, but the other tests may

prove that that still is the best circumstance and situation into which a child

should go.

Another one

of the tests that is applied is the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and

religious heritage. The child's perception, the child's view, is taken into

consideration with respect to that and the effect on the child, should there be

a delay in any type of decision-making, because of the uncertainty and the

problems associated with that.

With

respect to the application of

section 8 and

section 10, which define the

aboriginal community specifically, that is certainly an example that tied into

the Nisga'a people, but I think the principle of that applies to many different

cultural and extended family opportunities that would exist in the best

interests of the child.

Christensen: I've just got a couple of brief questions around

section 8 that

sort of go back to the specific wording and the addition of subsection (d),

which adds, essentially, the provision that the child can be returned to

somebody other than the parent. Firstly, can the minister confirm whether

there's any ability of the director to return a child to somebody other than the

child's parent prior to the presentation hearing?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I'm not sure I exactly understand the question, but my

interpretation

of the question was

[ Page 3069 ]

whether or not the ministry or the director has the ability to place a child,

prior to the presentation hearing, in a home other than the parental home from

which the child was apprehended.

The child,

up to seven days prior to the presentation hearing, is in the care of the

ministry, and the ministry can and does place the child, in most instances, in a

foster home. But the ministry and the director of child protection have the

ability to place that child — again, using the principles which have been

outlined previously — in whatever placement they deem to be most appropriate.

Specific to

the question of whether they can place them other than in the parents' home, the

answer to that is yes, but the critical point in that is the seven days, which

cannot be exceeded, prior to the presentation hearing before the courts to make

a more permanent determination.

Christensen: Perhaps just to clarify. The minister has indicated that the

child, prior to the presentation hearing, can be placed in sort of temporary

foster care. I recognize that, obviously, the director himself or herself isn't

holding onto the child for those seven days. I would hope not, at least. Can

that temporary placement include an aunt, an uncle, a grandparent, a neighbour

that the child's familiar with — somebody who's not a recognized foster parent

— at the time the child is apprehended? That's what my specific question is

directed at.

[1515]

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, it can. The issue is the child's safety. So long as there can be

some assurance with respect to the safety, that would be a most appropriate

resource — again, wanting to recognize the continuity and the trauma which a

child goes through at the point of apprehension. If there can a placement with

an extended family, with someone that the child knows, then that is far less

traumatic than a more dramatic placement with someone who the child doesn't

know. That would be one of the principles applied in terms of the issue of

continuity of care, of the position of the child and their input into the

decision-making and, most importantly, the issue of safety.

Christensen: In respect of the presentation hearing itself, then…. I've

got some limited experience with child protection proceedings in my past life.

It was quite limited, though. Typically, in my experience what would happen is

you have a child who's been apprehended. In some cases, the child's two parents

are not residing together, so each of those parents is seeking to have the child

returned at the presentation hearing.

Am I

correct in my assessment that all that this amendment to

section 35(2) does is

simply allow another party — perhaps a grandparent or extended family — to

come to the presentation hearing and say that rather than keeping this child in

foster care away from family contact or returning the child to each of the

parents who may be there with their separate counsels seeking interim custody of

the child, we simply have another family member who the court can look to and

assess their qualifications and the suitability of their home for placement of

the child? Then it opens the door to that one further option subject, as always,

to the court being satisfied that the best interests of the child are satisfied

by the placement the court chooses.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The answer is yes. It would not just be a family member that might

come forward. It might well be that the ministry would be seeking out, as part

of the preparation for the presentation hearing, extended family members or

people of interest who had contact with the child who could provide that. The

answer is yes, but you don't have to be there. The ministry may well be seeking

that out in the best interests of the child in those matters, to find those

people that would appropriately provide that support.

Christensen: Just a clarification based on the minister's last comment. If

the director hasn't sought out the particular person that they perhaps would

like to see have interim custody, is it still open for a grandparent?

Certainly,

I know that in terms of my constituency work, often that's…. In child

protection matters, my office is contacted by grandparents, in particular, who

are frustrated that their grandchild has been taken into care and who feel that

they don't have any opportunity to really be involved in the process. I realize

there's always a lot more background information than perhaps I'm being given

right up front. This would allow a grandparent to appear at the presentation

hearing, and even if the director hasn't asked them to do that, the grandparent

on their own could come and present their case to the judge and say: "I

really am the appropriate place for this child to be."

I guess the

extension of that would be that if the director has concerns about the placement

with the grandparent, they would obviously raise those concerns at the

presentation hearing. If they don't have any concerns, they may simply take no

position. Thirdly, if they think it would be a great placement, then they'd

presumably speak in favour of it at the presentation hearing.

Hon. G.

Hogg: That's correct.

J. Kwan:

The member for Okanagan-Vernon has just triggered a question in my mind in this

section. That is, in all of the different options under

section 8 here, which

amends

section 35(2), it provides for the option that there can be an interim

order that the child be placed in the custody of the director. That means foster

care situations.

It allows

for the option that the child be returned to or remain with the parent

apparently entitled to custody, under the supervision of the director. That's

allowing for the child to be returned to the parent under supervision.

[ Page 3070 ]

The next

option is an order that the child be returned to or remain with the parent

apparently entitled to custody. So there's no supervision from the director. The

fourth one is an interim order that the child be placed in the custody of a

person other than a parent with the consent of the other person and under the

director's supervision.

[1520]

How come

the ministry has not provided the option of an interim order that the child be

placed in the care of a person other than a parent with the consent of the other

person and with the supervision of the director? So you may not necessarily have

custody, but you can actually care for the child. Why is there such a

distinction, and why isn't there an option?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The phraseology could say "care and custody," but if it just

said "care," there would be vulnerability associated with the parent

or the person who was acting as the parent, because they wouldn't have the

custody to deal with the child as well. So custody is inclusive of care. When

the word "custody" appears in here, it also means care associated with

the provision of the services to the child and their needs at that point.

J. Kwan:

So it's strictly a legal question in relation to the parent relationship with

the child? It's strictly a legally technical matter?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, it is.

Sections 8

to 11 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

This amendment changes the language that used to describe the person the child

was with prior to the presentation hearing.

The

original act returns the child to the parent or other person who, at the time of

the removal, was caring for the child. The amendment changes this language to

the parent or other person who had custody of the child.

It appears

to me the original language is broader. It allows for the person to be a

custodian or caregiver. It seems to me that this language is more limiting. The

person can only come into play if the person actually has custody of the child.

Am I right in that

interpretation? Does it actually make it more narrow in terms

of the number of people that can come to be caring for the child, or is it just

another technical issue related to the legal language? Is this just a matter of

changing the language so that it's consistent with the previous section?

Hon. G.

Hogg: It is a technical issue. In fact, the 1999 amendment act which the

last government put into place made an effort to change the wording to what is

currently in place. I think it was an oversight in the last amendment and the

changes which the last government made.

Section 12

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

This

section expands the options available for where the child may be placed.

The original act only allows for the child to return to the continuing custody

of the director. The amendment, as I understand it, allows for the child to go

to a parent or the director. Furthermore, the amendment explicitly recognizes

that this decision must be in the child's best interests. In addition, the

amendment seeks to consider the long-term need for the child to have finality in

his or her custodial situation.

[1525]

Am I

reading

section 13 correctly? It simply allows for that range of options to be

chosen by the courts to be available and to be expanded. Is there anything that

I'm missing in reading this section?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I think the member has that one quite accurately interpreted.

Sections 13

and 14 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Again, I just want to make sure that I am understanding

section 15 correctly. Am

I right in reading that this

section allows for the termination of a custody

order if

section 54(1) is invoked?

Section 54(1), looking back at the old

document, allows for a party to the custody order hearing to apply to the court

for the cancellation of the order. Again, this is just an expansion in terms of

provision to allow for others to come in to apply to cancel the order?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The answer is yes, it does simply provide more options. As the member

has pointed out,

section 54(1) will provide greater clarification of the

provisions that will be allowed for within that.

Sections 15

and 16 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Sorry, I didn't see the other members. Maybe I can start off some of these

questions, and then others can join in.

This

section, as I understand it, increases the ability of someone other than the

child's parents to obtain permanent custody of the child. There is no mention of

the screening process for determining who is eligible to seek permanent custody

of the child. Could the minister please advise us what is the process to screen

for this application for permanent custody of the child?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The screening processes are not usually outlined within the statutes.

They're not there for the choice of foster homes or adopted homes either, but

they're reflected in policy.

[ Page 3071 ]

The

assessment process will be consistent with the practices currently in place.

They include considering a person's past history of caregiving, considering

whether there has been a protection history with the ministry or criminal

offences which would affect a person's ability to provide care for children,

considering the person's ability to provide for the child's safety and

well-being, considering whether the person's physical home is suitable for the

child, considering the child's views on the plan as well as the views of others

who know the child and the person who may be in receipt of that custody.

J. Kwan:

This

section again does not identify whether or not the purpose of the amendment

is to allow for family members other than the parents to seek custody of the

child. If the amendment is intended to make it easier for extended family

members to gain permanent custody of the child, what measures will be taken to

ensure that the child will be safe and that the dangers that led to the child's

removal from the home will not be a threat to the child if he or she is in the

custody of a family member?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The measures that would be available with respect to the assessment

process to ensure that appropriate placements were made would be the methods

which I just read into the record on the previous question — just as they are,

as I said earlier, in issues of foster placement and adoption to ensure that the

home is an appropriate placement for the child.

J. Kwan:

So the standard is the same whether or not it's a relative or otherwise. It's

the same application to evaluate the appropriateness of the individual to have

custody of the child. There's no difference if it's a family member or

otherwise?

[1530]

Hon. G.

Hogg: The answer is yes. There would also be an ongoing monitoring to ensure

that the placement was appropriate and the anticipated circumstances were, in

fact, the ones that were followed through with.

J. Kwan:

Is there a requirement for parental consent before permanent custody of the

child is awarded to a third party?

Hon. G.

Hogg: No. There is not a requirement for parental consent. These are

children who would be in the care of the ministry. Just as parental consent is

not required when a child is adopted or put up for adoption, there would not be

consent required for this. It would be a matter of policy or practice in most

circumstances that parents would be notified with respect to those. That would

be a matter of common courtesy and practice. However, there is not a legal

requirement that parents be notified — just as, as I say, there isn't in

issues of adoption, as well, because in these instances the state is the parent

of the child.

The

Chair: The member for Victoria-Beacon Hill — or, better, Hillside.

S. Orr:

Thank you. I prefer Victoria-Hillside.

My question

is going to be on

section 17 as it relates to

section 54.1(3)(

a) of the act, if

you could pull that out. This is important for me. The question is: was the

office of the public guardian and trustee consulted with respect to the transfer

of guardianship of the child and the child's estate?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes. The office of the public guardian and trustee was consulted and

is satisfied with the application process and requested that it be required to

give the consent which is reflected in

section 54.1(3)(a). This ensures that the

director and the public guardian and trustee are working together to ensure that

the transfer is being made in the best interests of both the child and the

child's estate.

Anderson: The first question I would have is this. In transferring the

custody of the child to another person, I'm curious about the aspects of the

information for the needs of the child in that transfer. We talk about testing

the person we're going to transfer the child to. I want to know about the needs

of the child. What I'm wondering about is if persons like foster parents, who

have come to know the specific needs of a child over a period of time, or

parents or grandparents, who may have a very close interest in the child and

ability, will be given the opportunity to testify and provide the kind of

information that is needed to make the most satisfactory decision by putting

forward the real current needs of the child.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The answer is yes. They would have that opportunity; there would be

that provision. The director, in putting together an application to the courts

with respect to such an order, would be meeting with and talking to those people

who may have interest in having care and custody of the child. Certainly any

extended family members — the member has highlighted grandparents, and we've

had a number of discussions with grandparents over a number of years who have

been looking at and are interested in gaining care and custody — would be

entitled to put forward their ideas and their thoughts, firstly to the director,

and to be aware of when the application is being made. In most instances I'm

sure the courts would be wanting to hear from them as well.

[1535]

Anderson: I appreciate that, because I know that in the past there have been

instances where grandparents were not allowed to make presentation. It was not

for the well-being of the child.

I then

wanted to ask: in

section 54.1(2), at least ten days before the date…. It

seems to me that I would question that ten days, even though it's carried over

from the previous act, because that actually only gives five working days. If

you come on a Friday, four days

[ Page 3072 ]

are used up on the weekend. Particularly with the availability now of

courthouses, persons who may need to respond may be at a distance. Whether the

ten days is adequate, whether that's ten working days or, even if it is, whether

it's adequate…. I'd ask that question.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The ten-days provision is consistent with other pieces of legislation.

It is also interpreted, under the

Interpretation Act, in terms of what exists

with respect to ten days. Having sat through a number of hearings, though, I

would point out that if there was somebody who had a distance to come from and

who was interested in it, certainly they could contact the director. I'm sure

that the courts, whose primary test must be the best interests of the child,

would have the flexibility to set that over and to deal with it in any unique or

particular circumstances that the member may be referring to or highlighting.

Anderson: Under

section 17, in

section 54.2 on the next page, in (2), I'm

mystified by the meaning of this: a custody order under

section 54.1 is not

enforceable under this act. Could you explain to me the meaning of that

paragraph? I'm afraid I just don't follow it.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The issue means it's still enforceable, but it's not enforceable under

this act. It would be enforceable under the Family Relations Act, which deals

with matters of custody, where two custodial parents or the courts may be making

determinations with respect to who has custody. This simply refers to the act

which will be the act providing the enforcement. That is the Family Relations

Act as opposed to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Anderson: I would wonder if that shouldn't be indicated, for persons in the

future who may not be able to follow that reasoning as easily as you've

explained it. It implies an

interpretation which the ordinary person would not

have.

[1540]

Hon. G.

Hogg: That clarification is included in

section 35 of the amendment act.

That is where it is highlighted. It may be difficult, as we deal with the legal

machinations, to reflect the public policy that we want to infer. However, it is

laid out at that

section and hopefully will provide the clarification necessary

for any persons using the act.

Christensen: Can the minister confirm what the status of access orders will

be when custody is transferred under the proposed

section 54.1?

Hon. G.

Hogg: They will remain exactly the same as they are prior to any transfer of

custody under the act.

Christensen: To be absolutely certain, once custody is transferred pursuant

to the proposed

section 54.1, then any person who believes they are entitled to

access, if they have an existing access order they simply wish to maintain, then

that's fine. It is maintained automatically. If they wish to vary it or if they

don't have an access order and they wish to apply for access, they still have

the ability to do that but pursuant to the Family Relations Act?

Hon. G.

Hogg: That's correct. The bill includes consequential amendments to the

Family Relations Act which allow those access orders to now be treated the same

as they are under the Family Relations Act. This is appropriate, given that

these access orders now involve two private parties: the person receiving

custody and the family member who has been granted access to the child in the

court. The director of child protection no longer has a role in those

arrangements under the Family Relations Act.

J. Kwan:

I want to reconfirm under

section 17 where permanent transfer of the custody of

the child is made in that instance, when permanent custody of the child is

completed, that the family unit once again is still entitled to government

support if they need it and even if they don't qualify for income assistance. I

just want to reaffirm that under this

section of the act.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The answer is yes, and under

section 25 the director of child

protection is permitted to enter into a maintenance agreement in such

circumstances.

Sections 17

to 25 inclusive approved.

section

S. Orr:

I would like to know why

section 95 is being repealed at this time, please.

Hon. G.

Hogg:

Section 95 sets out administrative requirements related to the

transfer of custody of children in care between directors. Up until now there

has only been one director of child protection in the province, and as a result

this

section has never been used.

It is

anticipated that there will be five regional directors in the new regional

service delivery model which is currently being developed by the ministry.

Therefore, it would be necessary to streamline the legislative requirements for

the transfer of children between directors when the service delivery system is

regionalized. The consent and notice requirements of this provision would be

placed in requirements as set out in policy rather than in legislation to

facilitate a new governance model which is more reflective and responsive to

community-based needs.

Sections 26

and 27 approved.

section

[1545]

S. Orr:

Under

section 28, the new

section 98(7.1) allows the court to make an interim

restraining order. Why is an interim restraining order necessary?

[ Page 3073 ]

Hon. G.

Hogg: Well, currently, following an application for a restraining order, the

court may adjourn the proceeding in order to allow parties to prepare more fully

for a full hearing. The new provision would allow the court to issue an interim

order so that the child is protected from the time of the adjournment of a

hearing until the conclusion of that hearing. This change is needed because

children and others such as caregivers, a person who has custody, a child under

a temporary custody order, a director or a person providing some type of

residential or educational support or indeed any other type of support services

to a child or youth are potentially at risk if the court grants an adjournment

of a hearing but cannot issue an interim restraining order in the meantime to

provide the appropriate amount of protection and support that the child may need

in those circumstances.

Section 28

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

This amendment changes by making an individual who violates

section 75 of the

act, which is confidentiality of information, be subject to a fine of not more

than $25,000 or an imprisonment for not more than 24 months or both. Could the

minister advise: is the ministry experiencing violations at this time of

confidentiality of information? Is that why this change is being brought about

under Bill 17?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, it is estimated there have been approximately 44 cases over the

past two years which would fall under this. The sanctions provided in this

provide for an offence penalty which was not in existence previously. There was

an expectation of compliance with respect to the issues of confidentiality but

no penalty as a result of a person or people who may break that confidentiality.

There was an expectation placed without a consequence. In fact, there have been

a number that the ministry has seen over the past couple of years.

J. Kwan:

The minister advises that there have been some 44 cases in terms of breach of

confidentiality. Could the minister please advise under what kinds of

circumstances the breaches have occurred? Are these serious? I assume they're

serious. I just want to get a better understanding of what it is so that the

injection of a penalty could potentially assist in this breach of

confidentiality.

Hon. G.

Hogg: In most of those instances, it was the provision and/or printing of a

name or photograph of a child. The personal information, particularly in

high-profile child protection cases, was disclosed and utilized by the media.

This has not only caused harm and/or potential harm to children but also created

a situation where the ministry could not respond to allegations without

disclosing further particulars and potentially further causing harm to the

children. Without a penalty, the prohibition against disclosure could not be

enforced. This provision, we believe, will deter the printing and availability

of personal information being disclosed. That is consistent with the

expectations that have existed in other pieces of legislation to protect the

confidentiality of children in these circumstances.

[1550]

I'm sure

the member is well aware of the reasons for those confidentiality issues being

in existence and our need to be able to protect them consistent with similar

prohibitions which exist under the Young Offenders Act and the protections that

exist there. It's somewhat ironic that there are protections for young people

who commit offences under the Young Offenders Act, but there aren't the same

types of protections available for children who may be in issues of protection

from abuse or neglect. We're trying to provide at least a similar level of

provision and protection for those children who are subject to abuse and neglect

as are those children who commit offences under the Young Offenders Act.

J. Kwan:

Would the penalty, if you will, and the enforcement of this

section of the act

apply with media personnel who may somehow have access to the information and

breach the confidentiality by disclosing it through media reports or the like?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I think that is a possibility. These issues are enforced by the police

and Crown counsel. Crown counsel would have to decide whether to charge a person

based on whether or not there is a likelihood of conviction and whether a

conviction is in the public interest. Certainly, the minister and the director

are not a part of that decision-making at all. That is decision-making which is

in the hands of the police and the Crown counsel.

Anderson: I'm just following up on the last suggestion. I agree

wholeheartedly with the intent of this amendment. I'm wondering, though. In the

past when families have found themselves…. The children were not supported by

the system and wanted to challenge the system itself. The very fact that

information was made available did benefit, in many cases, those particular

children, and in many cases it was the parents themselves or in some cases maybe

even children who have made this public in order that they could get

restitution. I'm wondering how those other cases, where secrecy can itself be

oppression, fit into this discussion.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The intent is clearly not to have secrecy but certainly to protect the

issues and confidentiality of children who may be hurt under those

circumstances. The amendment isn't to be, should not be and cannot be used as a

shield under which the ministry can hide. Individuals in the media can still

have their stories told and clearly should have their stories told but without

the identifying information which infringes children and families.

[ Page 3074 ]

The privacy

which may provide harm or embarrassment to them for years after is to be

protected, but at the same time there should be issues reported to the media

without the identifying information, just as currently under the Young Offenders

Act there are provisions and there is media coverage of incidents that happen

with respect to young persons in courts. It is appropriately covered, and

challenges are provided, and that is part of the openness which, I think, helps

provide accountability and integrity to a system.

We clearly

need to have that accountability and integrity through the media, and access for

parents and others who feel that they've been aggrieved by the process or by the

ministry to that public airing of those circumstances. The practices of the

ministry are to be open and to be aired and to be viewed in a public way, but

not the families and the children that we're charged with protecting. We have to

protect their confidentiality, but the processes of the ministry should be wide

open to challenge by the media and by others.

Sections 29

to 34 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I move that the committee rise and report completion of Bill 17

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:54 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1555]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17,

Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I call second reading of Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT

Hon. S.

Hagen: This bill is an important step in facilitating improved management of

both our agricultural and private forest lands. This bill gives statutory

meaning to our core review direction and the new-era commitment to make the Land

Reserve Commission more regionally responsive to community needs.

For over 25

years the Agricultural Land Commission has been responsible for preserving and

protecting B.C.'s limited farmland. It has provided advice on land use planning

to local communities, adjudicated applications for the use of land in the

agricultural land reserve, and encouraged farming to provide a basis for a

sustainable economy and a secure source of food. The ALR now comprises 5 percent

of British Columbia's land mass, or 4.7 million hectares.

The Forest

Land Commission was established in 1994 to minimize the impact of urban

development and rural settlement on B.C.'s commercial forest land base. It has

adjudicated applications for the use of private managed forest lands and

reviewed proposals to add or remove private land from the forest land reserve.

The Forest Land Commission has also advised the Minister of Forests on proposals

to remove Crown land from the FLR and administered the private forest practices

regulations.

In April

2000 the provincial government enacted legislation to combine the Agricultural

Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission into a single body called the

Land Reserve Commission. Since that time the two reserves have been managed

under their respective legislation.

The Land

Reserve Commission has undergone a comprehensive core services review to examine

how it can become more efficient, effective and accountable while better

reflecting the needs of each region of the province. New legislation is required

to implement this direction. With passage of this bill, three pieces of

legislation currently under the Land Reserve Commission's jurisdiction will be

repealed: the Land Reserve Commission Act, Agricultural Land Reserve Act and

Soil Conservation Act.

Land use

provisions of the Forest Land Reserve Act and related land use regulations will

be repealed. Provisions of the act which establish the reserve and provide for

the regulation of forest practices on private FLR and managed forest ALR by the

commission will be retained. ALR regulations will be repealed and replaced with

a single regulation for use, subdivision and application procedures in the ALR

under the new legislation. Consequential amendments of a minor nature will need

to be made to the Local Government Act and the Land Title Act, as well as other

minor amendments to statutes which make reference to the Agricultural Land

Reserve Act.

This bill

will establish the provincial Agricultural Land Commission, outline its purpose

or mandate and operations; establish authority for managing the ALR and

regulating land use in the ALR; establish procedures for applications and the

authority for cabinet to pass regulations; and provide new enforcement and

compliance powers for the commission.

[1600]

This bill

implements not only core review recommendations but deregulation directions,

administrative justice project suggestions and the new-era commitment to make

the Land Reserve Commission more regionally responsive to community needs. This

bill implements cabinet-approved recommendations for the Land Reserve

Commission's core review by eliminating the FLR land use system and setting the

stage for the transition of the private forest practices regulation. In the

coming months further discussions on forest land use designations through the

working forest

[ Page 3075 ]

initiative and on how best to regulate private forest practices will be

ongoing.

The bill

maintains the ALR and makes it more efficient, effective and regionally

responsive by providing for regional commission panels and expanding delegation.

This bill and upcoming changes to the regulations respond to the Land Reserve

Commission's core review and government's deregulation initiative by making the

regulatory framework for the agricultural land reserve more enabling and less

prescriptive, by streamlining processes and by expanding a limited set of

permitted uses in the ALR. The provisions of this bill incorporate suggestions

from the administrative justice project for the appointment and operations of

the commission.

This bill

will ensure that we meet our new-era commitment to make the Land Reserve

Commission more regionally responsive to community needs by pursuing a

collaborative model, by local governments using delegation as a tool and by

deregulating and streamlining permitted uses and processes. These improvements

to governance, which bring decision-making closer to the people, are well

balanced with provincial interests. Local governments that would like to move

forward with delegation agreements that are not consistent with the provincial

interest cannot do so. Furthermore, there can be no downloading of

responsibilities as deregulation is on a strictly voluntary basis.

This bill

meets our government's commitments, particularly for the economy and communities

dependent on our forests. The forest land reserve use regulatory system will be

repealed to be defined by my ministry within the next year as we progress with

the working forest initiative. It is important to note that the core review

found the designation of the forest land reserve to have no grounding in

biophysical assessment but rather a tax management classification. Forest lands

will continue to be subject to local government bylaws where applicable.

Forest

practices regulation on private lands, which are currently managed by the

commission, will be managed by either government or industry or by a private

sector partnership in a new model to be developed over the next year. Through

revised regulations the range of permitted uses in the ALR will be expanded to

provide for new economic opportunities for farmers and landowners. With less

prescriptive and fewer regulations, significant cost savings will result.

This bill

ensures the ALR will continue to be administered by the provincial Agricultural

Land Commission, which will continue to protect the integrity of the

agricultural land base to meet the current and future needs of British Columbia.

The commission will work cooperatively with the public and others in maintaining

economic opportunity, protecting resources and building healthy communities for

all British Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading.

J. Kwan:

During the debate of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management's

estimates, the minister made several commitments to provide various pieces of

information to the opposition within a couple of weeks. That was about six weeks

ago now. The ministry, Land and Water B.C. and the environmental assessment

office did provide the opposition with a binder of information, and I thank the

minister for that. However, I'm going to run through the information that I have

yet to receive as it would be helpful to the opposition to have this information

so that we can analyze Bill 21 and the Land Reserve Commission appropriately.

The information is critical to analyzing the merits of the changes being made.

During the

debate the minister was not 100 percent clear about the cost of the regional

panels that will occur. The minister had advised it would be roughly the same as

the current commission at $289,000. I would appreciate it if the minister would

provide the opposition with that figure prior to the start of the bill's

committee stage.

[1605]

The

minister also committed to providing the opposition with the different workplans

of the six regional panels. The minister said they were being drafted at that

time but would be available by April 1, 2002. He committed to endeavour to make

that information available to the opposition. We have yet to receive that

information.

The

minister also committed to provide the opposition with information about travel

costs with the commission as it exists now and anticipated travel costs with

each of the six regional panels so that myself and my colleague may make the

comparisons around cost savings. We haven't received that information either.

Finally,

the minister said that the detailed breakdown of the budgets for each of the

regional panels in the commission would be available on April 1. This would of

course include travel expenses, salaries, administrative costs, etc. That

information would also assist the opposition in evaluating and making analyses

of this bill. We have not yet received this information.

We would

appreciate having this information as soon as possible, if not by the end of the

day, since it was promised to the opposition about a month ago. The opposition

needs this information so that we can enter into proper debate during the

committee stage.

Created in

1972 to protect agricultural land from urban encroachment in this province, the

agricultural land reserve, as this government has recognized, is a compelling

public interest. The reserve and its presiding commission have protected and

encouraged agriculture and its development for nearly 30 years. However, this

legislation raises serious concerns that this new-era government does not value

the spirit in which these lands have historically been protected.

Bill 21

would constitute an unprecedented change to the agricultural land reserve and

its commission, potentially putting our agricultural lands at risk. This act, as

the minister has noted, repeals the Agricultural Land Reserve Act, the Land

Reserve Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act while also drastically

[ Page 3076 ]

amending the Forest Land Reserve Act to phase out the forest land reserve.

While this

new legislation incorporates some of the provisions of these acts, it ignores

critical components that address issues around protecting the integrity of the

agricultural land base in British Columbia. The minister has said that they will

maintain the principles currently in place for the inclusion and exclusion of

land from the ALR. However, it is impossible for the opposition to determine

that commitment at this time, since Bill 21 contains no reference to the planned

permitted use of the agricultural land reserve. Most of the important

information pertaining to the use of the ALR is missing from the legislation.

In debate

around Bill 26 it was the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara who summed up the

concern around missing regulations the best. On April 16 the member said:

"The

other reality that concerns me within this act — and it concerns me in a

lot of acts, but probably none more than this one — is that the act is in

effect, for all its fine words, a blank cheque. All of the regulations that

will make the act work, the gas that will make the motor run, the drivers

who will drive it and the rules and regulations by which they operate, by

and large, aren't in this act."

On the fact

that there is no substance in many of these new-era bills, the member continued:

"This

indicated that some of the regulations which are already in place, and

others that may be forthcoming and for which as we raise the issues, could

be changed. To me, had all the regulations been available at the same time

with the act, then we would have been in a better position to debate

them."

That was from the Liberal MLA for Vancouver-Langara, Hansard , April

16, 2002.

Bill 21 is

of the same model as Bill 26. All of the important changes that appear to be

coming are absent from the legislation and therefore absent from debate.

The trend

starts early on, even in

section 1, where the definition of "fill" is

subject to the phrase "other than materials exempted by regulation."

This is just one of the many examples where the government is leaving the door

open to slide an important change about the activities that could occur on land

within the ALR. Traditionally, fill was associated with and considered a

non-farm use. This government is leaving that definition wide-open.

[1610]

The concern

around the lack of specific references to what activities will be permitted is a

well-founded fear. The government has been very forthright that it plans to

break down the traditional protection of the ALR and expand permitted uses.

The Land

Reserve Commission's own service plan makes that point several times. The

concern that the opposition has is that we have no idea what expansion will

occur. The regulations are conveniently unavailable for a proper debate.

We know

that this government is planning on letting more non-farm uses occur on the ALR.

We just don't know what. Could it be for golf courses or oil and gas

exploration? The government has outlined its position that expansion of use

should occur as long as sustainability and suitability of the land is

maintained. This statement should be comforting, but unfortunately in all of the

estimates debates the opposition has been unable to get a definition of

sustainability that is in any way significant to the protection of the integrity

of the land or the environment. The only talk of sustainability this government

has put forward is in its big business–driven economic rhetoric. Not even

their own minister of environmental protection can tell us how environmental

sustainability will be ensured.

They all go

on about results-based management. We know now from estimates that no one in

this government really knows what that phrase means, never mind how it is any

better than the system we already have. How could all of these ministers include

commitments to results-based standards in their service plans when they have no

idea what that is? And what do you know? Even the Land Reserve Commission

commits to it in its service plan. But wait a minute. There is no description,

definition or reference to it in Bill 21.

If this

government and the Land Reserve Commission is committed to this management

approach, then where is it? How will the management of the agricultural land

reserve be performance-based? What does that look like? What are the standards?

This government and this minister, quite frankly, have no idea. Is this

something that's going to come down in a regulation with no debate? It seems

like that's what this government's approach is: they hide the fact they're

making changes but don't really know how it's going to work or want debate

around it. Then they sneak the answer in the back door.

Perhaps for

the government this is just a game of hide and seek. How can we believe that the

agricultural land base will be adequately protected, especially when we don't

have the regulations available to examine exactly what changes are taking place?

What does this government have to hide?

Speaking of

regulations, one only has to turn to

section 58, where we see two and a half

pages of lines giving the government power to make regulations on almost every

section and clause that is in this bill. The Land Reserve Commission is supposed

to be an independent agency with the power to make impartial decisions, but the

government has left itself numerous escape hatches in this legislation to ensure

it gets what it wants. Knowing that with the new-era approach, it's all about

development — coal, oil and gas and generally low environmental integrity —

one can only imagine why this government needs so many loopholes and wants so

badly to keep its fingerprints all over the commission, even though they say the

commission has more flexibility. That just means when things start looking bad

in the public's eyes, the government can wash its hands of the issue.

The Land

Reserve Commission is supposed to be an independent body. We see that with the

regulatory powers the government has given itself, and that they

[ Page 3077 ]

can "establish policies and procedures to be followed by the commission

in conducting its affairs, performing its duties and functions and exercising

its powers." Where is the independence? Where is the assurance that the ALR

decisions won't just be based on this government's big-business agenda? Answer:

there are none, because this government, through this legislation, reserves the

right to make those critical decisions through regulations which cannot be

debated during this crucial time.

[1615]

This could

be the sleeper in here. If the government revises the list of permitted uses —

which we can assume they are doing, since they have not said otherwise in the

legislation — all this minister has to do is delete certain uses from having

to come to the commission, and the ALR is undermined without the government

having to take the political heat for doing it outright. What will be the public

process around determining what additional permitted uses will be acceptable?

The answer is probably none.

Another big

area of concern around this legislation is the delegation of authority to local

governments. Now, the minister and this government have said that decisions are

better made at the local or regional level. That is why Bill 21 establishes

regional panels and permits local governments to negotiate with the commission

to establish a setup where they can have the responsibility of the land in their

jurisdiction as it applies to the agricultural land reserve. It sounds great at

first. However, there are some concerns around consistency and adequate

protection of the ALR.

In a Times

Colonist

article from April 16, 2002, Wayne Hunter, the mayor of Central

Saanich, says that smaller rural municipalities will face tremendous development

pressures because of these changes. The mayor said that the changes put more

regulatory onus and pressure on municipal councils. Municipal councils are

elected for three years. Mayor Hunter's concern is that municipalities used to

count on the commission to be the consistent body saying: "No, we don't

think that's appropriate." Now you'll get the local political flavour.

Mayor Hunter continued to argue that these changes amount to downloading

regulatory responsibilities to municipalities, setting the stage for major pro-

and anti-development battles.

Now, this

minister may argue that there's nothing wrong with a debate at the local level

and that it is time to stop micromanaging. But it is clear that this government

just wants to relieve itself of its duty to protect the ALR. Just like in

education, with the school boards and the health boards, this legislation gives

flexibility and tools, if I could use the minister's words, so this government

can say: "It wasn't us; we didn't do it."

There's

also a concern that's been raised by some that this bill actually removes power

from municipalities, especially in sections where an agent of the government, a

public body or another person prescribed by regulation can be given the same

authority over applications for non-farm use as the local government or the

commission itself. This was seen to allow groups other than municipalities to go

through the process and bypass local governments.

Furthermore,

there's a major concern that groups like the Oil and Gas Commission or Land and

Water B.C., formerly B.C. Assets and Land, will be able to access ALR lands for

uses not traditionally associated with the land reserve. This would make it

easier for agricultural land to be used for oil and gas exploration and

development and to allow for flooding of agricultural land to assist this

government's independent power producers agenda.

Overall,

this piece of legislation is lacking in information critical to having a proper

debate about what this government has planned for the agricultural land reserve.

This bill tells us that there is a hidden agenda and that this government would

rather bring in their significant changes through regulations, so they do not

have to face scrutiny in this House. I ask the members: how is that open and

accountable?

The

opposition has grave concerns around this. As members of this House and the

public can appreciate, the agricultural land reserve is the base that produces

food. It is the base that produces food for British Columbians and for people

outside. It's part of our economic engine. Without the safeguard of the land

reserve, what is the future for food production? Is it the government's agenda

to open up the land reserve for development pressures so that over time, more

and more of our agricultural land is lost and food production would be further

hampered?

[1620]

The

opposition will have questions for the minister during the committee stage. The

opposition would appreciate it if the minister could ensure that the information

that was asked for during the estimates process is provided to the opposition.

The minister had committed that that information would be provided to the

opposition within a two-week period, approximately. It's been more than a month

now, and we still have not yet received much of that information so that we can

enter into proper debate with regards to Bill 21. I would urge the minister, if

not by the end of today, to see that the opposition receives this information.

We certainly would need to receive this information in ample time so that we can

prepare for committee stage debate on Bill 21.

MacPhail: And we shouldn't call committee until we get it.

J. Kwan:

And as my colleague has suggested — and I agree with her 100 percent —

committee stage on Bill 21 should not be called until that information is

received by the opposition.

Roddick: I rise today to speak fully in favour of this act. We need regional

representation. It is progressive planning to align the province in the same

regions — be they Health or Agriculture or any other ministry, for that matter

— because of the interests and concerns of like minds.

[ Page 3078 ]

I would

like to ask the minister for some clarification, however, on page 9,

section 20.

Would the minister please clarify the concerns re the Petroleum and Natural Gas

Act and the Mineral Tenure Act?

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, this is second reading debate. Your time to speak is

30 minutes. Questions of a specific nature will be best asked in committee.

Roddick: All right. My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we could reorganize

me, then. I wasn't prepared to speak for 30…. These are just the questions,

and I've obviously stood up at the wrong time.

Mr.

Speaker: It's no problem. You can do all those at the committee stage.

Roddick: All right. Thank you.

Lekstrom: I rise today to support Bill 21 and the contents therein. I think

that for far too long people have looked at the agricultural land reserve and

maybe have not quite understood what it's there for, and I have to point it out.

The issue

of local decision-makers making local decisions based on their knowledge of the

regions that we're talking about in our province is a good move. It's a

progressive move and one that I think will help all areas of this province to

protect the agricultural land that's so near and dear to each and every one of

us.

Far be it

from me to say: "Who knows the land better?" I can tell you that

farmers know their land. They know their areas. They know the decisions that

have to be made when it comes to the issue of either inclusion or exclusion of

land from the agricultural land reserve.

There are a

number of issues within Bill 21 that I'll stand here and, under committee stage,

speak to as well. But I want to make it very clear: the issue that's been

brought up, the concern that there'll be tremendous development pressures placed

on local councils, is not, I think, a bad thing. The issue that we have to

address here is…. I come from Peace River South, an area with vast amounts of

agricultural land. The people who live in that area understand very clearly the

importance of agricultural land and what it means not just to our region and not

just to our province but to our country and to our world. I think that sometimes

— and I've said this time and time again in the House — the people in

society don't place enough importance on the issues of agriculture and food

production.

I think we

have to look at this in context. Allowing our local representatives within the

local regions a say in what's going to take place — whether it be through, as

I indicated earlier, the inclusion or exclusion of land — is going to be a

positive step forward for the agricultural land within our province and a very

positive step for the people that live in British Columbia. Local decisions are

the base that this bill is going to progress on and allow our input and local

input from different jurisdictions in this province to make the decisions that

are rightfully made locally and not by others coming into an area.

[1625]

I want to

make it very clear that the issue, if I can draw a similarity, of removing 50

acres from the agricultural land in the Peace River area is far different from

removing 50 acres from a parcel in the lower mainland. The significance is that

we have many, many thousands of acres. Many of our farmers seed, on average,

5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 acres. So I think it's important to have an

understanding of the region we represent, for the people that we want to

represent those regions, and to understand the issue of agricultural land. Those

are the people, certainly, from the area I represent. I'm very proud to be from

Peace River South and proud to be from the north. They understand what

agriculture is all about — not just the input costs and what we're seeing as

far as prices, but the true value of the agricultural land from which they

harvest their crops.

I look

forward to the debate in committee stage on this. It's certainly something I

hold very near and dear to my heart. I believe I have a good understanding of

the usage and an understanding of what agricultural land within our province

means to the people. Far too often — and I can't stress this enough — the

people not just in British Columbia but in our country and around the world do

not place anywhere near the importance on the agricultural industry that needs

to be placed there. I've said it before: we can deal with many issues, but if we

can't support our farmers and ensure that we have a quality agricultural land

base for our province as well as our country, then we can't do anything as a

society. We have to look after it. We have to do it in a manner that allows the

public and the local regional representation to make the decisions for the

people and the land in that area.

I'm not

worried one bit about some of the speculation that this is pro-development or

anti-development. We have to move forward as a society. Does that mean on

occasion there's going to be application for removal of a piece of property so

that we can progress as a region in Peace River South? That possibility exists.

I want to

tell you that I stand here and support this bill in its entirety. I think it's a

good bill. I commend the minister for bringing this bill forward. We see it as a

very positive step not just in Peace River South, but I see it as a positive

step for the people of British Columbia. More importantly, I see it as a very

important step in ensuring that we look after our agricultural land in this

province.

Hon. L.

Reid: I am delighted to rise in debate this afternoon and lend my support to

Bill 21, the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

I represent

the riding of Richmond East, an agricultural community ten minutes from downtown

Vancouver. We have 81 square miles of some of the finest farmland in this

country. My hon. colleague opposite may even think he has the finest farmland,

but I can tell

[ Page 3079 ]

you that Richmond East produces the finest blueberries and cranberries

anywhere in the world.

This is a

community that's tied to its farmland and that believes fundamentally in the

development opportunities in terms of enhanced farming practice. We have 81

square miles — not a grand amount of land when it comes to the land that's

available across this province, but a vitally, mightily productive chunk of land

that sits between the north arm and the south arm of the Fraser River in urban

British Columbia. That is absolutely worthy of safeguarding with the strongest

possible tools.

This

legislation, Bill 21, will safeguard farmland in my riding and will safeguard

farmland across this province. Frankly, that is the necessity for this debate

— that we can actually localize decision-making and have the people who are

closest to the land make the determinations and go forward with the opinion,

with the thought, of how valuable that particular piece of land is to them,

whether they're in the Kootenays or they're in Richmond East. It's vitally

important that we allow, permit, enhanced decision-making around some of the

most important decisions we will ever take as a Legislature. The land base is

probably the most important aspect of what we do as government — vitally

important. How we choose to live on it and how we choose to live together are

all issues that are vitally important.

I can tell

you a little bit of history of the Richmond Farmers Institute in my riding. It

began in 1988. In terms of them coming together, it's a relatively short space

of time in terms of history. In those days we were the corporation of the

township of Richmond, so you know how much we've grown in the last decade. The

township sent the farmers letters inviting them to come out and to tell them

they'd approved an official community plan that was all about safeguarding the

land base. They went to a meeting and decided to give their blessing to this

plan — vitally important.

They had

their inaugural annual general meeting in 1989. I can tell you that the

constancy of the directors in the Richmond Farmers Institute…. The same

individuals who began it in 1988-89 are still members today and are still

carrying forward the notion of how vitally important it is to ensure that their

children and those who will come after have the opportunity to farm the land in

the lower mainland of British Columbia.

[1630]

Bruce May

was the president in 1988-89. He is again the president in the year 2000. He was

vitally important to the process over the last three years when we had a

viability strategy underway between the city of Richmond and the Richmond

Farmers Institute so that people could come together to decide how best to

partner around effective land use. This is an era of partnership. It's vitally

important that we continue to partner.

There will

always be issues around land use, particularly in Richmond. All of you will know

where we sit in terms of the Fraser River. There will always be issues around

drainage, always issues around wildlife control, always issues about how we live

together — whether or not there are buffer zones between agricultural land and

residential, commercial, industrial land in Richmond — and how we build public

awareness of how important it is to look out for a farmer's investment in his

crop and in his field.

I can tell

you — my colleagues in this Legislature, the hon. Minister of Agriculture,

Food and Fisheries and our colleagues over the last number of years — we have

organized tours so that individuals have come to the riding and participated in

the cranberry harvest, toured the greenhouse operations. It's not just my belief

in Richmond East and in the viability of farmland. My caucus colleagues over the

last 11 years have stood with me as we've promoted the notion of protecting

farmland. It's vitally important to all British Columbians.

It's not an

aspect that's owned by any one government. It's vitally important to British

Columbians. It's worthy of our support, it's worthy of our respect, and it's

worthy of an opportunity and commitment to honour the land base. Once it's gone,

we don't have the opportunity to return to baseline, if you will.

We are part

and parcel of a process that will localize decision-making, which I think will

be an enormous improvement to the process. Where we are today is all about

credibility and integrity in that type of decision-making. The people who are on

that land today need to know that those who would make those decisions have some

knowledge of what the land base requires and what the land base needs in terms

of safeguarding. They have to know that those people have actually put their

foot on that piece of land. Decisions reached in isolation or reached from afar

do not lend that level of credibility to the process.

Again,

we're a diverse community, and we're vitally interested in how we go forward.

This is about solutions. It is about collectively problem-solving. However,

uppermost in the minds of the British Columbia Liberal caucus is how to

safeguard the land base so that succeeding generations have the opportunity to

avail themselves of that glorious opportunity, whether it's Richmond East,

whether it's the Kootenays or whether it's Prince George North. This is probably

one of the most gloriously beautiful provinces in the world.

Can we be

more effective as a farming community? We need to be. We need to spend a great

deal of time thinking how best to do that. I think we get to that place by

inviting the most knowledgable people to the table so that they indeed have an

understanding of why that is so vitally important to our future.

This

province needs to be able to produce a food source. We need to understand that

it is part and parcel of our future livelihood. If we don't have those

opportunities in place, if we're not prepared to look out for each other as we

go forward, if we're not prepared to achieve some balance…. Certainly the

minister responsible for sustainable resource management understands the

necessity for balance on these questions. This is about commercial interests,

industrial interests,

[ Page 3080 ]

but it's about agricultural interests first and foremost. It's how we achieve

balance, how we go forward and how we ensure that opportunities exist for all

British Columbians. We will not give that up.

If I might

talk about where I was in 1988 in terms of the Richmond Farmers Institute and

pay a special tribute to some of these individuals who have stood by for many,

many years of debate. Don Gilmore, George Wright, Bill Zylmans, Paul Dhillon,

Tony Kavelaars and Art Savage — individuals who've stood by and worked

continuously, repeatedly, day in, day out, month in, month out, on the executive

of the Richmond Farmers Institute. Bruce May was the first president. He was the

one who actually led Richmond in their participation with the city in terms of

the Richmond agricultural viability task force, which we're now calling a

strategy — how best to put that in place.

I think

Richmond is a fabulous example of good community cooperation. I believe that

this act will ensure that that level of cooperation and collaboration exists

across the province. People haven't felt that they were part of the process in

the past. I believe this legislation will make that change, and make it in an

open and transparent way