1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 15

[ Page 12031 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I have several introductions today. First of all, we have a visiting delegation from China. I'm very pleased to introduce to the House, Mayor Bo and Vice-Mayor Li from Dalian. I'd ask all members of the House to make them most welcome.

In addition, visiting in the gallery today are two individuals from Local 516 of the Refrigeration Workers' United Association Union: Rick Seder and John McKnight. I'd ask all members to make them welcome.

G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, on behalf of all of you here, to welcome the Canadian ombudsmen. They are meeting here in Victoria. I would like to name names, if I may: Dulcie McCallum, British Columbia; Brent Parfitt, deputy ombudsman, British Columbia; Roberta Jamieson, Ontario; Barbara Tomkins, Saskatchewan; Gordon Mayer, Saskatchewan; Daniel Jacoby, Quebec; Dr. Guy MacLean, Nova Scotia; Barry Tuckett, Manitoba; Harley Johnson, Alberta; Ellen King, New Brunswick; and Betty Harnum, Office of Languages Commissioner, Northwest Territories. Would the House please join me in making them all welcome.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a group of 60 grade 5 students from South Meridian Elementary School in my riding. They are accompanied by their teacher, Val Hammell, the sister of the hon. member for Surrey-Green Timbers. Would the House please make them welcome to the assembly today.

Introduction of Bills

RECALL AND INITIATIVE ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Recall and Initiative Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Bill 36 fulfils this government's commitment to greater direct democracy and greater accountability of our political institutions. It will place British Columbia in the forefront in this area of reform. Bill 36 responds to the will of British Columbians expressed in two referenda in October 1991. It is based on the findings of the all-party Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform that held 25 public hearings and received 172 written submissions from the public, political parties and other interested groups.

It reflects research into practices in American and European jurisdictions, and policy papers and presentations from academics specializing in electoral reform.

Hon. Speaker, I am pleased that members from all parties of the Legislature met the challenge of helping to implement the call to action expressed by British Columbians in the October 1991 referendum, and that at the same time they were able to address the very difficult questions around the introduction of reform measures that develop outside our parliamentary system.

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LOWER FRASER VALLEY EXHIBITION ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT ACT

S. Hammell presented a bill intituled Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association Amendment Act.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

M. de Jong: Yesterday the Attorney General called for a full and unfettered investigation into the events that occurred following game 7 of the Stanley Cup final. We applauded the Attorney General, because he was right when he said that the people of British Columbia want to know what happened. Well, the people of B.C. also want to know what happened in the Nanaimo bingo scam. My question to the Attorney General is: why did it only take one day for an investigation to be called into the riot, while this government continues to refuse to hold a full public inquiry into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, after two years of public demands?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will continue to have nothing to say on the matter while it's in front of the courts.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a supplementary.

M. de Jong: I will remind the Attorney General of what was contained in count 8 of the information sworn by Corporal Forster on May 18, 1993, alleging that former NDP MLA David Stupich conducted a charitable lottery in breach of the Criminal Code provisions as early as 1973. In light of these disturbing facts, will the Attorney General now commit to launching a full public inquiry into the activities of NCHS from 1973 to the present? And will he commit to launching that investigation one day after the deadline for appeal has expired?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Nothing has occurred in the last minute and a half that causes me to change my answer.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General also knows that count 31 of the information sworn by RCMP Corporal Forster alleges that the Nanaimo NDP association has been involved in this Bingogate fiasco since at least January 1, 1973. My question to the Attorney General is: when he announces -- if

[ Page 12032 ]

he does choose to announce -- that a full public inquiry will be taking place, will he commit that the investigation will look into matters extending back at least as far as January 1973?

B.C. TRANSIT EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

D. Symons: My question is directed to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. When the government fired Mike O'Connor as B.C. Transit's president, they gave him a severance package worth more than $460,000. This included writing off his car for $21,000. Can the minister explain how he justifies spending $500,000 as a severance package when B.C. Transit is drowning in red ink?

[2:15]

Hon. G. Clark: I assume the member is talking about Mike O'Connor. I obviously don't get involved in personnel decisions -- the corporation has a board of directors that does that -- nor in negotiations surrounding any severance as a result of contracts entered into by a previous board of directors. The Leader of the Opposition was on the board when his compensation package was arranged, including any severance arrangements which may arise as a result of his departure.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. We must at least hear the question.

D. Symons: I find his answer most interesting and amusing. After releasing Mike O'Connor, the NDP hired Frank Dixon. Then they fired Frank Dixon and hired Eric Denhoff. When Denhoff quit, the NDP bought him a job with the B.C. Forest Alliance, so now they're still paying his salary. They're being sued by Frank Dixon. And B.C. Transit is being run by a part-time Burnaby NDP councillor.

Deputy Speaker: Question, member.

D. Symons: To the minister: when you add together O'Connor's $500,000 handshake, Dixon's lawsuit and Denhoff's parachute, how much has the taxpayer paid for a transit system that won't even stop to rescue passengers in a riot?

Hon. G. Clark: Unlike some of the arrangements made by the previous administration -- the previous board of directors of B.C. Transit -- no severance arrangements were made for either Mr. Dixon or Mr. Denhoff. In fact, the current chair, who is not full-time -- Derek Corrigan -- has been praised universally by members of all political parties, George Puil in Vancouver and others. I think the Leader of the Opposition is very supportive of Derek Corrigan and generally has been. I hope the Leader of the Opposition is as supportive of that member when he runs for nomination again as he is of Derek Corrigan.

D. Symons: Whether you call it severance or a parachute or whatever, it is money being paid out of the pockets of the transit users of this province. In addition to all of this, this government is responsible for hiring Marc Eliesen and Dick Gathercole on five-year contracts and then firing them after two and a half years. My question is to the Deputy Premier. When you add up all the income guarantees, golden parachutes, pending lawsuits for Dixon, Denhoff, Eliesen, O'Connor and Gathercole, how much money have your ministers wasted on behalf of the B.C. taxpayer?

RATIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Treaty Commission process has six stages, as outlined by the land claims task force. Stage two, preparation for negotiations, requires that all three parties have in place a ratification procedure. Will the minister tell us today what ratification process has been adopted by his government?

Hon. J. Cashore: I find it shameful and appalling that the Reform Party has been reported as saying that it is not suitable for duly elected members to be dealing with ratification of such matters.

The six-stage process that has been agreed upon is being followed through appropriately at every stage and in every regard. I would remind the hon. member that the process we have entered into is being followed through absolutely appropriately. I find that the kind of comment that this hon. member is making is fomenting fear and loathing in a most inappropriate and unnecessary way.

J. Weisgerber: This government accepted all 19 recommendations of the land claims task force. Recommendation 13 says that all parties must develop a ratification process prior to entering into negotiations, and those ratification procedures must form part of the treaty framework. Will the minister tell us today what ratification procedure this government has adopted, and what ratification procedure will be enshrined in the framework agreement? Who's going to ratify the claims?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I told this hon. member two days ago that this would be ratified with the process of reporting to cabinet and to the Legislature. I find it appalling that he would suggest that duly elected members are not appropriate members to be dealing with the ratification. Further to that, as the former Minister of Native Affairs who brought this province into treaty negotiations with the Nisga'a, the member knows full well that he signed the confidentiality process that was part of that, and he set that tone. He knows that. This hon. member was doing very well.

He was starting to understand this justice issue, and he has become a backslider. He's a backslider, and he does not....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. minister, will you wrap it up, please.

Hon. J. Cashore: It is simply not acceptable that this type of opportunistic approach would be taken by the Reform Party at this time. It is very different from the approach the hon. member was taking before.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: It has been a while since I've had that kind of sermon, but I suppose the minister's previous vocation shows through.

Interjections.

[ Page 12033 ]

Deputy Speaker: Members, we know it's the end of the week, but please grant the member the courtesy to ask the question.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please allow the member to pose his question.

J. Weisgerber: If the minister believes there's a confidentiality agreement around the ratification process, he really is mixed up. He doesn't understand the process at all that his government agreed to. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon gave all residents of those jurisdictions an opportunity to vote on the land claim agreements reached.

Deputy Speaker: May we have a question?

J. Weisgerber: Will this government have the courage to extend that same right to British Columbians in the areas affected by claims?

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member knows full well that the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee is in place. He knows full well that there are going to be advisory committees in every region that will have direct contact with the negotiating teams. He knows full well that the Premier has stated his position that local governments may acquire observer status at the negotiating table with regard to issues directly affecting them. He knows full well that those processes are in place. Because of expediency, this hon. member has backed off from the position he was taking before.

I think this hon. member should publicly distance himself from the remarks of his colleague, Herb Grubel of the Reform Party. Expediency will no longer work, hon. member. Make your statement and distance yourself from those racist comments. [Applause.]

B.C. 21 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECTS

F. Gingell: Thank you, everybody.

Recently the Minister of Employment and Investment was quoted as saying: "God, we're shovelling money off a truck." Of the $1 billion in capital projects announced in addition to the Island Highway, 90 percent are located in NDP ridings. Will the minister admit that his intention is to use B.C. 21 only to pay for more special favours for his NDP friends?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to advise all members that their enthusiasm is taking time away from question period. Having said that, I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. G. Clark: It's not surprising that members of the Liberal Party would be concerned about B.C. 21 initiatives, because they voted against it in the House. They stood up and said they were opposed to capital investment and this kind of investment in province-building. Having voted against it in the House, however, that member is quite happy when a B.C. 21 grant goes to the Tsawwassen Lawn Bowling Club in his constituency. He is quite happy to support investments in his community and lobby the government on its behalf.

Hon. member, we have made community grants in every region of the province and in every constituency regardless of politics. I commend the member for supporting his constituents when they come forward. The fact that 75 percent of constituents in the province are represented by New Democrats is no fault of those who actively advocate on people's behalf.

Deputy Speaker: I am going to allow a supplemental.

F. Gingell: The minister makes a great point of talking about doormat community grants when he knows perfectly well that we were talking about major capital projects. Last year this minister announced that these funds would go to help all regions of this province, but 95 percent of the $83 million in community grants that were announced this past April...

Deputy Speaker: Member, I said you have a supplemental, but you must ask a question.

F. Gingell: ...will be going to NDP ridings. When did the minister decide that he's responsible only for helping his NDP friends?

Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting. Is the Liberal Party opposed to the Island Highway? Are they opposed to commuter rail? Are they opposed...?

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is yes, very clearly. Are they opposed to $600 million in school construction this year, much of this in high-growth areas like Tsawwassen? Is the member not supportive of the east Ladner bypass? Is he not supportive of the south perimeter road? Is he not supportive of investments on the north side of the Alex Fraser Bridge that will benefit his constituents? They want to stand up in the House and oppose B.C. 21, oppose capital investments, oppose the Island Highway, oppose commuter rail, but say that we should do the projects in their constituencies.

Deputy Speaker: I'm sure that if I extended question period, I would be accused of being partisan.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: In Committee of Supply,

Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the main House, I call committee stage of Bill 46.

[2:30]

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 46; D. Lovick in the chair.

R. Chisholm: I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to introduce 40 grade 7 students from Tyson Elementary School who are here with Mr. Wallace. They're in the precincts today to see how things operate in Victoria, and hopefully they'll learn about our

[ Page 12034 ]

parliamentary system. Would you make them most welcome.

section 20 (continued).

J. Tyabji: I have reviewed Hansard from before the adjournment, because I did leave five minutes before adjourning. I just want to reassure the minister that I won't cover anything that has already been done on this section.

The last question I asked before we adjourned was with respect to the family conference. I'd just like to get this firmed up, because when we get to later sections in the bill, we know that the aboriginal component begins to play a very significant role. The minister has said that the person who convenes the conference -- I've assumed that is the director, and I haven't been contradicted -- is the keeper of the process and that the agenda is set by the participants. The question I have on that point is fairly simple: who decides who is at the table? I asked this just before I left, and I would like to know.

In the case of the child the conference is convened around, if that child has been defined, for the purposes of this bill, as aboriginal, to what extent will someone other than the parents be determining who sits in on a family conference?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The conference coordinator and the family.

J. Tyabji: With respect to my final question on this section, we see under 20(1): "The purpose of a family conference is to enable and assist the family to develop a plan of care that will...(

d) take into account the child's culture and community." If it is an aboriginal child as the minister has defined for the purposes of this bill, if the aboriginal community is the one designated by the minister, and if a plan of care has to be developed according to these guidelines and taking into account 20(1)(d), would there be an example where the family conference would be convened and the director, who would be helping to set the agenda in consultation with the family, would be making recommendations to bring into the family conference -- dealing specifically with this as an aboriginal issue, because that's how the bill is written -- someone from the aboriginal community, even when that is not necessarily the wishes of the parents?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

V. Anderson: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 21 (3) (a), to be amended to read:

(3) If the child is 12 years of age or over, the director must before agreeing to the plan of care (

a) explain the plan of care to the child in the presence of another adult, preferably known to the child, and]

Once again I am concerned that the child have support and not be left on their own, so I have moved that amendment. I think it's important, or preferable, that the person be known to the child; but even if a person known to the child isn't there, there should be another person to help with the explanation. It's important that there be more than one person involved.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the suggestion, and one of the reasons we're going to take some time to implement this act is so that the practices that flow from the substantive policy issues of the act are put in place with the greatest of consultation and care, to ensure the greatest success. So while the member makes good suggestions by amendments to the act, I think it best that we deal with this through practice. Already in this act, we have incorporated the new fact that the child's views have to be taken into account and the plan of care actually has to be explained to the child. That's a breakthrough.

The issue of how we do that is really a practice issue, and I would suggest that we would definitely take his views under advisement when we implement the act. We'll have months to make sure it's done properly.

V. Anderson: I think it's important. There are a variety of possibilities: one is language differences; there are always cultural differences; and even if the persons are of the same culture, they may have come from different backgrounds. So it is extremely important how that explanatory interview is undertaken.

R. Neufeld: I want to stand in support of the amendment. I think the member brings forward a good point. To explain the care of the child in the presence of another adult, preferably known to the child, is a good move. I can't see where that would change the intent of the legislation at all. All it does is set in place the fact that we're going to be receptive to some of the concerns of those children who are being placed in care.

I think we all know that some 12-year-old children may be very afraid if they're by themselves, but if they're with another family member -- a grandparent, say -- or someone they know really well, maybe they could understand it a little better. I don't think it would change the intent of the bill at all.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, and I didn't mean to indicate that it does change the intent of the bill. But what we are discussing here -- and I understand that it's complicated, because we are changing not only the act but also the way we do our business, and therefore the way we deliver our services -- is that we've got to be careful not to entrench practices in legislation, because if practices change, then we have to amend legislation. All I'm saying is that this is a policy and practice issue. The views are well known, and certainly I don't disagree with them.

I also remind the members that we will be debating a piece of legislation where we're instituting, separate and apart, a whole independent advocacy system for children, which can be made use of, perhaps, in planning for this.

J. Tyabji: I'd also like to speak in favour of the amendment. Notwithstanding practice, any director or fieldworker of Social Services is going to be looking to the bill, obviously, for some guidelines as to how they operate. We know there are many examples where an educational program -- such as the controversial CARE program that used to be in the school system -- can have an impact on a child. A child could easily be in a session where a director is explaining to the child why there are reasons for acting a certain way. In absence of another adult, there is no balance to what the child is being told.

Although the child may have reached 12 years of age.... I find it ironic that when this government brought in the amendment to the Infants Act, they said that under the Charter of Rights, an arbitrary discrimination on the basis of age was unconstitutional. Yet here we've got an

[ Page 12035 ]

arbitrary discrimination on the basis of age. The bill assumes that once a child is over 12 years old, that child has the mental capacity to automatically understand what they are being told by the director. That could be a very traumatic period, so somebody else who has a vested interest in the rest of that child's life should be present at that meeting.

[2:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 15

Chisholm

Dalton

Reid

Hurd

Gingell

Stephens

Hanson

Tyabji

Jarvis

Anderson

Warnke

M. de Jong

Symons

Fox

Neufeld

NAYS -- 36

Petter

Sihota

Marzari

Pement

Priddy

Cashore

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Hagen

Dosanjh

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Miller

Smallwood

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Barlee

Janssen

Evans

Farnworth

Doyle

Lord

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Kasper

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Boone

J. Tyabji: Subsection 21(1) says: "The plan of care developed by means of a family conference must include the director's consent...." What does that mean?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The plan of care has to be agreed to by the director, so that we ensure that it actually meets the needs of protecting the child and preventing the child from being at risk, and that a plan of care that includes provision of services is able to be offered.

J. Tyabji: As I understood it, the family conference is a voluntary consensual arrangement. I'm wondering why, under this section, it says that it's something that the family volunteers to be involved in. It says that it "may include provision for services to support and assist" and make them safe, so after a family conference you could actually end up with a plan of care that requires no government intervention whatsoever. Why would this be worded so that a plan of care like that must have the consent of a director?

Why wouldn't there be something, for example, that would say that if there is a financial obligation on the part of the government, then it would require the director's consent, rather than saying that any agreement coming out of this conference requires the director's approval?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are talking about children who may be at risk and who may be in need of protection. This is to confirm that the plan of care developed by the family conference meets those needs -- to confirm it in a professional way -- and, if there are some services offered that don't require any government intervention, that those services meet the needs of protecting the child. That's it; it's fairly innocuous.

V. Anderson: On the same concern, I understand and appreciate the kind of backup protection this indicates for the responsibilities of the ministry and also for the responsibility of the child and family. But there is also the danger that.... If the mediation conference comes to a plan of care and the director overrules that plan of care, where do you go for an appeal? You have then set the ministry and the government against a mediation plan which has been worked out by the parties involved. So there is a great deal of danger, unless there's a way to appeal the decision. If the director vetoes the plan of care, the consequences can be devastating to everybody concerned.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is achieved by consensus, and everyone, not just the director, has to consent. The family conference will go on until we achieve everybody's interests in this. In other jurisdictions where it has been used, that is exactly what has happened. So you continue to work at it until it meets everybody's needs.

J. Tyabji: What happens with the plan of care? Is that registered with the ministry? Does it have any weight in law? Is it something on which a court order could be based afterwards?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It could be.

J. Tyabji: It could be the basis for a court order. However, once a plan of care has been hammered out and has the director's consent, is that something that stays...? Is there a registry of plans of care or something like that in the ministry that would set a precedent? Is there a formula for them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it's an individual plan of care, particular only to the child or family to whom it applies.

J. Tyabji: I guess if it is something that may be used as a basis for a court order, it is understood why you might want the director's consent. Maybe this isn't possible, but would the minister acknowledge that there could be a family conference convened and at the end of it there could be no resolution? Since it's a voluntary process, I would assume that the family can withdraw from it at any time and make their own arrangement about what they wish to do. Is that a possibility?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The family can withdraw from a family conference at any time. However, the decision about the child at risk and protection matters won't be left with the family.

J. Tyabji: Maybe the minister can help me understand this. Because it's under "Cooperative Planning and Dispute Resolution," I assume that a family conference is not necessarily for children in danger; but it could be for families in difficulty, because when we started this debate the minister spent a lot of time talking about families in difficulty. What I'm trying to understand is.... If they can solve the difficulties on their own, they can opt out and then this ceases to apply.

I'm hearing the minister say, though, that if they do opt out of this process once the process has begun, the director can continue to intervene if the director chooses to do that -- notwithstanding the family self-determining or resolving their issue.

[ Page 12036 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: When a family conference occurs as a result of a child protection concern, the family can opt out, but then the director has further responsibilities. If a family conference is convened when there are no concerns about protection, the family can opt out and that's it -- there is no further intervention.

J. Tyabji: Is there a possibility through this process that the family could opt not to have something that would require assistance or intervention of the government, but to provide some evidence of resolution to the director for the purposes of ending the file -- for example, when the purpose is a family conference, where they don't necessarily want the consent of the director or any government assistance. They've recognized and are prepared to deal with the issue on their own and provide evidence to the director. If so, could they register their own plan of care, independent of what the government might offer?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

V. Anderson: I'd just like a simple clarification. In subsection (4)(

b) there's a limitation of 18 months for a plan of care. I presume that after the 18 months a new plan of care could be developed, and it would then be ongoing as well. It would have to be redeveloped as a new plan of care, to deal with the circumstances at that point.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. That is intended to say that after 18 months we should have some resolution to the child's life in a meaningful way -- and that could be one option.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

J. Tyabji: I just have a point of clarification. Where it says "or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms...." Well, I guess I have two questions. First, the minister said a family conference will continue to operate until a point where they've reached consensus, so everyone's interests have been met. Obviously there will be times when a family conference will not be able to do that, and that's why this

section is here. So in a way it almost contradicts a bit of the debate we had before. If they're not able to resolve an issue through a family conference, I assume this is when

section 22 kicks in. When it does, what is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism other than mediation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sections 21 and 22 are separate alternatives that are not necessarily connected and not necessarily done in isolation either. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Other kinds of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that could be intended here could be culturally sensitive about.... Just dispute resolution mechanisms accepted in the family's culture that aren't mediation -- I don't have examples. We don't want to limit those, though. We want flexibility.

J. Tyabji: Sections 21 and 22 may not be connected, which means they can bypass the family conference and go to mediation as an option if they can't resolve an issue. It could be mediation or an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that would be based on culture. But there are no examples, because the minister doesn't want to limit it.

[3:00]

Maybe I can ask if an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.... Are we talking about court action? Are we talking about community intervention? The only reason I'm asking is that I don't understand what it means. Perhaps there could be an example that doesn't limit the usage but gives an idea of what we're talking about.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It could be anything that brings people together to resolve a dispute. We didn't want to limit our flexibility in this area. I gave cultural sensitivity as an example, but it's not limited to that.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

R. Neufeld: I have a couple of brief questions.

Section 23(1) says: "On application the court may adjourn a proceeding...." It doesn't designate who makes application to the court. Can anyone from the family conference unit make application to the court?

Secondly, in

section 23(3) it says -- I'm just reading the last sentence -- "if the child needs protection, a director may file the agreement with the court." Why is the designation "may" file? Should it not be "shall" file?

Hon. J. MacPhail: On the first question, it's anyone who is proceeding.... A participant can make an application to have the court adjourn.

Under subsection (3), the reason it's permissive is that the agreement reached may require that people never go back to court -- that it's satisfactory that people not go back to court. Therefore that's the end of it; the resolution has been reached. However, the sanctity of the court may be necessary in some cases in order to ensure that participants live up to their agreement.

R. Neufeld: Then, under subsection (1), members of the family conference can make an application to the court. Should that not be spelled out a bit differently in the legislation? It just says "on application." It doesn't designate -- or come close to designating -- who. If it is the people who are in the family conference, then possibly that should be designated in the legislation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The people are already before the courts, so there are already parties before the courts. This kicks in when those parties to the proceedings, who are already there, want to adjourn them so that they can go into the other sections. It's already presumed. In fact, the way the legislation reads is that it's the applications from those who are already before the courts.

J. Tyabji:

Section 23(1) says: "On application the court may adjourn a proceeding under this Part one or more times...." We said family conference and mediation are not necessarily linked. We know that a family conference may be something registered with the courts if there is a plan of care. I probably should have asked this under the other section, but for the purposes of this section, I would imagine mediation may end up with a plan of care as well. That plan of care may also be registered or used as a basis for a court order. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It may, yes.

[ Page 12037 ]

J. Tyabji: In that case, if after the.... Maybe this has already been answered; I did miss a minute of the previous debate. If the plan of care that results from either a family conference or mediation can be the basis of the court proceedings, which would be filed with the court, would that also then take the place of the proceedings prior to that? Would the court proceedings that were adjourned then be replaced by the plan of care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The process is a continuum wherever we can avoid court. Whatever part of the agreement can conclude court matters or resolve part of the issue that doesn't require further court action, then that part of the agreement stands. The agreement doesn't necessarily become the full court order.

J. Tyabji: For the purposes of this section, I understand the reluctance to deal with the courts. I think mediation and family conferences are the best ways to go -- and I've said that on the record, provided it's the family determining that itself. Having said that, if court proceedings are underway, and those court proceedings are adjourned and another process is used to come in with a plan of care, there would be two aspects. One would expect that the substance of the court proceedings would form the basis for both of those processes.

The plan of care would automatically take into account the substance of the court proceedings, or the mediation would take that into account. In order to secure the process of mediation or plan of care, one would hope that that plan of care would be entered in the court proceedings and registered, so that there wouldn't be the opportunity for one party to renege on the agreement.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

J. Tyabji: I don't know what that yes was in response to. Does that mean it's a good idea to have the plan of care registered? The reason I'm asking is that you don't want adjourned court proceedings to pick up where they left off and not have the plan of care on record as part of those proceedings.

Hon. J. MacPhail: You have outlined a scenario under which a plan of care can be concluded, and you have an understanding of how that takes place. That was what I was saying yes to.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The family may never be before the courts again. The matter may be concluded, and there may not be a necessity to go back to the courts. But if a court order is issued, so be it. There are circumstances under which you may not have to go back into court to have the agreement stand. This concept is not unusual in other areas of law either. I say this with the greatest of respect. We are not breaking new ground on this matter.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps we could break a little bit of new ground here; I think it would save the province a lot of time and money. Let me give the minister a specific example. One reason that I am fairly familiar with this is that I have been through it myself. You go through the process of mediation, there is something filed with the court at the beginning, you hammer out a mediated process, and it doesn't get registered with the courts. If you end up in litigation, none of the mediation gets entered into the court proceedings. It's a complete waste of time.

The security you felt at the end of that process is gone and you end up with litigation and something totally different. If you have the ability to enter it in.... Either the court proceedings become part of the mediation or, conversely, the mediated result gets entered into the courts, so you're not vulnerable.

Mediation tends to take place on the basis of good faith. Litigation is an antagonistic process. If somebody -- for an emotional reason, for a day -- decides to go back on a good-faith mediation and go through a litigation process, it's almost a.... Once litigation begins and you go back to the courts, it's almost out of your hands, because the litigation process churns its way through -- bad faith is generated and it escalates. For the purpose of protecting the good process, if court proceedings are underway, it should definitely be entered in the courts. Otherwise you will end up with the good faith having no weight in law, and the court proceedings begun under this

section not being updated by the plan of care.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll try this one more time. The family conferencing or mediation may resolve all or part of the issues that are before the court, and there may not be any necessity for the court to intrude any further. We are trying to develop legislation that is the least intrusive in families' lives. That's what I've heard from the hon. member over and over again: stay away if you can. The agreement may form all or part of a court order, or it could stand in lieu of a court order, and the court application would then be withdrawn.

I understand that the hon. member, speaking from personal experience, has had situations where agreements have broken down. I don't know how to reply to that in light of this legislation. I'm saying to you that the agreement stands. If it is necessary that an agreement carry the weight of a court order, the court will order that; however, if it's not necessary, we won't go back into court to get that.

Section 23 approved on division.

section 24.

V. Anderson: There are some concerns with

section 24(1), the confidentiality provision, concerning whether or not one who is part of the family conference is able to discuss their own personal needs outside the conference with a lawyer or advocate of their own. Or does this prevent them from getting and maintaining the kind of resource or advice they might have?

When you jump ahead and look at

section 76, it is on the "right of access and right to consent to disclosure." It says here that

section 24 applies despite sections 76, 78 and 79. In

section 76 an individual can give consent to disclosure, but that right seems to be overridden by the statement in

section 24: "...(

a) with the consent of everyone who participated in the family conference...." If a person participating in a family conference wishes to get some advocate advice or help outside the conference, then they need to be able to share their opinions with their lawyer. If we take the case of a youth who has a youth advocate working on their behalf and who may not be part of the family conference, and if that person wants to be able to discuss matters from their point of view, are they prevented from discussing what happens in the family conference with their advocate or with their lawyer? They would have the ability to work it through and

[ Page 12038 ]

think it through for themselves in order to participate meaningfully in the family conference.

That's why I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 24, to be amended by adding the following subsections:

(2) This

section does not prevent a person from subsequently sharing his or her personal information with his or her advocate or lawyer as needed.

(3) This

section applies despite sections 76, 78 and 79.]

The amendment says that subsection (2) become subsection (3) and that there be inserted a new subsection (2): "This

section does not prevent a person from subsequently sharing his or her personal information" -- not other people's -- "with his or her advocate or lawyer as needed." It leaves it open for them; it doesn't prevent them from doing that.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail:

Section 24 is to capture the confidentiality of the negotiations or discussions that take place during the family conference or mediation. That's what confidentiality is about. One cannot take away anyone's right to his or her own personal facts and how that person may use those personal facts outside the conference. The example that you bring forward is not affected by this language. This

section would come into force if someone were about to reveal the nature of the mediation that would take place -- actually, that's inappropriate. No, every individual has a right to take his or her own personal information away and deal with it as is appropriate.

Amendment negatived.

J. Tyabji: A quick question to the minister. We dealt a little earlier with solicitor-client privilege. In a case where a lawyer has been retained by the person to act on their behalf throughout the proceedings, or in court proceedings -- or however it works -- to what extent would a person who participated in a family conference not be allowed to discuss with their lawyer the impact of that participation on court proceedings, litigation or whatever the lawyer was involved with?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The intent of

section 24(1)(

b) is to cover the circumstances the member raises. If the person needs to make arrangements for his or her personal circumstances, in light of the conference, it's covered by that section.

[3:15]

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

J. Tyabji: This

section is very bothersome to me in a way. Perhaps the minister -- especially the Minister of Social Services -- could help me with it. What comes to mind is families in poverty and especially single parents, many of whom live below the poverty line. I would worry about a parent who may be very loving but who has minimal resources and cannot.... We know there is a growing problem with latchkey children. As heartbreaking as that is, the parent may be providing a loving environment and the best environment they can, given the condition of poverty.

The Minister of Social Services knows probably better than any other member of cabinet that many families are living in poverty. Many times children are not adequately cared for, not because the parents don't want them to be but because the resources are just not available. The government would probably go bankrupt living up to the expectations of neighbours, for example, about how children should be cared for.

The reason I raise this is that throughout this bill we've argued over the discretion of the director and the ability of a third party to report an allegation of the negligence of a parent. It would seem to me that if it was a busybody neighbour, almost every poor parent could be reported under this section.

Section 25(1) says: "If a child is found without adequate supervision when premises are entered...." This bill is actually written so that a director could be informed by a neighbour that there is a problem with a child. It could be because the parent could not afford to have someone help out. The director could enter the premises, find a child -- such as a latchkey child, whose parent cannot afford to have someone there -- and seize the child.

It's not that anyone in this House would support children being unattended. But the way it is worded.... To me, a child who is being raised in poverty is in a difficult enough situation, without being removed from a loving parent who may be doing their best to provide for that child. I raise this because I think the issue of family poverty is going to be very much with us in the next decade. I'd like the minister's reassurance that this

section couldn't be used against the very poorest in our society to basically further traumatize a family that may be in economic difficulty.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, the member outlines exactly the kinds of circumstances and changing economic situations for which this clause is intended. Under the act by which we now live, the child would have to be apprehended, and there would be the severe consequences, not only for the parent but also for the child, of having to go through court proceedings. This is to deal with the kind of situation that she so aptly outlines, in an exactly accurate way. It's only if the child is found without adequate supervision. There are different ways of providing adequate supervision to a child.

In any case, if that supervision is inadequate, it doesn't necessarily mean that the child is immediately apprehended. In this situation, we are allowed to ensure this child's safety and at the same time use other sections of the act, short of removing the child from the home in a detrimental way. It allows us to give those support services -- homemaker services, etc. -- that may be needed in the circumstances. It is the supportive clause that the member outlines.

J. Tyabji: So when I read the rest of this part of the section, the homemaker is someone.... If we assume that it's a working parent or a parent who has to go out of the home, and if it can be determined by the director that there's not adequate supervision -- it could be a case where the parent has not been able to provide supervision for economic reasons -- then would the Ministry of Social Service's role be to assist the parent with a homemaker? Would it be in cooperation with the parent? What I would be worried about is the self-determination of the family. Adequate supervision is really in the eyes of the beholder. How would that work out?

If it turns out that the parent is already on social services or is a member of the working poor, to what extent would this affect the overall family income? We know that there are some examples where, if a parent is on social services and has whatever obligations outside the home, sometimes Social Services compensates with other money that is then

[ Page 12039 ]

deducted from the money they get otherwise. To what extent is this going to be imposed, and to what extent is it going to be in cooperation with a parent who may be part of the working poor or already on social assistance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Under this

section the services are supplied, but not by income testing. It is possible for the agency offering the service to move right into the home, in homemaker fashion, for up to 72 hours, during which time we hope to have contact with the parent in order to arrange for ongoing support in an agreed-upon fashion.

V. Anderson: In the same discussion, I've had concerns brought to me that other

definitions are being suggested here. In one case, for instance, you have a 12- or 13-year-old who is a babysitter in their own home. If that 12- or 13-year-old is babysitting younger children in their home, is that considered not giving good care? Or a 12- or 13-year-old -- which is a high school student, perhaps -- is out babysitting in somebody else's home. Are they not giving good care? When you're talking about a child under 19, under 16, under 13, under 12, you're on the borderline of also saying indirectly that children are not recognized and qualified to be babysitters.

If you've hired your neighbour's son or daughter or your own older child to babysit, you could be in contravention of the act. That's one concern.

The other concern is that many people from other cultures, immigrants who have come into our country, have children who have been through unbelievable circumstances. They've learned to cope very well and very independently at a very young age and are able to look after themselves very well; they've survived war and famine and other kinds of things. Yet somebody may come in and look at that and say: "No, you're not able to cope." How do we deal with the cultural differences, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the whole question of babysitting and disqualifying many who would like to babysit?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is only because of my babysitting earnings that I am here today, so we would definitely not intervene in that.

This whole

section will only come into effect when a concern has been raised by others about the lack of supervision of a child. We all know that our neighbours and our communities often provide babysitting for children -- even a neighbour watching a couple of homes after school or whatever. It's when the concern is raised and it is determined that there is a lack of adequate care.

Throughout the act the principle of cultural diversity is well established. This

section is only there for the protection of children who don't have any of those kinds of provisions.

Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased that some of the staff of the ministry have joined with us today to listen to the debate. We have some of our many expert and very valued staff, particularly today from the family and children's services division and the aboriginal services teams. I'm so glad that they're able to join with us here for the debate. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I'm delighted the staff are here, too, because they can help and hear firsthand what concerns we're trying to bring, which the community has brought to us. I think the staff need to hear that, from our point of view, we're generally in favour of the bill and are delighted with the direction in which it is going in response to the community, but we want to make sure about that in some directions.

If I can take for a moment the experience that so many people have had who will be dealing with this bill out in the community, some of the concern comes from their experience with the GAIN Act. They have had more difficulty with the regulations and the

interpretations of the GAIN Act than they have had with the act itself. Time and time again, the appeals have been won because the act was in favour of the appellant, but the regulations which limited and enforced certain

interpretations were not in favour of the act. Either the regulations tend to extend the philosophy of the act in practical situations, or they tend to limit and bind the act so that it can't do what it's intended to do.

I think what we're stressing here, at least from my point of view, is that the issues raised need to be fairly clear, so that when the regulations are given.... I appreciate that the minister emphasized the word "adequate" in this. "Adequate" can be defined in a very narrow sense or it can be defined, as the minister has been doing, in a broad and supportive sense.

I trust that the regulations will continue to define it in that broad and supportive sense rather than the narrow sense, so that some of the examples that we've been using today will be not be frowned upon but included and given the kinds of support they need. So the act very much needs to be interpreted, and the regulations need to be written, not in the legal but the philosophical sense that the minister is putting forward.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's an excellent point. This part of the act will not be regulated; it stands on its own. Your point about

interpretation is a legitimate one. In terms of the practice or implementation of this

section of the act, I know that you have outlined a wide range of circumstances that we already deal with in an appropriate, supportive fashion in our practice, and we will continue to do so. What we now have available to us, though, are mechanisms that are legislated -- which is good news.

V. Anderson: I just have to comment. I believe the minister herself, and others within the ministry staff, are trying to move in new directions. Community members, who have lived for years under other directions, still aren't experiencing that in a large enough manner to begin to really believe it. So the concerned people that I've talked to can't say we're doing it, because at the moment they aren't seeing it being done. The community hears it's going to be done, but as yet they aren't feeling or seeing in large part that it is being done.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. In fact, while many staff are moving in that direction, they haven't had the legislative support behind them to do it. There have been less supportive messages in our previous legislation. We're now trying to do exactly what the hon. member says: legislate the new way of doing things.

J. Tyabji: Before starting, I'd like to welcome the staff here as well. It would be nice if we could sometimes have more staff input into the debate.

[3:30]

Under

section 25, the minister has said that this

section of the act will not be regulated and that we will just be reading the legislation. I note that the director may authorize a health care provider.... In the absence of regulations and based on this bill, to what extent will the parent have any input in

[ Page 12040 ]

determining who the health care provider will be? As the minister has said, that person may move in with the parent.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The parent isn't present. We're trying to cope with the child's lack of adequate supervision in the absence of the parent. Just on observation of the child, there may be a determination that some health care needs have to be attended to. The parent isn't there to tell us about that, so we may have to invoke this

section of the act.

J. Tyabji: When we started the debate on this section, I was talking about latchkey children and children of a single parent who might be part of the working poor. If there has been a report of negligence under this act, and the director enters the premises and finds the child unattended, as I read this section, the director has the option of arranging for homemaker services. Perhaps I'm wrong in taking this from this section, but I assumed that that meant a parent who was there but could not be there full-time, or who was working part of the time.

If there were a latchkey child and the director found that the child was not being supervised while the parent was at work, and that parent intended to continue to work but could not afford someone to supervise the child, would the director step in? Or would the director see that as a situation that did not need intervention?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This

section is really intended to go much beyond latchkey children. The reality of the world is that children are left alone and are abandoned for short periods of time by their parents for various reasons that aren't -- and I say this with the greatest respect -- as noble as the hon. member outlines. It is in those circumstances that we are trying to support the child and not disrupt the whole family at the same time -- when we can get in there and, perhaps when the parent returns, provide some services in the way of drug and alcohol counselling or in-home support services.

The situation that the hon. member addresses -- in the ordinary course of events, a parent paying for care and attention for the child in the time between school ending and the parent returning from work -- is not the kind of circumstance which our ministry deals with on a regular basis. If indeed a situation comes to our attention, where a neighbour decides that that kind of arrangement needs to be looked into, we may look into it. If it isn't literally adequate in the broadest sense, we may assist the parent in finding adequate post-school care, or whatever.

But really, the situations that face us are much more black and white in terms of determining whether there's adequate supervision or not.

J. Tyabji: In the instance that the minister is talking about, where, using the minister's words, there's a less noble motive for the child being left unattended, and in the event that alcohol and drug assistance may be given if the parent is a substance abuser, I would assume that some of the assistance offered would also be a homemaker or someone to help care for the child while the parent is in care. Maybe the minister could clarify that. And if that is the case, would the parent have any say as to who the person -- from the point of view of that person being in the home -- taking care of their child would be while they're undergoing rehabilitation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This

section is about dealing with a child who is left unattended and what we can do to ensure that the child gets to stay as close as possible to her family environment without having to invoke full court proceedings. We're dealing with the child under this section. However, our ministry, and indeed the act, has all sorts of family support services that we can make available to the parents, which may include life skills training, homemaker support, alcohol and drug counselling, referrals, etc. In fact, that is what occurs.

J. Tyabji: I'll take one last shot at this

section before moving on. What I'm trying to get at, as the minister can understand, is that any family in the kind of difficulty where there may be a need for some assistance because of substance abuse will probably already have stressed relationships, whether it's a single-parent family or not. If a third party is introduced to the family without the consent of the parent, even if the director is the person who believes that this person is suited for that environment, that may cause further trauma for the parent-child relationship.

Would the parent's wishes be taken into account -- a parent who may be in serious need of rehabilitation or counselling? Notwithstanding that, they are still the parent of the child. If we're looking at the child's best interests, obviously the child should understand what is happening. If the parent feels comfortable and has some say, some input, that is obviously going to make it a less stressful situation while the parent is in the process of rehabilitation. That's the only thing I'm trying to get at.

To what extent does the parent have a say in choosing the person who will be assisting them through a transition period?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The parent isn't there; that's why this situation is invoked.

Hon. member, I understand your frustration, but this

section applies if the parent isn't there. This

section deals with the first 72 hours when the parent isn't there. If and when the parent returns, we will invoke every possible support mechanism to ensure the best interests of the child.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

J. Tyabji: With regard to a "lost or runaway child," I would imagine that this includes street children as well.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

J. Tyabji: Subsection (5) says: "If the person responsible for the child is not located by the end of the 72 hour period, the director no longer has charge of the child." Then who does?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's right. The child is not in our care for the first 72 hours. We are in charge, but he is not in our care. We then have to proceed through the other sections of the act, which may include the courts.

J. Tyabji: So the intent of this

section deals with the interim period of 72 hours. At the point where that expires, the director may apply for a temporary custody order, and we go through the rest of the act. The only reason I'm asking is that I want some assurance that there would be that follow-up through the bill.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[ Page 12041 ]

V. Anderson: It comes up in a number of areas, but perhaps I'll ask it here. One of the questions that has been raised is in regard to an unattended child or children who are taken into care, if you like. Once children are taken into care, I presume the legal responsibility that normally applies to the parent is now in the hands of the ministry. When they are in the ministry's charge, is legal responsibility also with the ministry, or is it still in the hands of the parent in that period? What's the difference between the two?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In that 72-hour period, guardianship is still with the parents, and our legal responsibilities and obligations flow from the act. That's where we are to maintain the health and safety of the child while we find the parents.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

The Chair: The member for Okanagan East. We were on a roll there.

J. Tyabji: Yes. Hopefully we can get through some of the other sections of the bill as quickly.

With regard to

section 29, what is the definition of essential health care, and to what extent will this be in conflict with the religious background of the individual or the family? If the family subscribes to naturopathic methods, will they be able to object to what we call conventional medicine?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The determination of what is essential is listed under subsection (3) as health care that "is essential to preserve the child's life or to prevent serious or permanent impairment of the child's health." That has to be confirmed by the opinion of two medical practitioners. In the event that a family may have religious or philosophical beliefs that suggest they don't want the child to have any essential health care, that's when the court comes in. We can go before the courts. It won't be in our hands to determine the validity of that belief; the court will determine that.

J. Tyabji: Who chooses the two medical practitioners for the opinion on essential health care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the way this has unfolded now is that the doctors themselves come forward. It's an issue of the child being in the care of a doctor.

J. Tyabji: I read into the record in the debate last week something provided by the Citizens' Research Institute with regard to some of the examples where a family has chosen not to use an experimental drug, so I won't go over that again.

One thing that comes to my attention -- certainly in my riding and, I'm sure, around the province -- is that we're at an age where there's a bit of a transition in terms of medical treatment. There are a lot more people opting to go to chiropractors rather than take painkillers, and there is some major.... In my opinion, there is a bit of a lobby by the medical profession to prevent that. Obviously they have a vested interest in perpetuating conventional medicine.

Two medical practitioners may come forward with a complaint that a certain drug or method of treatment that has been prescribed by that practitioner, perhaps in conjunction with another practitioner, is not being used by a family. For that to be the basis for a complaint as constituting negligence of essential health care is a problem. What would be the avenue of appeal for a family if, let's say, they didn't want to go the route of drugs and were trying to pursue alternate medical treatment?

Could they then provide two other medical opinions to combat the first two, so that there wouldn't be this determination under this section?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. In fact, the avenue available for appeal is the courts. There is the opportunity to present that kind of evidence to the court.

J. Tyabji: Who would pay the litigation costs of the family if they were trying to defend their position on health care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The family.

J. Tyabji: I very much object to this, because I don't see it as in the best interests of the family. I'm sure the minister can see, upon reflection, that if we want the opinion of two medical practitioners, and if two came forward to Social Services saying that there was a need for essential health care, then the two that would provide an opinion should be one chosen by the Ministry of Social Services and one chosen by the family. That would be cheaper because it doesn't require litigation. Litigation increases the cost to Social Services and to the family, not to mention the trauma and stress involved.

The way the bill is written now and the way it was practised before, the child can be apprehended during the litigation proceedings, because it's up to the family to prove that the child doesn't need the care. The child could end up being on a drug that the family doesn't approve of. Maybe it's not even for religious or philosophical reasons; they just don't think it's what the child needs.

Let me draw the minister's attention. If we watch television anytime, we will see advertisements for new drugs, with the list of doctors to prescribe them whom you can go to. We can see examples where doctors will advance a drug, because they may sincerely believe it's in everyone's best interest to be on Prozac or something. Then you'll find a fleet of other doctors who don't think it's a good idea.

To avoid the cost of litigation, I hope that in practice, the two medical practitioners used would be one chosen by the family and one by Social Services, and then in that sense, if we have to, we would go to mediation before we go to court.

V. Anderson: I think the minister can provide some assurance to people on that particular issue. It is one -- raised by a great many people -- of being able to make sure that their own family medical practitioner can be involved in the decision.

In the past there has been the feeling -- rightly or wrongly, but the feeling is necessarily there -- that two doctors chosen by the ministry are favourable to the ministry in the decisions they make, and the family practitioner then doesn't have the opportunity to be involved. If there can be some assurance that the family practitioner always has the opportunity to be one of the doctors in the consideration, then this would alleviate many of the concerns.

[3:45]

If it's an emergent situation and that doctor isn't available, then that's something else. But in all normal circumstances, the family doctor who has the history and the ongoing care of the patient should be one who's there to present the medical needs of that child. Can there be some assurance in that direction?

[ Page 12042 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The two doctors are merely to raise the issue of whether, in those two doctors' opinions, the child's health is at risk as outlined in subsection (3). After that, the decision goes into the courts, where the family has a full right of representation. If the family has a family doctor they wish to have present -- in some circumstances the family may not wish to have their family doctor present -- that's entirely up to the family if they so choose. They can bring whomever they wish to court.

But if it's two doctors who are apart from the family doctor by design, then you've already set up a conflict between the family doctor and two other doctors. If the family doctor -- if people wish it -- can be part of those two right at the very beginning, it would simplify the process and do away with the antagonism, which the minister is trying to overcome in the rest of the bill. It's a process of including those people who are trusted by the family at the beginning, not one of having them confront the opinion of two other doctors later on.

R. Neufeld: We've had representation made to us by people who are looking over the legislation that they would like the family physician named at least as one of those people, simply because the family physician knows the history. For reasons that the last member just spoke about, many people feel there's a plot -- even though there isn't -- to have two other practitioners subjected to looking into the medical reasons.

I can't imagine why that would be so hard for the minister to understand. When we're talking about the child and the family and we're trying to stay away from conflict, why would it be so hard for the minister to understand how the opposition and the public feel about this? Maybe not the people you're talking to, but the people who talk to us have some concerns about it. It would be a friendly amendment, which would very simple for the minister to accept. I can't for the life of me understand why the minister would not want to do that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not aware of an amendment being before me. Certainly I understand that the hon. member may be trying to provoke me into saying that I don't understand. I fully understand. Let me tell you what the realities of this clause are, though. I'm giving you an exact example here. A child could be badly burned and unconscious, and the family is saying: "No blood transfusion." It is not us searching out two doctors; it is two doctors who have come to us.

At that point, where there is clearly a situation of the opinions of two doctors versus the family's opinion, there's no sense in us trying to decide those issues. That's the provision of this act. The act does give the family the right to then bring in his or her family doctor. There are also many situations....

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. The two medical practitioners are merely to determine.... It's not us who will determine, without medical advice, whether there is even a suspicion of the child being at risk. That's why the two medical practitioners are involved in the first place. It isn't a matter of us going to search them out. In reality, the doctors come to us and say that the two of them think this child's life is at risk or the child may be subject to serious or permanent harm.

In many circumstances, it is the family physician who is involved. But there are also other circumstances. The child may not be in their hometown, or the family may not wish any medical intervention whatsoever, so they're not willing to bring the family physician in, regardless. We don't want to hold it up at that point. We're just saying that that's the kick-start to the proceedings. We may go to court to determine if the child is at risk, from a health point of view, at which time both sides have a right to bring forward whomever they wish. In fact, when those issues have been decided in court, there have been occasions when the parents' wishes have been upheld.

R. Neufeld: Far be it from me to tell the minister that she doesn't understand. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that the minister doesn't understand. Maybe I'm trying to say that you're not responding to what we're hearing from the groups we're talking to on this particular issue.

I have an amendment to

section 29(1): after the words "of 2 medical practitioners," add "if possible, one of whom is the family physician." It's a fairly friendly amendment. The minister brought forward quite correctly that the child may be in a different town than their family physician. So if you put in "if possible" -- and we do that throughout the whole bill when we talk about the director, whether they may or may not -- that would be the driving factor: if possible, use the family physician as one of the physicians.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I wish to outline for hon. members what the current practice is, according to the act. It is such that the child is apprehended, and the viewpoint of those other than the family is imposed. This amendment is changing it to meet the needs of the constituents I assume you're representing, which is to say: "Hey, give us a chance here. Let our opinion be heard. Don't impose religious or medical points of view on us that conflict with our religious or philosophical points of view" -- because that's what happens now. This act is changing it to say that that determination will no longer be made by the ministry; if there's a dispute, it will be made before the courts.

There are also some very real circumstances that face our ministry every day, and for which I receive information every day, where a child is greatly at risk. I'm not sure that the member intended to impose a greater risk on that child by having us search out and wait for the family physician. The practice now is that when the family physician is available, the doctors themselves do that. I have the highest regard for the networking among doctors. In fact, the reality of the day is that very often the family physician is called into play.

Mind you, it's not at the family's request that the family physician is called in, because the family is in dispute about any medical attention being offered.

You articulate the needs of your constituents by saying they should have a say in the future of their child. That's exactly what the act does. I understand your concerns. I hope you see that the act does provide for allowing them a say. The amendment about the family physician will not meet your constituents' concerns.

J. Tyabji: I wonder how the minister would feel if her child's doctor recommended an experimental drug. Perhaps the child exhibited some behaviourial changes at school that

[ Page 12043 ]

may be normal for an adolescent and Prozac was prescribed, or prednisone was prescribed for a health disorder; or, for the first time we have a genetically engineered vaccination for the meningitis virus, which has not been adequately tested, that is being administered to some students. Parents are assuming that these are safe.

If a family, through self-determination, wants to object to a medicine.... I didn't move the amendment for the family physician, because....

Hon. J. MacPhail: You wrote it, though.

J. Tyabji: Well, he asked me to do that, and as a constructive opposition member I'm prepared to do that.

The minister should be aware that in my opinion, what needs to happen before you go to court and before the public and the family pay for court proceedings -- and let's remember that under

section 30, they don't have to go to court; they can apprehend the child and administer the health care, if that's what the director chooses to do -- is that at some point, the family should be able to choose a medical practitioner for the purposes of the director, not a court, so that you don't have to go to court. When you talk about the mediation proceedings and things like that, that should take precedence over court action.

I don't know how the minister would feel. Two doctors could come out constantly and be prescribing pharmaceutical products for almost any child. It's common. Heavy antibiotic treatments are being prescribed, and cortisone creams and all kinds of things that are controversial can be prescribed for children.

Basically, the point is that if a family is to feel secure in their self-determination -- whether it's a one-parent family, a two-parent family or a grandparent -- they should have some comfort that if someone from outside the family is trying to prescribe a drug, the family has the option to determine who provides the second opinion. Rather than having the person who provided the first opinion finding a buddy to provide a second opinion to back him or her up, the family can say: "We've got this other opinion.

Therefore let's not go to court; let's go to mediation." Then we don't have a big court expense, a judge involved or all the other necessary expenses. It seems to me to be a pretty basic point, and I think the bottom line is who chooses, how much it costs and what pain and suffering we are going to inflict on these families, who may be proven in the long run to be right, because it could be an experimental drug in the first place.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Rather than dealing with the hypo-thesis of drugs in this day and age -- of which I have no expertise and no experience whatsoever -- let me say this. The hon. member posed a question to me. If I were faced with the situation she outlined, rather than have the current practice invoked upon my family of having my child apprehended, I would want to have some neutral avenue where I could explore the options for the future of my child.

In terms of the realities of the situations we face, and of the realities that families face under this particular section, we are dealing with situations where a child's life is at risk, and we have to prevent a serious or permanent impairment of a child's health. We're not making things up here. We face these situations. Children are brought in from accidents or fires, and there is no time to delay in terms of choosing a range of sources merely to get the situation before a neutral court; that's all we're talking about here.

I feel badly that I cannot make the members aware of the improvement this situation offers to the family's right to self-determination. The current situation allows the family no self-determination.

[4:00]

If the hon. member is saying that in some way the big, bad ministry would ensure that the family is excluded from allowing any input into this, that is simply not the case. If the family is available and requests a particular medical practitioner who is available and will not contribute to the child's imminent risk, then we'll do it. But in the absence of that, there would be two doctors, and then the parents would have their say. If there is still conflict -- and sometimes there isn't -- then the courts will decide.

R. Neufeld: We're starting to belabour this a bit. The minister implied earlier on that I would pose an amendment to this bill that would allow serious or permanent impairment to a child. I think she knows better than that, coming from me. I certainly would not want to put something in legislation that would cause harm to any child, and I don't think it was fair of the minister to say that I would do that. All the amendment says is that if it is possible, the family physician be used as one of the two doctors.

As I told the minister earlier, through the whole bill we talk about.... In fact, I have one in front of me.

Section 31(2) says: "The notice may be given orally or in writing...." So we go broad in all kinds of areas. All we're asking for is that the family physician be one of the medical practitioners, if possible. That does not mean that I want to put any child in danger, or that that member wants to put any child in danger. I think we're all trying to do the same thing: to look after the children as best we can.

I'm not saying that the way it was before was better or that this way is better. I agree that some parts of this legislation do enhance what we have in Social Services. I have no problem with that, and I agree with them.

V. Anderson: I have a feeling that we need some mediation in here -- that we're misunderstanding each other.

One of the realities is that the legislation not only needs to be seen to be effective by the people who are presenting it, but it needs to be seen to be effective and fair by the people who are reading it -- who come cold to it -- and haven't the philosophical background or discussion that many of us have been involved in. If we talk about it from the point of view of plain language, when other people read it, they must be able to get the intent.

Somewhere in here -- and this would be as good a place as any -- we need to signal to the populace that when it comes to health care, the family physician has an important and significant first place. If something happens to me, I would want my physician involved as well as the specialist, because they work together as a team.

All we're asking for -- and I would support the amendment heartily -- is the signal. This paragraph is not dealing with something that has to be decided within the next two hours. Subsection (2) refers to two days before the hearing takes place, so this

section is not a time factor in the sense of an emergency which has to be decided between 12 midnight and 2 o'clock in the morning. That emergency decision which has to be done right then and there because there's no time to wait is covered in other places; that's another matter. This one deals with a longer-term situation. There are at least two days before the decision is going to be made, so there is normally time to contact the personal physician and get their input and the history about this person. If you have two days, and if decisions are being

[ Page 12044 ]

made without this particular patient's history -- apart from the family's concerns, the medical history.... I know in our own particular case, without the x-rays of our daughter those decisions could not have been made, because we needed a historical period of time in order to make the decision at that moment.

So all we're saying is that in this particular case, because of its seriousness, if possible, the patient's own physician -- and their history -- should automatically be called into play as one of the two people. If that signal is there, it will do away.... It doesn't distract from but adds to the section, by giving the signal that the medical history of that child, from the physician who knows him, is important.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I really do very much appreciate the hon. member's understanding of the philosophy of the act. But we also must be careful not to impose our own particular circumstances on the populace at large through legislation. Let me just give you examples. It is important because in some cases families have two or three family physicians. In some cases a youth has her own physician, separate and apart from the family. And in some cases the family may not want the family physician involved; that's all. I appreciate the way you understand the import of this, but it isn't up to us to.... We should legislate as little intrusion into the family's decision-making as possible.

But I will tell you that when the crunch is on and you truly are in a dilemma, the practice has been -- and I have talked to some of my staff colleagues who are actually in the business of practising this -- to involve as many people as you possibly can in order to reach the best decision possible.

H. De Jong: The minister, in her earlier comment, said that in the absence of the family doctor, she would probably then look for two medical practitioners. All that the amendment really says is that when the family medical practitioner is available, he be one of those. So I simply cannot see.... And the minister can say that we on this side of the House want to impose our own feelings. I suppose that we can have the same argument from this side: the minister wants to impose her own ideas onto this bill.

I believe that it is a fair and reasonable amendment to at least give the family the choice of whether they wish to have the family practitioner involved in these situations, which are not easy situations for a family. So I simply cannot understand why the minister would be opposed to this amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I agree with you, hon. member for Vancouver-Langara, that we seem to be getting a little carried away with this and need mediation.

Let me pose to the hon. member who just spoke: what if the family physician were the one that the hon. member for Okanagan East said ordered the drugs? What would we do in that situation?

J. Tyabji: I think that's exactly why we need to have the family determine one of the two opinions. That was basically what started this debate in the first place.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's not what the amendment says.

J. Tyabji: It's not my amendment. I wrote....

Hon. J. MacPhail: You wrote it.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying I wrote the amendment. I did so at the request of the member who was on his feet; I put together the amendment he asked me to write for him. In fact, when I'm speaking to the amendment.... I'm sure the minister knows that when I started this debate, the whole point was that if you want two medical opinions, one should be a medical opinion gathered by the family for input into determining whether services are needed.

I want to quickly give an example before we go to a vote on this, because the minister says she has ultimate faith in doctors and, when she was talking about medicine being prescribed and the doctors' opinions, that she doesn't know a lot about....

Hon. J. MacPhail: I said I'm not an expert.

J. Tyabji: She said she's not an expert. I'd have to review the Hansard. She said something as well about having faith in the opinion, but....

The Chair: On the amendment, members.

J. Tyabji: On the amendment, there are two examples that I'd like to provide the minister where her ministry incurred significant court costs because, on two separate instances, they did not allow the family doctor to offer an opinion. The first was with regard to an eight-month-old baby apprehended by Social Services after the mother, on the recommendation of her doctor, had taken the baby to Children's Hospital for examination. Prior to that, two doctors gave two medical opinions that said the child was suffering from a virus and dismissed it.

The mother didn't believe that and went to the family doctor, and the family doctor recommended further inspection. At the Children's Hospital, the baby was diagnosed with two broken legs. After two medical opinions of a virus had been given, the child was diagnosed at the recommendation of the family doctor as having two broken legs. Social Services didn't try to determine where the child had received the broken legs. They immediately apprehended the baby on the basis of the medical opinions and spent over $20,000 in court just on the basis of Social Services....

It was later determined that the baby's legs were broken at the day care. The parents had exercised due diligence. The mother had been trying to protect the child and had gone in the best interests of the child.... Social Services apprehended the baby on the basis of medical opinions without even consulting the family doctor or the parent in terms of where the child had received the injuries.

The other example, which I'm not going to go into any detail about, is the one where I talked earlier in the debate about a young girl. She sustained an injury and had a flu. The Children's Hospital, not the family doctor, intervened. A doctor who did not know the family prescribed an experimental drug which the family did not wish to administer and, in that case as well, they ended up spending a long period of time and thousands of dollars in court trying to prove that the child did not need the medication. Meanwhile, the child's health did deteriorate because she developed side effects from the drug that they were administering to her.

[4:15]

In this respect, I am speaking to this amendment, because it would certainly make it better. I should put on the record that this is an improvement on the status quo; there's no question. Many of the things that we're objecting to in this bill are improvements on the status quo, because the status quo is

section 30 without accountability. This is an improvement, but if we're going to improve it, for goodness' sake, let the family decide one of the two medical opinions. For the

[ Page 12045 ]

purposes of this amendment, that should be the family doctor, which would obviously be an improvement on two people who don't know the family record or the children or the parents involved in the discussion. It's an easy amendment. I would imagine that if the minister doesn't have an objection to it, it should just be passed.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 15

Chisholm

Dalton

Hurd

Hanson

Wilson

Tyabji

H. De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

M. de Jong

Warnke

Anderson

Jarvis

Tanner

NAYS -- 28

Petter

Pement

Priddy

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Hagen

Dosanjh

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Smallwood

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Barlee

Janssen

Lord

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Kasper

Brewin

Copping

Lali

Hartley

Boone

The Chair: I will give members who have other duties an opportunity to attend to them.

Before I recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara, I'd just like to offer an observation to members of the committee. This is a complex, lengthy bill, and we have a huge number of amendments on the order paper and a number of others that will probably be sui generis -- that will come along as we proceed. I want to suggest to members that if we have extensive, long and detailed debate verging on principle on every amendment, we will not complete this measure for a very long time.

I want to suggest that what we ought to do with amendments is hear the amendment moved, hear from any other member who wishes to speak in support of the amendment and then hear a response from the minister as to whether she, in this case, accepts the amendment; and then, in most cases at least, we should put the question. It seems to me that going beyond that and having debate back and forth on amendments is not going to be helpful, quite frankly. I hope members won't mind if I suggest that that become the procedure from this point forward.

Having said that, I recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: I think that we on this side are all nodding in agreement with what you have said. That doesn't mean we will all agree on the point, but we will try.

Not to belabour it, this is an important point. I would move the amendment to

section 29(1) that the minister has in front of her: "after 'in the opinion of 2 medical practitioners,' add 'one of whom, if possible, is a medical practitioner of the person's choice'." Let me use the illustration of a young person who may have their own medical practitioner who is different from their family's practitioner. To respond to that, I still think that's important, where possible. I recognize that if the medical practitioner the person chooses contradicts the other medical practitioner, they'll have to go further in order to deal with it. But I think if they had that up front, it would make it a lot easier in the majority of cases. I would so move.

On the amendment.

R. Neufeld: In following your direction earlier, I will speak in favour of the amendment. I'll be very short. There was some problem with "a family physician." If we're going to talk about a physician of their choice, I think that alleviates the problem. I think it's a good amendment. The wording may be a little more acceptable to the minister. I hope the minister will accept this friendly amendment.

J. Tyabji: I'm in favour of the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have nothing to add to the debate that hasn't already been said.

[4:30]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 12

Chisholm

Hurd

Hanson

Wilson

Tyabji

H. De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

Warnke

Anderson

Tanner

NAYS -- 30

Petter

Sihota

Pement

Priddy

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Hagen

Dosanjh

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Smallwood

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Barlee

Janssen

Farnworth

Lord

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Kasper

Brewin

Copping

Lali

Hartley

Boone

Section 29 approved on division.

section 30.

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me, members. Could we have some order so I can hear the member's questions?

V. Anderson: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Section 30 has to do with the removal of a child. I recognize that this

section is included to deal with exceptional and urgent circumstances. Sometimes action has to be taken quickly and with due diligence. I have two amendments which I think are important for those involved, and they are on the order paper.

[SECTION 30 (1) and (2), to be amended to read:

(1) A director may, without a court order remove a child in the company of a police officer if the director has reasonable grounds to believe that the child needs protection and that

(

a) the child's health or safety is in immediate danger, or

(

b) no other less disruptive measure that is available is adequate to protect the child.

(2) A director may without a court order and by force if necessary but in the company of a police officer, enter any premises or vehicle or board any vessel for the purpose of removing a child under subsection (1) if

[ Page 12046 ]

(

a) the director has reasonable grounds to believe that the child is in the premises or vehicle or on the vessel, and

(

b) a person denies the director access to the child or no one is available to allow access to the child.]

Those are the words to be amended. When this is done, we think it's important to the family as well as to the children that this be available.

On the amendment.

R. Neufeld: Not to belabour it, I agree with the two amendments that the member for Vancouver-Langara puts forward.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In the interest of brevity, I'll save my philosophical comments on the amendment. Let me just say that police are brought if it's necessary. But under many circumstances it's not necessary. It may not be appropriate in terms of time and the best use of public resources. It just may not be necessary at all. In some cases, for planned

apprehensions -- and there are cases of planned apprehensions -- the amendment would make it far too heavy-handed, to be frank.

With the greatest of respect, because I know that the hon. member supports the intention of this bill, I say that this bill is not to criminalize the process. Quite frankly, this amendment is inconsistent with the underlying principles of the act.

Amendment negatived.

H. De Jong: I have a question about "reasonable grounds." I know it was in the old act too. We had a situation where a family had foster children for the last 25 years. They tried to adopt the two children. When some investigation then took place, all of a sudden these children were taken out of that home -- without any warning to the parents, without any discussion and without any way the parents could speak to them about why the children were taken out. This is where I have difficulty understanding what reasonable grounds means. In my opinion, there were no reasonable grounds in that situation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, that's why we're changing the law. The situation you described, if it's a British Columbia situation, must be under the current law. The law is changed now.

We're dealing with the situation where reasonable grounds have to be determined. Reasonable grounds is a legal concept and well-tested in the courts. That has to be determined, in conjunction with the fact that the child's health or safety is in immediate danger and also that less disruptive measures have been tried first.

H. De Jong: I just want to continue for a bit. I don't want to belabour this very long, because the matter probably is going before the courts. I'm not sure; I don't think it is at the present time. But I do know that this

section and the way it's been applied in that family now puts the family into a position of spending all of their life savings to get those children back -- if they ever do get them back.

This is where I find more consideration has to be given before that final step is taken. I simply cannot see where a director may, without a court order....

If those reasonable grounds were in fact applied in that case, then an awful lot of families are going to find themselves in a situation where for 25 years -- and some perhaps longer -- they have looked after children very well, given good service to the community, been a well-respected family in the community and are put in that position to gain these children back. I don't think that is appropriate. In my opinion it's absolutely unfair.

I realize there may be other situations too, and that's why I'm bringing this up. In that particular situation, I feel the parents were badly treated.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I believe I heard the hon. member describe foster parents and adoption. While I'm not sure of the details of his case -- although I suspect I do know which one he's talking about -- foster parenting is a contractual arrangement that comes to a conclusion under the circumstances he talks about. When the contractual arrangement is ended, the children need to have some other care. It's not this

section of the act that applies. While the point may be well taken in advocating on behalf of his constituents, it's not under this act that the breach has occurred.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

R. Neufeld:

Section 31 says: "

(1) A director who removes a child must promptly make all reasonable efforts to notify each parent of the child's removal.

(2) The notice may be given orally or in writing" -- that's part of what bothers me -- "and must include a statement of the reasons for removing the child." I understand that when a child is being removed there is probably a relative amount of confusion, and oral notice is probably acceptable at that time. However, in a follow-up there should be written notice. It's the only way to ensure that the parents know the reasons the ministry is doing what they are doing. In the case of a court action later on, it may be something that could just as well protect the caseworker -- the director in this case -- or the parent or the child.

I move the following amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 31, by adding the following subsection:

(3) If notice is given orally under subsection (2), the director must deliver a written copy of that notice no later than 7 days after the oral notice was given.]

I hope that the minister will find that friendly amendment helpful with this

section of the bill.

On the amendment.

V. Anderson: I have to speak against the amendment and in favour of the amendment that I will be bringing forth. It's important that at the time the child is taken -- particularly if the parent is available -- notice be given in writing. If your car is picked up and impounded, you are give an indication of where the car is and how you can get it back. If children are taken, there should be a receipt, if you want to put it that way -- some statement of who has taken the child and who a person can contact about the child -- and that should be given immediately to the parent.

If they are taken from a house and the parents aren't there, that statement should be left in the house so they know where the child has gone, who has taken the child, and they don't have to go to the police and say: "Who stole my child?" It's traumatic enough to have the child taken, but to have nothing left and to give an oral statement to a babysitter or to someone else is unacceptable. There needs to be a simple written statement available as to who has taken the child, where contact may be made and

[ Page 12047 ]

what authority to contact. I am against this amendment and would be prepared to make my own.

J. Tyabji: Unless something different is going to happen with this amendment, it's going to meet the fate of all the other amendments. So I would like to speak in favour of the intent of the amendment and won't move the one that I was going to move. I think all of us are concerned that the parents have something in writing at the earliest possible time -- that it not be an "or" clause; that it be an "and" clause, recognizing that you might need something in the short term orally, but that there should be something in writing almost immediately afterwards.

Amendment negatived on division.

V. Anderson: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 31(2), to be amended to read:

(2) The notice must be given in writing and must include a statement of the reasons for removal of the child and how further contact may be achieved.]

We all know how ineffective oral communication is. We can be misunderstood. I think it needs to be in writing, particularly with multiple cultures and languages and other concerns. Nothing is more precious than your child, and therefore it should be clear.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Parents don't get notice now. I know that in the briefings the hon. member had, there was certainly an understanding of what a great improvement this is.

The intent of oral notice is that if there is a situation of immediate concern, the parents are orally notified immediately. The practice of the ministry, even without the legislative requirement, has always been to leave a notice in writing. There is now an inclusion that a statement of the reasons has to be given. Within seven days the whole matter will be before the courts, with the parent having full notice and full representation.

V. Anderson: If your child has been taken away, seven days is an eternity, particularly for many people in our multicultural communities who have come from situations where when children were taken by police, they were never seen again. That's the reality that many of our people have faced. Something needs to be in writing: who has taken the child and why, and where can you contact that child. There needs to be a phone number for someone you can contact. If it's 12 o'clock at night, you need to be able to phone that night and say: "Where is my child? Who has my child?"

[4:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, but listen: the point is well taken, except that the reality of the day is that often the parent isn't there; the child has been abandoned. In some circumstances the child isn't being apprehended from the parent. So we are saying that in those circumstances where the quickest notice to the parent is oral, we should have that option. The practice of the ministry has always been and will continue to be as the hon. member outlines.

V. Anderson: All it takes is a few moments for the person who is taking the child to write down on a prepared form that this child has been taken by the Ministry of Social Services, this is where the child is, and this is the phone number where you can contact the ministry about this child. It's as simple as that; it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Otherwise, it's secretive and frightening beyond imagination.

The Chair: I would just remind members of our agreement. The member for Okanagan East.

J. Tyabji: As with a similar amendment, the previous one, oral notification is at the earliest opportunity and then there's something in writing. I think it's important to remember, for the purpose of the debate, that the definition of parent in this act doesn't just include the biological parent. The minister said that in some cases the parent might not be the person who has charge of the child. It could be the person with whom there's an agreement, it could be a guardian or it could be whoever is caring for the child. For the purposes of this bill, they become the parent.

In that case, notwithstanding where the biological parents might be, there must be someone who would have care of the child. We know a number of cases where children have been apprehended without proper notification. It does seem like it would be very simple to pass this amendment and move on.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In answer to the hon. member's seeming indignity around the issue of oral notice, some children are apprehended from the streets; the parent is not to be found. If we were required to give written notice, the apprehension would grind to a halt, and the child would be left at risk.

I seek leave to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am pleased that families are back with us to share in the debate of this legislation. With us today in the Legislature are Carol Richardson, Sarah Berland and Anne Berland, who are the family of Jeremy Berland, the director of family and children's services. I ask the House to make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I don't want to withdraw it. If the parent isn't there and you can't give a report, fine; but if you're able to give an oral report and the parent is there to get that oral report, then it's just as easy to give them a written report.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, really. What if they're in Vancouver and the parent is in Fort St. John? You can make a telephone call in 30 seconds, but you can't deliver a letter in 30 seconds.

R. Neufeld: There seems to be some difficulty in getting the minister to accept an amendment of any kind to her bill. I agree with the member, but when you look at it, it would be a little difficult to hand a written notice to the parent if the child was on the street. But there must be some happy medium here, because just to say that it must be done orally or in writing.... How many times has somebody said to you that they called you and told you something, and you say: "I can't remember that"? That's how easy it is to misuse an oral presentation -- unless it's also written out.

That's why we in this House use Hansard. We never used to. I guess that years ago they didn't use Hansard and anything went, but now we use Hansard to record this so there's something there -- and so we can always come back on the member for Nanaimo about what he said many years ago. Anyhow, that puts a little humour into it.

[ Page 12048 ]

Really, Madam Minister, I would like you to speak with your staff a bit. Maybe we can stand this

section down for a while and talk about it, rather than trying to get amendments back and forth through the House here. Seven days is too long, and five minutes is too short; maybe there's a happy medium there someplace. It's protection for the caseworker and for that director also, and it can be used later on. I would think that with some of the problems we have experienced recently that the minister's well aware of, probably something like this would help. I'm talking about Fort St. John.

If we wrote down things that happened, why they happened and why they didn't happen, it would be a lot easier to deal with it later on. I can't for the life of me see why the minister wouldn't want to accept some friendly amendment that the member for Vancouver-Langara and the rest of the opposition would be happy with.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm certainly open to that, hon. Chair, if we wish to stand this

section down, or whatever the terminology is. However, I hope the hon. members also understand the circumstances that we face daily and have to cope with. But if there's some provision such as "as soon as is practical," or whatever, we can work on that language together.

The Chair: We'll stand down

section 31, if that's agreeable to the minister and the members opposite. All right. And the assumption is that there will be some meeting outside this chamber. Fine.

Section 32 approved.

section 33.

V. Anderson: I move the amendment to subsection 33(2) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 33 (2), to be amended to read:

(2) When a child is returned, the director must inform the parent in writing whether the director intends to withdraw from a proceeding under this Part or to take further steps under this Part.]

Again, there needs to be a clarification of what the director is doing, and it needs to be clear to all parties. If it is in writing, then there's no misunderstanding. It's a very simple thing for the director to do that when the child is returned, so that it's clear that the director and the parent -- and the child, as the case may be -- have in their mind what is happening, and they can count on it for the future. It's that written document which is so important to make everything clear and concise.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We can accept that.

Amendment approved.

section 33 as amended.

V. Anderson:

Section 33(3) is where the seven days comes in, and I say that seven days is too long. So I move this amendment.

[SECTION 33 (3), to be amended to read:

(3) If the director does not intend to take further steps under this Part, the director must, within 24 hours after the child's removal, (

a) present to the court or a justice of the peace a written report on the director's reasons for removing and returning the child, and (

b) provide a copy of the report to the child's parents and any person notified or the presentation hearing.]

The amendment says: "If the director does not intend to take further steps under this Part, the director must, within 24 hours after the child's removal...." -- rather than "within 7 days." When you're dealing with a family -- a child and siblings and all the others involved -- seven days is an eternity. I move that it be 24 hours, because I think the minister herself has indicated that we need to move things along in a very quick fashion, and that we're trying to get away from the normal court proceeding, which just extends things on and on. If I understand rightly, it's important, if the director is not going to take steps, to make that known as soon as possible.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The intent of this

section is to notify that there will be no continuation of the court proceedings. However, there has to be some determination, contact and plan established within that period of time. Twenty-four hours is too short. This is merely filing a notice, saying that the court action is off. But we have to have time to prepare for circumstances otherwise, for putting a plan of action in place. So it's not as if the care and well-being of the child don't continue during that period of time. It's just saying that we can't do it without due deliberation, which requires seven days. It's merely a notice that's being filed with the court; nothing turns on it in terms of the planning for the child.

Amendment negatived.

J. Tyabji: With respect to returning a child, I see there are four subsection provisions under which a director may return a child. What happens in the event that the director has made a mistake? I think that is covered by

section 33(1)(c), where there might be a receipt of "information that causes the director to believe the child does not need protection" -- although it could be that after the apprehension of the child, the director has determined that the child didn't need to be apprehended. I assume that's been covered. But if there has been an apprehension and it's later determined that that didn't need to happen, what is the accountability process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That accountability is under

section 33(3). It was what I was talking about in the debate just before this. That report has to be filed, and the court has to be aware of the director stepping away from the case.

J. Tyabji: One would assume that when reports are filed with the court, there would automatically be.... Well, I would hope that in every case of apprehension, the minister's office would be directly informed, in the same manner as the court would be informed. Is that true?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Excuse me. You said "minister"?

J. Tyabji: Minister's office.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. This isn't a political process.

The Chair: Is there some confusion, member for Okanagan East?

J. Tyabji: What I'm asking has nothing to do with politics. In the event that someone who works for the Ministry of Social Services -- under the direction of this minister --

[ Page 12049 ]

apprehends a child from a family, is there a process by which the minister's office is informed of that, just as the courts are informed whether or not there will be proceedings under this act?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope I can answer the intent of the question. The minister isn't a social worker, in normal cases. The act is not administered by the minister; it's administered by the director. Thus the director holds the responsibility for it. I'm not sure why the hon. member would want the involvement of a politician in this. I just don't know.

J. Tyabji: I don't want the involvement of a politician. The point is that the minister is the one who has debated, outlined and brought in the bill and is the person directing the entire Ministry of Social Services. We have had extensive debate in this House; we've brought up some case studies, and the minister has known or not known about them.

I would assume that this minister would want information from the director after the director gets the report on apprehension. We know that it may not be the director herself who is directing the apprehension; it could be someone delegated with the authority to apprehend. I was just assuming that it's a question of procedure. Is the minister going to be made aware? Throughout this debate the minister has repeatedly given us her assurance about the way apprehensions would occur. I would assume she'd want to monitor the apprehensions that occur by receiving reports from the director, considering the magnitude of the apprehensions in this process.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hold the ministry accountable through my executive.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Seeing as we're going to have to step down from committee, I have an amendment to

section 31 that may meet the needs of the House. Maybe we can consider it before asking the committee to step down.

The Chair: If that's agreeable to members, given that we stood it down, proceed, minister.

section 31.

Hon. J. MacPhail:

Section 31(2) would now say: "The notice must where practicable be in writing and must include a statement of the reasons for removing the child."

[5:00]

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: When it says that it's in writing "where practicable," where it's not practicable, will it be orally? How does that

section read? The reason I'm asking is that both components are necessary. Obviously the immediate notification could be oral and then followed up in writing. If it's just in writing and you can't get hold of them in writing, what do you do? I'm not sure if the amendment leaves the provision for oral notification.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it does.

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 41.

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 41; D. Lovick in the chair.

section 17.

G. Wilson: Do you know what? I don't think I'd want to be the minister under these circumstances. Other circumstances, maybe, but not these ones.

I just have one very quick question. It has to do with

section 17(a), where it says: "...the sum of money is a fixed sum of money that, with any interest that may be payable on it, is not more than the prescribed amount...." It then goes on to say, in (b): "...to guarantee the payment or repayment has an unqualified obligation to reimburse the corporation for the full amount of the payment...." It sounds as if this is fairly straightforward with respect to guarantees. I am assuming this is put in place in order for it to comply with the acts that govern it -- the financial whatever-it-is act.

Hon. G. Clark: I think it's the Financial Institutions Act, hon. member.

I'll just read you the general notes, first of all.

"As part of its normal business relationships, the corporation may need to provide guarantees or performance bonds for specific projects. Given its powers of a natural person, the corporation is able to provide such guarantees, and in any amount. This

section limits the ability of the corporation to guarantee third-party debts only to prescribed amounts as recommended by Treasury Board. As the corporation does not expect to undertake commercial lending functions during the period of the initial business plan it is unlikely that Treasury Board would be asked to recommend a prescribed amount in the near future."

G. Wilson: Just a question, then. It was put to me by somebody who knows a whole lot more about banking than I do, so I'm going to ask it on their behalf, as they're following the debate -- at least in Hansard, if not directly. With respect to these guarantees, does that then allow an opportunity for an alteration in the guarantee during the term of such an indebtedness? Is that something that can be carried over and be binding on future administrations? I would assume that the answer to the second is yes; otherwise, it would imply that you couldn't enter into an agreement that has a longer life than a government.

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is yes.

If I could, I'd just like to flesh out some of the notes in a little more detail than I just described, just to put it in context. Under the Financial Institutions Act, other financial institutions may provide guarantees under normal ancillary business guidelines with no restrictions on the guaranteed amounts. So this is not uncommon. Any other financial institution under the Financial Institutions Act can provide

[ Page 12050 ]

unlimited

third-party guarantees. However, other borrowing restrictions are placed on these institutions under the federal Bank Act, which does not apply to this corporation. They don't have a prescribed amount; they can provide an unlimited amount of guarantees. They're only limited by the Bank Act. This has no such limiting regulation under the Bank Act; therefore we've now applied a prescribed limit on the third-party guarantees.

The extent that the corporation will need to provide guarantees is certainly not apparent at all at this time. Rather than leaving the corporation open to provide unlimited guarantees, as would be the case in other financial institutions -- other than those prescribed in the Bank Act -- this

section limits the guarantees only to prescribed amounts. This enables Treasury Board to review and determine the corporation's needs in this area. The approval of the guarantees only in prescribed amounts reduces, of course, the potential liability resulting from any provision of guarantees.

G. Wilson: This is my last question on this. I would assume, then, that the "Disclosure of identity" provisions of the Financial Institutions Act, sections 90 to 94, would also apply.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

F. Gingell: Does this

section need to state who it's prescribed by? Is there any uncertainty there? Or is that somewhere else in the act?

[A. Hagen in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that when it says "the prescribed amount" in the legislation, it's implicit that that means the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. We're saying Treasury Board, and then it would have to be the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

F. Gingell: The directors have some very important responsibilities. In corporations, it's usually to examine and approve the business plan, hire and fire the chief executive officer and determine when the corporation will pay dividends. I appreciate that these circumstances are somewhat different, in that all the shares belong to the provincial Crown. But