1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 16, Number 4
[ Page 11521 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
SOUTH AFRICAN PARTICIPATION IN COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this morning to make a significant announcement regarding the Commonwealth Games for the House and the citizens of British Columbia and this great country of Canada. As we all know, as of first thing this morning, 66 nations were due to come to the Commonwealth Games and 3,200 athletes were to participate. We're anticipating half a million viewers for the opening ceremonies. Indeed, it is the biggest set of Games in the history of the Commonwealth Games.
I'm very pleased to announce that Mr. Sam Ramsamy, chair of the National Olympic Committee of South Africa, has confirmed this morning that South Africa will send a team to join the Commonwealth Games in Victoria. Hon. Speaker, this is a memorable day. I know that you in particular will rejoice in this announcement. It has been 36 years since South Africa participated in any major event, and certainly 36 years since it participated in the Commonwealth Games. It was 1958 in Cardiff, Wales, when South Africa last participated in the Commonwealth Games. South Africa will send 120 athletes and officials. Hon. Speaker, as you know, South Africa has many world-class champion athletes, such as Alana Meyer and Zola Budd-Pieterse.
I think we all recognize how significant this is for us in Canada, British Columbia and Victoria in terms of the Commonwealth Games and the significance of South Africa rejoining the family of the Commonwealth. But in terms of significance to that country and to the world, it's immeasurable.
Hon. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to announce this today.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. That is indeed good news.
K. Jones: On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to express our party's and our province's great pleasure to have South Africa enter a team and bring themselves into full participation in the Commonwealth Games as an active member of the Commonwealth. It is indeed a historic step we are seeing today, one that will continue to create history as these Games continue.
It's also important that we recognize that the World Cup of Rugby is going to be held in South Africa next year. My colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano is very much concerned in that area. It's good to see that South Africa is coming out, into full participation in world sports and political activity.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to stand in my place and speak, on behalf of the B.C. Reform Party, in support of the government's and opposition's support for the announcement this morning. It's a tremendous announcement. We congratulate the Games on this achievement. The Games provide British Columbia the opportunity to be a showcase for the world as well as for the Commonwealth. Having the participation of South Africa, after 36 years of not participating, brings a whole lot more credibility to the Games. It will be a major achievement for British Columbia and for the Games. We congratulate all those involved in this great initiative.
C. Serwa: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
C. Serwa: It's really heartening news from the minister this morning that South Africa will be a participant in the Commonwealth Games. I'm particularly pleased that the entry of South Africa is into the Commonwealth Games, because the common thing that binds most of the nations of the world together is the Commonwealth.
A few days ago we were speaking about the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day. While our minds are on that, we have to remember that the individuals there fought for peace, freedom and the rights of individuals, and that they were concerned with racial discrimination -- obviously the horrors of the Holocaust. Today, as South Africa is coming back into the Commonwealth of Nations and into the world, we're mindful that through the vehicle of sport and an exchange of individuals from nation to nation, we can enhance the spirit of cooperation and an understanding not only of different ideas, aims and objectives but also of differences in culture. I'm particularly pleased that Victoria, British Columbia and Canada will be the focus of that blending together and that understanding. Hopefully, through the vehicle of sport, we can continue to actively promote world peace, which was what D-Day was all about 50 years ago.
Hon. G. Clark: First let me advise members that the House will sit tomorrow, Wednesday. With that, I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purpose of hearing the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the main House, I call second reading of Bill 45.
CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCACY ACT
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act is another landmark in this government's commitment to the protection and well-being of all children. It offers people of all ages support to make their needs and wishes known and to secure the services and resources they need, and it says that government is here to listen and respond.
Let me fill the hon. members in on the background that led to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. This act -- like the proposed Child, Family and Community Service Act, which we will be debating later -- is based on more than two years of public and community consultation. One of the strongest messages that came through from British Columbians was that the system doesn't listen. People didn't know who to talk to when they felt their needs weren't being met, and they felt their opinions wouldn't be respected anyway. Children and youth in care said they were tired of other people presuming to speak for them when they had to deal with government. They wanted someone -- one person, not a series of different officials -- to help them say their piece and to ensure that they were heard. Parents felt that they knew the family's problems better than anyone, so they were best able to speak for themselves and their children. But they were intimidated by a system too complex and bewildering to navigate alone. Other family members
[ Page 11522 ]
complained that the system made no room for them. Caregivers, too, thought that acting as advocates for children in their care would be a natural extension of their role, but the system is not set up to hear them. Social workers said that in many cases they wanted to act as advocates for children or families, but taking on this role meant bending the rules. Community organizations also felt shut out. Many talked about the need for advocacy on broad issues as well as individual issues.
In response to these varied concerns and questions, we drafted the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. The new legislation creates an independent advocate to act on behalf of B.C.'s children, youth and families. Some jurisdictions with similar legislation have limited the advocate role to children and young people. However, we felt it imperative to extend that role to the family as well. Vulnerable parents, particularly single parents, made it clear that advocacy would help them make their needs known, secure resources and have more input into the planning for their children.
The importance of the family to the well-being of children is affirmed in the 1989 UN convention on the rights of the child, and I'll quote from that:
"The family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members, particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community."
Support for the family is the single most important manner in which society can see to the rights of children. The introduction of this act during this year, the International Year of the Family, underscores our commitment to the well-being of children, youth and their families.
[10:15]
Let me describe the role of the advocate for you as it is set out in the legislation. The advocate will protect the rights of people receiving services under the proposed Child, Family and Community Service Act. The advocate will ensure that their views are heard and considered, and that they have access to a fair and responsive process for dealing with complaints. The advocate will provide government and communities with information and advice about the availability, responsiveness, effectiveness and relevance of services. The advocate will make community organizations and individuals better able to act as advocates themselves for children, youth and families.
The advocate will be an officer of the Legislature and will report through you, hon. Speaker. Some may question why we have chosen to make this position independent of the Ministry of Social Services, given that this ministry has primary responsibility for child welfare. It is largely because we foresee the advocate's role expanding. Initially, the mandate will be limited to the proposed Child, Youth and Community Service Act, to be discussed later. Our priority in the reform of child welfare law and services is to ensure that vulnerable children and parents know their rights and can make their needs and wishes known. But the act does provide for a gradual, planned expansion of the advocacy role to include child, youth and family services provided through other ministries.
Preliminary discussions have already taken place with the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministry of Women's Equality. The office of the ombudsman and the office of the public trustee have also participated. Because accountability for child protection and welfare is so widespread and diverse throughout all government services, we feel it is important not to tie the advocate to any one ministry but to the government as a whole.
Let me discuss the powers of the advocate for a minute. Everyone receiving services under the proposed Child, Family and Community Service Act will have direct and private access to the advocate. The advocate will also have the power to respond to requests and complaints from other sources. If, for instance, a citizen were to express concern that no action is being taken on complaints about an apparently neglected child, the advocate can initiate a review or investigation of that particular situation. The advocate will be able to convene appropriate meetings on behalf of children, youth and families. These meetings can take the form of case conferences, administrative reviews or even mediation. The point is to bring people together to ensure that the full information is available when decisions are made about the provision of services.
It is our intention that the advocate will encourage non-adversarial ways of resolving disputes. If the complaint relates to a breach of the rights of a child in care, the advocate may refer the case to the new Child and Family Review Board that we are proposing to establish. The legislation also permits the advocate to make agreements with agencies, organizations and other ministries to ensure that advocacy services are available to children, youth and families. This mechanism will provide the flexibility to respond to the needs and wishes of aboriginal people and communities.
We anticipate that the advocate will be in a unique position to monitor and evaluate the needs of this province's families and children and how well these needs are being met by our government. For this reason, we are mandating the advocate to comment on policies, practices, legislation and regulations that affect groups of people and to recommend how they can be improved. That will be a major role of the advocate.
As I mentioned, the duties of the advocate include support for the development of community advocacy. Our government recognizes that the community plays a critical role in identifying and protecting children at risk, and we are committed to encouraging citizen participation and problem resolution at the community level. In addition to developing community advocacy, the advocate will be able to delegate functions and powers to a community organization once the community organization is ready and able to advocate.
The creation of an independent advocate will be an important addition to the range of external advocates available to British Columbians. We see advocacy as something positive and constructive. It ensures that those who have a voice will be heard, those who have difficulty speaking for themselves will be given help and those who have no voice will have someone to speak on their behalf. I urge all of us to work toward providing this vital service to British Columbia's children, young people and families. With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 45.
V. Anderson: I speak on Bill 45, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. I am very much aware, as the minister has already mentioned, of the request from and desire of the community for many years for this kind of person to be there on behalf of children and youth. I'm also very aware that this is a concern related not only to Social Services but also to any aspect of government where children and youth may be involved. Where families are functioning properly and there are no undue circumstances or forces upon these youths, then, of course, they are independent and have the resources to meet their needs. But because of society's actions, there are
[ Page 11523 ]
conditions -- which are not of their making -- that directly affect many of our youth and children. In the past there has been no alternative way for them to be heard. As the minister pointed out, not only have children and youth not been heard, but even the families that have a concern for them have not been able to have their concerns heard or responded to. At last there will be a formal voice so this may happen.
I believe it's appropriate that this should be an independent voice under the Legislative Assembly, because that frees the advocate, with the powers available to the position, to respond directly -- and effectively, we trust -- to all of those in government or in the community who can be approached by that person.
One of the difficulties within the act, of course, which is always a problem, is that the power to make regulations is left to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so we're unaware of what those regulations or their timing may be. The minister indicated in her presentation that the ombudsman -- at this point, the advocate -- would only have authority related to the new Child, Family and Community Service Act, and not to other aspects of government. The intention would be to extend that to others at a later date. I hope the minister will say more about that when we're in second reading, third reading or in the minister's reply.
I think we are very much aware that the intertwining of all of the ministries of government affects children and families and youth directly. A great problem that they're facing at the moment in our communities is that their concerns don't fall into any particular category of government regulations; therefore many people are falling between the cracks. When they try to make their concerns known, they're simply told: "That's the other ministry." When they go to that ministry, they're referred to another ministry yet. So there's a boomerang effect, going around and around without any response, and frustration is there. This is true for children, and it's especially true for youth who are disenfranchised or who have disenfranchised themselves from their families, for one reason or another, and are at loose ends. There isn't a place where they can go and be heard and have a person speak on their behalf.
Also, I think it's very important that when persons approach government in any capacity, they should be given the opportunity and encouraged to have a supportive person with them. That supportive person -- you may or may not call them an advocate -- is fundamental to hearing what goes on in a discussion between two groups. Normally, when a person comes to a government ministry with a concern or a problem, there are many emotions on everybody's part -- the person with the problem and ministry personnel. Ministry personnel are often bound up by regulations, and they cannot respond as they would choose to do as private individuals. So there's a tension in those meetings and a misunderstanding about what has been said or promised. That advocate or supportive person can be a helpful, hearing person, who is there to hear what one or the other has said and to clarify what one or the other has understood. That person, that third party, is fundamental in clarifying the discussion and helping it to move forward to resolution.
It is my experience that a great many difficulties are compounded when people come together and fail to understand each other. They have different meanings of words, different ways of understanding and different backgrounds, and without that third party there as a helpful supporting person with the skills available to them.... If I understand the minister correctly, this advocate will have an opportunity to provide some of those skills and opportunities to persons so that they might work in that supportive relationship. It should also provide to the government branches the skills and understanding that enable it to be taken for granted that when a person comes forward with a problem, they will be encouraged to bring with them a third party in order to help communication take place and a resolution be arrived at.
I commend the government for responding to the population as they have brought this request forward. We will be asking detailed questions in third reading. But I commend them, and we look forward to the independence of this person.
I acknowledge that it places a new weight upon the Speaker, and we should be aware of this. In creating these independent bodies responsible to the Legislative Assembly and the Speaker, in part, the government has shifted their responsibilities and obligations to the Speaker's office and to the Legislative Assembly to which the Speaker is responsible. In the discussions that I have heard so far, I'm not sure that we have taken into account the implications of this process, nor have we put into place the resource systems and mechanisms for working through these new appointments that the Speaker and that office will need.
As long as the appointment works out well and there are no problems -- and the person is a saint, if you like, in that undertaking -- then it will probably have no far-reaching effect. But as in human nature, when it turns out that there is a major problem -- and in the course of the six years there needs to be, for one reason or another, a review of that decision or appointment -- I am not sure that we have developed the mechanism yet. I would recommend that this be considered as these appointments are made. We must be ready for those emergencies -- trusting that they will not happen, but still having the mechanisms in place. So I commend the minister for bringing this forward, and we will discuss it further in third reading.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I wanted to make sure that all the members of the House were aware of who was in the gallery today, and give special recognition to several people who have worked long and hard on this legislation and with the community beforehand. I happen to be fortunate enough that they are part of my ministry staff now. Would the House please welcome and give kudos to Marjorie Martin, Jeremy Berland, Bernd Walter and Fred Storey.
[10:30]
J. Tyabji: It's extremely important that we have a child and youth advocate in the province. It's something that I have been talking to the Attorney General about for some time. I am very concerned about the language in the bill and the way that things are structured. One of the concerns that I have with regard to the avenue that the government has chosen to introduce a child and youth advocate is that it has been done through the Ministry of Social Services rather than the Attorney General's office. I am also concerned that it has been done in relation to designated services, and that it's not something where the rights of every individual child or youth are being protected in general. We see in the language of the act that the office is established "to ensure that the rights and interests of children...relating to designated services are protected and advanced." Throughout the bill we see language that makes the way in which the child and youth advocate will be operating very specific.
[ Page 11524 ]
I think there's a big concern in this act in that the powers given to the advocate are extensive, especially when we look at the companion legislation and the right to remove children from the family. Obviously we will speak to that in that bill. But we also see that the right to information is extensive. The advocate has sweeping powers to collect any information that's necessary to advocate or perform the duties as laid out in the act.
I think that is a concern when we see that the power to delegate is also unlimited. We now have an advocate who should be acting on behalf of children and youth but who will be able to delegate those powers "to any person, agency or community organization." In effect, without any kind of disclosure or accountability, the individual that the Legislature will be choosing to act on behalf of children and youth will be able to delegate that power to anyone or to an agency or to a community organization without limitation, without regulation.
The powers that will be conferred will include -- I assume from the language in the "Right to information" section -- obtaining any information that we contain in our home. What I find interesting is that the only limitation put on the right to obtain information is on the information that would be contained in a solicitor-client relationship. The interesting thing is that most children or youth don't retain solicitors. If we're talking about parents or people within families or in communities who would be in possession of information, the bill is worded such that if that information is in their home, then the advocate or a delegate of the advocate has every right to obtain that information. However, if the information is with their lawyer, it's off limits. I find that interesting, and obviously we can canvass that in committee stage.
I'm very concerned with this not being under the Attorney General's ministry. The fact that this act does not apply to all children in the province or to all youth in the province is unfortunate. When the Alliance members met with the Attorney General last fall, we talked at some length about a child and youth advocate. Any young person and any child -- whether they're from families in difficulty or in a guardianship -- who feels that they need someone to speak or to advocate on their behalf should have a youth ombudsman. Someone should be speaking on behalf of young people.
We find in this act that the definition of child is someone "who is under 16 years of age, and" -- not "or," or "could be," but "and" -- "receives or may be entitled to receive designated services." So it's not every child. Children in a high school who are very concerned about something going on in their community cannot go to the advocate and have that advocate make representation on their behalf. The service will run with each individual child or youth. It has clearly been designed in light of Social Services, rather than having a broader scope through the Attorney General's office. I find that regrettable and something that we will have to canvass at length in committee stage.
The functions of the advocate's office obviously.... I think everyone can agree that a child or youth advocate, someone who will be speaking on behalf of youth, is someone who will "promote and coordinate in communities the establishment of advocacy services...." That's something that is commendable and should be there. I hope those services won't be designated to run simply with family-related issues, for example. I hope they would include larger community issues that would empower the youth.
But then we see in section 2(c) that the office is established "to provide information and advice to...communities about the...relevance of designated services...." That's how we can read that subsection when we take out some of the words. If the advocate is put in place to provide information and advice to a community about the relevance of services, then right away one would wonder why. I thought the idea of a child and youth advocate is to be there so that the children and the youth can represent themselves to the advocate, who then speaks on behalf of the children. I would imagine that if there's anything the advocate is doing in the communities, it's speaking on behalf of the children and youth, not telling the community about the relevance of designated services -- services which will be designated by the government, not by the youth or the children. I think that is not only unfortunate, but that word "relevance," to me, is very top-down and should be removed. The government is designing services and is then going to tell us why those services are relevant to our communities. Well, I don't want that.
To me, a child or youth advocate is -- number one -- someone who is a good listener and is going to hear what the children and youth of this province have to say. I would hope that it's not going to be just in the context of their family, because if it is, that doesn't give young people enough scope. I see we have a number of young people in the gallery today. I'd be very interested to see how any of them would interpret this legislation. It is supposed to be geared toward representing their interests, but the services that will determine whether or not they are included in this act will be designed by the government. I don't think that is what the act should be doing.
When we look at the whole concept of a child and youth advocate, most of us recognize that we live at a time when communities, families, and all of us are trying to define ourselves and trying to....
I understand there is a member who is waiting to introduce the youth, but I don't know if I can actually leave my spot in debate to allow the introduction.
The Speaker: With some permissiveness, I'm sure we can arrange this little transgression.
L. Hanson: Thank you, hon. member. That's a courtesy that I hope I can exchange with you. I'd ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Hanson: In the gallery, visiting from Vernon, are 28 students from the grade 7 class of St. James Catholic School. They're accompanied by Joan O'Leary, their teacher; Pauline Stinn, who is one of the parents; and Art L'Heureux and Nick Shaigec, who are two of the adult supervisors. At such an appropriate time as the debate on the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, would the House please join me in making these young people welcome. Just for the young students' interest and information, there's another committee of the Legislature sitting also, so a number of the members are there. That's why there are so few in here at the moment. Welcome to Victoria.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. If the member for Okanagan East will permit one further introduction, I notice the hon. member for Abbotsford.
H. De Jong: I'd like to seek leave to make an introduction as well.
[ Page 11525 ]
Leave granted.
H. De Jong: It is indeed a great pleasure for me this morning to introduce to the House some 50 students from Yarrow Elementary School who are visiting Victoria today with their teacher Ms. Esau. I'd like the House to give them a cordial welcome.
J. Tyabji: I hope that with the way everyone is so willing to work together in this debate, the minister recognizes that the concept of child and youth advocacy is one that I think all members of the House can support. But the implementation of it must be done extremely carefully. So that the young people joining us today understand what we're talking about, we're debating the principle of a child and youth advocate office in British Columbia, which will be new. We're all going to be putting forward our positions on that.
As I was saying before we welcomed the students, I think most of us recognize that the concept of a youth advocate is long overdue -- someone whom young people can speak with, with regard to community, high school or family issues, or whichever issues they would like to address. I know that in many ridings young people are feeling very frustrated about environmental issues. That concept would be more suited under the Attorney General's office, where there's a wide scope. I believe very strongly, as does the Alliance, that young people should be part of the creative process of legislation, policy-making and community organization, so their energies and ideas can be put on the floor, brought into the debate and, in some cases, implemented without amendment.
But this is very different. The advocate under the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act is clearly designed solely for relationships in families in difficulty, and children or youth who are related or who have some involvement with a designated service will be the only ones eligible to have access to the advocate and have the advocate speak on their behalf. What I find a bit interesting -- and I will talk about it in committee stage -- is that the language in this bill goes beyond the Child, Family and Community Service Act, to allow for another prescribed act, which is a little unusual. Generally speaking, when we have an advocate, they will be tied to "the act," and that's how it will be referred to in the legislation. But rather than it being "the act," in two separate places we have, "or a designated act," and that allows for some room to move. I'm sure the minister will explain to us in committee stage why the government felt it necessary to allow for that.
What is a designated service? I think that's an important question. If the only children and youth who will have access to an advocate are those covered by designated services, who decides what a designated service is? Do the communities decide? Will a neighbourhood be deciding where some help is needed for young people? Will it be the high schools or elementary schools? Will teachers be identifying who needs some assistance? Never mind assistance -- who would like to listen and speak on behalf of young people? There are a lot of young people who don't need any help per se but who would like to have an avenue through which they could channel their ideas and feel empowered to help in the decision-making of the province. Who is going to be determining what a designated service is?
We see that a designated service is "authorized, provided or funded under a designated act." Again, that's not necessarily the act accompanying this bill; it's any act. I'm sure that would probably be primarily the acts in Social Services, or perhaps designated services will be provided under some acts in the Ministry of Health. I see that the minister is nodding. Perhaps there will be some acts in the Ministry of Education -- and the minister is nodding again. So there will be some room to move there. I would hope that when there is an expansion of the designated services in the designated acts, those will allow for all young people and children in the province to have access to someone who will speak on their behalf.
[10:45]
There are two aspects to what's happening here. On the one hand, we see the advocate advocating a position on behalf of children and youth, which means that the advocate, or someone designated by the advocate, will be listening and then representing. But the other aspect of the act, and the part that we have a lot of trouble with, is the power to remove children and youth from their homes. We will be dealing with that primarily in the other bill. In this bill we should be recognizing that the powers of the advocate in fulfilling their duties, and the fact that those powers are also delegated, are serious concerns, because we're starting to move into an abrogation of rights -- the rights of the family and the rights of self-determination of the family. We'll have that debate a little later.
In addition to designated services being those under a designated act, we also have designated services being those provided by a prescribed ministry branch or agency of the government -- so that's where designated service might lie -- or provided in a prescribed facility or class of facility. I hope we'll have some discussion in committee stage about what those will be.
The biggest question I have for the minister in second reading is: why are we limiting who can and can't have access to the advocate in terms of representing a position so the advocates can speak on behalf of children and youth? Why are we limiting that, and why are we tailoring it to those youth who are receiving or are eligible to receive designated services? Not that I want in any way to implicate those children and youth; obviously they need someone to speak on their behalf. It does seem to indicate that in order to qualify for this you have to be someone who the government is already in the process of assisting in some way. We can canvass that later.
I want to be very clear that when I'm talking in favour of an expansion of the definition of children and youth, it's with regard only to the representation aspect and not to the area which we get into later of the abrogation of the rights of the family to self-determination -- which is a whole different area and has to be handled very carefully.
We don't have a definition of community in the bill, and I think that's important. That's something that should be there, because everybody has a different idea of community. Is a community a family? Is a community just an aboriginal community? Is it something that falls within electoral boundaries? These are questions that need to be canvassed. Since we don't have a definition of community, one should be introduced in committee stage. We need that for the bill to be more relevant and so that people can't interpret a soccer club to be a community. I can't think what couldn't be a community; we could have a church as a community. We could have anything defined as a community for the purposes of this act, in which case the act becomes very cumbersome and quite problematic in the way it can be implemented.
I find it interesting, given the powers and the mandate that the government is giving the advocate, that the advocate may not act as legal counsel for the children or youth. That's interesting. I'm assuming that when the act says "the advocate," the advocate is either the individual that the
[ Page 11526 ]
Legislative Assembly approves, or it becomes someone designated by that person to meet with the youth, talk with the children, find out what their positions are and bring them forward. If the mandate of the advocate or the designated person, whoever this person is, is to actually collect all the necessary information, meet and represent the children, and speak on their behalf, why would that person not be able to represent the child or youth in a court of law? If we're talking about acting in terms of knowledge of the law, I can understand that a lawyer would have to be present to help, but in terms of being in a courtroom to represent the position of the child or youth, it seems a little strange that the person cannot act in the courtroom. I'm not sure if, with "legal counsel," they're just referring to the legal aspect of it, or if they're talking about not being present for the purposes of litigation. If the advocate does the job, they're going to have very good knowledge and to be able to speak on behalf of that individual, and should be able to be part of the litigation process. I would assume that's what an advocate would normally do. The minister is saying no, so I guess we'll get to hear from her.
It's going to be interesting to see how an advocate's office will evolve. If it ends up like the ombudsman's office, where they review the files and will be able to make a case for the youth or child, but there's no power beyond that in terms of assisting that individual achieve some level of comfort that their position will be advanced, then there's really not much use to it at all, especially when the child or youth, or whoever it is, is seeking representation. In that sense, I'm very unclear about this bill. It seems to be more concerned with allowing the advocate to have unlimited access to a home, to information in the home and to infringe on the privacy rights of a family, than with really having any weight of representation of the children or youth. It seems to be a contradiction. The powers to delegate the right to enter the home, seize information and property, and remove the child or youth from the home at the discretion of the advocate or the designee of the advocate are extensive. Yet the powers to represent a child or youth who has laid out a position and who needs a voice for representation are limited, and I find that interesting. It's a contradiction.
It is highly unfortunate that government will be determining who is eligible for an advocate, rather than the child or youth. Having met with a number of youth in my own community, there is a high level of frustration there. Young people today are being perceived as if they are all the same. They are all being painted with the same brush. Occasionally we will hear about incidents of vandalism, and sometimes it will be hyped for a couple of weeks.
We had a very serious incident recently in Oyama. The young people wanted an avenue to take an initiative through which they could communicate and therefore pre-empt an incident like that from happening again. I had hoped that this would be a mechanism through which young people could begin to have direct input; unfortunately, it's not. If those high school students came to me and said, "I understand there's a child and youth advocate. Is that a way in which we can start to make recommendations so that we don't have another violent incident in Oyama?" I'd have to say no -- not unless you're somehow related to a Social Services facility, or you've got a guardian and somehow you come underneath a designated act. I would assume that the designated act is going to be designated by cabinet, and that is unfortunate.
In second reading, in terms of the principle of the bill, I have some very grave concerns about the principles behind this bill, because we have limited representation and sweeping power to restrict individual rights. Until we hear from the minister in committee stage, I'm not sure how that will be implemented. What will be the designated acts? Who is excluded from the act? Who is included, and why? What are the powers of the state to determine what is relevant to a community? That's a concern in terms of the language. What is the power of the state to enter a home and seize information? There is one section that is quite problematic in terms of the methods of gathering the information: if the advocate can use any method of gathering information and doesn't need a complaint to be made before they initiate this process; if the advocate can or may investigate and review a case of one or more individuals or groups, whether or not a request or complaint was made.... That's interesting. We know that in the case the minister cited -- Matthew Vaudreuil -- numerous complaints were made and were not followed up. If that is the case by which this triggered, why is it not necessary to have a trigger mechanism for the advocate to start an incredible breach of the individual rights of a family: sweeping powers to enter the home, seize the children, seize information and start looking into what that family is about? It bothers me greatly that there is no trigger mechanism and no way of determining how the advocate will decide who needs to be monitored. With the way the bill is written, you could have anyone being monitored anywhere and anytime, because the advocate can designate powers and, without a complaint even being made, have people monitored and gather information from their home or by interviewing the neighbours or the teacher -- without someone even knowing that an investigation is underway. That, I think, is a serious concern.
Obviously I do not want to be alarmist or to exaggerate, but looking at the language as it is written and at the powers as they are given, I don't understand the need for it. Certainly if these powers, as they are written here, bear out in committee stage, then the government is making a very serious mistake by bringing in a child and youth advocate in this way. It's something that is long overdue, but not in this way. Children need representation, but all children and all young people need broadly based representation, whether they're getting services from this government or not.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak on Bill 45, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. At the outset, let me suggest that I support the intentions of this bill, but I have some difficulties in terms of where this legislation appears to be going when you combine Bill 45 with Bill 46.
Over the course of time we have seen family values and parental responsibility erode substantially, and that's not all because of actions by government. Some of that has been due to economic demand and our expectations as a family of how we might achieve those luxuries in life and such. We've come to the situation where both family members are now out in the workplace, and parenting, obviously, is taking a lower priority in many cases than it should.
Notwithstanding that, I understand that there are real tragedies out there, and there's a need to deal with them. When we look at the Matthew Vaudreuil tragedy, there is a clear case that somehow the system failed. I suppose one question we might ask ourselves -- and certainly canvass during committee stage of these two bills -- is whether or not we could have prevented that if this legislation were in place. I'm not sure that is the case, but I look forward to that discussion.
I think there is a very narrow line between taking away the responsibilities of a parent and having the opportunity for parents to discipline his or her child, in the case of a
[ Page 11527 ]
single parent, or their child, in the case of a full family. I think we have seen situations today -- certainly I have in my constituency -- where young people who have had the Helpline available to them on a regular basis through TV have learned how to play the system. They have learned that when their parent is trying to discipline them -- especially between the ages of 12 and 16 -- if they call the Helpline and fabricate a story, they can circumvent the disciplinary action by their parent. In most cases, the social worker is able to filter that out and deal with it, but there are a lot of cases -- and I've certainly seen some -- where an overexuberant social worker has taken advantage of or misread the particular information, and has taken an action without consulting or considering the parents' input into the whole situation. If this improves that process to the point where it respects family values and the parents' responsibility, then we can certainly support the bill. But filtering that out is another issue that's best dealt with at committee stage.
[11:00]
Having said those things, I have some concerns with respect to these two bills. If you look at Bill 45 and the definition of a child, it reads: "...under 16 years of age, and (b) receives...." If you look at Bill 46 -- and we'll get into those discussions at committee stage as well -- we see that a child means "under 19 years of age...." We have some concern about this difference. It could lead to some legal confusion. Obviously that debate will come up later.
The largest part of my discussion will be on Bill 46, because I think that bill is probably the most controversial. The principle of child advocacy is great; we certainly can support that. The emphasis, though, has to be to protect the family's and parents' right to keep their family together and to deal with the issues that come forward on a day-to-day basis, and to reiterate the need for the parent to have the opportunity to deal with disciplinary actions -- certainly not in an abuse situation and not in an abusive way. But certainly they should have the authority and responsibility that goes along with raising a child.
With those few words, we support the principle of Bill 45 and look forward to the discussions in Bill 46.
G. Wilson: I want to add briefly to the comments from my colleague the member for Okanagan East, who spoke more to the detail of Bill 45. I want to speak primarily and more specifically to the principle.
We've heard from members opposite to the government that the concept of child advocacy -- a child advocate as sponsored, funded and directed by the government -- in principle is not offensive and in fact may even be desirable, given that we are living in a very quickly changing society in which many different stresses and pressures create difficulty for children. But we have to be extremely cautious whenever government empowers itself to override, abrogate or remove fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rights in society that are deemed apparent by virtue of a long historical tradition of their existence. The rights of the family, the parent and the individual child in this society are such rights. So we have to recognize that, as well-intentioned as this bill may be.
I'm sure those who have drafted this bill are attempting to get to an issue of concern to every single member of this House and every member of the community -- that is, children who are in trouble and who need help, protection and shelter from abuse. Let me tell you that I'd be the first person to say that the state should and must have some means to adequately intervene and protect those children.
I think we have to recognize that Bills 45 and 46 must be read in conjunction. In principle we can say that we support the concept of the advocate in Bill 45, although, as the member for Okanagan East pointed out, we would like to have seen it drafted in a way that provided a different approach to those powers. In Bill 46 we have to understand that the powers of this advocate will provide for the complete removal and abrogation of individual rights and freedoms in our society, which have to be sacrosanct and protected.
I remember a debate a couple of sessions back on the Human Rights Act, when we talked about freedom of speech and the right of the state to determine what can and can't be said and written before the Human Rights Commission can come in and take action. I remember the impassioned debate that took place. It was clear that every member believed that people who would perpetrate hate literature and hate-mongering and would do offensive and vile acts in this society are not desirable and should, in every measure, be discouraged. Action that is criminal in nature should be acted on by the state.
We must not grant the state wide and exclusive powers on issues where it can, with virtually no checks and balances, move in and remove rights, weakening the strength of individual rights and convictions; we must not grant that power to the state, as a state protector. This is where we do get into a really different philosophical approach to society and how government should advance its powers over people. Ultimately, government can have exclusive power over people. We have seen that. History is replete with examples of where those exclusive powers can be enormously discriminatory and detrimental to a free society, in which every individual is equal to every other and has the right to practice freedom of religion, freedom within the family, freedom within the community and freedom within their social context, which may have a historical and cultural tradition different from the mainstream.
In attempting to set the powers of an advocate to promote a certain direction with respect to raising children and with respect to how children should interface and interact, we have to be really careful that we are not essentially diminishing the right of one cultural group or family compared to another to raise their children in the manner that they deem those children should be raised.
If we're talking about abuse, then let's spell that out in the act. Let's spell out some kind of evidentiary requirements that must be in place for the state to come in and intervene. If we're talking about physical or sexual abuse, then let's put this in the Ministry of Attorney General and bring down some strong criminal law. Let's prosecute these people to the full extent of the law. Let's publish the names of those offenders. Let's have that kind of advocacy role, if that's what's being attempted here. Hon. Speaker, even in doing that you'd have civil libertarians standing up and immediately saying: "Hold it. The rights of individuals are being breached. You can't be doing that kind of thing."
If that isn't the case, and if we're looking at an advocacy position.... If we look at the powers of the advocate and the right of that advocate to delegate those powers within the community, hon. Speaker, I will tell you that we are potentially creating a serious problem with this bill. In the matter of children, I don't believe that the state should remove parents from their obligation to make sure that parenting and parenting skills are directed in an appropriate manner, unless there is sound evidence to do so. If there's an evidentiary requirement and somebody comes forward and says they have evidence to this effect, I'd be the first to advocate that indeed the state should intervene.
[ Page 11528 ]
We also have to understand that there is a role within the community. There is a need for community members to interact and interface -- neighbour to neighbour, family to family and within various church communities -- and take responsibility for people within their community. People must start to take that responsibility. We should not become dependent upon the state to intervene, because the powers of the state, even though they may be brought in in the very best-intentioned way -- and I believe they are.... I want to say on the record that I have the greatest respect for this minister. When there was a massive assault against the poor and welfare recipients in this province, I think this minister handled herself in an appropriate and proper way. I believe she became an advocate on that question, and I think that was good.
I'm not standing here saying that the state shouldn't have some kind of powers or rights to protect our children, because it has to have them. I'm saying that when you give those powers to government, you have to be extremely careful, because we may not always have a government in power in British Columbia that sees things the way that we in this chamber collectively see things today. We may not always have in Canada a government that recognizes fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, and also recognizes that while there are collective interests and rights, it cannot or should not abrogate or subjugate the right of the individual. We may not always have the kind of compassionate approach toward government that a small-l liberal approach may be. When you put into the hands of government the power to delegate authority with respect to the advocacy powers in this group, you run the risk of removing fundamental rights and freedoms. We have a serious concern about that, especially when we read it in conjunction with the powers that are provided to this individual, and those that this individual can delegate under Bill 46, which is coming up for review.
Let me say that we serve notice now that we will have a full canvass of this question, because I believe the people of British Columbia are collectively responsible for the welfare of the children of the province. I believe communities must stand up, come forward and protect children within their community. Neighbours must look after the interests of neighbours; those within church communities must look after the interests of their community members. I do not believe we should simply turn a blind eye and expect the heavy hand of the state -- often the insensitive and inflexible hand of the state -- to come in and abrogate human rights and powers that should be properly invested in and resting within the family. That's a pretty scary proposition.
So we serve notice now that as we move into committee stage on Bill 45 -- but more specifically, on the bill we're about to debate -- we are going to hold this government accountable on those questions, because they are the very real questions that society is going to want answered. To what extent is this government moving in and abrogating fundamental rights and freedoms that should properly rest with members of the community, notwithstanding the absolute need to make sure that children are protected? It's not an easy thing to do, and I don't envy this minister -- in fact, I congratulate this minister for attempting to draft something here -- because it's a most delicate balance, and if the state crosses that line we create a set of conditions that are undesirable to a free society.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I begin by thanking all of my hon. colleagues in the House for what is already a very thoughtful debate around the issues that are facing us. I know that we're anxious to get into the next bill too, because the two are inextricably tied. I must also thank my colleagues for raising some good questions that require further exploration in committee stage.
So let me give a couple of concluding remarks around my view of the issues that have been raised so far, but certainly not provoking committee stage on this matter. We really are going into a new era on these matters. We have to read the changes that are occurring now in a new light. I know that society and many of us in this chamber have had a wide range of experience under the old laws and the old system. We all agree that that old system doesn't work and requires change.
[11:15]
But how do we create a new world without creating more problems? How do we actually deal with the very serious issues of child neglect, child poverty and child abuse that come before us and also deal with the emerging crises that face families under this new economic structure? We do have to approach this debate with a new look, a new attitude and a new approach. It is a fine balancing act. In this act, we are not by any means making the advocate the new, easy replacement for good parenting in a strong, secure family. That is not the intent at all. The advocate is given a mandate here to be persuasive, supportive, inclusive and assisting, but not intrusive. I know that we need to discuss that and assure ourselves that that is not the role of the advocate. The advocate is not going to become the parent or guardian in a situation where that indeed should not occur.
In fact, the advocate is there to assist, to try to prevent problems before they happen and to try to preclude one part of society dominating a child's life, a youth's life or even a family's life where that domination is inappropriate. So I hope that in committee stage I'll be able to give all the hon. members assurances that we are trying to bring balance to a family's life and a child's life. We are not, in any way, intruding into rights, except where the rights of a child, a youth or maybe even a family have gotten so inextricably out of balance that the advocate will insert himself or herself to restore that balance in a persuasive way, not in a way that imposes, orders or intrudes.
As I said in the debate, we are really trying to make sure that the most vulnerable in our society now finally have a voice. In many cases, the most vulnerable -- and it could be an adult in this situation -- has a voice so small that the voice can't be heard against big government. The advocate will balance the rights and needs of the people receiving the services against the government's interests. That's where things often get out of balance.
The points are well-taken about whom this act applies to. We can certainly discuss that further in committee stage and explore how I, at least, as the introducing minister, see that unfolding. I would be more than happy to have debate about where we've been in discussions and where it can lead, and also to give some comfort to the chamber about how services are designated. Clearly there is no hidden agenda. We've been an open book in this area for the last two years, and now is the time to make that debate even more open.
I also want to give comfort to the members of the chamber that the role of the advocate is not that of the ombudsman, even though the ombudsman role is valuable in governing and in society. The advocate will insert herself or himself much earlier in the process; it will be before the problem has arisen, before a family is in crisis and unable to resolve its own crisis. Many services will be available to the advocate to recommend, in order to assist and perhaps not have the child end up in tragic situations. That will all be done with the support of both the community and the family, if the family
[ Page 11529 ]
is available to be supportive. Unfortunately, in many instances in our society the family just isn't there to be supportive.
There are a couple of concerns that we can discuss further. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara raised, we have to ensure that we are not putting an undue burden on the Legislature, and that the hon. Speaker has the right support available to make this advocate truly independent -- one who is not beholden to the government of the day in terms of saying that the government has done the best it could. We need the independence of the advocate, and many of us in this House have called for that independence in previous examples that have come before us. It is up to us as a governing body to ensure that the resources are available to ensure the independence of the advocate. In committee stage we can discuss how to ensure that the needs of all children, youth and families in this province are met.
I very much look forward to committee stage. With that, hon. Speaker, I now move that the bill be read a second time.
Motion approved.
Bill 45, Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 46, standing in the name of the Minister of Social Services.
CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am pleased to be able to bring forward this piece of legislation today in conjunction Bill 45, which we have already discussed. The Child, Family and Community Service Act, which this government introduced on May 18, represents a new approach to child welfare. Since taking office, this government has been working to replace outdated legislation with new laws and a new system that will ensure the safety and well-being of children, and provide support for families who are experiencing significant levels of stress or conflict.
At present, the province's role in providing child welfare services is governed by the Family and Child Service Act. That legislation was passed in 1980 and came into force in 1981. We have seen many changes in the intervening years. Two recessions and the economic shifts that accompanied them have permanently changed the lives of families and communities across this province. New social trends have emerged. Women are entering the workforce in ever-greater numbers. We are seeing more and more single-parent families. Child poverty is a tragic reality that most people today witness in their own communities. We now know more about the frequency of child abuse in our communities and understand more about its long-term effect on victims. I am sure that every member of this House is troubled by the growing number of children living on our streets and the increasing number involved in prostitution. First nations are demanding the right to reassume responsibilities for the protection of their own children and of strong cultural identities within their own communities. The public is demanding greater accountability from all government ministries and agencies, the Social Services ministry included. Our child welfare legislation has not kept pace with these changes or with society's increased understanding of the unique support needed by families and children living in traumatic circumstances.
It is for these reasons that we have drafted the legislation before you -- the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Among its highlights are an emphasis on the importance of the family support services that strengthen families, which will reduce the need for children to be removed from the home, and on greater community involvement. The legislation reinforces the importance of the community in protecting children and developing strong, functional families, and there is external accountability for the first time ever.
We've proposed the establishment of a review board to remedy complaints regarding the rights of children in care. This legislation review process began in November 1991 when my predecessor, the hon. Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services, appointed a community panel made up of people from the public and private sectors. The panel reviewed British Columbia's existing child protection legislation and recommended changes to services for children, families and communities. Social workers and other community professionals came forward to share their experiences and offer insights. So did many others who have traditionally been excluded from the decision-making process -- young people, parents, marginalized and isolated communities, and ethno-cultural groups. Many told stories full of anguish and despair: parents whose families had been disrupted, young people who had been abused, and social workers who felt trapped. The examples are endless, but throughout all of the stories, the panel reported that there was hope of change and the belief that this input would lead to improvements.
In December 1992 the panel presented two reports calling for sweeping changes to B.C.'s child and family legislation. Making Changes -- A Place to Start takes an overall view. Liberating Our Children, Liberating Our Nations focuses on the needs and aspirations of aboriginal people. The Ministry of Social Services responded to the community panel's suggestions last July by issuing a White Paper for public review. It resulted in another 160 submissions. The proposed Child, Family and Community Service Act is an outcome of these extensive, thorough and comprehensive public consultations.
This legislation that is now before us is based on a number of guiding principles. These principles will establish a set of values on which family and children's services are to be based. They will guide program and policy development, they will ensure accountability, and they will provide direction to the numerous professionals and the general community involved in implementing the act.
Let me go through some of these guiding principles. Children are entitled to protection from abuse, neglect, harm or threat of harm. The family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children. Responsibility for their protection rests primarily with their parents. Families should be given support services, if those are what is needed to create a safe and nurturing environment for a child. A child's view should be taken into account when decisions relating to that child are made. Kinship ties and the child's attachment to the extended family should be preserved wherever possible. The cultural identity of aboriginal children should be preserved. Decisions relating to children should be made and implemented as quickly as possible.
The primary aim of the legislation is the protection of children. This is framed as an entitlement, in the first principle: "...children are entitled to be protected from abuse, neglect and harm or threat of harm." My ministry
[ Page 11530 ]
receives about 30,000 allegations of child abuse in every given year. Typically, one-third of these reports go no further than the initial investigation -- I think that's what the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca was referring to -- and it turns out that the report is unfounded or malicious, or that the ministry is already involved with the family. The other 20,000 reports warrant full inquiries by my ministry. Half of those lead to support services for parents who are having difficulties caring for their children. Early intervention and support services help families to deal with problems before they get out of hand and, at the same time, provide safe and adequate care for children in their own home.
This brings in the second and third guiding principles that I have mentioned: children should remain with their families wherever possible, and families should receive the support they need to care for their children. A child's greatest resource, after all, is a strong, secure family. All too often in the past we have seen children coming into care when a family crisis or breakup could have been averted, given the right help at the right time. Current legislation makes absolutely no provision in this area. In the event of a crisis, the social worker is confronted with two choices: either to remove the child from the home or leave the child in a potentially abusive situation. Neither of these may be the most effective response.
The new legislation proposes a variety of support and prevention programs and services, including child care, in-home support, family counselling, respite care and parent education, and services for children who witness family violence. The Child, Family and Community Service Act also offers the option of a new type of voluntary care agreement for parents who are temporarily unable to care for the child. It varies from the current custody agreement in a number of ways. Parents will be guaranteed involvement in decisions affecting children. The aims are to continue contact between parent and child and to maintain parental responsibilities so that families can be reunited as speedily as possible.
Children will be granted the right to express their views and have them taken into account when decisions are being made about placement and services. A child will not be taken into state care unless all viable alternatives have been considered and found unworkable. Alternatives could be in-home support services, care by a member of the immediate or extended family, or care by a person the child knows who has a special cultural relationship with that child.
[11:30]
The community panel identified the need for more culturally appropriate responses to aboriginal children, families and communities. The Child, Family and Community Service Act is a first step in addressing this issue. It provides opportunities for significant family and community involvement in planning for children. It acknowledges the central importance of the extended family in aboriginal culture. It recognizes communities of origin as the appropriate place for aboriginal children to be raised. It provides options to strengthen families and heal their communities when they are experiencing difficulties. It recognizes a broader definition of aboriginal children than in the current legislation. It encourages the resolution of problems within the family itself and ensures that community members will be able to participate in judicial proceedings involving children and families.
Under the new legislation, out-of-home placement of aboriginal children is governed by very specific language. Aboriginal children will be placed outside their extended families or communities only when no family or community placement is available. Even then, placement with an aboriginal family must be explored. The bill allows the Minister of Social Services to enter into agreements with aboriginal organizations, bands and communities, enabling them to undertake full authority for the administration of this act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act. This bill is an important first step in enabling first nations to reassume jurisdiction and authority in the area of family and children's services.
The number of children admitted to care by parental agreement has been increasing since 1990. We are now seeing around 3,000 children a year entering care this way. Another 2,500 children come into care each year because their family situations place them at risk. We are committed to taking the least intrusive measures that will be effective to protect the child. Removal should be the option of last resort.
The bill before you expands and clarifies the definitions of when a child needs protection and adds the specific concepts of emotional abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation. The Child, Family and Community Service Act will be used by a wide range of professionals in health care, education, law enforcement, counselling and day care, as well as by ordinary British Columbians, for the purpose of identifying and reporting suspected ill-treatment of children. It is therefore essential that the definitions of the concepts of abuse and neglect be precise and clear.
As you go through the bill, you will see that it introduces a range of other amendments in the area of child protection. Past practice was to remove a child from a home where another person posed a threat to the child's safety. Under this new legislation, the child may remain at home. It is the person perceived as the threat who now can be removed and prevented by court order from contacting the child.
The bill requires police to tell the Ministry of Social Services about any child under the age of 12 who commits a serious crime. This will enable ministry staff to investigate whether the child's home circumstances are contributing to their behaviour. The intention is not to adopt a punitive approach to young children who break the law. Rather, we want to ensure that families get the services necessary to help control the child's criminal behaviour, or that the child is removed if the home itself is a factor behind the criminal behaviour.
Even when protection concerns are substantiated, non-adversarial and collaborative options are available. For instance, at any stage of the process a family may request a family conference. Members of that immediate and extended family could take part, along with advocates, community health professionals and any others who may have a role in developing or supporting a plan for the care of the child. This family conference approach actually was developed in New Zealand and has been proving very effective in resolving family crises in that country. Here in B.C., we anticipate that the family conference will be a less stressful, less adversarial and less costly alternative to family court proceedings.
We believe that this avenue also will provide good plans for children in a more timely manner than the court system now does. Right now, contested court cases can take up to a year to be heard, and in that time a child's future is in limbo. This was one of the very specific areas the community panel identified in its recommendations. Long delays in courts are difficult and very damaging to all concerned, but especially to the child. Over the next year as we work toward implementing the act, we will be focusing on further strategies to avoid delays in the court system.
In addition to the family conference, the bill proposes mediation as another mechanism for resolving conflict in disputes where the parent and the ministry cannot agree on
[ Page 11531 ]
a plan of care for children. Where a matter must be decided by court, this legislation provides increased flexibility in the types of court orders that can be made.
The Child, Family and Community Service Act sets out clear, defined rights for children in care, including, as I mentioned earlier, the right to be consulted about their plan of care. We see this as our minimum obligation when government assumes the role of parent or guardian. A child and family review board will be established to review and respond to complaints about their care by children in care. Establishing the board recognizes the importance of involving the community in reviewing the needs of children in care. It also addresses the perception of bias or lack of impartiality associated with the purely internal review process. I commend the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for raising some of these concerns. I hope we will be able to explore them further in debate.
A child may initiate a review, as may someone representing the child, or a parent or an advocate. The board also has the authority of a commissioner under the Inquiry Act and may be asked by the minister to investigate specific cases. The Ministry of Social Services will be able to release reports from the review board if they are in the public interest. This will be for the very first time ever. I believe that access to information about the system's operation is a vital element to maintaining an accountable and progressive child welfare system.
The bill also creates a new approach to services for youth; that is, young people between the ages of 16 and 19. I also heard some concerns about how we define children in chronological age. We can discuss that at committee stage as well. This group of youth between the ages of 16 and 19 is a vulnerable age group. Teenagers who strike out on their own may need help to become independent and avoid the risks associated with life on the street, like prostitution and drug abuse.
I know we would all prefer to see our young people growing up with the support of their families and communities, but we have to recognize that in reality this is not always possible. Where neither parent is willing or able to assume responsibility, or where the youth is so alienated that reuniting the family is just out of the question, we cannot turn our backs. We must have a range of supportive services in place. Such services might include counselling, housing, educational assistance or health care.
Moreover, the bill does not arbitrarily cast young people adrift when they reach the age of 19, the legal age of majority. As many of us know, majority does not necessarily equate with maturity or independence. As long as a person has been receiving youth services until their nineteenth birthday, the bill allows these services to be extended for up to 24 months. Services will be available until the age of 24, provided the person is enrolled in an educational or rehabilitative program.
Many street kids trying to return to the mainstream have told us that government programs are either not available or not appropriate for the situations they find themselves in. This legislation provides flexibility. We will not shut the door on young people who are trying to finish their basic education or deal with a drug problem. We cannot hope to reach young people unless we can respond to their special needs. Our social workers and financial assistance workers must have tools and resources available to them, such as safe houses. They must be able to obtain restraining orders to protect young people from pimps and others who may cause them harm, and they must have the legal authority to return young people to their home communities.
It is important not only to grant rights but to ensure that they are protected and safeguarded. Under the separate legislation that we have already debated at second reading, we are proposing the appointment of an advocate to protect the rights of children, youth and their families. Just as we see the family as the child's greatest resource, so we see the community as the family's greatest resource, and the advocate will help establish the system for individual advocacy and support in the community. This government is committed to citizen participation and problem resolution at the community level.
However, our willingness and desire to strengthen families does not eliminate the need to protect children from abuse or neglect. As a society, we must effectively address the needs of our children. They are our future. How we treat them today will affect the quality of life for each and every British Columbian for decades to come, The Child, Family and Community Service Act introduces significant new ways of protecting children by involving the family and the community.
We are already making changes to the degree that that's possible under the existing legislation. For instance, we have launched a community development initiative. Workers are now out in the regions, helping communities to develop answers to broadly based problems. A number of innovative projects were introduced to explore new ways of helping families and children, and they are already in existence. Some of them are home-building programs, where families are offered intensive in-home supports as an alternative to removing children from their home. There's a project to empower women receiving services from our ministry. We created a client advisory group in family and children's services offices. There are new partnerships with aboriginal communities for the development of protocols and agreements on child welfare services.
I must inform members, though, that extensive staff training will be required to implement this new legislation. We will also be contacting our partners in the community -- teachers, medical personnel, police, community agency staff and others -- to seek their assistance and guidance in the implementation of this legislation. Implementation will include the development of a new interministry child abuse handbook, revised protocols for schools, police and hospitals, and increased emphasis on putting the community back into family and children's services. We will be embarking on a public education and awareness campaign to ensure that the community understands the legislation and the shift that this legislation represents. We are placing more emphasis on the importance of building strong, secure families and strong, functional communities. We are involving British Columbia's first nations in planning and delivering services to aboriginal families as they move toward recovering jurisdiction over their child welfare matters. We are committed to ensuring that our policies and programs respect the diverse cultural values, religious beliefs and linguistic heritage of this province.
These are the beginnings. The new legislation will allow us to take these concepts to completion, and to develop and implement policies, practices and programs which are responsive to the needs, aspirations and values of all British Columbians.
V. Anderson: I'd like to thank the minister for her presentation on Bill 46, the Child, Family and Community Service Act. She has covered it fairly comprehensively, at least in the purposes which she has outlined in this particular legislation.
[ Page 11532 ]
I would first of all thank the minister and her staff for the extensive briefings we were able to have on this and the other act we were discussing this morning. Those were very helpful in understanding the implications and the meanings and the interactions between the different parts of the two acts. I appreciate that very much.
One of the realities that I would like to comment on in the relationship between the two acts -- since it's come up for discussion before -- is the difference in the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, where the advocate is not a person who takes children into care. I think that's an important distinction that needs to be made. An advocate is a person who advocates on behalf of someone but does not take the actions which perhaps need to be taken, which are now being discussed in the current act. I think we need to make a distinction between the act which enables one to undertake certain actions and the act which consults, advises and raises the questions and the intentions around the rights of children -- and in particular cases, where children and youth can come for their individual concerns to be met.
I think one of the realities that's intended by this act -- I say it's intended, and I hope it will be fulfilled.... As the minister has indicated, a lot more than this act needs to be in place in order for that intention to become a reality. There has been an impression in the last number of years, with the present act and its implication for government agencies, that the act itself was more important than the people who were being dealt with through the act; that the needs of people were second to the system and the government operation -- its finances, its rules and its regulations.
[11:45]
There has been a feeling that there is no dignity or respect for people in the community at large. The more you happened to have difficulties in your life, whether or not they were your doing, the less respect was available to you. That is the mood and the feeling that has grown and developed. I think we have to be realistic and honest and say that it's there.
Therefore when we bring in new acts, unfortunately it will probably be looked at in the context of people's experience with the totality of governments. Automatically there's a great deal of suspicion. Will the legislation actually change anything, or will it be as it has been so often in the past: a change of name, a change of personnel, a change of regulations, a change of wording, but no change in the actual day-to-day reality of what happens? In actual fact, it's not just the act that changes. The people who are implementing any act, whatever it might be, have to change their attitudes, directions, purposes and intentions.
In part, as we mentioned before, it's not only the act in itself but it's the way the act is used and managed within a government system and the community at large. We may look at the exact wording of an act. We can look at its intentions and its purposes. But we must also look behind the scenes to discover how, why, when and where it will actually have life and meaning. How, why, when and where is very fundamental to any process that we're involved in, particularly one like this, which deals with the most personal realities of people's lives when they're in the most difficult circumstances and are most vulnerable. When circumstances have put them down and when they're at the last straw, it's so often people wondering what to do next, not only for themselves as parents but also for the children and the interaction between them, which affects not only their personal family life but their extended families, their community, their businesses and their friendships. Everything they're involved in is affected by what happens in this particular circumstance. In an act like this -- probably more so than in most others we deal with -- we're caught up with an interaction and web of activities, all of which have to be taken into account. So it's very difficult to deal with it simply on its own merit and in its own right. As other members have indicated, there are implications for the future. We can assume the context, at the moment something is dealt with, to be trustworthy, honourable and fair. But will it always be done in that context? Is the act able to stand up against negative changes that might come within government?
Also, we must ask how it fits into the context of other acts within government. Some that have to be taken into account are the Infants Act, the Adoption Act, the Family Relations Act, the Child Paternity and Support Act, the Community Care Facility Act, the GAIN Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Residence and Responsibility Act and the Social Workers Act -- just to name a few. All these other acts interact with the context of this legislation that we are bringing forth.
The government is attempting -- and I say attempting, because even with the best will and for the best purposes in the world, many of our attempts are not actualized -- to bring in a new approach, a new way of recognizing children, youth and their families in the context in which they live in today's society, not in yesterday's or in that of previous years. I believe they're trying to reflect not only today's society but what tomorrow's society may be, which is an even trickier undertaking, with the speed of change around us.
We are dealing in this particular act with an approach, which I commend, that says that children and their families are of first and primary importance, that the family context is being recognized, and that children should be first of all supported within the family context whenever possible -- and only after it is not possible will they be shifted into the context of substitute families.
There is very little discussion within the act itself about what those substitute family contexts will be. We're looking at the possibility of foster homes and a whole variety of care opportunities to support these people in different circumstances, if for some reason they have to be separated from their family for a night, a day, a weekend, a month or even a year.
The context in which they would be placed is extremely important, and the interaction between these contexts is very important. One of the items which is not clear within the legislation -- the intention is there, but it's not clear -- is how the context will be maintained right from the very first moment some interaction is made.
There's a style of meeting and interacting with each other. We're caught in the confusion, if you like, of doing things on a legal basis in our society and looking for legal terminology. Other members have said in disgust that they would have seen these acts -- at least, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act -- come under the Attorney General's ministry, because they apparently wanted to have a legal interaction here. That has advantages, but it also has disadvantages, because the confrontational legal system that we have in our society is, from my point of view, not the best or first place to deal with the needs of children, youth and families. That has to be done in a more consultative, interactive and supportive system where resources can be made available to look at the cause of the difficulty.
Also, the act does not state very clearly what is being done to look at the causes of the difficulty. It's implied, but it's not particularly expressed. The causes are fundamental. People have so often been removed from circumstances or from their homes, and they have been nourished and
[ Page 11533 ]
brought back to health. Then they have gone back as a family unit or as an individual into the situation which caused the problem in the first place. The second reality is even worse than the first, because one has to look at the causes of the problem. Who is responsible, and how can it be dealt with? We will often find that it's not the family or the person who has been the cause of their difficulty; it's been circumstances completely outside their control. I'm not sure that this act has taken those outside factors into account and asked how we can bring the total resources of the community together to deal with that process.
There is a concern that it take place without inter-ministerial support and understanding across the board. It's not only those who work within the Ministry of Social Services who must understand the philosophy and the process of this particular act; it must be a new philosophy and process of the government, the Legislature and the people of the province. There may need to be a period of preparation, and yet we cannot wait for that, because the situation for many children, youth and families is crucial at this very moment. We're caught in that chicken-and-egg context of having to prepare ourselves on one hand, but on the other hand having to act before we are prepared.
We also are caught in the conflict of wanting to be sure that no ill will is caused by this particular act and that no new problems are created by its very implementation. But in order to get at the existing problems, it seems to me that that's a risk we have to take. We have to do as much as we can to reduce that risk, but we have to realize that any new system we put in place will also create its own problems and difficulties. That is the reality of the circumstances in which we live.
As we go through this act we will have a lot of questions, and we will deal with those in detail in third reading. But the general principle and purpose indicate to me that it is a definite improvement on the present legislation in that it has more flexibility and more opportunity. Because of that new flexibility and opportunity, it also has more uncertainty, an uncertainty we need to live with in order to grow with it and evaluate it as the process is underway.
In third reading, or when she responds, I hope the minister may present to us the ongoing evaluation process so that as the act is implemented it can be reviewed and its negative impacts can be corrected as soon as they arise. I am sure there will be negative impacts. I am sure we will have to deal with them quickly, or else people will be caught in the new cracks we create as we open a new process.
It will not be an easy process to undertake, because the whole system is so regimented in its operation. The organization, regulations and training within the system to date do not change as easily -- even as an act itself can be changed, regardless of how much time and effort went into it -- because there is suspicion, uncertainty and distrust, not only of Social Services but of government and everything it does within the community. That is a reality we must look at. People will question beyond any shadow of a doubt to confirm that there is going to be a change and a new sense of direction. The sensitivities we might hear in this discussion about this particular act are things that need to be taken into account.
[12:00]
I am being reminded by my colleagues that it is 12 o'clock. Perhaps I should ask that we adjourn debate.
V. Anderson moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
The House in Committee of supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:16 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
On vote 11: minister's office, $291,891 (continued).
R. Chisholm: This morning I'd like to ask your thoughts on provincial barriers in this country and the ongoing process to dismantle those barriers -- I hope. I'd eventually like to talk about the ALR, and a bit on aboriginal land claims and where we're going in that department, for we see it creating havoc in this particular industry.
The first areas I want to talk about are urban growth and the future of urban growth, and how we're going to control these in the ALR. Urban sprawl is bringing residential development right up to our doorsteps, and it is bringing along a set of problems which we haven't confronted before because of the lack of population in our area. I'm wondering what the minister sees as solutions to some of these, if we aren't going to have the right-to-farm bills right away and we have this ongoing study. What does he see as an interim solution to some of these problems that seem to be creating havoc in different communities, whether we talk about Kelowna, Richmond, Vancouver or even a place like Cultus Lake? What do you see as a solution for some of these problems -- especially when other ministries, like the Ministry of Environment, are bringing pressures to bear -- by trying to make the system more responsive to individual farmers? With all these regulations we've been talking about and all these different departments and ministries, it seems to be getting more complicated daily. I realize the world is becoming complicated, but we must do all we can to simplify it. After all, these people are out there to farm, not to spend their whole life getting around government regulations or harassment or that type of thing. I just want to hear your overview about where we're going in this area, not including right-to-farm bills and that type of thing, but about how we are going to solve these problems and whether we can get cooperation from other ministries and other levels of government.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The fact that the member is raising the issue probably indicates its importance and the fact that it isn't easily resolved. Let me give you some examples of what is happening and where some progress is being made.
[ Page 11534 ]
The land commission has been developing buffering specifications for farming on the urban-rural interface. As you know, we are bringing in some amendments -- which are before the House right now -- to the Land Commission Act, which give a greater role to the interface between local government planning and land commission planning. There has to be more exposure of official community plans that affect the ALR so the land commission can comment on them and require some consistency. The Georgia basin initiative is addressing this issue as well, and there's the conference we're holding this fall in the Okanagan on land and water use issues affecting agriculture.
We have put forth some model zoning bylaws that can be adopted by local governments, which would be consistent with the zoning. We certainly recognize the issue and have asked the commission to address it. They will address it in their regional tours. Today, for example, they're in the Cariboo holding discussions with mayors of municipalities about how they're going to plan together.
I think it's on everybody's mind. We have to find a negotiated solution to most of these problems, because the heavy hand of the land commission isn't going to solve them. There's always an interface somewhere, and there are always changes in uses and new technologies that will affect one use or another back and forth. So we're working on it. I have discussed it with the land commission. I intend to discuss this very problem in the Okanagan, where it is particularly acute, at a meeting with the council of councils later this week.
R. Chisholm: The last part of the question is: what are we doing as a government with the communication between ministries to ease the burden of regulation and to ease the burden of being able to solve these problems without the overpowering bureaucracy -- or government, if you will -- bearing down on the individual farmer, and to make it a little easier to access and come to a solution with some of the problems he has? Otherwise, what we're seeing right now is that he's being harassed to the point of going out of business.
I'm not so concerned that we're going out there and talking to the public. I'm concerned that the bureaucracy itself is not reacting to this situation or trying to simplify their methods and the way the farmer can access these ministries and come to a conclusion easily without spending weeks and months going to court and all the rest of the paraphernalia that might happen over these situations.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As a general problem, I think it's being tackled. You may want to raise specific items that aren't.
With respect to the overall need to coordinate, I think the best example is the waste management program, where an industry group goes in first and makes some assessment of the situation, and tries to get cooperation by peer pressure. Failing that, then -- and only then -- the government will step in.
The Agricultural Environmental Protection Council, under the sponsorship of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, is working to look at government regulations and jurisdictions from the point of view of the farm, and I think that's working. I have a couple of examples. Both the Federation of Agriculture and the B.C. Horticultural Council have held meetings, which we have assisted them in setting up, where the various representatives of the ministries come around the table and discuss the problems with the farmers, and that leads to some policy recommendations.
While I haven't seen the final copy, I participated in the one that was sponsored by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. With all the ministries in the room focusing on the farmers' point of view, that information then can go back to inform policy-making. We are very active as a ministry whenever a regulation, proposal or initiative looking at the impact on agriculture comes around, and we make that known to the other agency. There are a lot of cases where there have been successes, not the least of which are the smoke guidelines and waste management guidelines. I could give you several other examples. To some extent, it is working. If you have some specifics, we could get into them, but, as a general rule, I think we're on top of it. Short of no regulations, the best thing is to look at and assess the impact and then evaluate the impact later on after they've been instituted.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to change the subject to interprovincial barriers, and I will start off with an article from the Globe and Mail dated April 6, 1994. I'll quote from that article, which gives us a pretty good overview of what the interprovincial barriers are and how horrendous this situation is. I realize there is an ongoing discussion between the finance ministers and others to try to alleviate some of these problems. At the end of this, my question to the minister will be what this ministry is doing to further enhance the efforts of the Minister of Finance in this area and to gain cooperation from other jurisdictions. The quote is this:
"Interprovincial trade barriers are perhaps the biggest solvable economic problem that our politicians cannot bring themselves to solve. The figure most often cited as the cost of the interprovincial trade barriers is $6.5 billion per year, based on a 1991 study by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. While that's a huge figure, this study estimates the costs of barriers in only three areas: government procurement, beer and milk. Of the total, $5 billion was derived simply by assuming governments paid on average five percent more for locally-produced goods and services than they would if free to buy at the lowest cost.
"Two simple facts may indicate the true dimension of the problem. Trade between provinces is almost as large as trade between Canada and other countries: $146 billion to $160 billion, as of 1989. Some companies with plants in Canada have even taken to registering their U.S. affiliates when bidding on contracts in other provinces, to be sure of equal treatment."
This affects agriculture just as much as it does these industrial companies. The barriers between Alberta and British Columbia, as I've mentioned before, are as high as 16 percent depending on the commodity, the input cost and all the rest.
My question to the minister is: how are you advising the Minister of Finance? Is your ministry involved in these ongoing negotiations with agriculture ministers to try to drop these barriers? The amount of farm industry generated would be humongous if we can get rid of these barriers and start being fair with each other as trading partners. I'm just wondering what your position is and what the ministry is doing to help bring the barriers down.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've never accepted that figure you quote of $6.5 million. I think it's a bogus figure. It has a lot of assumptions, and it isn't a study worthy of any commentary. But the press have picked up on it, and they keep using it. When I was minister of what is now the Ministry of Employment and Investment, we did our own analysis and found the figure to be more like $750 million, a substantial portion of which has to do with supply management. If you accept the principle of supply management and see that as a barrier to trade, then you've got a problem, because you can't
[ Page 11535 ]
have supply management systems and expect to remove all barriers.
In fact, an interesting study was done -- the one I referred to earlier -- by Copeland, who estimated that it really wasn't an economic efficiency matter, it was a matter of distribution. It was a matter of distributing economic activity, as opposed to restricting it. Having said that, I think we recognize it as a problem. The ministers of agriculture actually had a head start on the internal trade ministers in terms of working on this subject, and they still retain some responsibility within the sector. So, in this case, we do provide advice to the Minister of Employment and Investment, not the Minister of Finance, in terms of getting him to understand how the reduction of trade barriers is going to affect British Columbia's agricultural interests.
[10:30]
Recognizing that there are some things that are legitimate in terms of regional development and that we must preserve the right of regional development, I would put in that policy category supply management as a provincial area of responsibility. However, we are looking at efficiencies through the national task force on supply management. There are a number of areas where ministers of agriculture have agreed to eliminate some of the technical barriers that are different, for example, from supply management. These are in semen testing, UHT sterilized milk products, cracked eggs, game farming, fur farming, meat premises inspection -- we talked a bit about that yesterday -- blueberry maggot, beef grade labelling and organic standards. So there are a number of areas where we can make substantial progress. The ministers of agriculture are continuing to work on that. We are keeping the Minister of Employment up to speed on what we're doing, and, as we speak, our position on these subjects is being negotiated with other trade ministers in eastern Canada -- in Fredericton, I think.
R. Chisholm: I thank the minister for that answer, but there is a second part to the question regarding input costs, and I'll quote a couple of figures.
We have some problems with these interprovincial barriers -- for instance, there is a 4 cent rebate on gasoline in Alberta, but not in B.C., and a 10 cent rebate on diesel in Alberta, but not in B.C. These rebates roughly translate into a penalty of about $8 to $10 an acre for producing in British Columbia. On an acre of canola, for instance, $85 is a substantial amount to a farmer. I'm talking specifically about this particular area, but there are others I could quote where there is an imbalance between provinces. I wonder if input costs on a given commodity are being discussed, not only the other areas that you've covered. The imbalance brought about by higher costs due to taxes on gas or on land definitely puts us at a disadvantage.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Firstly, I don't see input costs particularly as the type of barriers that are being discussed. The position is that you don't remove barriers without looking at what that does to competitiveness. In some cases, barriers were there in order to ensure an activity because the playing field may not have been level.
In the case you are referring to, the rebate on gasoline was removed in Alberta's last budget; there is now zero rebate on gasoline. The rebate is only 6 cents on diesel fuel. You should update your research on that. The fertilizer rebate was removed previously, so the disadvantage you are alluding to on cost input has been altered radically over the last year. Now the gap in costs of raising grain or any other product has narrowed between British Columbia and Alberta. As Alberta attempts to do what we're doing in B.C., balance the budget, the gap will be reduced even more.
R. Chisholm: I realize that I gave you a specific point to address on a general topic about whether input costs are on the table and being discussed. It doesn't matter what input cost I'm discussing -- land taxes or gasoline. Are input costs on the table? Are they being discussed? Will they come to a consensus? Are you involved in this? How is your ministry involved in looking at and evaluating the difference between commodity groups? Do you have input at the table where these discussions are taking place? Is the Finance minister addressing this issue at all? That's the point I was trying to get at, not that specific commodity.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If there are subsidies that constitute a barrier to interprovincial trade, then they are on the table. There is a tendency in the country to move against these kinds of barriers. I gave you the example of removal of barriers in Alberta. There we see the removal of some subsidies that created an unlevel playing field. If we work towards an orderly marketing system and we want the country to be competitive with other countries, then we have to find ways to have a level playing field. So some of these things are being discussed by ministers of agriculture and also by ministers of economic development responsible for internal trade.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to turn to the aboriginal land claims issue and the ongoing Treaty Commission. Aboriginal land claims represent a major issue for virtually all of British Columbia's agricultural community -- and fishing communities, for that matter. The aboriginal peoples must be dealt with fairly, and the agricultural industry's needs, including access to use of resources, must be considered equally. What is this minister and ministry doing to ensure that this happens? Are you involved in the ongoing discussions in your ministry? Do you have input into the Treaty Commission? Is the ALR being discussed in connection with the Treaty Commission? Is this ministry being kept up to date by the Treaty Commission? Is there communication going back and forth to make sure that inaccuracies or confusions are dealt with fairly early on? There is a lot of stress and tension in different areas over access to land, water rights and land rights.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The commission does not report to a minister or to the government. It's an independent commission established by law where the representatives of the first nations and the provincial and federal governments sit, and they are the keepers of the process. In other words, they ensure that there's fairness in the negotiations. The negotiations are separate. With respect to any particular negotiation that's going on, there is a set of third-party advisers, as there is in the Nisga'a claim.
The agricultural community has two representatives on the third-party advisory group, and they advise the Treaty Commission and the government on the effects that need to be considered in treaty negotiations. As a ministry, we work with and advise the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. which is the lead agency dealing with treaty negotiations. If there is a policy matter that affects agriculture, then, of course, we will comment.
The agricultural land reserve will be like any other land use designation, and a first nation may wish to discuss those designations. As we're seeing with CORE, there are consultations going on with respect to establishing certain
[ Page 11536 ]
land use zones. So whatever the provincial land use is will be the position that the province takes to the table, and there will be negotiations on those land uses as they affect the treaty settlement.
R. Chisholm: Who do the two members from the agricultural community report to? Are they reporting back to BCFA or to anybody in the industry to alleviate the antagonisms created by fear of the unknown? How is this communication facilitated? It doesn't seem to be happening, and it seems to be creating a problem within the industry in the province.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The fact that people will be unsettled by us trying to deal with this historic problem is not going to go away easily. The report by Guy Rose to the third-party advisory committee was a very good report. He reported to the cattlemen -- they're the ones who selected him. There is a second representative from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture: I don't have the name right now. They report back to their parent organizations, so some information will filter down. Like anything else, there can be misinformation out there, and there are concerns. I think there have been some publications produced lately by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs that actually explain the process and the effects of third-party rights.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: As for the comment with regard to Kitimat, I did see it from about 12,000 feet above sea level.
At any rate, I just want to follow up on my colleague from Chilliwack, who I think raised an interesting question here. I guess the best way to express this is to say that a number of people throughout the province are quite concerned about the direction we're headed in terms of settling land claims in the province of British Columbia. There's the fishers, the foresters and maybe the cattlers -- or whatever cattlemen are commonly called. We do have rustlers, but hopefully rustlers are not around. It's the cattlemen's interests that I believe we want to address.
The cattlemen, nonetheless, have expressed some concern for several months, especially since the Treaty Commission process has been underway. As I'm sure the minister is aware, I believe there are now more than 40 statements of intent. Of course, in recent days a statement was made by one of the aboriginal communities that their claim is going to extend throughout the Chilcotin. I'm sure the minister is aware of this, and I know he is intimately familiar with the Chilcotin country. It's in this context that we're seeking some guidance from the minister. Obviously the minister is in communication with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but, by the same token, I recognize that the Minister of Agriculture is in a very difficult position -- but in a position -- to address this particular issue with regard to the land claim, on one hand, and the implication it has for the cattlemen on the other.
The minister mentioned two advisers, and I noted that one of them refers to the cattlemen. I'm kind of interested to know how that adviser represents the cattle industry, as well as the interests of British Columbians in the area, and also advises both the Treaty Commission and the government.
Somewhere along the line, the government has to represent the people of British Columbia, including the cattle industry, at the negotiation table in dealing with the federal government and the aboriginal communities who are making the claim.
[10:45]
So it's in this context that I want to explore with the minister the fact that the process is quite unclear. There is the Treaty Commission being set up, and there is the statement of intent. What adds to the confusion for many British Columbians is that when a statement is made, as was the case the other day, of a land claim over the entire Chilcotin area, obviously this has a number of people upset. The government is perhaps in a very good position to outline essentially where we go from this point onward and how we resolve this issue in the best interests of all British Columbians, including the aboriginal community.
So in that context I would like to ask the minister if he could elaborate on the question posed by my hon. colleague for Chilliwack. Perhaps it would be an opportunity for the minister to alleviate these concerns in some detail.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is speaking in general terms, and I tried to address my original comments in general terms as well. The alleviation of concerns deals with the specifics. It is commonly known that concerns of people in agriculture in the interior are what happens to their third-party rights such as water, grazing and whatever else. Nothing happens to the third-party rights until there is a settlement, so a statement of intent is just that: a statement of intent. It's what they intend to negotiate, and there are no results until the negotiations are completed. There may be some interim measures taken to protect some particular final right that may be the subject of negotiation.
The member would have to be specific. If he's asking about the Tsilhqot'in specific claim, we don't know until we've seen it. I don't have a copy of it, but I'm trying to get hold of one. It's filed with Indian Affairs, and they will release it, as they must. Being that it's filed with the federal government, that government is not in a position to impose any restrictions on third-party use of land in the interim. That's my understanding. This is an uncharacteristic specific claim. The nearest analogy I can give you is to the specific claim to rights that are reserved for water. The pre-eminence of provincial legislation with respect to water has been there and remains there, and if a settlement is made based on some reservation of water, then that's the process of negotiations between the federal government and the first nation.
What happens in this case, because the land and resources have been assigned to provincial jurisdiction, is that the federal government will have to bring in the provincial government. What I can say to give some comfort to the third-party interests is that we have to examine the legal case that they've made and see if there are ramifications. It's early to say, but I can tell you that when examining the possibility of this happening, third-party interests have been informed by the lawyers for that first nation, and it's just serving notice that they have to take into account that there may be an aboriginal right in the area that has to be discussed. I think the resolution to this is going to be at the negotiating table, and the province is not going to make any accommodations it's not required to under the constitution.
A. Warnke: There's a particular case I'm thinking of that the minister has referred to. The aboriginal community in the area has filed its statement of intent, and those who are involved with third-party interests want to know where they file their equivalent statement of intent. A resolution somewhere along the line means that there are competing interests that somehow have to seek resolution. The minister said that third parties are essentially informed as to what the intent is. I think the third-party interests then automatically ask themselves if, with the statement of intent being filed
[ Page 11537 ]
with the federal government, they and the provincial government obviously they and the provincial government have to wait for the details of that statement as mentioned by the minister. That's fair enough, but by the same token, third parties who are affected also want to put forward their position in advance. Otherwise, to be merely informed that there is this statement of intent without having any reciprocal response is perhaps perceived as already being at a disadvantage. Maybe the minister can address that particular concern.
Second, even if interim measures are introduced, the provincial or federal government can say: "Well, there are these interim measures that will guide our actions until a resolution is reached." It is perceived that the interim measures in themselves compromise the position and rights that people have or perceive that they have. I'm wondering if the minister could address those two concerns.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Where would a third party register their rights? First of all, the provincial government recognizes that there are third-party interests, and it has established an advisory process so that policy decisions guide what will be discussed at the provincial table. Once a claim has been accepted for negotiation, a regional table has to be established where those under the treaty negotiations will be given advice, and the third parties will feed in through their representatives. With respect to a specific claim, it's my understanding that anyone can register a third-party interest with the federal government, but you can be assured that the province, in any discussions pursuant to a specific claim under the old process, will advise the federal government of the nature of the interests that we have on record. In the interim, if someone feels they need to register their interests in case somebody didn't notice that they had one, then I would encourage them to direct their information to the provincial Minister of Aboriginal Affairs or to the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and to keep their local representative informed as well. As far as I understand a formal advisory process on specific claims, what will happen is that a specific claim that affects a third-party's rights will be taken to the third-party interest for discussion. That's the way it's happened in the past on specific claims.
A. Warnke: I'm somewhat reassured by some unequivocal statement made by the minister that the provincial government will represent those third-party interests and will essentially take and present their position before the Treaty Commission. That's how I understand the minister's answer. Perhaps it is in that context where people want to be reassured. There's an impression, perhaps incorrect, that the current government is all too willing to seek some sort of quick settlement, or to disguise a settlement, with the aboriginal community when the aboriginal community has in fact made it very clear that they will send their representatives: "We have our representatives. We're confident in our representatives."
We want the federal government to put forward their representatives, their team of lawyers, and so on -- and the same for the provincial government -- and make darned sure that they represent the people of Canada and the people of British Columbia. Essentially that's the assurance that we're trying to receive from the provincial government: that they are not seeking to cut any sort of deals or anything like that in advance of the Treaty Commission process. Would that be pretty accurate?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As Minister of Agriculture, this is not my area of responsibility. The policy is the responsibility of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In general, I think you're correct. The province has awarded these third-party interests some rights, which are there subject to certain performance or other conditions. They're not inalienable rights, although I think people see them as inalienable and necessary. People's rights under law will be respected in the treaty process.
R. Chisholm: With reference to land claims and to Mr. Guy Rose, I will read from a document sent to me by the Cattlemen's Association. They have claimed, for instance:
"The B.C. Cattlemen's Association is represented on lands and forests sectorial sub-committee of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee by Mr. Guy Rose of Quilchena. Mr. Rose is frequently prevented from communicating back to his third-party constituents, the ranchers, because, as a member of the sub-committee, he is under an oath of secrecy and is prevented from discussing what transpires at the meetings. We cannot understand why there appears to be such a veil of secrecy surrounding the treaty negotiation process. Would it not be in the interest of all British Columbians, indeed all Canadians, for the process to be open and above board since so many stand to have their livelihoods impacted by the final outcome?"
I think this could be part of the problem. This veil of secrecy, in not allowing them to speak to or to address the issue, or to report back to constituents, could be generating a lot of the mistrust of governments, of the Treaty Commission and of the process itself.
[11:00]
I wonder if you could discuss this with the appropriate authorities to ensure that the agricultural point of view is brought across, so that we know what's going on. Perhaps a lot of the tensions could then be alleviated, thereby further enhancing the process so that we could come to a friendly resolution, rather than having this veil of secrecy continually causing problems.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy again to convey to my colleague, who is responsible for establishing the rules, that the policy of confidentiality is part of the rules of the TNAC process and is something I can't explain. You'd have to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, since this is his responsibility. It's my understanding that the specifics of certain claims and positions being taken in negotiations are confidential. That's the nature of the negotiations. This isn't just everybody getting into a room and sorting it out. There have to be rules and procedures and very careful positions taken when the negotiations occur. They are negotiations, and very few are held with a completely open door; you know what the media would do with some of these things.
There should be a way to bring comfort to members of third-party groups on specific policy issues. I understand that is precisely what the representatives attempt to do. They will communicate policy issues back and provide input to the third-party advisory.
J. Dalton: Firstly, I have a comment to the hon. minister about the Chilcotin claim. I talked to my father-in-law last night, who, as the minister knows, is a constituent of his, and I can tell you firsthand that the number one concern in the Chilcotin today is this land claim. I hear the minister talking about comfort and other descriptives, but I don't think the people in the Chilcotin are in any way comfortable. That doesn't require a comment from the minister, unless he cares to. But I'm hoping he is in touch with his constituents, because I am, and I fully understand. Having been a member
[ Page 11538 ]
of a ranching family in that area since 1978, I know full well their concerns. I can just imagine the talk, when people get the chance to talk. As the minister knows, they're too busy trying to earn a living, and that's difficult enough in that business without this very unsettling and disturbing news floating around the Chilcotin.
The ranchers and the foresters in that area don't want to hear about secrecy and other things. They want to hear -- and I hope they'll hear from their MLA -- that the process is being properly observed. When my colleague from Chilliwack reads into the record that Mr. Guy Rose is, as we understand it, not really permitted to report back to his constituency, that's not going to help.
Let me move into something that is also of concern to the people of the Chilcotin, in particular the cattlers, if we wish -- or the cattlemen. The regulations that are just now in effect on cattle drives on highways are also causing concern, and I think the minister can comment on this.
I am advised that the number one issue causing some consternation with the cattlemen in that area is not unique. I presume it would also apply, if the numbers fit, in the Beaver Valley area, for example. Maybe there's not enough traffic through that stump-ranching country to warrant it, but there certainly is on Highway 20. Why are the cattlemen required to carry a $2 million liability policy?
I know firsthand, because I've been involved in so-called cattle drives up and down Highway 20 when needed. I know firsthand that it's not the people driving the cows who are at fault. If there is any fault, it's the drivers on the highways who pay no attention to lead vehicles, people on horseback and other things that should be an obvious flag that there is a problem there. I think -- and I'm relaying this to the minister -- that it's an imposition and a financial hardship to tell cattlemen that they must carry $2 million liability. Why should we not be looking at the people operating the vehicles, who are the real cause of the problem?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the minister wants to discuss stump-ranching in Beaver Valley, we'd better do it outside this chamber, because I could probably tell him a thing or two about stumps.
The $2 million liability is required because settlements in the courts are up in that area, and it's considered adequate protection. The $2 million liability is a requirement that the Ministry of Highways thought was appropriate in case there was a damage claim or liability claim. We also understand that the $2 million has been included in the package of insurance that's available from companies to their ranching businesses and that there was little, if any, increase in the premium charge as a result of raising the liability.
That figure -- you could dispute it -- is enough that they might get by with it. But what if there is a claim involving more people? When you talk about the cattle drive policy, it's there on a trial basis. They're attempting to safeguard the people driving cattle from getting injured and against having claims against people who are injured because of an accident. There are several cases where people have been dragged into court; they had no adequate protection and they are at risk. These are public roads; the public has a right to ask under what conditions the roads are being used. So this new policy has been accepted by the cattlemen's organization. I know some regional units don't want it; they think it should be the law of the open range. If cattle are on the road, it's up to somebody to see them. Normally when you're travelling over a hill, you expect a vehicle to be in its own lane: it's either travelling, it's off the shoulder, it's going the same way you are in your lane, or it's in an oncoming lane. Cattle won't necessarily respect that. I can tell you from personal experience that you can't control cattle 100 percent, especially on a windy, difficult road. However, if there are signs and a pilot car, you're then safeguarding the motorists, the cattle and the people driving the cattle. I think the policy is reasonable. If there are glitches in it, then we should revise those. The Minister of Highways is open to that.
J. Dalton: I quarrel with the need for protection, financially and otherwise. I can assure you that the people of the Chilcotin, even though they're probably more free-spirited than others in this province, don't like the heavy hand of government imposing on their everyday lives. They look after their self-interests, which in this case are cows, just like anyone else does. They do not drive their cows up and down highways willy-nilly without taking into account protection for themselves, the beef and, of course, the motorist.
The other issue that I would draw to the attention of the minister is the requirement of a three-day notice to get a permit to drive cows. It is a hardship to have to get a permit to drive a cow, or 20 cows or more, up and down a highway. For example, many times all my in-laws have to do is move them across the street. The street happens to be Highway 20, which of course is caught by these regulations. That's an unfair imposition, hon. minister. As the minister will know, because he's been involved in this industry, three-days' notice is totally impractical.
Although this may be telling tales on the RCMP in the area, the other day they observed a cattle drive involving my in-laws' operation. They didn't have their permits because maybe the law wasn't yet in effect. I'm sure the RCMP in the Chilcotin and the Williams Lake area aren't thrilled about having to jump through these hoops. That doesn't mean that my in-laws don't obey the rules. My in-laws are more concerned with trying to earn a living and scratch out an existence. They don't need unrealistic three-day advance notices which aren't going to work, hon. minister; they'll never work because they are impractical.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member misunderstands the policy. Three-days' notice is required for a five-year permit. I don't think it's unreasonable if you're planning a drive. You know approximately when it's going to take place, and you can notify the RCMP and the school bus garage. The member would be the first one to say that if there was an accident involving cattle and a school bus, and some children were injured, that it was not onerous on the part of the owner or some member of the family doing the driving to let the school bus garage know when the cattle were going to be on the road. The permit requirement is to prevent accidents. The alternative is to not use the public rights-of-way at all. The public could demand that things have changed and so on.
We're trying to find an accommodation; if something is unreasonable or won't work, then it will be amended. There's ongoing discussion. As far as the RCMP are concerned, they should be notified. They may know something about what's going on at the same time -- a heavy fleet of trucks coming through or something like that. Then it would be reasonable to adjust traffic flows to accommodate this use of the public right-of-way. Since you're talking about your in-laws, if they have some specific points about their experience and want to relay those to the Ministry of Agriculture or to myself, I'm more than happy to hear those. They might find that that's effective for the few minutes it will take. I know that the experience of my own operation
[ Page 11539 ]
and the cattle drive was a successful one; it was not considered onerous and seemed to work quite well. We don't know whether these guidelines and permits will be sufficient, because it will probably take the test of a court case to determine that. But reasonable people are trying to find reasonably safe ways of conducting business and getting some protection from the risk that's involved if they don't follow those procedures.
J. Dalton: Just one more question of the minister, and I guess this is getting a little closer to home. It's a financial question. These same blessed in-laws of mine are very concerned about the escalating water rates and grazing fees which impact in a very meaningful sense on their operations. Perhaps the minister would like to alleviate some concerns of his constituents, and many others throughout the province, about how to address these so-called user fees -- as our Premier likes to describe them. They're not user fees; they're taxes. They have a direct and an onerous burden on cattlers, farmers and anyone else who is just trying to scratch out an honest living -- a very difficult thing to do. In particular, my father-in-law describes grazing fees as extensive increases that are either occurring or about to occur. Couple that with the uncertainty of whether they are even going to be able to graze cows from now on, given the land claims and other issues that we don't even seem to be able to get a handle on, I'm convinced from the responses I'm getting that people in these industries are going to be more unhappy. We don't need unhappy people in these primary industries; we need people who can get on with their lives with the assurance that this government or any other is not going to impose unfair burdens.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The government recognizes that you have to look at all the associated costs. I can tell you that the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association stood up in front of the Cariboo cattlemen and said that B.C. was wonderfully positioned with respect to competitiveness. Our information is that we are doing well with respect to our neighbouring jurisdictions.
[11:15]
You raise the issue of grazing fees, and the information I have is that they have gone up only 4 percent from 1988 to 1993. On average, the increase has been very little, but they have gone up considerably where people have gone to a more open, competitive system. In Colorado it's $7.50 (U.S.) for an AUM; in North Dakota it's $8.71; and in Washington it's $7.15.
Here the formula itself has been frozen for three years. The cattlemen like it to go up and down with market conditions, so that when the market's up, the fee is up a bit, and when it's down, the fee is down. Water fees have been frozen for the next three years. I think there can be some comfort taken from the fact that these have been frozen. If you average back the increases, I don't think they're onerous, and they don't put the cattlemen at a competitive disadvantage. But upon examining all the costs -- associated taxes, input costs -- if we find our people are in a non-competitive position, then I think we should address those issues globally. We have to look at all the costs, not any single one.
With respect to whether or not grazing is available, I think there is some grazing on federal land in the particular case you're mentioning. I would say it's fair enough to raise that with the federal Liberal government, which has the ownership of some of the grazing lands.
R. Chisholm: The minister mentioned water licence rentals and that type of thing, and how things were frozen. Unfortunately, these same people have been sending us copies of their water bills that have been redesigned, showing the dates on which they were charged for water rental were not in agreement with other dates on the document. In the ensuing confusion caused by the way this was designed and orchestrated, the cattlemen, for instance, paid their bills on the wrong date, and now they are paying penalties. So I have to ask whether this was done purposely.
We're seeing a lot more of this in the province. These so-called freezes are fine. We can have a freeze, but if you raise the water licence and then put the freeze on, it's meaningless. If afterwards the vast majority of cattlemen are paying fines -- $100 late charges -- due to the date on the bills, have the fees really been frozen, or is this just another gimmick? I'll give you copies of these bills so you can see for yourself and ask the appropriate questions of the appropriate people.
The next point I'd like to make also concerns the cattlemen. They've sent me a few things, which I'll copy and give to you. I realize a lot of these problems are not necessarily in the area of your ministry, but as a representative of the farmer you have to discuss issues such as the protected areas strategy with the Ministry of Forests. The ranchers say that throughout British Columbia they continue to be under a black cloud, living day to day with the insecurity created by a lack of any clear policy with regard to cattle grazing in the presence of the proposed protected areas strategy. In the existing draft, which is enclosed, cattle grazing will not normally be allowed in protected areas except.... Their question is: why will the government not produce a clear policy statement, one that begins by stating that cattle grazing will be allowed in protected areas under the following management criteria? Especially when you consider that under these same criteria, recreation and all the rest are allowed.
They also have quite a few questions about just what is going to constitute 12 percent. I realize you're not going to be able to answer all of these questions, so I will give you the documents so you can approach the appropriate ministers. I know they have not seen these documents.
There's another issue that, again, is not necessarily in your jurisdiction but is a problem for them. As their representative, you should be discussing it with the appropriate authorities. In this case, the cattlemen submitted a formal response to the Forest Practices Code and its rules on December 31, 1993 -- as requested, I might add, by that ministry. The association received the document to which they were to respond only on December 15, 1993. To date, the BCCA submission has never been acknowledged nor commented upon officially, yet the forestry code goes ahead. I'm requesting that you ask that particular minister and ministry what exactly they are doing. They asked for a response, they got a response and they haven't responded, and now the code has been tabled.
Another area the cattlemen have a problem with concerns the same ministry. They say that in the middle of February, the Ministry of Forests executive advised the B.C. Cattlemen's Association that all funding had been cancelled for range development work if the work was to assist a tenure holder in meeting with obligations of his grazing tenure. Not only did they take this step, but they also indicated that range tenure holders may be expected to bear the cost of improvements not related to the management of their grazing tenure. For example, a tenure holder may be expected to pay for repairs to fencing that was damaged by
[ Page 11540 ]
wildlife. The MOF indicated that the money saved by this decision would be redirected to the Forest Practices Code.
How can the government, in all good conscience, announce on one hand that the grazing fee increase introduced earlier has been frozen at 1993 levels and then, on the other hand, enact a policy such as this. They go on to say that it sounds to them like it's payback time. These are a few issues I think you should discuss with the Ministry of Forests and possibly come to a consensus with them. If nothing else, the minister should respond to the cattlemen themselves and answer the questions they're asking. It begs the question whether grazing rights should be under that ministry or under the Agriculture ministry. You do have responsibility for the cattlemen, after all, and it is an agricultural industry. We see nothing but problems coming from the forest end of the world, with little resolution on the problems. They've been around a long time. What does the minister feel? Should this portion of the ministry be under Agriculture? In my personal opinion, I think it should, and maybe then we'll have some sense of responsibility toward these people. Until that time, could you discuss these problems with the appropriate minister and hopefully come to some resolution? I'll give you copies of their statements and comments for you to look over in your own good time and to talk to them about.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm familiar with the arguments. The cattlemen in fact wrote on two particular items early on in discussions about protected areas, and they were concerned that grazing leases were omitted from the tenure types to be considered. We successfully arranged for that omission to be included.
Second, with respect to what actually happens in protected areas, the government is waiting for a number of the regional tables to discuss this issue, so that the stakeholders are around and are discussing compatible uses. I remind you and the cattlemen that in the case of both the Itchas and Ulkatchos and the Ts'yl-os Park, the local tables involved recommended that traditional activities, including grazing, be accepted. The one park that has been created under the protected areas strategy, Ts'yl-os Park, does include grazing. The government accepted that recommendation, and I have no reason to see why that wouldn't be accepted in any other proposed area that has had conflicts resolved by some kind of consensus at the local table.
I am familiar with the arguments. I think the panic button has been pushed by the cattlemen; it's still under discussion. My ministry takes those concerns and tries to work with the cattlemen and the Ministry of Forests to make sure there is clear communication and fair resolution of differences of opinion.
I don't think the Minister of Forests has responded to everybody who has made a submission on the Forest Practices Code. It is common to say that the consultations haven't been adequate because your submission doesn't achieve the desired result. There is an adequate period between now and April 15 to have input on the standards and the regulations under the Forest Practices Code. That should be plenty of time. The work that the ministry has been doing with various agricultural organizations should ensure that their voices will be heard and their technical concerns will be addressed.
R. Chisholm: I beg to differ with part of your response. An organization that represents 2,000 ranchers submits a document to a ministry which has requested it but does not respond to it. Then the legislation appears on the table a month later. I would be upset if I was one of those ranchers. I can understand the principles behind it and the lack of discretion on the ministry's part. The message I'm asking you to carry to that minister is that if they want cooperation from these people, they should react in kind. If they are not going to, they can expect the responses that we're seeing. It's no different from keeping things in the dark about the aboriginal problem. As long as you keep it in the dark, there will be questions asked. Problems will ensue because people don't understand why the ministry did not respond to this.
You didn't respond to the request for your personal opinion on whether you believe grazing belongs under Forestry or Agriculture. Over the past number of years, I've seen the grazing problems that cattlemen have with the forestry industry. I wonder if it is not in the wrong location. I would like your opinion on that one.
If your ministry didn't respond to a request that you sent, what would you say to your bureaucrats? It's no different with the Forests ministry. If they don't respond when they request it, there's a problem. If the legislation appears on the table, there's a bigger problem. I'd like your response on that point, and on the other point of where grazing belongs. Is it in Forests or in Agriculture?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to lay the matter to rest, I'm not going to venture an opinion on the matter of grazing. We're happy to accept whatever responsibility we have on that issue. One of the reasons that we have a good grazing resource here in British Columbia is that it has been well stewarded by the people who use it and well managed by the resource management agency. But there is a continuing problem. I admit that grass is small compared to the large number of trees, and sometimes people feel that grazing is being overlooked.
With respect to the concerns you raised about a response, we raised those immediately after the cattlemen's organization did. My staff is in touch with the Ministry of Forests staff, and they've agreed to get back to the cattlemen to respond to their input, and that will take place. I have raised it with the minister as well, and he has agreed that he will do more consultation in person with the organization. So I think there has been some response.
H. De Jong: My first question is actually to the Chair. Are we intending to break at 11:30, or are we going to go considerably beyond that?
The Chair: Thank you for the question, hon. member. Our normal practice is to break at 11:30 in order to give us enough time to make a presentation in the House, depending on when they finish. I've had no information that they're not going to go until noon, so if you're agreeable and you want to do another ten or 15 minutes, I think it's a good idea. We could make more progress here.
[11:30]
H. De Jong: I have a number of questions and comments, and I would like to make them all at once rather than five minutes now and ten minutes afterwards. So I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:31 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]