1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 21, Number 14
[ Page 16119 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today we have some special guests in the members' gallery. His Excellency Bremer Nxumalo is the newly appointed High Commissioner to Canada for Swaziland. The high commissioner is accompanied by Newman Ntshangase, the First Secretary at the Swaziland high commission in Ottawa. Please join me in welcoming them to the House.
I also have the very pleasurable task of introducing the following individuals today in the members' gallery. We have some very, very special visitors who were part of the ceremony earlier today to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations: Mr. Gordon Brown, a retired Canadian diplomat who has served in many countries, including Switzerland, Cyprus, South Africa and Zaire; Mrs. Francine Brown, a former member of the staff of the Belgian delegation at the 1945 San Francisco Conference on the International Organization for the Creation of the United Nations; Mr. Mike Sproule, president of the United Nations Association, Victoria; Ms. Julia Feesey, executive director of the United Nations Association, Victoria; and Mr. Garth Frizzell, past president of the United Nations Association, Victoria, former youth representative to the National Committee for UN50 and the secretary general for the National Model UN in New York in 1995. Please join me in welcoming them.
J. Weisgerber: It's a real pleasure for me today to introduce a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Len Bawtree, from the Shuswap area. Len is joined by his wife, his wife's brother Peter and his wife, Ann Swaby, visiting from England. Len and his wife are showing them around British Columbia. I'd certainly ask you to give them a very warm welcome to the Legislature.
L. Krog: It's with great pleasure today that I introduce in the gallery three of my constituents and one constituent from Margaret Lord's riding. They are Maj. Nicholas Balke, retired; his spouse, Noel Balke, likewise retired; my old high school librarian, Don Machan, likewise retired. The only one of the four of them who is working is "the Bulk's" daughter Jennifer, who's a registered biologist from Denman Island. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
M. Sihota: There are a number of students here from the Khalsa School on the mainland. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm sat siri akal.
T. Perry: I'm not sure I can do the same in Latin for the students from St. Augustine's School who are visiting. Sic transit gloria mundi, or something to that effect.
An Hon. Member: Was that Japanese?
T. Perry: That was Japanese, yes. I think, actually, that somebody has made a mistake; they are constituents of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, but they are across the street from my riding. Students from St. Augustine's School and their teacher, Ms. D. O'Hara, are somewhere in the precincts, and if they are in the gallery I urge members to join me in making them welcome.
Hon. E. Cull tabled the financial statements of the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority for the year ended March 31, 1995, in accordance with section 4(5) of the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act; the report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act during the fiscal year ended August 31, 1994; and the report of guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995, in accordance with section 56(8) of the Financial Administration Act.
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UN CHARTER
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter. On June 26, 1945, representatives of 51 countries, including Canada, met in San Francisco to sign the charter. Four months later the charter was ratified, and the United Nations came into being. Today, 50 years to the day since that gathering in San Francisco, the United Nations has 185 member countries, representing the vast majority of the world's population.
It has been a challenging 50 years for the United Nations and for the world. But even in the midst of these challenges, it's clear that this institution, the UN, has played a powerfully positive role. The promotion of peace and disarmament, delivery of humanitarian aid, protection of environment, advocacy for human rights and delivery of health care: these are some of the vital tasks that have been taken on by the UN. At times, some of these challenges have seemed virtually impossible to overcome, and at times, the depths of the world's problems have seemed overwhelming. But through all these times, the United Nations has represented our aspirations for making the world a better place.
In the late 1960s the New York Times newspaper characterized the UN as "a kind of mirror for our world, warts and all." That was true then, and it's still true today. The United Nations has not, can not and will not solve all the world's problems. But it offers our best chance at and the best hope of moving forward, even if only one small step at a time. British Columbians overwhelmingly support the positive role of the UN and Canada's constructive leadership role in it. The United Nations' efforts at increasing understanding between nations and cultures have great meaning to a province such as ours, blessed by an increasingly rich diversity of cultures.
As Stephen Lewis, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN, observed:
"It is not so much a solution which is required here; it is rather the inspired knack of keeping doors open, countries talking, a vital process going. These modest initiatives help to keep the world on track when all around us there is menace, alarm and hostility. If the United Nations system did not exist, it would somehow be created."
[2:15]
This government is an enthusiastic supporter of Canada's involvement with the United Nations. As a demonstration of that support, a number of initiatives are underway to help celebrate this year's anniversary. Gretchen Brewin, the mem-
[ Page 16120 ]
ber for Victoria-Beacon Hill, is serving as the provincial representative on the national committee established to celebrate the UN's fiftieth anniversary. The province has contributed $50,000 to support the efforts of the national committee. Thanks to Hon. Art Charbonneau, Minister of Education, a provincial proclamation will be distributed to B.C. schools, with October 24 designated as UN Study Day across the province. Government mail and publications will be stamped with the UN50 logo, from today until October 24. A UN exhibit will be on display in the reception hall of this building until October 24, and the United Nations flag will be flown on the grounds of this Legislature and at B.C. Ferries.
On this important day, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter, I ask all members to join me in saluting this most valuable international body. I further ask that we acknowledge the contribution of Canadian peacekeepers, humanitarian aid workers, medical personnel, international development workers, advisers of electoral processes, and diplomats. These people have made the United Nations what it is, and they deserve our thanks.
G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise today in support of the minister's statement. We all in this House join in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. One of the most important things that the United Nations reminds us all, I think, is that in spite of our many cultural differences and the different places in which we live, we have many things that we share in common.
I was fortunate enough to spend two years working in Nigeria, and I can tell you that families in Nigeria work very hard to make sure that their children can have a brighter future. They are keen and interested in providing a better education for all of their community. As you go around the world, I'm sure you'll agree that people are all seeking a cleaner environment, a healthier world and a healthier community in which to live. They are all seeking a more peaceful world in which their differences can be resolved through discussion and negotiation, rather than through the violent methods that unfortunately still remain. They all take their hats off to the United Nations for the efforts it makes and the work it does, whether in humanitarian ways, through agencies like UNICEF or through our peacekeepers. Canada has always played an active and vital peacekeeping role in the United Nations. That is a part of our history and tradition that we all must acknowledge.
We must acknowledge the work that has been done by people across this country to strengthen the United Nations in creating the international bonds that are imperative if we are going to provide our children with the kind of bright, significant, healthy future they all deserve.
We are pleased to join with the government today in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, and hope that everyone in British Columbia will take the time to reflect on the viable and important contribution that that institution makes to all our lives.
J. Weisgerber: I am delighted to join with the government and the official opposition in recognizing the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. I believe that probably its most important function has been to create a forum where the issues that challenge us have had an opportunity to be aired and discussed. Canada has played an enormous role in the United Nations, a role far greater than our population would indicate or demand. I think Canada has been a very key player and a very key supporter of the United Nations. Perhaps more than anybody else, our peacekeepers have demonstrated time and time again all around the world Canada's involvement and commitment to the United Nations. So with all British Columbians, I'm proud today to join in recognizing and celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Now I have to think of something to say. [Laughter.]
I also rise to speak to the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. As members of this House will know, most, if not all, of my formative years were spent in Kenya and East Africa at a time of great strife for that country as it moved from a colonial regime to independence. My mother was actively involved with the United Nations through UNICEF, and my colleague for Okanagan East has relatives who currently serve within the United Nations. So we know firsthand of the outstanding work that is done not just in the larger assembly in New York but, more importantly, in the developing world in those countries which are emerging today into full-fledged nationhood as we start to break away from the old colonial regimes and the imperialistic nature that has been our past.
This country, Canada, has a proud heritage with respect to our participation in the United Nations. I think many British Columbians have served the United Nations well. As a nation and as a population, we can be proud of the role we have played as our world emerges and as we start to break away from the myth that there is somehow a first world, a second world and a third world, and to realize that there is but one world. It is our world, and as humans we must all live and work together so that we may practise a life of dignity and have hope for all children, especially our children who seek to find a world in which poverty, disease and pestilence are no longer the kinds of hallmarks that, unfortunately, we see today.
I rise very much in support of this, as a strong advocate of the United Nations and of Canadian involvement in it. I'm delighted that the minister has brought this forward today.
R. Chisholm presented a bill intituled Court Information Act.
R. Chisholm: I'm greatly concerned about our legal system in British Columbia. I've listened to many individuals throughout our province and within my riding of Chilliwack who are concerned about our flawed legal system. This non-confidence in our justice system arises out of a lack of understanding of how our legal system works. Currently, in many cases, no official records are kept of trials or procedures, and no recording devices are allowed in court. The only records
[ Page 16121 ]
kept are the decisions passed down by judges. These current realities around recording keep the judicial system cloaked in mystery. People feel frustrated by the Canadian judicial system. Put simply, if the public does not know what is going on in the courts, how are they supposed to have confidence in the legal process?
I therefore believe that a judicial equivalent of the legislative Hansard would go far towards eliminating this lack of understanding by the public. The Court Information Act would cover all the courts in British Columbia: Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Provincial Court, and small claims and family courts, as well as hearings and chamber applications related to these courts. The recordings of the courts would occur with the use of mechanical recording devices and would be transferred upon request into a written transcript for purchase or review by the general public or media. The cost of implementing this act would be absorbed by the recording companies and not the government. The Court Information Act would give the general public and the media access to all the proceedings, with some exceptions that are outlined in the act, so that the doubt about the judicial system that exists in society today would be eliminated.
In conclusion, the Court Information Act would give the public access to the judicial system. This increased public access would help the public to understand the system, which will also help to eliminate their frustration. I believe this is a good act. It will cost us nothing to implement and has been a long time in coming. It is for these reasons that I would like to introduce the Court Information Act.
Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF PHARMACARE
G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Health. On Saturday you were alerted to a situation in your ministry which could undermine the integrity of Pharmacare. This morning we heard of a memo which suggested "a discreet inquiry from the Pharmacare database be made into a person's personal records." The minister must know that there is considerable public concern about the confidentiality of Pharmacare. The only way to restore the public's confidence is to launch a full and independent investigation into that situation. Why has the minister not initiated a full investigation by a special prosecutor and the privacy commissioner?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Only authorized persons have access to the database held by Pharmacare. Any breach of that confidentiality is a criminal offence. Staff at Pharmacare are quite committed to ensuring that the personal privacy of individuals listed on the claims database is kept confidential. To my knowledge, no breach of that confidentiality has occurred.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: The problem is that the public does not know that. I understand the minister's position, but the fact of the matter is that many coincidences are reflected in this memo which has been put out today. We recognize that it's an alleged memo. However, we recognize that the memo is to the director of Pharmacare about an existing employee in the minister's employ; it is initialled as the minister often initials his memos, and it is done on stationery which is used by the minister.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Campbell: The violation of a person's medical records is a serious offence, and we know that the minister understands that. However, the only way to be able to assure the public that there is no threat is to have a full and open inquiry into this, which includes a special prosecutor and the privacy commissioner.
My question is to the Deputy Premier: will you instruct an independent investigation by a special prosecutor and the privacy commissioner right now so that we can protect the integrity of Pharmacare?
Hon. E. Cull: First, I'd suggest that the Leader of the Opposition review the legislation about who appoints special prosecutors. It certainly is not the Premier or the Deputy Premier -- or even the Attorney General, for that matter. The Minister of Health has just indicated that if there has been a breach it is a criminal matter, and I would suggest that if the hon. member has any information to suggest that there has been something like that done, he make it known to the appropriate authorities.
L. Reid: The Minister of Health repeatedly stated this morning that the letterhead in question was pre-1991 letterhead not in use by his ministry. The B.C. Liberal caucus has determined that this is in fact not correct. I have letters in my possession dated 1992 and 1993 using exactly the same letterhead. To the Minister of Health: did you or did you not write this memorandum to Mike Corbeil asking for a Pharmacare search to be conducted on one of your employees?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I did not write this letter. It is unsigned and undated. I did not write it, and neither was the memo received by the person the memo purports to be addressed to. The deputy minister to the Premier of British Columbia is investigating this incident to see if we can determine the origin of this clearly fraudulent document.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: This opposition would be interested in learning what prompted the minister to mislead members earlier today when he said that this letterhead was still in production and was not taken out of production until last year. The issue is whether this minister can be relied upon always to provide the facts. How can the Minister of Health say beyond a shadow of a doubt that no such letterhead continues to exist or to be in use by his office?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The memo is written on letterhead that purports to be from the Ministry of Health. The name of my ministry is the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible
[ Page 16122 ]
for Seniors, and that's the letterhead I use. The member opposite says she has some letterhead that says Ministry of Health, so perhaps she should be asked if she has used any such letterhead for purposes of fraudulently producing a memo.
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Health as well. I believe there is a compelling need for a full investigation to determine who authored the memo that suggests the criminal misuse of Pharmacare's PharmaNet system. I believe the public deserves to know: if not the minister, then who did author the memo? Who asked the director to examine this? I don't believe for a moment that the people of British Columbia have any confidence in an investigation conducted by the Premier's Office. Why in the world doesn't the minister have the courage to call for a full police investigation into the authorship of the memo and the use of the paper from his office?
[2:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm tempted to just refer the member to Hansard and the previous answers. Let me say again that this letter was not written by me and it was not received by the person it is purportedly addressed to. The origin of this fictitious correspondence is unclear. The deputy minister to the Premier has been asked to investigate to see what we can find out about the origin of it. I understand that the member opposite has provided a copy of this memo to the Attorney General, who has given it to the RCMP. The RCMP determine what they wish to investigate.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: With all due respect to the minister, the public's confidence in the pharmacard system has been shaken by this memo and by previous activities of this minister. I believe that there is a need for the public to have confidence in the investigation. If the minister or his staff had nothing to do with it, I can't imagine for a minute why he would hesitate, why he would waffle, on bringing the police in for an investigation to find out who wrote the memo and how they got access to the minister's letterhead.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat: the name of my ministry is the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. That is not the title on this letterhead. There is other old letterhead in circulation, some from the administration of that member. I wonder if there might be some held in a cabinet somewhere that somebody has used to fabricate a memo. The police have a copy of the memo; they decide what they wish to investigate. We have asked the deputy minister to the Premier to investigate to see if the origin of the document can be determined. In closing, I heard the member opposite refer to a lack of confidence as a result of this and "previous activities of this minister." I will take it under advisement as to whether I wish to raise a matter of personal privilege in this House.
USE OF PUBLIC MONEY IN NDP RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN
M. de Jong: Another manila envelope has landed in the laps of the official opposition, and this time it's the secret advertising plan for spending the millions of taxpayers' dollars that the Minister of Finance has set aside. The pattern of deception has come full circle and is now even more focused.
First we had Brian Gardiner writing that the Premier must be more active in promoting the party. Then the Minister of Finance reallocates millions of taxpayers' dollars to a special ad hoc political committee to spend as it wants. Now we have a government communications plan that's advocating spending those millions of dollars in conjunction with MLAs and ministers in their local ridings. My question to the minister is: can she tell us exactly why she thinks this massive propaganda campaign with public dollars, this exercise in propaganda, is warranted with public dollars?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, let me remind the member that we have cut advertising budgets by 15 percent in this year's budget. In addition, we have put a freeze on half of the advertising budgets. We will be receiving information from the ministries over the next couple of weeks at Treasury Board as to exactly how much money is actually caught by that freeze. I can tell the hon. member that it is nowhere near the $10 million that has been bandied about. It is much less than that because of the upfront funding of many of the advertising contracts in various ministries. However, I do think it is prudent, given the cuts to the advertising budgets, that cabinet and Treasury Board have another chance to have a look at exactly where that money is being spent. That's what we're doing.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: The Minister of Finance has turned the phrase "there's no truth in advertising" into a high science. The document is called "A Plan for B.C." It should be retitled "A Plan For Deception," because that's what it amounts to. It's public money. The advertising plan describes how millions of dollars should be spent, but then goes on to state that this blatant exercise should "not look like a campaign." This is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy. Can the Minister of Finance tell us how she's planning to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars, using every communications budget within her reach, and not make it look like a campaign?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think any government would be ashamed to advertise its vision for the economy of the province. We very clearly have a good story to tell. We have the strongest economy in Canada. We have the second-lowest taxes for an average family.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. E. Cull: We have the lowest debt per capita of any province in the country. More important, we have a plan to make sure that we stay the strongest economy in Canada. It is essential that the public know that there are two plans in this province: the government's plan, which is to reinforce that strong economy, and the cut-cut-cut that is being proposed by the opposition. They need to be able to make a choice.
[ Page 16123 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The difference is that the B.C. Liberal Party will be paying for our plan, not the taxpayers. The taxpayers of British Columbia don't need a $10 million, taxpayer-funded government advertising campaign. What they need is an election, to get rid of the NDP government.
The leaked Brian Gardiner memo shows just how insidious this campaign has become. My question is to the Deputy Premier: was Mr. Gardiner present at any cabinet committee meetings where this ad campaign for the expenditure of millions of taxpayers' dollars for partisan purposes was discussed? Was Mr. Gardiner -- the head of the NDP -- there directing those funds?
Hon. E. Cull: The Premier has already made it absolutely clear that any partisan advertising will be handled by the party, and that government advertising will be done by the appropriate ministries. This plan talks about Skills Now, which is a government program, not a partisan program. It talks about all of the tremendous things that we have been doing with land use and forest practices in this province -- CORE, the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal B.C. -- and advertising those things. Most importantly, it talks about the essential infrastructure that our government has had the courage to invest in when those people over there are saying in this House that they shouldn't do it -- except when they're back in their ridings and moan about the lack of schools, the lack of health facilities or the lack of transportation facilities. They can't have it both ways.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The taxpayers are upset with this plan. This communications campaign is way beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay. The leaked document states: "Every announcement must be posed in the context of affordability." It goes on to say that the campaign should not look like a campaign. Is this deception going to go on and on? Does the Minister of Finance really believe that the taxpayers should be paying $10 million for a partisan pattern of deception perpetrated by this government?
Hon. E. Cull: I repeat: the number that the member is throwing around is simply a matter of arithmetic. When the ministry's budgets are presented to Treasury Board, we'll know exactly how much of the money that is left is not going into the regular programs.
What the public wants is accountability for where their tax dollars are being spent. The only way that we can tell young people and people who are on welfare or unemployment insurance where they can go to apply for skills upgrading is to advertise. Maybe this member thinks we should keep it a secret...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. E. Cull: ...so that not only do we not spend the advertising dollars, we don't spend the money in the program, either. Maybe that is what their plan is.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
L. Hanson: I have a petition signed by some 400 British Columbia citizens, and it is protesting the government's policy regarding adoptions.
R. Chisholm: I have a petition to table that is signed by hundreds of people in reference to the adoption bill that this government has tabled. They are in opposition to it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Section A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and it's appropriate that in the House we'll debate second reading of Bill 51, the Adoption Act.
ADOPTION ACT
(second reading)
Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to rise for second reading of the Adoption Act. This new legislation will replace a bill drafted in another generation -- the 1950s -- which no longer reflects today's society's view of the complex relationship amongst children, birth parents, adoptive parents and extended families. The legislation before this House today is based on several years of public consultation. It incorporates the thoughts, ideas and suggestions of thousands of members of the adoption community. In every matter, it seeks to balance their rights. It has at its heart, in all respects, the best interests of the child.
Before I go on, I would like to recognize my colleague the member for Comox Valley for her participation in the adoption legislation review team. Over many months, the team visited communities around the province and talked to British Columbians whose lives have been touched by adoption. Building on the findings of earlier consultations, the team also heard from more than 2,600 people who wrote to the ministry or telephoned a special toll-free number to share their views.
Members of this House will not be surprised to hear that our review team heard some widely divergent views. But, as team members can attest, we also found a very strong consensus. British Columbians have expressed overwhelming support for regulating private adoptions and very strong support for regulating the growing number of international adoptions. The consensus was that parties in adoption should have a broader range of options for personal contact and for accessing personal historic information. Each of these issues is addressed in the bill before you today. Other significant sections of this new legislation address access to information, eligibility to adopt and the unique concerns of aboriginal families, children and communities.
I would like to start by outlining the policies we propose around private adoptions. Over the past two decades, the number of children placed for adoption has decreased dramatically. As ministry waiting lists grew, an increasing number of prospective adoptive parents turned to private individuals and agencies. In 1971, only 2 percent of B.C. adoptions were arranged outside our ministry. Today this figure has increased to 57 percent -- a large and growing service sector -- but it has only minimum regulation.
[ Page 16124 ]
[2:45]
Virtually everyone who spoke with our review panel agreed that this must change. We need legal safeguards to standardize the process and, more importantly, to protect the rights and interests of children. In our consultations, we heard from many caring, dedicated individuals involved in private adoptions, and they had serious concerns. Under the current system, unless an adoption is facilitated by the ministry and is therefore under our ministry control, there is no formal preplacement process to evaluate homes to ensure that they're safe for our children. There is no legal obligation to ensure that birth parents and adoptive parents are fully informed of their rights and options. The fees involved in private adoptions can create the impression of a marketplace with children as a commodity, and there is a potential for conflict of interest. Because adoptive parents pay fees for private adoptions, facilitators may consider their rights before those of the child or the birth parents.
To protect the rights of children and to ensure the fairest system possible, we propose to regulate private adoptions as closely and as carefully as government adoptions. Non-profit agencies will require licensing to handle adoptions, and they will be required to provide a full range of adoption services, including home studies to assess prospective adoptive families, counselling for birth parents and postadoption support. We believe these changes are needed to protect the safety of children and to ensure that the parties to the adoption make informed choices.
At the same time, we recognize that certain kinds of adoptions need not be bound by detailed regulation. Under the terms of the bill before us today, birth parents will retain the right to place a child with people they know and trust. Private agency or ministry staff will help in the process to ensure that critical personal information is gathered, shared and preserved for the child's future use. In these cases, preplacement assessments will only be required for adoptions outside the child's extended family.
I must add, however, that the courts will have full authority to ask for a complete report before approving any adoption to make sure that it is in the child's best interests. These proposals are consistent with the recommendations of our adoption review team. Agencies currently facilitating adoptions outside the ministry have indicated very strong support for these changes. They extend to parties in private adoptions the same rights and protection enjoyed by those who seek adoption through our government.
While the number of private adoptions in this province has increased, the number of children adopted from outside Canada has increased even more. We estimate that the numbers have doubled in the past year alone. This ministry often does not have access to complete records on international adoptions, because these adoptions most frequently take place in the child's country of origin. But we estimate that the number is roughly equal to the number of private and ministry adoptions completed in B.C. each year.
As with private adoptions, we have found a consensus that international placements must be regulated. We propose to bring them under the same provincial standards I have just outlined for private adoptions, and they will have to meet provisions of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. Developed by Canada and 65 other countries, the Hague convention's primary purpose is preventing the abduction and sale of children. It also sets standards for collecting information, getting consent from birth parents and determining which children should be considered for adoption outside their countries of origin. Consistent with our own provincial legislation, the Hague convention also states that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration in all adoptions.
As our society has evolved, our notion of a child's best interests has changed, too. It was 1957 when the current Adoption Act was last substantially revised. At that time, British Columbians agreed that the interests of adoptive children would be best served by treating them as if they had not been adopted. This concept is enshrined in legislation in a four-word clause, "as if born to." It says that adopted children must be treated as if they were born to their adoptive families. It effectively severs all formal ties between these children and their families and communities of origin.
During our review we heard heart wrenching stories of the impact of this degree of confidentiality, and I know each and every member of this Legislature has also heard those devastating stories. Many adult adoptees said that while they dearly loved the parents who had raised them, they had a very deep desire to know about their biological roots. We also heard from people who feel that the "as if born to" guarantee of privacy should be extended. Therefore, as in all other sections of this new legislation, we have worked hard to strike a fair balance between these strongly held divergent views. We recognize the need for greater openness. We also acknowledge government's obligation to maintain commitments undertaken in the past. Therefore we propose allowing the parties in adoptions to arrange their own openness agreements according to their mutual needs and wishes. There is a broad range of options available here. They may want to keep in touch through a third party, or they may wish to maintain strong ongoing personal contact between the child and the birth parents, or they may wish not to. The key point here is that it's their choice.
Throughout this new legislation, we have tried, wherever reasonable, to cut red tape and allow people to make their own personal decisions. We believe this serves the long-term interests of all parties to adoption. One area in which these interests may compete is access to historic adoption information. Under existing legislation, all adoption files are officially sealed. For example, it's extremely difficult for a birth parent to pass on updated medical information to the adoptive family. This can only be done through the ministry and relies upon the ministry's ability to contact the adoptive family. Adult adoptees and birth parents do have access to non-identifying information, such as medical histories, and thousands have used the three-year-old adoption reunion registry to find one another. But even the registry has its limitations. We have found a level of frustration among those seeking adoption information. They believe that their records should be their property and government should have no right to restrict their access.
To satisfy the overwhelming public demand for freer access, we propose to unseal the adoption records. Those who wish to maintain their confidentiality will have two options. Anyone involved in an adoption under existing legislation will be able to file a disclosure veto. This will prohibit the release of all identifying information. Birth parents and adoptees who simply wish to have no personal contact will be able to sign a no-contact declaration. This option will be
[ Page 16125 ]
available to parties to adoption under current or new legislation. Research in other jurisdictions and data from our own adoption reunion registry, which I will make available to anyone in the Legislature, strongly suggests that adult adoptees and birth parents will be equally respectful of expressly stated privacy requests. We intend to maintain the adoption reunion registry. The bill before this House today will also ensure adoptive parents will have full access to all available personal information about their child.
At this point, I would like to remind this Legislature that the existing Adoption Act has not been substantially updated since 1957. Times have changed, and legislation must keep pace with social change, not attempt to shape it. Members of our judiciary are still examining, case by case, all the ramifications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but a section of the existing Adoption Act is clearly discriminatory. It says only single people or legally married couples may apply to adopt in British Columbia. This discriminates against those who would like to adopt their former partner's children from previous relationships and against those couples living common law who want to adopt a child jointly.
In our new legislation we propose to continue allowing applications for adoption from any one adult. We also propose to extend this right to any two adults who may apply jointly, regardless of their marital status or gender. I would like to emphasize that this provision affects only applications to adopt, and there are many checks and balances which must be applied in each and every case to ensure a child is adopted only when the arrangement meets the best interests of the specific child to the satisfaction of a court.
I have already outlined the safeguards we plan to put in place where they do not already exist: preplacement home assessments, including criminal record checks, and greater access to information for all members of the adoption circle.
In addition, this new legislation spells out very explicitly for the courts the eight factors that must be considered in determining a child's best interests in adoption. I'll pause here just for a second and say: wouldn't it be wonderful if these factors could apply as well to those families that have their own natural children -- the traditional family? I look forward to the day when these principles apply there as well.
But let me tell you the principles that now apply in determining the child's best interests in adoption: the child's safety; the child's physical and emotional needs and level of development; the importance of continuity in a child's care; the importance of the child's development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of the family; the quality of the child's relationship with a birth parent or other individuals and the effect of maintaining that relationship; the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage; the child's views; and the effect on the child if there is a delay in decision-making. I must also point out that birth mothers have the greatest voice in deciding who will raise their children. The birth mother will give consent to what is in the best interest of her child.
Many of us talk about a traditional family. Having a great deal of experience in this portfolio now, I don't know what a traditional family is. But if I say "traditional family," I suspect many members of this House are likely to picture mom, dad and two or three children. But this vision certainly does not fully embrace the aboriginal concept of traditional family. During our adoption legislation review, people in aboriginal communities clearly expressed the wish that aboriginal children not be adopted outside their culture. They told us that if the immediate family cannot raise a child, the extended family will. And if the extended family cannot raise a child, then the larger community will step in.
In respect to these views, this Adoption Act of 1995 contains two key provisions: formal recognition of traditional aboriginal custom adoptions -- that is, adoptions between people according to the customs of their band or community; and a legislated commitment to consult with the community of origin whenever an aboriginal child is being placed for adoption, with -- and this is key -- the birth parent's consent to consultation. The new act also enables this ministry to enter into agreements with aboriginal communities or bands that are able and willing to provide adoption services.
These provisions markedly improve recognition of the rights of aboriginal people and communities. This bill before us today also provides increased protection for the rights of birth mothers, birth fathers and children. As I have already mentioned, birth mothers will have greater access to information before, during and after adoption. Private agencies facilitating adoption will be legally required to inform the birth parents about support services and other alternatives that might make them reconsider adoption.
Birth parents will also have a greater opportunity to plan for future contact with their child if they wish. We will also establish, for the very first time ever, a birth fathers' registry for fathers who may not have been otherwise involved in the planning for the future of their children.
Under this new legislation, children will also have a greater say in planning for their own futures. Children between the ages of seven and 11 will have to be consulted and have their views considered before they can be adopted. Children who are 12 or older will not be adopted without their direct consent. This new Adoption Act has the best interests of the child as its paramount consideration. To this end, I believe it represents the best possible balance of rights and responsibilities.
[3:00]
Adoption is a deeply personal matter. I have learned that over the course of the last several years. It has profound effects on children, families and communities. We cannot consider it without considering all of its ramifications and the best interests of the child -- the heart wrenching choice of a parent to place a child for adoption, the deep instinctive longing of those who want to be parents but cannot have a child biologically, and the child's basic need for a loving, supportive family, just to name but three.
We're all indebted to the agencies, groups and individuals who opened up their hearts and shared their views with our adoption legislation review team. Without their help we could not have drafted such responsive legislation. While our consultation did find some strongly opposing views, everyone who spoke with us agreed on this point: the rights and needs of children must be considered and respected above all else. This most fundamental principle is at the foundation of this new Adoption Act, Bill 51.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the exhaustive run-through of the act that the minister has presented to us, and I would like to thank her and compliment her on it. She has covered it in
[ Page 16126 ]
quite a bit of detail, and I think that's very appropriate in this particular case. We can remember that an adoption act was previously brought into this House that caused a great deal of consternation in the whole community. In faxes, telephone calls and personal visits from people right across the community, many concerns were registered again and again. I will credit the government for taking that bill off the table at that time and following up with a study, which has already been mentioned by the minister. That study was provided to the public so that they might review the results. Consultations have been held, both in the preparation of that study and since, with people across the community, who had an opportunity to respond to it.
I have to say from my own personal experience, in agreement with the minister, that there have been people who have opinions on all sides of the issue. There is no way that everybody is going to get all of their particular concerns met, but there is agreement about the need to arrive at an updated and modern act. There is also a need to get the best balance of all available issues, taking into account the UN convention on the rights of the child, where the best interests of children are highlighted around the world, which are also acknowledged in the Hague convention, which the minister has mentioned.
It's a very personal thing; I can attest to that, being an adoptive father. So we have the opportunity to share and therefore have some feeling with others who are going through this very personal experience in their lives. We know that there are the concerns of parents for the children they have adopted, and that there are concerns -- justifiably -- of children who have been adopted about their history, their circumstances and who they are in the totality of their being. Each person sees these things in a different and very personal way, according to their own circumstances.
There are many issues that we will discuss as we go through various clauses of the act to make sure that we have a common understanding of their meanings and implications. There are many sides of many issues to be clarified, but I have to say, in my reading of the act and from listening to people I have talked to from a variety of aspects within the community, that although they do not agree with everything in the act, they are basically satisfied. They have said that it is a step in the right direction, which can then be modified as it proceeds from there.
One of the changes the minister has mentioned -- and I mention it particularly because it is one of the responses I received just this past week from persons who are in the process of adopting using private agencies, which will no longer be able to facilitate adoptions because of this act unless they are non-profit, and these are not.... These people are very anxious about their situation and circumstance and whether they, being partway through the process, will have to go back to ground zero and start at the beginning of the line again, or whether they will be able to finish the process which has already begun. That's something the minister might clarify in her final response so that the anxieties which are there for people in process and who are seeing daylight at the end of the tunnel and feeling that adoption is close to them.... They are very frightened that the process may be cut off at this point. We will discuss that in great detail as we go through the principles of the act.
I would like to affirm the appreciation that I hear from the community for the responsiveness to the consideration of the issues and questions and to the awareness that the act is not perfect. It has many balances which it tries to make in openness and in confidentiality, and there are some questions about whether it has arrived at those balances properly or not, but I think those are best dealt with clause by clause.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise and debate this afternoon on Bill 51, the Adoption Act. I firmly believe that the best interests of the child must always be addressed and that those interests will be paramount in this debate this afternoon. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the time for adoption reform is now. I think that the individuals who have waited for some direction on how best to proceed will find direction in this piece of legislation.
As a teacher and a school administrator prior to being elected, I came in contact with numerous students in the system who had tremendous issues around their own personal adoptions and adoptions of their friends and colleagues, and it seems to me that the time has arrived where it's no longer appropriate to keep that information in the back rooms -- to somehow deny someone knowledge of their family. If we talk about strengthening the Canadian family, then coming to understand what it is to be Canadian, what it is to be a member of a family and to understand your own heritage has to be paramount. It's part of the broader perspective, and it's something that all of us must take very, very seriously.
I would agree with the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee when they suggest that this Adoption Act is a positive first step. I too would submit that it is a first step. It is putting us on the road to freely providing information to people who have the best knowledge and the best need to be in possession of that information. My firmest theme throughout this debate -- and all of us will address this in our remarks -- is that to deny someone access to their heritage is fundamentally wrong, and the fact that we have had legislation before in this province that has allowed that to transpire causes me great concern. If this legislation goes any way down the road to rectifying that situation, it will certainly have my support.
The individuals on the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee make mention of an ongoing process. I know that this legislation will demand an ongoing process and that a number of the issues will come forward under regulation and perhaps through order-in-council. That kind of ongoing process must be public. I will state very firmly that we must ensure that the process continues to be in the public domain. I applaud the fact that a committee travelled this province to ensure that opinions were sought from various members of various communities. I applaud that level of activity, and when regulations are created and orders-in-council come forward, I trust that that information will be shared in the public domain before implementation. If this is about access to information by parties who most need to know, the regulations will have as great or as equal an impact as the legislation which is before us today. That issue can never be taken lightly. That information must be considered to be very, very serious and, hopefully, very accessible to the public.
The news release put out by the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee talks about the fact that one in five people in British Columbia are touched by the adoption issue. It's a significant number of people, which is why I believe this legislation will have a tremendous impact on a great many lives in British Columbia. Indeed, as we move through debate
[ Page 16127 ]
this afternoon, we must ensure that the highest levels of dignity are attached to this discussion, because it is about personal dignity. It is about families; it is about coming to understand who has access to information and for what purpose. There is tremendous opportunity for misinterpretation in this act. There is tremendous opportunity for individuals to call upon the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner on a number of these issues. I trust that we will approach this entire discussion from a perspective of common sense and of understanding that others beyond this chamber have a definite need for this level of information.
I certainly agree with the minister's words when she talks about keeping pace, that legislation must keep pace with social change. Again speaking as a teacher, I can only concur that the highest priority of this legislation must be the children, the young people who will be dramatically impacted by adoption. Whether or not they are dramatically impacted by this legislation, we shall see, but the aspects of adoption have a dramatic impact on a young person's life. The minister talked about physical and emotional well-being. As a teacher, yes, those issues must be considered when you're making a decision for placement of a particular child in a particular classroom, let alone placement in a particular family. So, always, the issues of the child must be uppermost in everyone's mind, because you are indeed building a family. You are creating, hopefully, a secure place for a child to grow up, and that, I think, has to be one of the most serious challenges facing anyone in the delivery of social services. You are in fact stepping in to make a decision that will bear either positively or negatively on a child throughout their entire life. I would also agree that we must always come to understand the child's cultural needs -- needs around heritage, needs around linguistics, needs, perhaps, around religious issues. All of those make this a very challenging task in terms of placing a child appropriately. I believe this legislation has the ability to frame some very excellent decisions.
A number of individuals came forward who happened to be birth parents -- birth mothers or birth fathers -- and they had limited impact on the type of placement their child had received in the past. I believe firmly that there must be parental involvement in those kinds of decisions -- i.e., involvement on behalf of the birth parents -- and I welcome that aspect of the legislation.
The dilemma in legislation such as this is that it demands a very fine balance, a remarkable balance, if you will. It's very difficult to craft such a balance. Certainly I believe this legislation has the potential to craft such a balance. I believe firmly that it will be responsive. It is absolutely not a final package. It will constantly evolve, and I welcome that. I think if this is about keeping pace with social change, there will be many, many, many changes that each of us in this chamber, and British Columbians generally, will face in our lives. This is not the end of that discussion. Frankly, I see it as the beginning. I see it as the opening discussion on a very complex, enormous issue. I trust that each of us in this chamber today, and British Columbians at large, will come together and participate in the discussion, because this is a critical decision point, if you will, of how societies continue to evolve. I certainly welcome the discussion and frankly look forward to participating in the discussion. I thank the minister most sincerely for bringing the legislation forward.
[3:15]
R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to Bill 51, the Adoption Act. I rise with some trepidation to speak to this act because I know from my own experience and from listening to many others around the province that there are some sensitive areas in this piece of legislation. If there are some in this House who think we can just briefly gloss over some of those sensitive areas and say that the bill is good in its intent, they accept it and it's a working, evolving piece of legislation, then I fear they haven't read the legislation carefully or carefully thought out what this legislation intends to do.
Having said that, I want to say that I agree that it's a piece of legislation that needed updating. I agree wholeheartedly that an act that was originally written in 1957, that had minor updating in 1979 and that had regulations changing right up to date, needed some changes to bring it into this century and the future. After all, we're talking about children -- about infants, those under two -- who cannot speak for themselves and who hope that we will speak for them. That's what we should be doing in this House: making sure that the child is paramount in what happens in adoption and that the child is paramount above the rights of heterosexuals, singles or same-sex couples. That's what we should be driving at. The child is at the centre of what's happening here.
We agree with much of the legislation that has been put forward. I think that the consultation program that has gone on around the province is good. It has been broad. I thank the minister for sending her team to Fort St. John to listen to concerns of people in my constituency about adoption and what should happen with the act. So I can commend the minister for that, and she should be commended for many of the changes in this act. It's a difficult act to bring into the twenty-first century, but I believe we have to.
There are some sections of the act that I have serious concerns about, and I will highlight those. The minister spoke in her opening remarks about an act in 1957 that would not allow people in common-law relationships to adopt. I just want to correct that a bit. Or maybe I misunderstood the minister. That's not the fact, hon. Speaker; that's there. It was allowed in the regulations....
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: The minister says it wasn't, but it was allowed in the regulations in 1990. It was allowed in the act in 1979.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: And here we have the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith catcalling at me about what I'm reading, hon. Speaker. I'll table the document for her information; maybe she can read it so that she can update herself on what has transpired in the past and on what we have in place now.
What I am saying is that we do have to update the legislation. There's no doubt about it. We have to bring it into the nineties and into the future, but we have to keep the child -- the infant -- paramount.
In the act of 1957, singles were able to adopt the children of others. Married couples have been able to adopt the children of other families when they get together -- maybe not same-sex couples; in fact, not same-sex couples, because they are not recognized at all as a legally binding entity. I'm sorry,
[ Page 16128 ]
hon. Speaker; that's the way it is. Also, the 1990 regulations clearly stipulate common-law and married couples. That's the traditional family: a man and a woman and who comes after. That's what we are talking about.
Certainly we are talking about human rights here. That's why it is a difficult and sensitive issue, and that's why maybe some wish to skirt around the issue. I'm not wishing to skirt around the issue; I wish to talk about children. I wish to talk about infants, those under two who can't speak for themselves and those who are older who can't speak for themselves. Those are the children who should be paramount. Those are the children we should be thinking about, not the rights of adoptive parents. I don't care if the adopted parents are heterosexual or single or same-sex couples. We should be thinking paramountly and mostly about the children.
Invariably I hear -- I heard it in the minister's statement today -- about the Charter of Rights and how we have to update everything to agree with the Charter. There are some provinces across Canada, and the Yukon Territory, which state in their legislation where children will go definitely. New Brunswick recognizes the traditional family -- that is, married or common-law couples, men and women. It's in their legislation. But something this present government constantly does is bring forward legislation under the guise that we have to recognize the Charter of Rights.
Where is the Charter of Rights for children who are under two years of age -- the infants? Do we think any of them want to be adopted into a same-sex unit? Are we to presume or predetermine that? Are we to look at these children and say: "That one would, this one would and that one would"? No. That's why I say with some trepidation and very sincerely that we should be thinking mostly and paramountly of the child.
It has been said that the courts will look after the child, because it is written into the legislation. Section 3 is on the the child's best interests. I appreciate that, and it's written very well. Those making the recommendations to the court on where the children are to be placed will follow this piece of legislation and the regulations that go with it. So we can say all we want about the best interests of the child, but I think we are missing the best interests of the child.
In almost every discussion I've had around the province around adoption -- and let me tell you, I've had a lot of them -- people are feeling nervous about the changes to the adoption law, but are welcoming parts of it. When you start talking to them -- and it doesn't matter what age group they are -- they start talking about human rights, and they say that we don't want to exclude anyone from being able to adopt a child. That's the way most conversations start out, and it doesn't matter what group I'm with. I have trouble with that, because I think the first thing they should be saying is the child's best interests, and then go on from there. But the things that seem to come out are whether we're meeting the Charter of Rights or whether we're excluding some groups or individuals from being able to adopt.
When you discuss further with those people -- whether they are younger people or older people or middle-aged people -- they start to say they've never thought of it that way. They never thought that could be a problem.
The other thing that's very often said-- and I've read it in the newspaper quite a bit since we've been talking about changing the Adoption Act -- is the fact that same-sex couples offer a stable environment, because look what's happening in the heterosexual families. That's true. I'm certainly not here to apologize for heterosexual families that are having trouble. They're having trouble for all kinds of reasons, and I'm sure those things can happen with same-sex couples.
It would seem to me that human beings, being human beings, will all experience much the same problems with raising children, so I don't think that's an issue. I've been on a number of radio programs where I have asked people to send me some information on scientific studies that have been completed about same-sex adoption, and my mail slot is still empty. I'm still waiting for that information, and it still hasn't arrived.
There are a number of hurdles that people who are adopted have to get over in life. For some of them, it's more difficult than others. I speak from an experience where I had no trouble. I've known for as long as I could comprehend that I was adopted. My parents never hid it from me. I had great parents. I was adopted at a time during the Second World War when there was no seven-year waiting period. About two days after they were released from the hospital, children were put into homes. I don't think it worked every time, but it sure worked in my case, and it sure worked with my two sisters, who were also adopted
I never had an identity problem with whether I was adopted or whether I was "born unto." I don't know. I can tell you that until I arrived in this place, this "born unto" concept didn't affect me one bit. I never, ever thought of it; it never bothered me. Mom was mom and dad was dad, and they still are. It seems that some people infer a great deal about "born unto." I don't think that adopted children that have been raised in loving, kind, family homes have any problem with that -- none whatsoever. But it seems as though, when we get into this big House, we want to address everything that we can that could happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime. That's not going to work.
That's why I say that we are missing keeping the child or infant paramount. When we start saying that we have to meet the Charter of Rights, or we have to abide by this and we have to change that because of "born unto," I have some real problems with some of those things.
While I'm talking about being adopted, I also want to tell you that I found my birth mother. I was adopted in 1944, and I was able to find my birth mother for a successful reunion. I also found that I have two half-sisters. It didn't change how I feel toward my adoptive mother and father, though my father has been gone for a long time. It does not change the way I feel toward those two people at all. They are mom and dad, and that's the family I was adopted into. That's what I'm saying: these infants and children we're talking about have to be paramount in how we think they must be adopted into those kinds of families.
[3:30]
That is the part of this adoption process that the B.C. Reform caucus has an awful lot of trouble with. It should come as no surprise. I'll be very interested to listen to members opposite from the governing party, the NDP -- some of those members who have talked to me and have some problems with this section of the bill on same-sex adoptions.
[ Page 16129 ]
There are members of the Liberal caucus who have talked to me and have trouble with it also. It will be interesting to see how they talk about this section of the act and how they feel about it, and whether they will abstain from voting or stand here and speak the courage of their convictions.
Each and every one of us.... In fact, the Minister of Social Services talked the other night about this being a very important bill. It was about human rights, and the minister said we should all be speaking to this....
Hon. J. MacPhail: Access to abortion.
R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. I'm corrected by the minister -- access to abortion.
She said that we should all be standing up and talking to this, because it is very important. She said we should be voting party line and all those kinds of things. Well, she was setting the stage for what maybe could happen here today.
Heaven forbid! Maybe we will see an NDP person stand up. There are some in this House who do have some problems with it. Maybe they will stand up and speak against this legislation and this government. It's not the first time. It happened in Ontario, and it was defeated. In fact, it was a government bill defeated under the NDP in Ontario -- much the same kind of bill, not in wording, but it had exactly the same intent. We saw MPPs in Ontario stand and speak against their own government. I'd like to see those who talked to me in private about this bill -- and I'm certainly not going to mention their names -- stand up and speak against this legislation.
I also challenge the Liberal official opposition. We know, from previous press reports, that initially they approved of it. The critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, approves of same-sex adoptions -- approves of the whole act. Let's see how many others can stand up and talk about this act -- about the sensitive parts of this act. Just talk about the parts that are really sensitive, that are really going to affect the child. You know, that's what each and every one of us should be doing. That's what we're here to do. When we're talking about dramatically changing legislation, it behooves all 75 members to stand up and at least speak briefly to it.
I talked about hurdles that children may experience in same-sex families. I want to tell you, before I tell the story, that I'm sure there are same-sex families out there that provide a secure and stable environment for their children. I'm sure there are. I don't agree with it, and that's what I'm putting on the record here today, but I'm sure there are.
But if you think about a youngster who's adopted into a same-sex couple's home when they're an infant, and they grow up, when they start school and are six or eight years old, in school we know that kids can be very direct and cruel. All of us have gone through that in school. When they start having sleepovers and birthday parties, and all their friends come over for a visit, when that child goes back to school later on they may and probably will be harassed by other children. That's the difficulty; that's the hard part that these children who are adopted into that kind of family have to overcome.
It is difficult to deal with this issue. When we're talking about.... Government statistics alone show that there are 1,000 or 1,100 homes that are looking for children, and the government has about 180, on average, to adopt every year. It's not a shortage of traditional homes -- not one bit; there are very few children around to be adopted. I wonder if it is in the best interests of the children to think more about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms than about the children. That's what is paramount to me when I talk about adoption.
It's not just me or members of our caucus who believe this way. I have recently canvassed my constituency, and so have the other three members of our caucus, and one of the questions was fairly straightforward: do you believe in same-sex adoptions? I can tell you that about 90 percent said no. That didn't go out to a select group of people; that went out to every person on the voters list in my constituency -- outdated as the voters list is. But it did. It went out to about 15,000 homes. That's the response I got. That's obviously something I should think about; that's obviously something I should relate to the people here.
In fact, when I go to the report that the previous minister commissioned -- the adoption review report.... I read that report. I know that there were a number of areas that dealt with same-sex adoptions. I want to read two quotes from the report, which was presented in July 1994. First: "About half of service providers polled in Canada believed sexual orientation was important or very important in determining eligibility to adopt a child." Obviously there was some polling done nationally for all jurisdictions in Canada, finding out how people felt about it. Obviously people felt fairly moved, shall I say. It's a controversial issue; it's hard to speak to. I can guarantee you that it's hard to speak to, but someone has to.
Another very important part of the report, that tends to enhance what I've been saying, says:
"There is growing evidence in society that the importance of family is a significant factor in the development of all children. The definition of the word 'family' may be undergoing an evolution but the fact remains that traditional extended family" -- I say that again: "traditional extended family" -- "...mother, father, son, daughter, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins -- whether a 'unit' or a 'clan' -- represents one of the most influential aspects of a child's development."
That's in the report to the minister, and here we see her bringing forward legislation that she says will comply with the Charter of Rights and allow children to be placed for adoption with one adult or two adults jointly. That's the extent of the description. I would be surprised if it changes in the regulations at all. In fact, I don't think it will, at all.
There are a number of areas in the bill that we do agree with -- in fact, quite a few of them. The birth fathers' registry is, I think, necessary. Many birth fathers have said that they don't seem to have any rights. I wish that there were more, to be perfectly frank; but there aren't. So the birth father's registry is something that was badly needed. If they want to be involved with their families later on in life, birth fathers can now take the initiative and register that desire. I think that that's a good move.
I agree with what the minister talked about regarding the regulation of private adoptions. For far too long, adoptions were performed by government and whoever -- a friendly lawyer or a doctor. The regulations may not have -- and, in fact, in most cases probably didn't.... But to have a set of regulations to deal with non-government adoptions is another move in the right direction.
I do have some problems, though, with the sections that deal with disclosure for the adoptee and the adoptive parents. As I understand the legislation, when a child becomes 19, he
[ Page 16130 ]
or she can request all the pertinent information -- that means original birth certificates and everything that goes along with that. There can also be a no-contact veto put in place by the birth mother. That is where we come into some difficulty, and I have some problems with it. I've met with a number of groups who have varying points of view. But I think that the anonymity that some birth mothers may want -- some for the rest of their lives -- they should be allowed to have.
I don't think that a no-contact clause is the answer. If a birth mother does not wish to be contacted by her child -- whether it be a son or a daughter -- she should not have that onus put on her; she should be able to have a veto in place. Sometime later on in life she may change her mind, and then she can remove that veto; that's no problem. It has been said to me that the information is 19 years old by that time, so it doesn't matter. I think it matters. I think that that is one part of the bill we probably should spend a little more time discussing with people.
The bill sets out in section 65 that adoptions that took place before this act comes into effect may have a disclosure veto statement....
The Speaker: Hon. member, I don't wish to interrupt your train of thought, but you will appreciate that the sections will be addressed in committee. If you could stick primarily to the principle of the bill, it would be much better.
R. Neufeld: Thank you, and I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I'm not trying to get into third reading debate, because we'll certainly have enough time for that. But I've had representation made to me that people want the one section which deals with disclosure for previous adoptions taken away.
I still say that the Reform caucus has some problems with same-sex adoptions. We have some problems with anonymity and people being able to retain that anonymity for life if they want to. We feel that all records should be made available.
[3:45]
Hon. Speaker, I'm the designated speaker, so I will take a little extra time. It won't be much longer.
We feel that records, whether they pertain to health, extended family or those kinds of things, should be made available. I don't take exception to that. The only issue I take exception to is naming the birth mother -- or the birth parents, if they're both on the.... I think that's the one right that the birth parent should have and be able to retain. I only say that because at age 19, some of us.... In today's world, age 19 is grown-up, but when I think back to age 19, being grown-up was not much different than it is today. I'm not sure that giving a person that information at age 19 will always be in the interests of everyone, including the adoptee, so we should think carefully about that.
I can tell you that at the age of 19, from my experience -- and from the experience of many people.... I belong to a number of adoption groups that have searched for their families. People are usually my age, or maybe a bit younger -- 40 or 50 years old, on average -- before they really start searching; there aren't many who are younger. I think that at 19, there's a different thing happening in your life at that particular time, and that's why I think it's important that we make sure that the information is not made available until either the adoptee or the adoptive parents have had more time to think about it.
We have mixed feelings in our caucus about the other section -- the openness agreement -- and I have had as many representations made to me for as against, as to whether it will work. Certainly it has worked in some cases, there's no doubt about it; but I have had representation made where it hasn't worked.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's voluntary.
R. Neufeld: The minister says: "It's voluntary." Of course it's voluntary for the mother and for the adoptive parents, but it's hardly voluntary for that infant who is just a baby, and that's where the problem arises. Everybody thinks about the adoptive parents or the birth parents. It's the child; when that child gets a bit older, that's when the problems start showing up. That's why I have said from the start that we should be thinking of the child as paramount -- number one -- and thinking about what could happen later on in life. Who's to say that the child is going to be perfect through that whole agreement between an adoptive parent and the birth mother? As I said, I have had representations made to me where it has worked, and I've had representations made to me where it hasn't worked. I want to put on the record that is a proposal that we have a bit of a problem with. I'm not saying we would totally oppose it, but I'm putting on the record the fact that we do have some problems with that part of the bill.
So with those few words I will take my place. Again, I would challenge all members of this House, with the dramatic change that this piece of legislation makes to the Adoption Act, to put on record their real views and feelings, not the party line. Let's see where they're at on this one, and whether each and every one of us is thinking more about the child and the child being paramount, or about trying to adapt to the Charter of Rights.
So, hon. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to the other presentations that are going to be made.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to add a few words on Bill 51, British Columbia's new Adoption Act. I'd like to say, following the member for Peace River North, that I don't have a personal or direct connection with adoption as he does. But it's interesting to me, ever since this government has been talking about bringing in new adoption legislation, which goes back to the start of their mandate, that as a member of this assembly I've had representation made to me by constituents and others on this issue. It's interesting to me to note, through the kind of research that's been made available to me in my constituency office, how many British Columbians are affected by adoption.
That was a surprise to me, I can tell you, when I learned that one in five British Columbians are touched by adoption. That was a much larger number than I had anticipated at the time. The numbers provided by the Society of Special Needs Adoptive Parents, the post-adoption support services society in Vancouver, indicate that well over 600,000 people from every walk of life are deeply affected by this legislation. That's a fairly general swath through the demographics of British Columbia. So it's easy to understand why adoption is an
[ Page 16131 ]
emotional issue, why adoption reform has been a long time coming and why many groups have been advocates of adoption reform for many years.
The minister pointed out in her comments in second reading that this has been part of a long-ranging process. I suppose there was a time not very long ago -- just a generation or so ago -- when if one was adopted and found out, discovered or was told they were adopted, it would have been extremely difficult or challenging to determine who one's birth parents were if one had the natural curiosity to discover that. One would have had to depend on private agencies to try to find that out, and there would be varying degrees of success. We've changed, over the course of the last generation or two, to the point where a number of non-profit societies and organizations across Canada have been formed to help out with adoptees and to be advocates for adoptee rights.
One such group has been very active in my constituency, and this is Parent Finders of Canada. In fact, one of the founding members of this national organization is a constituent of mine. Her name is Mrs. Joan Vanstone. She's educated me somewhat about this issue over the last short while. She's pointed out that this one organization -- and it's one of many, I recognize -- was founded more than 20 years ago in Vancouver to promote openness and understanding in adoption, to provide service to the adoption community in general and to meet the needs of adult adoptees and birth relatives. It's interesting: over 40,000 people are today registered, seeking reunion through their adoption register. This is just one organization, and it's one that's been extremely active.
Mrs. Vanstone points out that she's delighted with the legislation that's come forward. It's important for the government to know that there are those in the community and in the adoption rights advocacy movement, such as the Parent Finders of Canada, who are generally pleased with the direction of this legislation. Through this legislation, Parent Finders of Canada say that the province does recognize the best interests of the child and that they should be paramount.
However, they also point out that it is vital to remember that the best interests of the child must not prejudice his or her best interests upon reaching the age of majority. The two rights and needs are inseparable. So Parent Finders of Canada, which is just one group, says this new Adoption Act must recognize the rights of adoptees and birth parents to have access to all information contained in adoption files and court records, and provide all medical history -- as the bill tries to do.
They also say that adoptees and their offspring were medically at risk under the old act and that no barriers must be raised in the new Adoption Act to restrict the free flow of information to the parties affected. Further, the new Adoption Act must adhere to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to preserve his or her identity. Again, the bill does try to achieve those kinds of objectives.
It's interesting when we talk about the best interests of the child. The previous speaker talked about the best interests of the child. I guess the question is: who decides what is the best interest of the child? That's not easy. It's not easy for the state in particular to decide what is in the best interest of the child. With this new Adoption Act, we are moving a step in the direction of the state becoming much more involved -- in some areas where it needs to be involved, perhaps, and I don't discount that at all.
When the state decides what is in the best interests of the child, we have to ask the question: who? It can't be a faceless bureaucracy. There has to be an individual to take responsibility. Some of the comments of the previous speaker struck at the heart of that issue.
It's also important for members in this assembly to speak on this issue -- it's not a partisan issue, hopefully; it is the kind of issue that touches many of our constituents -- and not shy away from touching on the more controversial aspects of this bill. Rather than simply getting up and speaking to and mouthing platitudes, let's deal with the more controversial parts of the bill, as well.
We know that the government has been considering this legislation for some time. This minister's predecessor tried to get some legislation through cabinet. We know that because of the leaks that took place over the first couple of sessions of this parliament. There was talk at the time that this government was planning on outlawing private adoptions, and there was a very negative reaction against that -- thank goodness! This government hasn't gone that far. I'm not sure if this minister's predecessor really, in a genuine way, wanted to believe that she could outlaw private adoptions in British Columbia, but that approach wasn't taken.
A much more reasonable path has been taken with this bill. We're going to be regulating private adoptions, not outlawing them. I don't think anyone has concerns with the idea, the concept, of regulating private adoptions. The question is: how far should those regulations go? That's what we'll be debating in some detail throughout our debate on Bill 51.
There are a number of concerns that one could raise about this piece of legislation; I'd like to just put a couple of them on the record. One of them is the question of openness. I don't think anyone can disagree with the notion that if you want to talk about the best interests of the child, inevitably you're going to be talking about how to make the adoption process more open. How we are going to do that is by disclosing more information than has previously been available to adoptees about themselves.
That question of openness has to be balanced with other rights. It's interesting to note that an officer of this Legislature, our information and privacy commissioner, just last week, after reviewing the legislation, expressed some concerns. He thinks that further consideration should be given to protecting the privacy rights of natural mothers. This is something that I haven't heard the minister reflect on, but it's an important point. While I generally support the principle of greater openness that is enshrined in Bill 51, I have to ask a question, and I ask it partially as a result of what's been drawn to my attention by the information and privacy commissioner: has due consideration been given to the rights -- the privacy rights, in particular -- of natural mothers?
We can talk about a couple of specific sections of the bill, and I know we will do so in much more detail in the committee stage. Under section 63 we talk about disclosure to adopted persons over the age of 19. Section 65, as the member for Peace River North indicated, deals with the disclosure veto, which is also controversial in this regard, as is section 66, which is the no-contact declaration. The information and privacy commissioner says that these provisions are the exact opposite of what is required. He indicates that to the best of our knowledge, almost 50,000 women in British Columbia decided in the past to put children up for adoption. That's not
[ Page 16132 ]
an easy decision, I'm sure; it's a very traumatic decision for any woman to have to make. It appears that they were promised confidentiality in that process on this sensitive manner.
Based upon how few have agreed to make contact with their children at a later point by joining any kind of an adoption-reunion registry, the information and privacy commissioner concludes that most of them want to keep this matter a secret. That's the conclusion he comes to, and it's a logical one. Most of those natural birth mothers want to keep that matter a secret that they wish to carry to their graves with them, for whatever reasons.
Should that desire, that right, of the natural birth mothers be respected? Does this legislation respect it, or are we going too far with the openness provisions of this legislation? That's something that the minister is going to have to address satisfactorily. There is a balance that we're trying to achieve here. Many people want to support in principle the legislation that she's bringing forward, but there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed, and I think that one is one of them.
Bill 51 proposes to disclose the name of a natural mother to her natural child who has now become an adult and thereby facilitate contact between the two, unless the mother indicates, on her own initiative, that she does not wish such disclosure and contact. This is very similar to another issue, which is not quite so charged emotionally. It's an issue that the cabinet of this government dealt with earlier in this session, which is the issue of negative-option marketing. It's a matter that we in this Legislature debated earlier in this session when the government reacted so strongly to Rogers Cable TV attempting to impose new services on subscribers unless the subscribers decided to cancel them.
[4:00]
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
It's a poor analogy perhaps, as the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith points out, but the principle here is: should the birth mother, the natural mother, be obliged to be the one to contact the registry to say no, or should that privacy be enshrined unless she otherwise voluntarily decides to have her name made public? At what point should the name be part of a registry? At what point after a natural mother dies should that information become part of a registry and available?
The information and privacy commissioner raises this because, he says, it is an important point. Section 65(6), the disclosure veto after death, suggests that two years after the death of the natural mother, that name will automatically become part of the registry. He raises the question: is that a sufficient length of time? Should it be ten years, as it is in some other jurisdictions? I don't know.
The minister will have to answer these kinds of questions and the question about the principle of openness and the rights of natural mothers, as well. Yes, we're talking about the best interests of the child. I think it's entirely appropriate in this debate to be doing so. But let's not forget the other privacy rights of individuals involved in the adoption process. It's a difficult process at the best of times, I'm sure.
There are a couple of other provisions in this bill that I'm going to leave for others to address in more detail -- for instance, the aboriginal provision, which I know my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has some concerns about, whereby we seem to be providing a different definition to aboriginal children. Why would that be? Is this simply a replication of the paternalistic, patronizing attitude we see in the federal Indian Act of Canada? Is that now being continued in this so-called progressive legislation? I don't know.
There's another issue that the member for Peace River North talked about, which is the issue of who should have the right to adopt, which is specifically addressed in the legislation. Under this legislation, single parents, common-law couples and, indeed, same-sex couples will have the opportunity to legally adopt children. The minister has indicated in previous statements that that doesn't really change anything; it's simply codifying or regulating what is already the exact practice. It would be interesting to note, from the minister, how many same-sex couples have adopted children to date in British Columbia. I have no idea.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The minister says none. So this is a major change. No same-sex couples, the minister confirms, have adopted children to date, but it will be possible under this legislation. It would be interesting to know about some of the statistical data in terms of demands or requests that may have come forward for this in the past. But public opinion is hard to measure on this issue. I can only tell you that as one member of this assembly, this aspect of the legislation is the one that is primarily brought to my attention in my constituency office. Perhaps it won't surprise other members of this House to know that I have very few people contacting my office saying they're in favour of this; I have many people contacting my office saying they are uncomfortable with the notion of same-sex couples adopting children.
I don't think anyone has similar reservations about single parents or common-law couples, given the fact that they are going to be scrutinized and there is going to be some care with respect to the placement of children in any family or household. It's interesting to try to monitor public opinion on this issue to see where things stand. I don't know if the minister would be willing to provide us in this House with any public opinion research the government has done on this issue. I know that this government is prone to doing polling and conducting public opinion research on a whole range of issues. It would be interesting to know if the Ministry of Social Services has done any polling on this specific aspect of the bill to indicate how British Columbians feel about the notion of same-sex couples adopting children.
We have a number of unscientific polls that have been published lately, like the one that was published right here in the city of Victoria on C-FAX Radio, a local radio station that does a so-called "insta-poll." I don't think it's a scientific poll by any means, but last week they took 68 calls on the issue in 25 minutes. The question was: do you approve of the concept of same-sex couples being eligible to apply to adopt a child? In 25 minutes their switchboard took 68 calls: 18 calls or 26 percent said yes, 50 calls or 74 percent said no.
It would be interesting to know from the minister -- and I'll put her on notice that I'm going to be asking her this question when we get to committee stage -- whether the government has done any public opinion research and whether these numbers reflect public opinion in the province
[ Page 16133 ]
generally speaking. Certainly its roughly reflective of the kind of feedback and representations I receive through my constituency office. I have no idea if that is scientific, but it would be useful to know. I think it's important for all of us to know not only where our constituents stand but where each of us stand on this issue. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, I am uncomfortable with this notion.
I have no similar discomfort with the idea of regulating adoptions along the lines being proposed with Bill 51. I generally support the openness provisions of Bill 51 as well, because I think we are taking a good step forward. I do believe that even the private adoption process in our province should be regulated. But I do have some concerns about a few of those regulations and wonder whether we are creating dual-class citizens with some of the sections in terms of disclosure to adoptees over and under the age of 19.
When it comes to same-sex couples being eligible to adopt a child, I share the discomfort of many of my constituents. I'm going to want to know much more clearly from the minister when we get to committee stage what kinds of reviews are going to take place before children in British Columbia can -- and according to this bill, will -- be adopted by same-sex couples?
I think the best interests of the child should be paramount. We've heard that from the minister and from others who have contributed to the debate. I don't think there is any argument about that; there's no partisanship involved in the debate about the best interests of the child. The number of adoptions in the province surprised me when I conducted my research into this issue. One out of five British Columbians are touched by the adoption process -- that's a truly staggering number. So I think this is an important piece of legislation. I encourage members when they get up to speak on this bill -- as the minister and the member for Peace River North did -- to speak to the principle of the legislation and not to avoid the more controversial aspects of the bill. Our constituents demand, and I think they deserve to know, how we stand and how we will vote on their behalf on this.
J. Sawicki: The hon. member for Peace River North has encouraged members of the government's side to stand up and say how they feel about this piece of legislation. I want to say that I am very proud to do so. As so many speakers have mentioned, this is a very emotional and sensitive issue. There are three different sections to this piece of legislation that is before us. The previous speakers have already touched on some of them: (1) who has a right to apply to adopt children; (2) the role of private adoptions; and (3) the rights of adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents.
I was struck by what I consider incredibly faulty reasoning by the member for Peace River North when he suggested that one good reason not to allow same-sex couples to adopt children is because they are going to get harassed when they go to school. I would ask that hon. member this: where did the children who would harass the children of same-sex couples learn the kinds of attitudes where they think it's okay to humiliate and reject children because they happen to have parents of the same sex? Surely it would be much better for us all as a society to remove the biases and prejudices we have on sexual orientation rather than to suggest that a good reason not to allow it is because public opinion doesn't think same-sex parents can be good parents. There is a matter of human rights here. I for one proudly stand up in this Legislature and say that I welcome legislation that removes barriers based on sexual orientation as a basis for applying to adopt children.
The second area is the role of private adoptions. Several months ago, when the possibility of legislation was first discussed, I held a couple of meetings in my constituency office in response to several constituents of mine who had either adopted children through private adoption or wanted to do so, and from constituents who expressed some concerns that in some cases it was a truly good, sensitive and powerful experience and in other cases it was not. When I listed and sent forward to the minister some of the concerns my constituents had raised, I have to say that what we have back in the legislation addresses those constituents' concerns. I believe that most people who are involved or wish to be involved in private adoptions will enthusiastically support the balance that has been retained in this bill, mainly because it is based upon the best interests and the rights of the child, recognizing that people who wish to adopt need to feel that they've got a process in place which is supportive and sensitive and which will allow them to go through with that process of adopting a child so that it is a positive experience.
I now want to come to the third aspect of the legislation, which has already been discussed briefly by some members, and that is the rights of adoptees and birth parents. Hundreds of thousands of adults in British Columbia today live in a vacuum: they don't know where they came from; they don't know anything about their heritage; they don't know about a family that they were perhaps born to but know nothing about. There are also hundreds of thousands of adult women out there who lived through decades where having a child outside marriage was considered the greatest shame that you could bring upon your family.
Before members vote against this piece of legislation, I'd like to ask them to think carefully about some of the words the minister spoke; what it really means to replace legislation that was steeped in the 1950s; impact, during all these decades, of the high degree of confidentiality and sealed records, and an attitude that treated adopted children "as if born to"; and what a powerfully different, positive and joyous message this legislation will bring that says a birth mother would give consent about what happens to a child she gave birth to. Hon. members, that is an incredibly powerful statement of support to hundreds and thousands of women throughout this province.
The previous speaker suggested that there are maybe 50,000 women in British Columbia who may not want it to be known; that they would like to keep their past secrets. I would suggest to that hon. member that perhaps the reason that is so is that we have had legislation in this province and we have had an attitude in the fifties and sixties that took young women who happened to become pregnant, ripped them from their communities, put them in homes for unwed mothers, shut them away from their families and friends, punished them for this horrible thing they had done, literally took their children from their bodies and threw a piece of paper in front of them to be signed, and then expected those women to go back as if nothing had happened. Maybe that is the reason some women in British Columbia are frightened. But I maintain that that is exactly why we need to take this legislation out of the fifties and bring it into the open, to celebrate a society that supports women and children, that supports loving couples, regardless of their sexual orientation
[ Page 16134 ]
-- loving couples who want to give supportive homes to children that are up for adoption -- and that supports access to identifying information.
I believe that if we open those records.... Yes, women or children who do not wish those records opened may register that. But if we open those records, we will finally have pulled back the curtain of an incredibly judgmental society that has kept the whole issue of adoption and the children born to birth mothers -- especially young birth mothers -- in the dark all these years.
This may not seem to be a big issue to many people, because when you look around now, our society is supportive of young women who choose to keep their children. Many of them do keep their children. Many of them continue with their schooling; many of them have access to supportive families, supportive communities and supportive services, so that they may raise their children. That was not the case in the fifties and sixties, and that is exactly the situation in which the legislation we have had until this time is steeped.
[4:15]
I say to the minister: congratulations for all sections of this bill. And I say to members in this House: I hope you will think carefully about how progressive this legislation is. There is nothing to be afraid of in this legislation. It is legislation that joyously celebrates the role of children in our society and ensures that they can be supported, cared for and loved in the way that they should be.
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to rise today to make some comments with respect to Bill 51. I haven't had the benefit of personal experience with adoption or even of knowing people who have had that experience, but I did value a recent meeting that members of our caucus had with the Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee, at which at least ten people who had had direct experience talked about their own life experience. For me, that always puts real life into a piece of legislation. I appreciated that session.
I want to express concern about two areas of the bill, the first one being the area that speaks to regulating private adoptions. I noted the minister's comment that in 1971, 2 percent of adoptions were private compared to 57 percent currently. I wonder about moves to regulate private adoption in the context of those kinds of numbers. I'll certainly be listening to try to understand what is being done -- and why -- by the legislation in that area.
I also want to express opposition to the possibility of same-sex couples adopting children, which is contemplated in the act. I don't see how this can be in the best interests of the children. When you consider the number of petitions that have been filed in this Legislature expressing serious opposition with respect to that issue, you know that there are a lot of people in this province who are strongly opposed to this direction in the bill. I've already personally been given a petition to that effect, which I will be tabling shortly.
I take some comfort from the provision that the birth mother has the strongest voice in what happens to the child in terms of the adoption. Hopefully, that will provide some comfort in that area. I think that the comments that were made by the member for Peace River North in this area were very appropriate. It's fine to talk about an ideal world, where a child would grow up without any discrimination; it is unrealistic to think that that is achievable.
The traditional family is still a legitimate and necessary thing to be concerned about in our society. We've seen a trend in society away from the situation where every child has a father and a mother, and I don't necessarily believe that that's a positive trend. This concern has nothing to do with discrimination; it has a lot to do with whether or not we think that that trend in our society is positive. If you talk to teachers and administrators in schools -- friends of mine, certainly -- they've expressed a lot of comments in that area.
With those comments, I will be very interested to hear the various viewpoints expressed in the debate in this House on these serious and sensitive matters.
J. Pullinger: I too want to participate in this debate, but I want to participate in full support of Bill 51. What we're discussing today is the principle of this legislation, and I can heartily say that I support it, both in its principle and in its detail. This legislation is being updated from the 1950s, and in my view and in the view of most if not all of my colleagues, it's long overdue.
What we've got here is a shift to legislation that facilitates more open and more honest adoptions. It gets rid of a lot of the pretences of the past that hail from a time that my colleague so eloquently spoke of: a time when it was practically a crime when a woman had a child out of wedlock. Those women were marginalized and judged and treated in a way that was, in my view, reprehensible. Both the woman and, in many cases, her child suffered for years if not throughout their lives from the effects of that kind of oppression and its consequences.
What we have here is legislation for the 1990s and beyond. It allows for more choice; it allows for relationships. Despite the fact that a mother, usually, is unable to raise a child doesn't mean that she has to completely give up that relationship, which, in most cases, neither the child nor the birth mother want to have happen. So there is a much broader range of choice through this legislation, including the choice not to have any contact with your child or with your parent. That is something that all of us could and should support in this Legislature.
This legislation has broad support. I have received, as every member of the House has, a number of documents from groups with large numbers of people involved in adoption. In one way or another, all of them are saying: "Please bring in this legislation, and please do it now."
The fact that there is such broad support for this legislation reflects the fact that there was broad consultation. There were literally hundreds of people who made their views known to my colleague who travelled the province and, in other ways, solicited public response and concerns and views on this very personal and important issue. Of course, there are some differences; we're hearing them expressed in the House today. What is worth noting is that there was a huge degree of consensus, as well.
For instance, anyone who understands what is happening in the adoption community and who understands the deficiencies of existing legislation has been overwhelmingly supportive of regulating private adoption agencies. Similarly,
[ Page 16135 ]
there has been very strong support for the regulation of international adoptions. There are virtually no regulations right now. There is also a lot of support for more openness in adoption, particularly for protecting information that's vital to a child and their family, which now may or may not be lost. It's a pretty ad hoc system.
What I'm hearing in this debate in the Legislature is that we all believe the best interests of the child should be paramount. That's precisely what this legislation does. I would offer that the 1950s legislation that we've been functioning on until today probably also felt that it was functioning in the best interests of the child. But the 1950s definition of the best interests of the child simply doesn't apply today.
For instance, the best interests of the child in the 1950s was deemed to be.... Only a husband and wife could adopt a child. It didn't allow for, or even acknowledge, the existence of any other kind of relationship. I want to give a little bit of a different look into this issue that both opposition parties are objecting to, which is the provision in this legislation that says two adults or a single adult can adopt a child -- or can apply to adopt a child, because application is what we're talking about. The courts make the ultimate decision after a lengthy process. I want to give just a little bit of a different perspective on that issue. The assumption that's coming back is that we're dealing with homosexual couples -- period. And this definitely.... Of course, it would mean that couples in a homosexual relationship could apply to adopt -- and why not?
But there's something else there, too. I want the House to consider the fact, for instance, that a single parent who may be part of an extended family -- a number of cultures in our society live as part of extended families -- may want the protection of having another adult in that family adopt the child. Now, that could be the mother who's living with the child and wants her mother to adopt the child also. It could be her brother, her sister, her aunt; it could be any number of people within that family who they want to have adopt that child. That is a significant issue for a lot of single parents today. They want the security and the knowledge that someone else is there who has a legal right to look after that child in the event of the natural parent's disability or death. I think that is significant -- especially as a single parent for most of my child's growing-up years, 18 out of 19. So I think we need to consider that.
We also need to consider that there may be other instances. For example, because of economics today there are lots and lots of cases where two single parents -- women, generally, because women still have the care of children in our society -- choose to share a house. I could point to any number of families made up that way that I know of personally, where there are two women, both of whom or one of whom has children, and they're sharing a home. They've been sharing a home for a number of years, and they've developed a relationship with those children and with each other as adults, which may or may not be a homosexual relationship. Is it, then, in the best interests of the child, if something should happen to the natural parent, to take that child out of that circumstance and away from that other adult? The opposition benches are saying that we shouldn't allow that other parent to adopt. I would offer that, in many cases, it may be in the best interests of the child simply to allow them to stay in the circumstance that they've been growing up in.
I have some concern when I hear what is, in effect, homophobia coming from the other side of the House around this issue. I think we need to consider the broader issue about grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters and friends -- all of whom may have a lovely relationship with the child and its natural parent -- who should be allowed to adopt that child in order to provide the security to deal legally with that child in the event that one adult should die or become incapacitated. They should have the right to that kind of safety and security. So I think we need to be a little bit careful.
The other issue I want to raise around that same concern is.... I also find it very disturbing that we're saying we should deal in the best interests of the child, and at the same time a whole bunch of people just want to eliminate 10 percent of the population and say that they are clearly not in the best interests of that child. We're trying to stand here in the Legislature.... This is the problem that I see with this kind of emotional issue: none of us in this Legislature can say what's in the best interests of any specific child. We don't know their circumstances; we don't know who their family members are; we don't know who that child has been living with during their growing-up years. We have to allow a good process to determine that. We have to allow that choice to the child, when the child is old enough -- and their parents and their family and the people who are involved in that child's life, as well as the courts, which make the ultimate decision. That is not a choice that we should be making in this Legislature.
[4:30]
The issue, then, is not about sexual orientation, income levels or any of those external things; it's about mentally healthy adults in a healthy relationship with each other and with the child. It's about the circumstances that the child is in -- the reality of their lives. It's also about ensuring that the circumstance into which that child will be adopted is one that is supportive, loving and nurturing and in which the child's needs can be met. And it might just be -- on many occasions, I would offer -- that someone other than a man and a woman is able to adopt that child.
We need to consider those things as we discuss this legislation. We must not simply turn a blind eye to all of those other possibilities and realities in today's society, and say: "None of you has a right to adopt; it doesn't matter what the circumstances of your life are, because I'm afraid that there will be ridicule if there are two parents of the same sex." We simply need to look at the best interests of the child and at the reality of our society today, and start from there. That's precisely what this legislation does.
The need for this legislation is clearly driven by the fact that 1950s legislation doesn't serve the needs and the purposes of parents and families and children in the 1990s. It also doesn't reflect the wishes of the majority of British Columbians in the 1990s. The need for this legislation is also found in the fact that the number of children available to adopt today has decreased dramatically -- partly, I'm happy to say, from the fact that we're not quite as judgmental anymore about single women having children. We still have some distance to travel in terms of treating women -- and especially women with children -- fairly in our society, but there is a change. That means that young women and single women are able to keep their children, which means that there are fewer children -- especially infants -- available for adoption. It seems to me that that's good news.
[ Page 16136 ]
However, what that seems to have done is shift the focus from finding a child a really good home to the other way around. You've got a whole bunch of adults who legitimately want to have a child, and the focus turns to those adults: "We've got to find children for these adults." The danger of focusing on the availability of children is that we can start to see children as a commodity, and clearly that's not acceptable. When we start to see children as a commodity, then we start to see a distortion in the process through which we decide how children and prospective adoptive parents are matched up.
We also see a small number of children to be adopted and a large number of people who want to adopt. We see people increasingly wanting to find a way around the lineup. That's understandable, but it creates some real problems. It creates a need to do some things differently. Specifically, it creates the need to update and modernize the system and better regulate what's happening. Right now, with the rather fragmented, ad hoc system of adoption that we have, there is, for instance, no formal pre-placement process to evaluate the homes to which a child might go. Over the last couple of years we've seen some pretty horrifying headlines about circumstances that have arisen when there is no good, clear, legal process followed for adoption.
Similarly, in the current legislation -- the outdated legislation of 40 years ago -- there is no requirement that a woman or a family who are going to give up a child be advised of all of their rights, have counselling and be fully informed before they make that decision; it is a profound one. That makes a lot of women, especially young women who are on their own, extremely vulnerable. There's a danger today that some people -- and I think most people deal honestly and in good faith with this kind of situation -- will take advantage of the opportunities without ensuring that birth mothers have counselling and full information. There is no pre-placement process for the prospective adoptive family to make sure that this is a good and safe home. The consequences of that can be very negative and very great, and obviously we need to protect against that.
We need to make those changes to make sure that the birth parents are protected and that the child goes into a safe and supportive home. We also need to make sure that people aren't earning money in the adoption of a child, above and beyond normal fees for services. In other words, we don't want to allow a black market to exist in children. That's simply not acceptable, and the legislation today does not prevent that. It's fair to say that there is some legitimate concern that that kind of thing is happening. Not only do you end up with some people earning a whole lot of money through making placements, sometimes in questionable ways, there is also the issue of conflict of interest, where the adoptive parents are paying the big bill and the intermediary -- who could be a doctor, lawyer or other person -- is obviously under some pressure to make sure that they deliver the goods, which is the child. It's a clear conflict of interest when that same person is supposed to be looking after the rights of the birth mother. Under the existing legislation, there is very much the possibility today for that kind of conflict of interest, which is clearly not in the best interest of anyone except the intermediary. So there are a number of things that are problems with today's legislation, and they are being updated in Bill 51, which is a good thing, and I would urge all members to support it on that basis.
There is one other thing that's lost in the current situation, and I can only imagine what this must be like. There is no central registry for information in the fragmented system of today. Therefore a child's information might or might not be lost. You might or might not be able to find your birth parents. You might or might not be able to find some of your medical or cultural history, or anything about your family origin. It's a bit of a roll of the dice today, because there is nothing to require that certain critical documents and pieces of information be kept in a way that they will be retained for the long term and ultimately be made available to those involved in the adoption process.
Those are the kinds of changes that we need, and those are the kinds of changes that we're seeing in this legislation. I can only say that I think it's a very positive change, and there is virtually nothing in this legislation that we ought to be objecting to. What we're talking about, in terms of the changes, is who can apply to adopt, how that process will happen and the procedures following adoption for contact between the parents, the adoptive parents and the child.
The concerns that I have heard from the other side of the House have been around same-sex adoptions. I hope they have clearly heard that this is about a much broader and more complex issue than simply whether or not you think homosexual people should adopt children.
There are also concerns around privacy; we heard that raised by the independent member. That member argued that the privacy commissioner has some concern about the openness. Let's remember that we are dealing with possibly conflicting rights: the right of a child to know who their family is, and the right of a family to know where that child is and to know where they are. But there is a right of veto built into this. This isn't your normal kind of information rights where you're talking about my medical records and who has a right to them -- where it just involves me. This is information about a relationship. In the overwhelming majority of cases, all parties involved want to see more openness there. That has certainly been made very clear to me.
We've provided in this legislation for those few cases, probably from the era where a woman had to pretend she never had a child and it would do something devastating to her existing family or relationship -- those kinds of things. There are situations where a birth parent doesn't want to have any contact with the child or vice versa. There is an opportunity to veto that in the legislation. They can make it known that they don't want that information to be given to the other party, and that will be respected.
I think the House should be very, very clear that this legislation, while it will be passed in this Legislature, I assume, very soon, is not going to be proclaimed for a while. In the interim period, there is an opportunity to carry out a national advertising campaign and make every effort to ensure that every person affected by this legislation knows precisely what the changes are and precisely how they affect them, so that they can take any action they choose -- whether it's to use it to make contact or to register their desire not to have any contact. There will be a long period of time during which people will be made well aware of this change and will be allowed every opportunity to make their wishes known. So the concerns about privacy, in my view, are not legitimate ones, because there is every opportunity there to deal with them effectively.
I will conclude my comments. I simply want to congratulate my colleagues, the member from Comox and the Minister
[ Page 16137 ]
of Social Services. I think they have done a superb job in carrying out the consultation process. I think they have come up with legislation that is appropriate for the 1990s; it reflects the reality of today's society, today's needs, today's relationships and the will and wishes of those who are part of what's broadly called the adoption community today -- those who have been adopted, have an adopted child or have given a child up for adoption. I'm proud of this legislation, and I urge every member of this Legislature to support it.
R. Chisholm: I rise today to discuss this bill. At the present time I can't support it. There are a lot of good things in the bill, and we've heard a lot of them earlier; I'll go through a little bit of that in the upcoming talk. But there is one section, section 5(1), which I can't support. The reason I can't support it is that we have seen an awful lot of petitions tabled in this House.... We have seen where the minister has had an awful lot of consultation, and I applaud her for that. They've had the report that was published in July 1994. The minister's own report says:
"There's growing evidence in society that the importance of a family is a significant factor in the development of all children. The definition of the word 'family' may be undergoing an evolution but the fact remains that traditional extended family, that is, mother, father, son, daughter, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins -- whether a 'unit' or a 'clan' -- represents one of the most influential aspects of a child's development."
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: If the member for Yale-Lillooet wants to stand and make comment on the minister's report, so be it; I'll sit down and he can make his comments.
This is the minister's report and that of the panel on the review of adoptions legislation in British Columbia from July 1994. I have to wonder why she has disregarded it. But I do applaud her on her consultation. After all, two years ago they pulled this legislation, and in that legislation it was leaked that the private brokers.... They intended to outlaw them. With this legislation I think there is still a little apprehension about the private brokers, but that will come out in committee stage at a later date.
Adoptions in this province affect one in five people. It's a big issue, and that's why we have seen so many petitions hit the floor of this chamber. I myself tabled one today. A member of the Reform Party tabled one today on this same issue. We haven't seen petitions in support of this legislation tabled up to this point in time, and I would like to see where all of that is....
One of the members from Vancouver brought up a radio station that had a talk show that did an unscientific poll of 68 calls; they got 18 calls for, and the rest were against. That's about 74 percent against and 18 percent for. That's roughly what I see coming into my constituency office. I am getting mail; I have tabled it and sent it to the minister. I have been getting these petitions and tabling them, and that's roughly about right. I'm getting very few letters in support of it, but I'm getting an awful lot of opposition to it in my particular constituency. I know the constituency of Abbotsford, too, has had the same sort of attitude. I have talked to people there and in Matsqui. So I'm kind of wondering where the representation from the minister is for these people, because they're asking the same questions.
[4:45]
If we take a look at the positive portions of this legislation, there are some. The birth-father registry is very important and long overdue, and I think it's well-thought-out. We should have done this a long time ago, and this legislation should have been updated a long time ago, too. Unfortunately, we have things in there that there will be opposition to.
Setting regulations for private adoptions is, I think, very necessary and very needed. So I can support that in its entirety. I'm talking about non-government adoptions at this point.
The privacy rights of the natural mother, I think, is another area which is supportable. There will be some discussion about the pros and cons, and about what the privacy commissioner has said, but it's very necessary and I think it is a positive approach.
Disclosure rights at the age of 19 is another area which will be discussed, but generally positive.... The aboriginal issue.... I sometimes wonder why there's a difference between the aboriginal issue and the rest. I mean, is this the paternal attitude of or all governments? That has to be debated.
When we take a look at other jurisdictions across this country, we'll see where with adoptions it's written into their legislation -- the family: the mother and the father; the same thing that I quoted back to the minister from her report.... Why the difference here? Why have they gone this route for justification for this?
I think this is a time for a free vote in this Legislature. I think every member should stand up and voice his or her opinion. I think all the leaders of every party should stand up and voice their opinion. After all, there is an issue here that has to be addressed, and this House has to debate it fully. Hopefully we will come up with an answer that is for the benefit of all British Columbians.
So, at this point, section 5(1) is the issue for me in this legislation, and I hope the minister is willing to discuss this when we get to committee stage. I hope that she will also discuss some of these other issues which are positive, but which some people have taken issue with. I do implore every member of this House to come in here and address this issue, especially the leaders. If there was ever an argument for changing this assembly so that bills could receive careful consideration from a select standing committee, this is it. I regret that this government has made such a worthy cause as improving adoption standards such a controversial move with the inclusion of section 5(1), which I will not be able to support.
G. Wilson: In rising on Bill 51, it is both fitting and somewhat ironic that today is the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. We might remind ourselves of articles 7 and 8 of the United Nations declaration of the rights of the child. Let me read what that says: "Every child has a right to his or her birth name and knowledge of who his or her parents are. If a child is deprived of his name, identity and family relations, signatory states have the responsibility to establish the same." In substance, if not in principle, that's what this bill is all about: it's about allowing people who have been adopted to know who they are. On that principle we have to support the bill.
[ Page 16138 ]
The other night I was invited to be the keynote speaker at the ceremonies for students graduating from Malaspina College in Powell River. One of the coordinators came up to give awards to students in his particular faculty. He was a gentleman of 60 years of age. He got up on the stage and said to the assembled 300 or so people that it was a particularly special night for him, because he had discovered, only a few weeks before, that he had a sister who lived in New York. He was from Australia and had been adopted. It was only through the vigorous work of his wife, who went through their family tree, found out who they were and finally contacted his sister -- who flew in from New York -- that they were, at the age of 60, finally meeting each other for the first time. What an enormously emotional and moving comment that was! This man was moved, because he finally realized that he had roots: he had family beyond his adoptive family -- and he obviously spoke no ill of those that raised him.
It is interesting that we hear some consternation with respect to this bill when the overwhelming intent is to streamline the process and proceed in a manner that is far more acceptable today. It really does nothing more than live up to articles 7 and 8 of the UN declaration of the rights of the child. I congratulate this government for moving forward to do that.
While I stand strongly in favour of that aspect of the bill, there is an issue that has been driven largely by the opposition parties, particularly the leaders of the two opposition parties, and has also had a great deal of attention in the media -- that is, what this bill does is advocate or promote same-sex adoptions. I've read this bill very carefully. In fact, I've read it very carefully several times. I've had those whose opinions I respect with respect to the legal language research it very carefully. Nowhere in Bill 51 could I find where it advocates same-sex-couple adoptions. It does not advocate that at all. Section 5(1) says that a child may be placed for adoption with one adult or two adults jointly. That's what it says. Any interpretation of who that one adult or who those two adults may be rests in the minds of those that read it.
There will be those that argue that that opens the door for same-sex-couple adoptions. Hon. Speaker, let me tell you that during the long and heated debate on the Charlottetown accord, I was approached by the gay community. They wanted me to accept their amendments to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that said that gay rights should be included where it suggests that there can be no discrimination with respect to race, colour, creed, language, religion, gender -- or, they said, sexual orientation. I rejected it. I said that we do not need, federally or provincially, to specify sexual orientation within our statutes as a matter for discrimination against or for any individual on the basis of any law, if we're to treat people equally. If we want to discriminate, if it is our intent to discriminate, then let us put in the legislation the fact that there is an orientation clause that is prohibitive against one group or advocating another.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I hear the member for Abbotsford say this is nothing about discrimination. That's absolutely false. This is everything about discrimination, if one advocates that it spells out specifically what a family is in 1995 or years beyond.
This bill -- and again, I've read it very carefully -- speaks to the best interest of the child. If there is a situation where same-sex couples seek to adopt -- if indeed that occurs, and I can't help but believe that would be an absolutely tiny minority of cases, but if it does occur -- and if there are people who have some kind of family connection to that child or some concern about the lifestyle of the people whom the child is being adopted by, then presumably a home study, a careful, descriptive procedure in this bill, will be followed. The interest of the child will indeed be respected. It may well be that adoption will be denied. How is that different than a heterosexual couple seeking to adopt a child, for whom their lifestyle and the kinds of things they engage in may be questionable in terms of the quality of life for the young child put into their care?
A person whom I consider one of the greatest politicians in Canada -- and I know that might cost me some votes in the next election, but I speak of Pierre Elliott Trudeau -- once said the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That is exactly what those who advocate that somehow this is prejudicial legislation are advocating we attempt to do, and that's wrong. Those who advocate that this points to same-sex adoption in an advocacy role are absolutely wrong. It's irresponsible to go out and try and sell it to the public -- who don't have the benefit of reading this bill or the ability to sit down and analyze it clause by clause by clause -- by suggesting it is.
That's why I think the Leader of the Opposition should have come into this House and taken the position he did publicly in the Vancouver Sun and explained to us why he believes this is a discriminatory piece of legislation advocating same-sex adoptions.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Well, I hear the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove say he doesn't say that. We don't know what he says, because he's never in this House. He's never on record. He's never in Hansard. He's always being quoted in the press, only to be told by members of his caucus he didn't say that. Well, we don't know what he says, because he doesn't have the guts to come into this House and tell us what he stands for on any substantive issue.
There is one aspect of this bill, however, that is fundamentally flawed and wrong. While I would stand up and passionately argue that we have to have no discrimination on the matter except for discrimination in favour of the interest of the child, regrettably this legislation does discriminate. It discriminates on the question of aboriginal children. I have raised this point before. It is an important point.
I note that when we get into discussion of the human rights legislation, which is going to be coming before this House soon, that we seek in that human rights legislation, as limited as the parameters are, to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, colour, creed or religion. Yet what are the criteria under section 3, "Best interests of child," that will be considered? It says: "...the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage."
We've done a bit of a check in other jurisdictions. Thanks to Internet this happens very quickly these days, and we can through our access to Internet explore legislation in a whole myriad of other jurisdictions. All over the world, in every modern nation, we are getting away from adoption regulation that has as a criterion racial, linguistic, religious or cultural heritage. All over the world we are getting away from that, and for several good reasons. One of those reasons is that
[ Page 16139 ]
discrimination is alive and well, and children of particular ethnic groups who are waiting for adoption are often the ones who wait the longest. We find that there are people who choose to adopt only those who are from within their own ethnic or racial group. Yet if we look at the multicultural mosaic of what makes Canada today, one of the great things about this country is the fact that we celebrate our differences. We are now able to marry and intermarry, to have schools that are completely cosmopolitan in their makeup and to have families that reflect the modern Canada.
[5:00]
One of the great debates I had in my earlier tenure was when I was in the official opposition and had an opportunity to debate with Robert Bourassa, who was the Premier of Quebec. He always used to talk to me about English and French Canada. I used to say to Mr. Bourassa: "Come out, Mr. Bourassa, please, and walk with me down main-street Vancouver and tell me this is English Canada." Because it isn't. Clearly it is not. Clearly this is a nation of many cultures. The people who grow up in this culture have to understand not just their own spoken language but the language of what it is to be Canadian. That's what is important.
As we look at the next generation of Canadians and deal with the matter of principle in adoptions, one of the things we want to break down are those strict racial barriers that divide us, and most directly concerned in this legislation are aboriginal children. I tell you, I have a very serious problem with this. We have a definition of a child in this legislation that says it means an unmarried person under 19 years of age. I don't have a problem with that; that sounds about right. But then we have a definition of an aboriginal child, which by the very definition is distinct, different, discriminated against and stigmatized -- it is statused.
You know, we're trying to get rid of the Indian Act -- a racist piece of legislation if there ever was one -- which stigmatizes aboriginal people, which stamps on their foreheads: "status Indian." Yet here we are in 1995, with what I believed was a progressive government, introducing a definition that carries this forward. It says that an aboriginal child is one "who is registered under the Indian Act (Canada)" -- the very racist piece of legislation we're trying to get rid of. Then it goes on to say: "...who has a biological parent who is registered under the Indian Act (Canada)" -- ditto my former remarks -- and "who is under 12 years of age and has a biological parent who (i) is of aboriginal ancestry, and (ii) considers himself or herself to be aboriginal, or" -- and that's an important conjunction -- "who is 12 years of age...of aboriginal ancestry and considers himself or herself to be aboriginal."
Now, what this says is that there are rights and privileges and jurisdictions in this question of definition that are segregatory and that divide our people on the basis of their race. If you wonder why we get concerned -- and we'll deal with this when we get into committee stage, when we look at the best interests of the child -- it's because aboriginal children are treated differently than every other child in British Columbia. That is, in principle, wrong. Why are we suggesting that aboriginal heritage, culture and language, the definition of self, of place and of community is any different than for somebody who comes from Indian heritage or German heritage or any other cultural heritage that we might ethnically define?
We cannot support those sections of this bill. If it weren't for the underlying principle that I spoke of when I opened my remarks, we wouldn't support this bill at all on those grounds. We are headed toward indelible distinctions between aboriginal -- first nations -- people and the balance of Canada. And let's remember that we're only talking about the 32 percent of those aboriginal people who will qualify under this definition. There are 68 percent of them who don't, and who are going to be stigmatized by virtue of the very fact that they will consider themselves aboriginal, but they're not status.
And where do they fit? They fit into this grey kind of area -- and that's covered in the bill as well, where in fact there can be consideration provided. And where an adoption takes place of children who are non-status urban aboriginals -- and who may have only one aboriginal parent, and who may be one generation removed -- they are going to have to consult with some aboriginal band about who they go to live with. That's ridiculous.
If the child is between the ages of seven and 12, they may have an opportunity to say, "No way, thank you very much; I want to be adopted into mainstream society," or "I wish to be adopted by an aboriginal parent, or a non-aboriginal parent, in urban Canada." But if they are between the ages of two and seven, then they don't have that opportunity. I'll tell you that that is fundamentally wrong.
I draw the attention of the minister -- and I hope the minister will consider this -- to something else that we find interesting as we surf the Internet to try to find various legislation comparisons in different jurisdictions. We are moving toward, in a number of jurisdictions.... Let me just take a look at the one that Congress has passed in the United States with multi-ethnic placement. It says that the guidelines make it illegal for states to delay an adoption so that social workers can find a child an adoptive family from the same race or ethnic background -- and for some good reason. It goes on to say that in that jurisdiction, they also make listing criteria for placements based on race, culture and ethnicity illegal.
Now, there will be those who argue that that makes the difference between the melting-pot mentality and the multicultural mosaic mentality of Canada. That simply doesn't hold water; that's not true, because we also note something else that's coming up more and more -- and I caution the minister on this -- which is those who will sue for wrongful adoption. I don't know how much the minister has had her staff look at the legal jurisprudence with respect to suits for wrongful adoption, but I suggest that she start to do so before this act goes too much further. Clearly the right of an individual child has to be protected within the broader parameters of what is an acceptable adoption policy. The determination of race as a category that will determine adoption cannot be one of them -- or should not be one of them. Most jurisdictions around the world are removing it. I hope the minister does have her staff look at the jurisprudence on suits for wrongful adoption, because it's important legislation, and it's important for British Columbians to recognize the kinds of parameters that exist.
I want to conclude my remarks today by saying that there never seems to be one piece of legislation that will satisfy all people when it comes to matters like this. I have already spoken strongly in favour of the provisions allowing young adopted people, or even old adopted people, an opportunity to discover who they are, how important that is, and how critically urgent it is that this legislation be passed to provide
[ Page 16140 ]
for that. But it seems to me that we're at a crossroads in terms of the debate on social legislation in this House and in this province, and we need to start getting some politicians on record in Hansard.
I want to conclude on the principle of this bill by saying how concerned I am that we do not hear from those who stand to oppose outside this Legislature, in the venues of the general media.... Regrettably, this legislation -- absolutely critically important legislation in terms of how we proceed with respect to a very important issue -- and this debate in this Legislature, outside of the few who may be in the galleries or the few who may actually catch these remarks on television, probably won't receive any coverage whatsoever in the media. The media aren't interested in listening to the discourse of the elected members of this assembly who speak on behalf of the people who voted them into office. The media would rather write their articles on a fictitious letter generated on behalf of the Minister of Health, leaked to the opposition and then used by the opposition in the most ridiculous manner, in my judgment. To try to assume that this letter -- not even on current letterhead -- represents anything whatsoever....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for Richmond East asks: "Is this relevant?" The answer is that it is absolutely relevant. It has never been more relevant. Outside of the member for Richmond East, who I think spoke eloquently, and the member for Vancouver-Langara -- although I'm not certain the member for Vancouver-Langara is in favour of this legislation; it wasn't that clear.... But both at least stood and spoke on behalf of their caucus. Except for what I've read in the Vancouver Sun, I have absolutely no knowledge of the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition, the new Socreds. This individual chooses time in this House to put forward fictitious correspondence from the Minister of Health rather than use the time to put on record where they stand on these really important issues. But it will never be covered in the media, because, goodness knows, that might mean that first, they'll have to read the legislation; second, they'll have to understand it; and third, they'll have to accurately report on the debate that takes place in these chambers, all of which would take a little bit of work.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
So it is relevant. It is absolutely relevant, because it has been reported out there that somehow Bill 51 is about same-sex couples being given the right to adopt. That is shameful, because that is not what it's about. Those of us who can oppose -- and we do oppose certain sections of this bill -- are prepared to go on the record and state in some detail where our opposition is. I've got to say that the Leader of the Third Party has had the courage to come into this Legislative Assembly and take positions on which he holds strong convictions -- positions I often don't agree with. When we go through Hansard and review the voting procedures we will see what the parties stand for and what the party leaders have said, and the people in the next election will know what the Leader of the Third Party stands for. The Leader of the Third Party has been in the House, participated in the debate and has put on the record what the third party stands for. Regrettably, that is not true of the official opposition, this new Socred party led by this young Brian Mulroney who likes to stand in front of the public and say that they are opposed to this bill, yet we hear in the Legislative Assembly from two of their more articulate spokespeople that they are in favour of this bill.
It's like they are opposed when the public is out there, but when nobody's paying attention -- because regrettably nobody does -- in this Legislative Assembly, they're in favour. You know what it does? It provides you the best of both worlds, because you can point to the newspaper article when you're talking to those in opposition and say: "See, we opposed it." When you meet a group that is in favour, you can pull out the Hansard and say: "See, we spoke in favour of it." Well, that's just great. We can be all things to all people, and that's inherently dishonest. That's why in this legislation, as I did with the access to abortion legislation, once again I challenge that Leader of the Official Opposition to get into this House and to put his position on the record so that we know where they stand on these important matters of social legislation.
In the main, this is a good bill. I don't share the concerns that I hear from the third party and from the Liberal Party about this being somehow.... And I use that word "Liberal" very advisedly. I think "new Socred" is a better term. I don't share their concern about the matter of same-sex adoption. What I ask, and what I'm going to push for in debate when we get into committee, is for them to do two things. Number one, commit to the people that if you get elected you'll change it, and then tell us what you'll put in place of subsection 5(1). What would you write? I wonder what the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party would write instead of: "A child may be placed for adoption with one adult or 2 adults jointly." Indeed, would they say that a child may only be placed for adoption with heterosexual couples? In that case, you would exclude homosexual couples, and that would immediately initiate a Charter challenge. I wonder if they would do that. Or if they suggest that what they're going to do....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for Peace River North is saying that it has been there, and it hasn't received a Charter challenge.
Well, that isn't quite true. In fact, it has received a challenge. It has received a challenge in both lower and superior courts across this country. There is jurisprudence that is now being brought forward before the public, and we are going to know how the courts rule.
[5:15]
It seems to me that this language provides a non-discriminatory description of family. Where discrimination may occur is where a properly constituted review committee will look at either of those two adults, no matter what their sexual orientation, and discriminate on behalf of the interests of the child they are reviewing. That individual case will be viewed in light of those two individuals who seek to look after the interests of that child. And that's where the discrimination should occur. At that level, I would say amen -- discriminate on the question for the interests of that child.
What a dangerous thing we are going to do if we put discriminatory language with respect to one's sexual orienta-
[ Page 16141 ]
tion into our legislation. We must not discriminate on that, because the nation clearly does not have any place in the bedrooms of its people. We shouldn't be so blithe to accept that two adults who are homosexual should be denied -- especially if one is the birth mother -- the right to provide a loving family to a young child who may benefit from it.
I want to know, if section 5(1) is so objectionable, what you are going to write in its place. This bill is going to pass because that group over there, the government, has the majority, and because as hard as we try -- and I've tried since we were elected -- we've yet to defeat them on a bill. So if it's going to pass, then let's hear from the official opposition and the third party what they are going to write in place of that language. What are they going to write that isn't discriminatory and that doesn't take us down the slippery path toward discriminatory legislation in British Columbia?
J. Weisgerber: It's certainly a privilege for me to stand and speak on second reading of Bill 51, the Adoption Act.
I stand to support the position as outlined eloquently, I think, by my friend and colleague the member for Peace River North. He speaks on behalf of the Reform caucus on this issue, and I want that to be clear. We agree with him on the positions that he has outlined.
My colleague speaks for the caucus for a number of reasons. Beyond the fact that we respect his opinion, he has responsibilities in our caucus as the critic responsible for the Ministry of Social Services, the ministry that has put forward this legislation. He speaks, perhaps more importantly, from life experience. He speaks as a member who has been and is an adoptee. He speaks as someone who knows about this issue from his life experiences. As I listen to the arguments put forward sincerely, I think, by members of the House, I have the feeling that very few of us know and understand this issue the way that my colleague does -- not simply because of the fact that he is an adopted child, someone who was fortunate enough to be adopted into a loving family, but also because he has gone through the trials of identifying his birth parents.
When someone like that explains to me the challenges and the concerns, and does it with sincerity, I'm inclined to listen. I'm inclined to pay attention. Indeed, when our member speaks on the challenges that adopted children and adoptive parents face, I'm inclined again to pay some attention to that. It's a challenging issue, and I know that there needs to be greater access to information for children. Insofar as this legislation moves in that direction, I'm inclined to support it. My colleague thinks it goes too far perhaps, and again I'm inclined to refer to his knowledge of the subject and believe that he knows of what he speaks.
The issue of adoption by other than traditional families is of concern to us. We believe that it is in the best interests of children, specific children, that they be adopted into a loving, caring and capable traditional family. When we look at the number of children available for adoption each year, and the number of families seeking to adopt, we believe that those matches can be, should be and are made regularly. It is therefore the rights of those children -- who by no conscious decision of their own find themselves in the position of being available for adoption -- and those rights alone that we are inclined to put as paramount. When I read this legislation, I read it as best as I am able from that perspective. And that's the perspective that my friend and colleague the member for Peace River North enunciates. It's the position that we support.
We believe that section 5 should be rewritten. We believe the definition should be more specific as it relates to the adoptive family, and we recognize that the current definition of eligibility for adoption has stood for a number of years now. I'm not aware of any successful challenge that has overturned the definition in our existing act or in other acts across areas covered by British law and jurisprudence. I'm not prepared to accept the fact that a change in the wording of section 5 would be overturned.
This legislation is important, and I agree with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast: you can't have it both ways. You can't say one thing out in the hall, and then have somebody else come in and craft a number of speeches that you can conveniently pull out of Hansard and use to argue your position with whoever happens to argue. It's not something that should be a partisan issue. There are some issues that are partisan -- indeed, fiercely partisan -- and I think that those ones, many times, are the ones I enjoy the most, because I do enjoy partisanship. But it also has its place. When we are talking about an issue like adoption, certainly partisanship should be left outside. That, I think, goes without saying.
We have heard a good debate on this issue. I'm not going to go through the arguments put forward by the member on behalf of the Reform caucus, because we do agree on this. We have debated the issues; we are of one mind on these issues. Having said that, again I believe we have stated a position that is contemporary, that is sensitive to the interests of various groups and that does indeed deal with the values of society today and into the foreseeable future. There's no intent to discriminate, but indeed, at the end of the day it is the interests of the child.... That is the purpose of this act. Indeed, I think there needs to be changes within the act to make the various sections consistent with that stated purpose of the act. I don't believe it goes as far as it could in meeting that challenge, and for that reason I and my colleagues will vote against this bill in second reading.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise this afternoon and participate in the debate on Bill 51, the Adoption Act. There has been a wide variety of views expressed this afternoon. The act, which replaces one that was last written in 1957 -- and this is the first new act and the first really serious overhaul in almost 40 years -- has generated a great deal of debate, some of it in this House and some of it outside this House. I would hope that more of it takes place in this House over the next little while.
The most important tenet of this act can be found in section 2, under "Purpose of the Act." It reads: "The purpose of this Act is to provide for new and permanent family ties through adoption, giving paramount consideration in every respect to the child's best interests." Paramountcy of a child's best interests is first and foremost in this piece of legislation. That's something all of us should keep in mind as we debate this bill.
By and large, the comments about this bill have been favourable, except around one particular section, section 5: "Who may receive a child for adoption." In the act it says: "A child may be placed for adoption with one adult or 2 adults
[ Page 16142 ]
jointly." Somehow, according to the Reform caucus and some members of the Liberal caucus, this opens the way for adoption by same-sex couples, and this is wrong.
The act does not, anywhere in section 5(1), say "heterosexual," "homosexual," "gay or lesbian," "straight" or any word otherwise; it says "one adult or 2 adults jointly." The beginning of the act says "Best interests of child." Who makes that decision? The superintendent of child welfare, family court and the birth parent herself all have a say in the best interests of the child.
We hear from the opposition that somehow the only people in this province who should adopt are traditional families consisting of a husband and a wife. They won't say what they would replace section 5(1) with. They say that they don't wish to discriminate. If they don't wish to discriminate, as the Leader of the Third party and the leader of the fourth party -- the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance -- said, tell us what you would replace that section with.
I'd like to explore for a minute what they mean when they talk about a traditional family. In my own case, if they rewrote it to say a heterosexual married couple -- not single people, but a married couple.... My mother died 20 years ago and left five children. I was 16; my youngest brother was eight. My father raised the five of us. I think he did a pretty good job....
An Hon. Member: But you're biased.
M. Farnworth: I'm biased.
Under the definition that we've heard proposed by the Reform Party, for example, he wouldn't be allowed to adopt another child. Yet he's a perfectly fit and able parent, with experience. The mother of the Leader of the Opposition was a single parent. Under the definition put forward by the Reform Party, she wouldn't be able to adopt another child.
So they discriminate right there in saying that only a husband and wife can provide a loving, caring, nurturing and stable environment in which to raise children. The opposition and those who are opposed to this bill maintain somehow that only a traditional family can provide stability, caring and nurturing -- a traditional family where, as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon said, in the forties and the fifties, if you were a pregnant woman, that was the greatest shame that you could visit upon your family, so you were sent to a home for unwed mothers and the child was placed for adoption. Was that a traditional family?
[5:30]
Was it a traditional family in the fifties and sixties where spousal abuse took place, and was not talked about for fear of shaming the family? Is that a traditional family?
Was it a traditional family during the First World War or Second World War, where the husband went off to war and didn't come back, or came back crippled and maimed and couldn't work, leaving a single parent to support that family. Was that a traditional family? Or one where someone died early at a workplace accident or died of disease. Was that a traditional family? Did those single parents sometimes take in children from a brother, sister or neighbour to look after? The case for single people doesn't need arguing. It's been made. The comments from the opposition that only a husband and wife -- only a couple -- are fit to adopt are wrong.
We hear that we don't wish to discriminate, that this legislation is too permissive in that sense. I find it somewhat ironic that in every piece of legislation that comes forward that has sexual orientation mentioned in it or mentions the words gay or lesbian, those words are asked to be taken out because somehow it confers special rights or special status. Yet here we have a piece of legislation where those words are nowhere to be found, and the opposition and those opposed to this bill are basically saying they should be included. I think that speaks volumes about the comments that we don't intend to discriminate.
The bill is about the best interests of the child. The member for Peace River North said it quite well: "I'm quite sure that some same-sex couples make good parents and can provide a loving, caring, nurturing home, and some don't." And that's the point. Because what you're saying is that the same-sex couple wanting to apply to adopt is no different from anybody else. They can be good parents or bad parents, and that is why we have things such as a home study. That is why the child to be placed for adoption is asked for their views. That is why if a child is over the age of 12, they have to consent to the adoption. That is why the birth mother has a say in the adoption.
And that is why this legislation is so important. This is not a perfect world that we live in. Not everything goes the way all of us think it should go. Not every situation is the way we would like to see the world. In a sense, that's what makes this, our society, work. It's what makes it so interesting, so lively, so creative: the variety.
We already have in existence same-sex families -- two parents of the same sex living together with children. Yet we talk about the best interests of the child. As it exists today, if two lesbians are living together in a relationship that they've been in for a number of years, and one partner who dies has children whom the other partner has probably known -- I don't know -- say, since birth or for however many years, there is a relationship there.
Do we in the interests of the child disallow that individual, who has had such a prominent role in the rearing, caring and nurturing of that child? Do we disallow them? Do we take those children away from a parent whom they have known for five or six years, and say, "No, it is in your best interests not to be with the surviving partner of your biological mother, because they are of the same sex? No, we think that is so bad for you that we are going to take you out of this relationship and put you in another relationship, because we think that's in your best interests," even though this person may have helped raise, cared for, loved and cried for these children for five, six or however many years?
That is the reality of society today. What is wrong with recognizing that? Nothing. This legislation says that that lesbian mother's partner has every right to apply to adopt the children with whom she has been involved, as does somebody's spouse to apply for their own children in another relationship. If this legislation were not to pass, or if we were to change this clause, we would continue to ignore the realities of society today. We would condemn hundreds if not thousands of families that don't conform to what some describe as the traditional family to legal uncertainties, and we would deny otherwise caring, nurturing men and women the ability to provide for a child.
[ Page 16143 ]
When we talk about adoption, adoption is a very special thing. Adoption is not for everybody. It's very easy to find a home for the healthy child, the newborn, the perfect baby. It's not so easy to find a home for the one that is mentally handicapped, that suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome. It is not easy to find a home for one that has severe learning disabilities. It is not easy to find a home for one that may have been abused and suffers from severe emotional disabilities. Yet instead of looking to society and saying: "As many people as we can who want to adopt and who have the ability and the time and the resources...." "Sorry, you don't fit the mould. You don't fit the pattern, and we're not interested in you." Instead of encouraging those people to adopt and provide that love and support for a child who may otherwise never get adopted, or who may go from foster home to foster home, we want to shut them out, and that is not right.
What is right is that we recognize that a traditional family of Ward and Beaver Cleaver, as desirable as that is....
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: And, as the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast asks: is it? That's a very good question.
Rather than define legislation to achieve what many question and what some say is unattainable; rather than accept or recognize the realities that exist today and existed 20, 50 and 100 years ago but were never talked about; rather than accept those realities; and rather than deal with them and allow people to become involved in what is the greatest challenge and the greatest form of love that two people or an individual could take upon themselves, which is the raising of a child, we hear that it shouldn't happen unless it takes place in the context of a perfect family.
We have an opportunity here to correct that. We have an opportunity to say to people: "You can apply if you are willing to take up that challenge, and we don't care who you are in the broad sense. What we care about is your ability to provide love, nurturing and stability: a home." At the end of the day, a family isn't just two people. A family is a group of people who care for each other and who love each other. That's what this legislation is all about, and that is why I am very pleased and proud to stand up in support of it.
J. Tyabji: It's interesting to follow the previous member. I think he stole a lot of my speech, which is probably a good thing, because I know we're trying to wrap this up before the break.
I rise in support of this bill for a number of reasons. When I first read it and cross-referenced it to the old act, what struck me was, first, how sadly out of date the old act was; and second, how the new Adoption Act is a better representation of the best interests of the child than the current Family Relations Act, which I thought was interesting. When we get to committee stage I am going to make a lot of references to that, because children's interests are also represented in other statutes that should be updated.
I have found the controversy that has existed around this particularly interesting. As most members of this chamber do, I come to it with a very strong drive to always protect the child. Maybe because of my own experiences, I am a little closer to the surface on a lot of those issues. When I heard all these headlines and stories, I was concerned that the government could be drafting something really radical and putting the child's interests last, or maybe having an outside drive. For example, I think one of the members from Nanaimo or Cowichan-Ladysmith talked about having an adoption system driven by external forces -- for example, by the market of parents who want to procure children. That's what it sounded like we were getting. Not only were we getting a bill driven by the market -- based on the stories I had read before this debate -- but we were going to get a market-driven approach based on people who were all over the map: that it was going to have specific reference to sexual orientation and that there was going to be a promotion of market-driven procurement of babies based on someone's sexual orientation. I was alarmed, not necessarily because I think that under no circumstances should we have same-sex adoption, but I was thinking: what kind of government would do something like that? How irresponsible to not think of the child's interests first, because that's where the bill should be.
[5:45]
I was pleased to read it and see such a strong focus on it -- as I said, a stronger focus in the Adoption Act on the child's best interests than there is in the Family Relations Act, which I've become too familiar with over the last year. Having said that, the only word that can describe it.... I was furious with the way the response to the bill was being played out the day it was tabled. I was quite furious with the media. They actually pushed a big button in me, because I had spent some time going over it and I found some technical difficulties with the bill, not difficulties in principle. We have to go over in committee stage things that talk about disclosure, the child-centred interest, private adoption, and whether it should be non-profit societies and how we're going to regulate them. So those were the kinds of things I was concerned about. But when I received my first call from the media about the bill, the question that came up again and again was: "What is your position on homosexual adoption?" Finally, I said: "You know, this bill is absolutely silent on that. The bill doesn't say anything about that." In fact, the only thing the bill does say is that it no longer disallows anyone on the basis of sexual orientation or on whether they're single or in a couple. The bill no longer discriminates. We're in 1995, the last time I checked, and one of the fundamental bases for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that we stop discriminating.
What I find interesting is that so often we have people prepared to judge. Having been on the receiving end of a lot of people prepared to judge my personal life, I have a lot of sympathy for people who every single day feel they could be the subject of someone else's judgment on something they know nothing about. But, you know, what strikes me as highly ironic is the basis for that judgment. I'm not directing this at members of the Reform Party, although I think in committee stage we'll see more where our differences lie. I'm talking about some of the comments I've read in the media, where the people who stand up most loudly to judge do so on some sort of self-righteous, misguided religious basis.
An Hon. Member: Nonsense.
J. Tyabji: The member from the Reform Party says it's nonsense, but I've read it.
Having been raised as a strict Catholic, some of the tenets were: love thy neighbour as thyself; judge not, lest ye be judged; if your neighbour is in need of a shirt, take off your
[ Page 16144 ]
shirt and your coat, and give them to your neighbour. They're a basis for human charity, which I find lacking sometimes in these debates.
Let me be more specific. When we're talking about same-sex adoption, which seems to be where this debate is going to be outside these chambers.... We know the debates in these chambers are rarely, if ever, covered, so let's talk about that for a second. I note that our researcher and her partner are here. I know that they have a particular interest in this bill. I'm glad that they're here, because they've offered some very intelligent insights to us in developing our speeches for the debate.
I'll put my own personal bias on the table. When I heard about this, my first instinct was: "No, no, you can't let same-sex couples adopt, because they're homosexual. I'm not homosexual, and I don't understand what that would mean, so I can't support that." That's what my first emotional instinct was.
Then I have to stop and think about it: why am I afraid? What am I afraid of? Because fear is where a lot of our prejudices come from. Well, I'm afraid that the child within a family with two people of the same sex could be molested. What if those people practise homosexuality on that child? I looked for some research on this, and our researcher helped me with this. What did we find out? Where studies have been done on the difference between homosexual versus heterosexual couples, what do we find? We find, in a study called.... There are two: "Sexual Politics and Child Protection: They Don't Mix" and "Are Children at Risk of Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?" The second one is the one most quoted in trying to determine whether or not we should discriminate. This one found that females molested by adult males constituted the largest group of abused children and, further, that the majority of children in the sample were suspected of being abused by a man or a woman who was, or had been, in a heterosexual relationship with a relative of the child. In other words, in this sample, a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.
Those statistics surprised me. I looked and read even further, and every single thing I read proved my fears wrong. I was wrong and I was ashamed of myself, because I came to know, not only from the people that we deal with on a daily basis.... In my own family there are a disproportionate number of homosexuals on my mom's side, and I used to wonder whether maybe I should be judging every homosexual by these standards. Yet I know them; I've grown up with them. I wouldn't hesitate to ask them to babysit my children, because they're good, responsible people, and they're very loving toward children. So I had to put my own bias aside.
I started to ask myself: what does the bill actually say? The bill says that there will be home studies, there will be the best interests of the child, and we will no longer allow discrimination. When I looked through it, what it said to me was that if a homosexual couple from outside makes an application to the state to adopt, probably what's going to happen is that they're going to be refused through the home study. That's what I would predict is going to happen. They're going to be refused again and again and again, and they're going to sue the government because they're going to say there was discrimination. The government is going to say: "It was on the basis of the home study." Because one of the parameters of the home study is going to be: will this environment be representative of families at large? And the answer will be no. It won't necessarily be traditional; I won't go as far as what the Reform Party says in terms of traditional family, because home studies don't care so much for traditional family. They want to make sure that the family is going to provide an environment to bring the child up so the child will fit in with his or her peers at school.
We know that homosexual couples will represent roughly 5 percent of the families, or less. In that case, my guess is that homosexual couples will be suing the government. That's highly ironic, based on the level of debate we've had so far. It's ironic that the very thing driving the subject matter of this debate will probably be the number one source of litigation against this bill later on. It will be the total opposite; homosexuals will not be getting the referrals.
So what types of adoption are we talking about? There are two types. There's the type of adoption of a child placed in the care of the state, or a birth mother who wants to give up the child at birth. Then there's the adoption by same-sex couples of their partner's child. Those are two totally different scenarios. In this scenario -- and the previous speaker was very eloquent on this -- why would we disallow the legal rights and responsibilities to a same-sex partner for their partner's child, when in most cases those children will call...? In the case of two women both are mom, and in the case of two men both are dad.
The child will only learn shame if we teach that child shame, and will only learn to be afraid if we teach that child fear and if we judge. You know, in a progressive society where we're trying to get beyond this, the onus is on each and every one of us to build a more caring, more loving, more accepting and less judgmental society. Only in that way will we be able to meet the challenges that we will face as a society. There are so many other challenges out there -- environmental, economic and social -- that the last thing we should be doing is dividing and conquering, fighting each of us at a human level, looking over each other's shoulder and saying, "I disapprove," or, "I approve," and, "I sit in judgment," or, "I don't," or, "You're okay; you're on our side," or, "You're not; get lost," and designing laws on that basis.
When we talk about private adoption in committee stage, we're going to talk about whether we should move toward non-profit societies or whether that's going to increase costs. I want to advise the minister that we will be talking at some length. Perhaps I'll talk to her before that debate, so we can shorten the debate in the Legislature.
We will be talking about confidentiality provisions, which are going to be probably the most legislatively contentious matter we will deal with in committee stage. We will take a firm stand on that in the Progressive Democratic Alliance, because we do believe there are rights that must be entrenched in legislation for the children.
I hope that the debate we've had in second reading is going to be indicative of what we will have in committee stage, with perhaps more comments on record by the official opposition, who seem to skirt all matters of substance from their leadership, and that is unfortunate.
But if we are to have a productive debate at the committee level, let's look at what the bill says; let's look at what it's trying to accomplish and whether or not it accomplishes that. I
[ Page 16145 ]
would hope that the leadership that each of us shows as an elected representative would be that when we receive a petition, we put back to those who petition us some of the statistics, some of the information and some of the direct, tangible effects of this bill, rather than play to fears that may be out there that we are somehow placing our children in immediate jeopardy by the passage of this bill. I cannot see how that is the case, and I have read it very thoroughly.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know we are nearing the hour, and I'll try to be very brief. I just want to make a few comments. For the most part, I think that the debate we had today was exceptional, as was the debate we had last week. I appreciated the comments brought forward by, I think, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who made excellent comments, and by the member for Port Coquitlam, whose comments were enlightening -- as were, quite frankly, certain comments by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and, to a certain extent, the member for Okanagan East. Unfortunately, they fell down a little bit. Some of the arguments the last two speakers made -- particularly the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- fell down a little bit in that there tended to be a bit of a personal abrasiveness or vendetta that entered into them. I think that was unfortunate, because it debased what were otherwise fairly good arguments. I think the leader of the Reform Party said it best: this is an issue that is best not turned into a partisan, party-type debate, which the one the other day, I think, avoided.
The Liberal caucus, as a group of individuals, will be voting to support the bill in second reading. That does not mean that we are all united on the various aspects of the bill. In fact, while there are a great many sections in this piece of legislation that are good -- that are, as other members have said, a substantial updating of what existed before -- there are a couple of sections in particular that give certain members concern. There are, as people are aware.... The Leader of the Opposition has stated that he is personally opposed to same-sex adoptions as an entity. The member for Peace River North said that he is opposed to them with the exception of the case where one of the members of the couple is the birth parent, which is something a little different. I personally don't have a problem with it. I don't think it's a big issue.
I think you'll find that in committee stage, when we get to that section.... The one that seems to have grabbed people's attention is section 5(1). I think it's interesting to note that of about 50 pages of legislation and 121 sections, it's one line that has concerned people. I think it would be unfortunate if members were to vote against what is otherwise, I think, an exceptional piece of legislation -- with its bugs, which we'll work out -- because of one issue. There are a whole set of life experiences out there -- which I don't claim to know about -- that are addressed by this bill, which tries to make them better. I think this bill has been in the works for a long time. The attempt is to improve the process around adoptions and improve the lives of people who are adopting and who have been adopted. I think it goes to great lengths to do that.
Our caucus has taken a position that on this issue of adoption in this bill and in the sections, members will be entitled to a free vote. You always take the risk, when you take that position, that people will say you don't stand for anything when you actually are standing for something; you just aren't standing in agreement with everybody else in your party. The Reform caucus talks about free votes, and eventually I'm sure we'll see some. The NDP have said that they are not in favour of free votes, and they don't allow them; they prefer to do it within caucus. That's fine. The public knows where they stand. We've said we are in favour of free votes, and we also practise what we say, hon. Speaker. So you will see a divergence of views on that section; I believe it's section 5 in particular.
My own personal views mirror what's been said by, I think, the member for Port Coquitlam and the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. They talked about different types of families that are out there. It's no longer, in our society.... All you have to do is knock on doors in any riding in this province, quite frankly, to know that there's no longer, to the same extent as there used to be, a traditional family of a husband, a wife, two kids and tricycles in the driveway. It's just not the reality to the same extent that it used to be.
[6:00]
I think some of the actual scenarios that were brought forward of a same-sex couple having children that were the natural children of one member of the couple, and that parent dies.... What do you do? Do you take those kids out of that home and give them to someone else, who may well provide a great home? What about the bond that's been established with that other person? They may be the only other parent that kid has ever known. Because somehow, when the issue is raised, we feel uncomfortable about it, do we make a blanket statement that we are not going to allow that to happen? I say no. I say that that should be one of the considerations; that should be one of the options that's there when we try and determine what's best for the children. I think that if you put that first and foremost, as the government has done in this bill, and use that as your criterion of measurement, then you will find the best home for those children. If that best home happens to be staying in a household with the person they see as their parent, then so be it. Who is the state to step into that and say no? Who are we to say no?
The other issue was single parents. Why can't a single individual adopt a child? There are hundreds of thousands of single-parent homes in British Columbia, and there are hundreds of thousands of happy children in those homes. I would hate to see a child go from foster home to foster home -- or from institution to institution, in the case of a challenged child -- because the state decided that a single parent doesn't provide a good enough home for a child.
I speak in favour of the bill. For the most part, I think we all speak in favour of the bill and would support the bill in second reading. Other members of our caucus feel differently than I do on the issue of who the adopted parents can and can't be, and I welcome their comments. I welcome them to make their statements and to vote how they will on those sections. That is their entitlement, and I congratulate them on their ability to do so.
The Speaker: The hon. minister concludes debate.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I will do so will quickly. I am very pleased with the debate that our Legislature has engaged in this afternoon. It has been intelligent; it has been thoughtful. There have been some disagreement, but respect and understanding has certainly broken out in this Legislature today. I just have to say to my colleagues that this is exactly the kind of
[ Page 16146 ]
debate that we have been engaging in for the last 24 months around the issue of adoption and the changes that are necessary. It is in the context of that wide-ranging debate that we ended up with Bill 51: a balanced, fair piece of legislation on the areas for which there is wide-ranging agreement. I know that we will continue this level of debate in committee stage.
With that, I move second reading of Bill 51.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 45 | ||
|
Dosanjh |
Marzari |
Pement |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Perry |
Hagen |
Kasper |
|
B. Jones |
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Cull |
|
MacPhail |
Ramsey |
Barlee |
|
Lovick |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Farnworth |
Doyle |
|
Janssen |
Simpson |
Sawicki |
|
Jackson |
Stephens |
Gingell |
|
Hurd |
Farrell-Collins |
Reid |
|
Warnke |
Dalton |
Anderson |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
de Jong |
|
Boone |
Lali |
Schreck |
|
Krog |
Tyabji |
Wilson |
|
NAYS -- 5 | ||
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Neufeld |
|
Fox |
Chisholm | |
Bill 51, Adoption 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:45 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:12 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 3 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 30: minister's office, $399,564 (continued).
W. Hurd: I know the committee has invested some hours in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, although it was so long ago I've almost forgotten exactly what we discussed.
Having had an opportunity to review Hansard from almost yesteryear, I welcome the opportunity to question a new Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, particularly on the lands side. I must say we had an interesting discussion with the minister's predecessor on Crown lands issues, and we look forward to a number of other issues being canvassed. I hope that we can continue that free-flowing discussion.
I want to start off, or at least continue, on the discussion of Crown lands, requesting some clarification on the method which the ministry uses to appraise Crown land for sale. It's my understanding that the ministry has a system which allows for an appraisal to be valid for up to six months, subject to the discretion of the regional manager to validate that appraisal for a period of six months for purposes of disposition.
I wonder whether any consideration had been given by the ministry to tightening up that provision, given the volatility of the prices of Crown land, particularly waterfront land in British Columbia, where an appraisal can appreciably change over a six-month period. I wonder if I could just get clarification whether the ministry intends to review that particular policy, which is outlined in the Crown lands policy discussion document, 1995 edition.
Hon. E. Cull: It's my understanding that the six-month period is simply a guideline to staff in my ministry, that it is not a hard-and-fast rule and that in areas where market conditions are changing rapidly, or during times when market conditions are changing rapidly, the staff use their discretion to keep an appraisal updated as is necessary if a period of time has elapsed since the appraisal was done.
W. Hurd: It's also my understanding that the ministry now has a policy in place to audit appraisals that have already been completed and that there is a process by which a review can take place on a routine basis to ensure that appraisals do represent fair market value. I wonder if the minister could describe how often that is done and to what extent the ministry is engaged in revisiting appraisals and validating their accuracy. Is that information shared with the public through the regional offices of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't believe that there is an official audit. The staff routinely review appraisals and look at them to ensure that they are complete, thorough and as accurate as they can be. It's not an audit in the sense that I would normally use that word.
W. Hurd: Maybe I could engage the minister in a more general discussion about the appraisal system for Crown lands. Clearly, when it has decided to sell fee simple land, the goal of the Ministry of Lands is to acquire the best possible value for the land. It's my understanding that the ministry does retain the services of outside, independent appraisers to make that valuation. I wonder if she could describe the way in which those appraisals are internally validated or cross-referenced. Surely with the property markets so volatile, there must be a concern about ensuring that the ministry is getting
[ Page 16147 ]
the most accurate and up-to-date appraisals of Crown land. I wonder if there is an internal mechanism by which the ministry routinely monitors and audits the appraisals it does seek -- even one, two or three months after they are received by the ministry -- to ensure that they do represent fair market value.
Hon. E. Cull: The staff in the real estate services branch of the ministry possesses considerable expertise in terms of land appraisals and real estate matters. However, when we obtain appraisals, we go to a qualified appraiser, who is selected from a list of qualified appraisers maintained by ministry staff. As I said a minute ago, when an appraisal is received, staff go over it with the appraiser to ensure that it is complete and as accurate as it can be, and staff in the ministry can bring their expertise to bear in terms of the questioning and making sure that the appraisal is thorough. In times of rapidly changing markets or in areas that are undergoing some kind of volatility, we stay on top of the matter. In fact, it would not be unusual, if a land deal took several months to complete, for two or more appraisals to be undertaken to ensure that when the deal is concluded, we're fully aware of what the real appraised value is.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could describe the rationale in the latest "Crown Lands Policy Summary" for the cutoff of $100,000, over which full appraisals are done. It's my understanding that for the disposition of lands with a value of less than $100,000, there is more latitude provided to district office staff to do an internal appraisal. I wonder if the minister could clarify that. If that is the policy, why is the figure of $100,000 used? How did the ministry arrive at that particular cutoff? That would not necessarily describe the majority of purchases of Crown land for recreation purposes, which is, I suspect, the area with the greatest amount of variance or market volatility. I wonder if she could describe the $100,000 cutoff and whether it needs to be revisited or reviewed with the aim, perhaps, of pushing it backwards.
Hon. E. Cull: I should first point out that quite a number of properties sold by the lands branch are sold on a competitive bid basis, which determines the market value at the time without an appraisal. The reason there is a cutoff is that at some point you have to determine whether the cost of the appraisal is worth it. I appreciate that you could argue that no matter what the value of the land or how insignificant it is, you could do an appraisal. We've had to make some decisions with respect to the use of scarce resources, and we have determined on a risk-analysis basis that $100,000 is the appropriate cutoff point. Again, that would be reviewed from time to time as we review ministry policy.
W. Hurd: With respect to the disposal of Crown lands, it's my understanding that the Ministry of Lands also has responsibility for evaluating the timber resources on the property. Is that a function of the lands branch or is there a set of instructions that the ministry issues to the Ministry of Forests? I would seek clarification on that point.
Hon. E. Cull: If there is marketable timber on property that is being sold, that value will be assessed as part of the appraisal. Whether it's done by ministry staff or by a private independent appraiser would depend on whether it's done internally or externally, so the $100,000 cutoff and the other concerns that we've just been talking about all apply.
W. Hurd: With respect to Crown timber on lands that are purchased from the ministry, is the minister aware of a concern that land is purchased for short-term timber-harvesting purposes and then allowed to revert to the Crown for the reason of non-payment of taxes, and whether the problem that I'm aware of exists in certain areas of the interior? It has in the past; it may not now because of the value of the land or it may be a lessening problem. Does the ministry monitor the amount of land that is purchased because of its harvested timber value and then reverts to the Crown due to non-payment of taxes? Could the minister or the deputy advise us of whether the ministry routinely monitors that type of problem, whether it is a problem and what might be done to...?
First of all, I wonder if she could advise us how much land reverted to the Crown last year due to non-payment of taxes. Is that figure available?
Hon. E. Cull: We'll just see if we have that information with us, and if not, I'll provide it to the member later. I believe the member is talking about the situation with agricultural leases, which was a problem in the past. I'm not sure if that is what he's talking about. Maybe he could confirm that he's talking about the abuses that have happened in the past, where someone allegedly acquires land on a lease basis for farming, simply mines the timber and then allows the land to revert back to the lands lands branch.
W. Hurd: It may well be lease arrangements that we're dealing with here. I am aware of some private lands that have been flipped for purposes of timber extraction. The successful purchaser has evaluated the timber on the property and determined that it carries a higher market value than the land would as a fee simple title. I just seek clarification as to what steps the ministry takes to value the timber on the land. It would appear that in some transactions, the timber values far outweigh the value of the land as a purchase, even in fee simple.
I seek the assurance of the minister, because of soaring timber values and scarcity, that Crown land that has a timber component on it would be in some way subjected to a more rigorous set of analyses by the ministry when it comes time for disposal, in order to ensure that the price paid for the land does not encourage the applicant or purchaser to simply log valuable timber and have the land revert to the Crown for non-payment of taxes.
Hon. E. Cull: If the land is sold fee simple, the value of the timber on the land would be included in the purchase price. The purchaser would have already paid for the timber in the value of the land. While the land itself may not have much value without trees, purchasers certainly haven't been able to buy unforested land at a low price, somehow reap a windfall profit by taking the trees off and then simply let the land go back.
There were a number of abuses that I'm somewhat familiar with from previous lives, prior to being a minister, which have to do with agricultural leases. There were practices, particularly in the Prince George area during the early 1980s, where land was leased at low rental rates for agricultural purposes. Some people discovered very quickly that they could get in, take off the trees and leave the land to revert back to the Crown.
[3:15]
[ Page 16148 ]
It's my understanding, as a result of a review of those practices, that the ministry has now put in place performance standards which prevent that to the greatest extent possible. I can't say with absolute certainty that it's impossible for anything like that to slip through, but to my knowledge the abuse has been greatly reduced as a result of having put in performance standards and requiring those to be met.
W. Hurd: I appreciate that answer. I would just advise that maybe this is a past abuse, but Crown timber is such a valuable resource in respect of valuation that it does invite abuses if there isn't a thorough effort made to update the appraisal system based not only on the value of the land, but also on the timber appraisal.
That leads me to briefly address the ongoing protocol agreement that exists with the Ministry of Forests with respect to Crown land administration. Having had a chance to review it in the "Crown Land Policy Summary," I note on page 4 of the protocol agreement that: "Compensation to TFL licenses is required if land removals affect more than 5 percent of the annual allowable cut for the licence."
Could the minister clarify whether that is land taken out in fee simple or land taken out of the tenure agreement for any purposes by the Crown?
Hon. E. Cull: That's a policy, I believe, of the Ministry of Forests. It may be more than a policy, but it is something that the Minister of Forests could probably answer in much more detail. I do know that it's any land removal from the TFL. If it remained as Crown land but was somehow removed from cutting rights, then that applies.
W. Hurd: Continuing briefly with the protocol agreement, it describes the resolution processes for conflicts and disagreements between the Ministry of Lands and the Ministry of Forests. I'm reading from the passage that indicates that the issue is referred to the deputy ministers of both ministries for resolution.
I wonder if the minister or the deputy can describe whether there's a time limit on this type of process, or to what extent disagreements between the two ministries do end up in this dispute resolution process. Has the number of cases that have been dispensed in that manner increased or remained constant? Could the minister advise us of the trend with respect to this particular dispute process?
Hon. E. Cull: My deputy advises me that no disputes have gotten to that stage in the process since he has been the Deputy Minister of Environment, which leads me to conclude that in general these issues are resolved at the staff level. However, if a dispute did come to the two deputies to resolve, the process would be informal. It would not have a specified process of time limits, although clearly when there is a case of urgency, the deputies would treat it with the appropriate care and attention that is required.
W. Hurd: Just continuing with the Crown lands policy, I wonder if the minister could describe for the committee the nature of the alpine ski policy with respect to the bill we passed in the House, the Mountain Resort Associations Act, which provides for a ski hill to assume municipal or equivalent status in order to develop its ski facilities. Where the land adjacent to the ski hill is owned by the Crown -- and it often is.... I just want to refresh my memory, and maybe the minister could help, as to just how the Crown lands rights and responsibilities change when you establish another level of government -- at least a municipal style of government -- to develop a ski hill. Does the Crown land then fall under the zoning or long-term planning processes of the new entity, or do the same policies with respect to disposition and acquisition still apply?
Hon. E. Cull: First, I should advise the member that the alpine ski policy is actively under review right now and that there has not been a decision taken by cabinet with respect to some aspects of that policy. I'm still working on it with my staff.
In general, if a municipality is created, whether under the legislation the member just mentioned or under the regular Municipal Act, the policies are the same. If the land is private, it is subject to the community plan and the zoning bylaws of the municipality. If it is Crown land, it is not legally required to abide. However, it has been the longstanding policy of the ministry to respect local government community plans, zoning and other bylaws; I expect that will continue.
W. Hurd: One of the issues I'm trying to deal with as a critic is the ongoing set of negotiations involving the ministry -- the district office in Castlegar -- and the New Settlement of Reformed Doukhobors in Castlegar. I'm aware that a set of negotiations is ongoing in that dispute. I understand that the Attorney General is now involved in those discussions. I wonder if the minister could advise us of where this dispute is going, in her assessment. Are we making progress up there with respect to arriving at a form of licence or tenure agreement that this group is comfortable with? I'd just appreciate an update on where that dispute rests and what progress is being made.
Hon. E. Cull: This, as the member knows, has been a long, very difficult issue that the government has been trying to resolve. I guess it goes back over some time, prior to our government. Right now we're trying to negotiate a settlement of the issue. I think everyone would agree that that is preferable to any of the alternatives that are available. We have agreed to a negotiated solution; we've agreed on a facilitator, a community consultant, government representatives and so forth. There's a time frame of three months, a budget of $30,000 has been established for the negotiation and the deputies of the various ministries that are involved -- Environment, Lands and Parks, Finance and Attorney General -- are all engaged in this. We're hoping for a negotiated outcome that will satisfy the needs of the residents and the need to comply with existing land and tax laws.
W. Hurd: Just a further question with respect to that dispute. The minister may be aware that the role of the ministry district office in that dispute has come in for considerable public scrutiny, some of it unfavourable and at times highly critical. I wonder if the ministry is undertaking a review of the manner in which the district office dealt with this matter and whether it acted appropriately under the circumstances. I wonder whether some aspects of the way the dispute evolved need review by the ministry to determine whether or not, while the letter of the statute may well have been applied, some of the actions of the ministry in the dispute had the opposite effect of inflaming the issue. I wonder whether or not
[ Page 16149 ]
the ministry intends to go back a few years and look at the way the dispute has evolved and what Crown Lands might have been able to do differently to get this dispute resolved at a quicker rate than it has been.
Hon. E. Cull: As I said, this is a very complex matter, and had a number of individuals taken a different approach to the whole problem, they might have seen it go in a different direction. I'm not singling out my staff here. Because it has been a very emotional and complex issue, there have been many parties involved with it.
However, in acknowledgment that it's been difficult for the parties that have been close at hand to resolve the matter on their own, we have agreed on an outside facilitator. I think that, in and of itself, is some recognition that everyone needs a little distance from the issue or that we need somebody with some distance to help the parties come to an agreement on the best way to resolve it. The approach we're taking right now is to bring in someone from the outside and have them lead the process so that we come to a successful resolution.
W. Hurd: It's my understanding that the Ministry of Attorney General is also involved in these negotiations. Since that doesn't, I assume, represent a typical method of the ministry dealing with a land dispute, I wonder if the minister could basically advise the committee of what role the Ministry of Attorney General might be playing in these negotiations and what involvement or cross-referencing there would be between the two ministries that are, to my knowledge, sitting down to try and resolve this matter.
Hon. E. Cull: Maybe the member missed it a minute ago. I said there are three ministries involved: Environment, Lands and Parks, Finance and Attorney General. They're all involved in their various capacities. Obviously Finance is involved in the taxation issue, and the Attorney General is involved in legal issues.
W. Hurd: Then any agreement would have to be ratified by all three ministries. Is that what would have to occur?
Hon. E. Cull: The intent of the process is that we will negotiate a resolution that is satisfactory to all parties, including the three ministries.
W. Hurd: I appreciate that response and look forward to seeing that issue resolved.
In looking through my file of ongoing disputes, I just have two more to raise with the minister. One is the situation at Hot Springs Cove, which is 20 miles northwest of Tofino, and it involves a store owner at a public dock. To my understanding, he has been ordered to remove his store because -- just looking at my background information -- he doesn't have an appropriate Crown lease. I just wonder how that issue was being adjudicated or resolved. Has the store received a stay of execution, or is it still destined to be towed from the site?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm just checking my Hansard here, because I think the member did raise this earlier when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was sitting in my role. But my understanding there simply is that the store has been operating under a park permit in a park area and that there is now a community process in place to resolve the future of that particular use in the park.
W. Hurd: I find that interesting. I wasn't aware that there was a community process at work here and that the individual had been dealing directly with Crown Lands. I wonder if the minister could describe for the committee the nature of the community or public consultation process. I'm sure the applicant, if he doesn't know already, would be interested in this set of estimates or a copy of Hansard with respect to this dispute. What type of public process might we be dealing with here?
[3:30]
Hon. E. Cull: I'm surprised that the applicant would not be aware of the process. As I said, it's an informal process; it's not a big, blown-up land use process. But since the member seems to have some different information than I do about the owner's involvement, perhaps I can check on that and get back to him.
W. Hurd: Just to confirm that the matter is still under adjudication, I wonder if the minister could advise us when the last correspondence was received on this matter from the applicant, who, as I'm sure the minister knows, has listed a long set of protracted disagreements with the ministry on this particular store, which has a long historical presence in Hot Springs Cove. Can the minister tell us whether the public process she alluded to involves letters of support for the store owner to indicate to the ministry the level of community support for the continued presence of this particular business at that location, given its historical precedent? Is the ministry encouraging that kind of public input, or is it mainly just in the form of public meetings or some other methodology to assess community input?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't have the details of exactly who was involved in the process at hand, neither do I have any of the correspondence here with me, so I can't answer the question as to what was the last correspondence received on this subject.
I'm just checking right now with respect to what information we do have here with us today on this matter, and I'll continue to look for it. If the member wishes to move on to another question, we'll come back to it within a few minutes.
W. Hurd: I had another brief issue to raise with respect to Apex Mountain Resort near Penticton. I'm aware of the loan guarantee to the ski resort. I'm also aware that the owners of the resort are very concerned about maintaining access to the site. Could the minister advise us whether Crown Lands has had any role or dealings with Apex that would...? I would assume that the ski resort itself relies on a portion of Crown land for its viability. Could the minister advise where the dispute stands at Apex and what role her ministry might have played in ensuring the viability of this important recreational venture for the people in the South Okanagan?
Hon. E. Cull: There are a couple of issues here. I think the member has been asking mostly about access issues, which are under the purview of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I'm unable to deal with those.
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is involved with respect to the water licence. There has been further work done. Environment has commissioned environmental studies associated with the licence application, and
[ Page 16150 ]
we've shared those studies with the bands. The bands, I believe, have also hired some technical experts to review the studies with Environment officials. This review is expected to be completed by the end of June.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could advise us whether there will be any sort of public process with respect to both the studies and the findings. Is there a plan by the ministry to open up the findings of the study to a thorough public review in that region in order that any peripheral issues can be addressed by the owners of the resort, the people who live there and, of course, the band as well? Is that part of the overall plan after the release of these environmental studies?
Hon. E. Cull: If the decision is made to grant the water licence, the environmental studies that have been done to support that decision would of course be available for public review.
M. de Jong: We understand that the minister is now prepared to move into environmental protection and questions relating to that area.
I should say, as we embark on this portion of the debate, that it is not lost on members on this side of the committee room that the minister has occupied this seat for a relatively recent period of time. Though at times my questions will be more specific, at times it will be entirely appropriate, in my view, for the minister either to defer to her staff or to simply say: "I don't know the answer to that." If the minister is not in a position to provide that information, that is understandable under the circumstances.
I should also signal to the minister that one of the themes I will try to weave into the questioning during the course of the debate is a notion that as government -- I say that in a generic sense -- we should be trying to more readily identify some of the objectives that we set for the programs we are introducing and presenting to the public. We should attempt, in a more meaningful way than we have been able to do in the past, to measure the success -- or lack of success, as the case may be -- that we enjoy insofar as whether we are achieving the objectives we set for ourselves. If that is a theme I'm signalling to the minister that I wish to explore, she will know that is something I will try to return to. She could tailor the answers, to the extent that it's possible, to address those broader philosophical concerns that we on this side of the House have.
Lastly, I should say also, at the preliminary stage of this debate, that I am appreciative of the assistance I received earlier in the year from the minister's staff. The minister came to the portfolio much more recently than I came to the critic's role, but ours are both rather short tenures. I appreciate what her staff have been able to offer.
If I can begin with the environmental protection section of the ministry.... I'll try to use the proper terminology. I believe it is a department as opposed to a branch within the ministry, and I will try to keep those terms straight. My understanding is that the predecessor to that department was something called the environmental management department and that changes took place in 1994. Environmental protection was set up in January 1994, and several other branches were added. That was before the minister's time, but I presume there was an objective in mind for doing that. Could the minister indicate what that objective was? With the benefit of hindsight and a review of what transpired over the last year, could she tell us if that was a positive change, how it has been a positive change and how it has led to increased efficiencies within the department?
Hon. E. Cull: I appreciate the member's recognition of the length of my tenure in this portfolio.
The environmental protection department of the ministry essentially deals with what I would call pollution issues: air, water and waste. What we did when the environmental protection group was set up was bring in water quality, which had not been part of it before -- I think the reason is obvious -- and take out general policy areas in an attempt to cross the ministry and bring together the policy shops so that we didn't have as many separate policy shops working on different issues.
That was primarily an efficiency and resource issue, as we had to grapple with those challenging budgets the Minister of Finance keeps giving to the Ministry of Environment. The deputy advises me that while this change has not been in place for a particularly long period of time, it is working more satisfactorily than it did in the past because of the integration between the various pollution areas.
M. de Jong: I'm pleased that the minister's deputy is able to offer the comment that it's working more efficiently. I wonder if the minister, with her deputy's assistance, can provide some tangible evidence, though, as to how those efficiencies have manifested themselves. It made eminent sense to me when I heard that water quality had been added, and I think I was advised that pollution protection was added as well. From the standpoint of an opposition MLA or a critic or a layperson, that made sense. It required a restructuring within the ministry. If the minister has some evidence to offer as to how that has improved in terms of length of turnaround time in dealings with the public, applications and enforcement, perhaps she could offer that evidence.
Hon. E. Cull: I don't have the type of quantitative data that the member is looking for, although I note that across government generally we have been looking at exactly that kind of accountability approach. We have been talking to the auditor general about it. It is one of the things being discussed at Treasury Board so that we can not only measure inputs into programs but also measure outputs in order to see whether we're actually getting the value we expect.
All I can offer at this point is that about eight months ago there was a survey done of senior management in the ministry, asking them a number of questions, including if they thought the new organizational structure was improving things or neutral or not making things any better at all. The response was that this was an improvement.
M. de Jong: Perhaps I can offer the minister an observation that I've made in the past in dealing with not necessarily government bureaucracies but institutional-type bureaucracies where changes are initiated. I think there has been much improvement both in government and elsewhere in effecting the kind of quantitative analysis the minister is alluding to.
The phenomenon that I have seen take place is that where we haven't set out clearly what our objective is prior to the
[ Page 16151 ]
change or we haven't set out in fairly clear terms why we are effecting the change, at the end of the day, when we carry out that analysis, it's easy for us to tailor the results in a way that says something has happened, and we think it's positive. I think the minister shouldn't shy away, as these sorts of departmental changes are carried out, from saying: "This is our objective. We think we can effect some efficiencies here, and this is what we're going to use to measure that." There's no crime in failing or coming up short, but to set the criteria afterward can be a bit self-serving. I think the minister won't dispute that.
[3:45]
Perhaps I can ask a couple of statistical questions about the department, beginning with the number of FTEs and the portion of the budget that is allocated to it. Just to signal the minister, I'm going to try to seek some sort of comparison between pre-reorganization and today. I'll be trying to compare pre-1994 to 1994-95.
Hon. E. Cull: The FTE total for this budget year is down by 24 from last budget year. The number for this year is 2,453.
M. de Jong: Does the decrease from the previous year relate to the reorganization? What accounts for the decreased number?
Hon. E. Cull: The decreased number is primarily related to overall budgets. Spending for the ministry this year is virtually flat, in that the budget last year, 1994-95, was $251 million, and this year it's $250 million. As you can see, it's pretty well the same. However, once you've factored in inflation and other components, such as building occupancy and the wage increases that would apply, you can see that there would have to be some reduction in overall expenditure. We have tried to protect those areas of high priority to the government. In some cases we've been able to reduce FTEs and maintain services through efficiencies or we've just had to make some tough decisions with respect to overall government priorities so that we can live within the budget made available this year.
M. de Jong: I want to explore with the minister an area where I have some concerns, which will come up later when we deal more logically in a different section of the ministry. Her ministry has become responsible, with the advent of forest practices and environmental assessment, for a whole host of what I would term very significant legislation, and one of the issues I will want to canvass with the minister is how the ministry has had to restructure. As I understand it, a lot of this relates to the regional offices around the province that will be on the front lines in terms of dealing with applications, but perhaps we can deal with that later.
Insofar as the reductions in personnel are concerned, can the minister advise if specific areas have been cut out or have had reductions? Is there any rhyme or reason, and where have the major personnel shifts occurred within the environmental protection department? If the minister wants to signal particular branches within that department that have seen either increases or decreases in the personnel assigned to them -- the FTEs -- I'd be interested in knowing that.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is absolutely right. The Forest Practices Code in particular and some of the other environmental protection initiatives of the government have added additional responsibilities to this ministry. Given the fact that overall spending this year in the provincial budget is constrained to less than 3 percent, it has been a challenge for this ministry to meet those commitments with no more resources than they had a year ago.
However, because I believe -- and I think the member would agree -- that there is always room within any large bureaucracy to become more efficient or to reprioritize the activities that they're currently performing and either do less or entirely cease doing the lowest priorities and activities and divert those resources to higher-priority activities, we have been able to meet these challenges.
The Environment regional operations had an increase of FTEs this year. The sustainable environment fund, which funds the environmental protection FTEs, has been virtually unchanged -- a very small number of changes there. With respect to our lands and water management, we have been able to make some changes with respect to the land use planning that is done by the ministry by becoming more efficient in terms of our overall land operations and water management.
M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister is in a position to provide -- and this may expedite this particular aspect of the debate -- a branch-by-branch breakdown of the FTEs assigned within this particular department and how this compares with previous years. I suspect that could be the nature of the information that would satisfy me.
Hon. E. Cull: I would be happy to provide that to the member.
M. de Jong: So that the minister knows, one of the numerous publications I have consulted is a document that I think the department produced, "Environment Planning for the Future -- New Directions in Environmental Protection," which is a five-year action plan that was updated in 1995. In that document, I see the genesis of an attempt to incorporate more meaningful quantitative analysis of ministerial initiatives and approaches, which closely parallels the approach we were discussing earlier. I don't know if the minister has the document available.
In particular, there is mention made of critical success indicators, which represent, I think, an attempt by the ministry to begin looking at outcomes in the way the minister has indicated. I think that's a good start. I wonder if the minister, with the assistance of staff, can fill in some of the blanks where, for example, the strategic plan talks about examining critical success indicators to protect, restore and sustain the environment. It also talks about things like improved service. By virtue of its inclusion here, I presume the ministry has developed strategies around achieving improved service. What are they? Where within this department would one see those being implemented? What measurements are being employed to determine whether they work?
Hon. E. Cull: I'll just take this opportunity to introduce Jon O'Riordan, who is ADM of the Environment regional operations department and who has just joined us. My deputy, Tom Gunton, has been here all along. I think the members are familiar with both gentlemen.
I don't have the document that the member is referring to here in front of me. The service performance criteria would be
[ Page 16152 ]
turnaround time for dealing with various permits. We are, through various branches of the ministry, establishing targets for those, where a time frame is relevant and during which you expect to see a particular application or permit dealt with. Unfortunately, I don't have any of the details here with me today, so I can't give you an example, but that's the type of work the ministry has been doing in trying to upgrade its service quality.
M. de Jong: I'm afraid I jumped a little ahead of myself. Dealing again with the total number of FTEs and the global budget for the department, the minister referred -- appropriately, I think -- to the fact that within a large bureaucracy there are always duplications that can be eliminated and greater efficiencies that can be achieved. It's always easier from the outside looking in to preach the speed with which those inefficiencies should be corrected. The challenge is more daunting when one sits in the hot seat and has to make the decisions. But one of the things that I think consistently frustrates those of us who look in is this perception of duplication in areas like policy. That's one that the minister has mentioned. My question to the minister -- and we'll go through this bit by bit -- is how many FTEs within this particular department are dedicated to policy development, recognizing that there is another branch or department within the ministry that looks at policy development.
Hon. E. Cull: What we were talking about a minute ago with respect to reorganization is absolutely pertinent here. We pulled out policy shops that were scattered here or there throughout the ministry. They are now amalgamated under an ADM for policy, planning and legislation so that the expertise of various policy people are not buried within water quality, pollution control or fish and wildlife. We have the ability to use people as their skills would permit across a number of issues in the ministry. The policy, planning and legislation group has 86 FTEs, down two from last year.
M. de Jong: Is it fair to say, then, that when within the department it is deemed necessary to produce a regulation or to look at legislative changes and amendments, those recommendations would always flow out of the department to policy and development, and that human and financial resources within this department would not be taken up in the legislative drafting realm, for example?
Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, it's not quite that clear-cut, because while there are cross-ministry issues which do make sense to centralize into one policy group, not all policy issues are cross-ministry. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to pull them entirely out of a branch or department. A little bit of common sense is applied. There is some policy work that is obviously done within various branches of the ministry and not centralized, but there are strategic issues that would cover a number of different branches. Those are the ones that are coordinated.
[4:00]
Just for the member's information -- I'm looking at the organizational chart myself -- I gave you a figure of 86. That also includes the environmental assessment division, as well as enforcement in environmental emergencies, aboriginal affairs and our integrated land policy, as well as the general policy, planning and legislation that one would expect.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
M. de Jong: I think the minister could make a very compelling argument for why policy is interwoven into many aspects of the ministry. There are two areas in which I find this argument for overduplication occurs and where I'll be interested to see if as compelling an argument can be made by the minister. One is public affairs and communications, and the second is aboriginal affairs.
I heard the minister use the word "central," and I presume that will be part of her answer. But my sense, from dealing with individuals in the ministry, is that even within the department of environmental protection, there are dedicated FTEs working on the task of public relations and communications. At this point, I don't even say that in an insidious way and use it as a pejorative term. I say that there are people separate from the public affairs branch who are engaged in that activity.
Hon. E. Cull: As the member is aware, of course, we have a very extensive regional operations structure. I'm talking about the headquarters function. In headquarters we don't have communications officers working in any other branches. They are all centralized under the public affairs and communications shop of the ministry. There are communications officers in regions, so that may be where it appears that we have staff outside the public affairs department who are doing that kind of work.
The same goes for aboriginal affairs. At the headquarters level it is centralized; there are not people dotted here or there doing that. There are very compelling reasons for both of those to be organized, centralized functions that are dealt with by people who have that expertise. They don't need to be imbedded in each and every part of the ministry.
M. de Jong: I wonder if we can just focus on the public affairs and communications aspect. These are easy questions to ask, but I suspect it's difficult to respond on the spur of the moment. If we were to examine the ministry and ask ourselves how many people both inside and outside of the public affairs and communications branch are dedicated to that particular role, what kind of number would we come up with?
Hon. E. Cull: There are six communications officers in the regions, and there are 21 staff in the public affairs and communications division. I want to add that some of those individuals are people who run our environment library, which comes under that division. We also have individuals who are dedicated not to communications or public relations in the way that we would generally use those terms, but are in public consultation and advising. As the member knows, we have many public consultative processes under way right now. We have expertise within that division. In total, we have 21 at headquarters, including the library and public consultation staff, and six in the regions.
M. de Jong: When I said there was frustration associated with seeing these FTEs relating to the public relations function, I think part of that.... I'll just use an example; the minister can characterize the criticism as being unfair, but I will present it to her from where this argument arises. It relates to another aspect of the ministry, where we have seen announcements recently with respect to parks.
[ Page 16153 ]
One is inclined to be favourably disposed to the creation of parks. I have, in the past, commented that there are concerns relating to cost and debt management, but one is loath to speak against parkland. Parks speak for themselves now, and ultimately, as the minister's predecessor used to point out on every occasion he could, parks represent a legacy for future generations.
The question one is inclined to ask is: if parks are in and of themselves such a valuable asset and their worth so self-apparent, why are we dedicating funds to a public relations effort to, as it were, sell the park. The park, I presume, sells itself. It sells itself to the people who are going to use it and to future generations. So when we hear about the ministry dedicating personnel, one wonders if that is money well spent -- in the case of the lower mainland parks program, I'm advised two FTEs and in excess of $200,000. Perhaps the minister can confirm that.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, I have to take exception to the suggestion that parks speak for themselves and that all we have to do is create them and people will somehow find out where they are and why they're special or unique. I'll give the member an example from my own experience. I was on vacation and not reading newspapers or listening to the radio last August when the Kitlope was protected. I was totally unaware of it for some time afterward until I actually saw some of the work that was done by the ministry.
We have created over 100 new parks in the last year. Some people may be aware of those parks when the announcements are made, but others may not. If the announcement is simply made using the regular media, and you didn't buy a paper that day or watch TV that night, then you wouldn't know that Indian Arm will be created as a new provincial park. I've heard of precedents in the lower mainland -- Sumas Mountain, the new Boundary Bay Regional Park wildlife management area, the chain of parks along the Fraser River. All of those could be unknown, even to residents of those areas of the lower mainland.
If you take it beyond that and look at the parks that are not created in our back yard.... I must say I'm very proud that our government has been able to create so many parks in the back yards of the most populated communities in the lower mainland and greater Victoria. If you're looking for those that are created elsewhere around the province, you just may not be aware of exactly where they are, or what opportunities they may provide.
I think it's really important that parks are not just created for those who know about wilderness areas. We certainly have many groups that have lobbied long and hard to have particular areas protected. Through the CORE process, people are involved in designating the areas that are ultimately protected. I'm glad those people are there, because they provide the support government needs to make the decisions that are made. They shouldn't be the only ones who know about B.C.'s new parks.
I think it's important that the government publicize the fact that parks exist, that we provide maps and other information as to where they are, how you can get there and what you can do once you get there so that all citizens of the province, plus the tourists that are increasingly flocking to our province, have information about what is available in terms of our new parks.
M. de Jong: I might be more sympathetic to the minister's position were it not for the fact that in the latest round of announcements we saw on-site gatherings and cocktail parties, celebrations that smacked more of politics than of dispensing information. Where there is a network of parks being produced, one wonders why the announcements can't be integrated.
There is some validity to what the minister says about wanting to trumpet the existence of the facilities to potential users. But travelling road shows on a week-by-week basis, where ministers and ministerial staff are really on site for a photo opportunity and another hit in the media really, don't accomplish the types of things that the minister is saying. Those are hidden costs.
When the minister says, "We spent X number of dollars publicizing the creation of these parks," I think she'll agree that those costs are separate and apart from the time taken away from being on task when you're transporting people back and forth on site. In the grand scheme of things, of course, it's a drop in the bucket.
I wonder if the minister could say, in these very difficult times -- and she knows better than anyone, in her capacity as Finance minister, how difficult it is to find the very scarce financial resources that are available to government -- whether she agrees that that is a non-essential area that can be looked at for potential cost savings.
Hon. E. Cull: In principle, of course, I agree that all of the communications budgets can be looked at for cost savings. That's why, wearing my other ministerial hat, we've reduced the communications and advertising budgets of government by 15 percent this year.
Let me comment on the specifics. The member is referring to the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy announcements. This is a $55 million land acquisition for which we are spending $90,000 to make information about it available to the public. For the record, let me dispel the notion that any cocktail parties have been held. If the member ever chose to attend one, he would find that they are extremely modest affairs involving only coffee and juice for the people who are gathered there. The member for Delta South, as a member of the party of the official opposition, was very pleased to take part in the recent announcement of the parks at Boundary Bay. I know he was there. He stood on the platform along with the rest of us, and he seemed to be as pleased as anyone else there to be able to talk to the many activists.
I should point out that the Premier, when he has accompanied me on the announcements, as he did at Boundary Bay and also at Pinecone-Burke -- and he hasn't been at all the announcements -- asked the people who were there how many of them had participated in making that protected area come about. Almost everybody in the room raised their hands. We are providing some recognition in a very limited way with a cup of coffee or a glass of orange juice to people who have worked very hard on behalf of all citizens in the province to secure some spectacular protected areas for the people who are here today and for future generations. That's important.
The other reason we have not lumped all the announcements together is that some of them are still in negotiations in terms of acquisition or some of the other details surrounding particular pieces of property that make up the entire lower
[ Page 16154 ]
mainland legacy. You used the assumption that you should always lump everything together, that we should make all our park announcements once a year, regardless of whether that made sense.
[4:15]
There has to be a balance. You just don't go out and spend money. I agree that if I'm looking for places to save money, one of the things I'm going to look for is non-essential communications. Given the size of the acquisition, the audience that has to be reached and the historical significance of quadrupling the protected area in the most densely populated part of the province, I think that this budget is not out of the line with what we're talking about in terms of the project.
M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate what the global communications budget for the ministry is?
Hon. E. Cull: If the member wants to continue with another question, we'll just look up that number for him.
M. de Jong: My next question to the minister is: what portion, if any, of that sum is captured by her directive in her other capacity as Finance minister?
Hon. E. Cull: The budget for the public affairs and communications section is $2.56 million out of the total budget of -- what did I say earlier? -- $250 million. It is, again, a very modest sum over the whole budget.
On the amount that's going to be captured, I'm actually delighted to have the opportunity to clarify this at some length. The freeze is 50 percent of anything in code 40, that being the budget that applies in this case -- in the estimates books. Most of the ministries have already spent a considerable part of their budget, however, because they have standing contracts or things that they were waiting to get out the door right after budget day, so the exact amount that will be frozen will be considerably less than the $10 million that Vaughn Palmer, doing simple math, has estimated. It will probably be closer to a couple of million dollars by the time we've added it all up. I don't yet know the share the Ministry of Environment has.
What has happened is that we've asked all of the ministries to review their budgets to indicate to us what can be frozen, and those amounts will come forward to Treasury Board at a future date. I don't expect to see that amount for some time yet, and I don't have the answer from the Ministry of Environment.
M. de Jong: I gave my solemn undertaking that I would restrict my questioning to this ministry, so on this particular issue maybe I could just ask the minister whether she is prepared to provide the information as it pertains to this ministry. How much of that global $2.56 million is captured by the Finance minister's directive of earlier in the month?
Hon. E. Cull: I think I can provide that information once it's been determined by the ministry.
M. de Jong: The second cog in the wheel when we commenced down this road was the question of aboriginal affairs. One of the impressions I was left with in dealing with officials within the ministry is that this has become a reality in their lives as senior and middle bureaucrats. This is a feature that has imposed itself on every aspect of government, and particulary so with respect to this ministry.
I was struck by one other thing, however: the ad hoc manner in which the ministry appears to be devoting resources. I suspect that the minister will tell me -- and I suspect that this is true, in part -- that it's an ad hoc issue at the moment and demands are being placed on the ministry that vary from time to time. Yet I see it in various branches in various departments -- and some of it is referred to in the org chart and some of it isn't -- where departments and branches are creating within themselves little specialty areas to respond to the aboriginal issues that are arising.
It's happening at the regional offices for certain, but it's also happening in other areas of the ministry. I'd like the minister to expound, if she can, her vision or expectation for her ministry officials in responding to the aboriginal challenge?
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct. As a result of Delgamuukw and other court decisions, the government as a whole has had to pay increasing attention to aboriginal issues. As they pertain to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, we've taken appropriate action there. At the headquarters level, we do have an aboriginal affairs group that we have set up to deal with the cross-ministry policy issues related to first nations. When the member says there seem to be a lot of different people doing things, obviously we have to have staff at each regional level who are knowledgeable and able to engage in the consultation that has to happen with aboriginal people. You can't have it all lumped into only one group; the ministry is highly diversified and regionalized, and therefore we do have activities taking place at the regional and local level. Policy and strategy is determined by one group at headquarters.
M. de Jong: I think this is an issue that the government, as a whole, needs to grapple with. The impression I am left with when I examine, for example, the Treaty 8 issue that went before the appeal board and remains unsettled.... I am told that between the Aboriginal Affairs and Environment ministries, there were literally dozens of people tied up -- and had been tied up for an extended period of time -- in dealing with what I guess is both an aboriginal and an environment issue, yet the coordination between the two ministries and the two groups involved has not been what it could be. There needs to be some direction given, and that direction might take the form of simply saying to an aboriginal band: "We will be quarterbacking our contact with you out of this area, and that's who you're going to have to deal with on this issue." But I must confess that I found, in my discussions with some of the ministerial officials, a sense of drift insofar as relations with the aboriginal bands are concerned.
Hon. E. Cull: I think the member is wrong with respect to the numbers he has quoted. I don't believe that dozens and dozens of people have been involved in this issue. I will admit that there is probably some merit to the member's comments in that we have a Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, but we also have a number of line ministries which have had aboriginal issues. There's obviously a need for cooperation and liaising between ministries and also between line ministries and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, which has an overall policy function.
[ Page 16155 ]
We have been attempting to improve upon that integration, but I won't say, having until recently been more of an outside observer and not involved in a line ministry engaged in aboriginal affairs, that there is certainly room for improvement in terms of the approach that is taken. There is an aboriginal working group in cabinet which attempts to deal with major issues and to provide overall policy to ensure that all ministries understand the strategy and are working together.
We have also, through the budget process, ensured that support for aboriginal issues in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and other ministries is coordinated, so that there isn't any duplication of resources. Again, that's been improved year by year, but there's probably still more room for improvement. I accept the member's comments in that regard.
M. de Jong: Is the minister able to indicate the number of FTEs dedicated to aboriginal negotiations, discussions and policy within the ministry and also specifically within the department we're discussing, environmental protection? Also, can she advise what number of individuals are under contract within the ministry in that area?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't have that breakdown with me today, but I could provide the information later.
M. de Jong: This will be the minister's opportunity, both in the area of aboriginal policy and in the area we're discussing further -- public affairs -- to advise the committee of what she sees as the primary objective for the ministry in dealing with aboriginal bands on issues relating specifically to the environment. The government has an aboriginal policy that emanates out of the Aboriginal Affairs ministry. We won't debate that here. The opposition members are critical of it; the government defends it. The extent to which resources within this ministry are dedicated to relations with aboriginal people suggests to me that there is also a predominant, pre-eminent notion or objective that the ministry is attempting to achieve. I would be interested to know what it is.
Hon. E. Cull: I think I can state it quite clearly. From the environmental perspective, we are trying to achieve a consistent application of environmental policy and law across the province, regardless of who is involved in whatever area of the province and whatever issue we are talking about. That's our first objective. Protection of the environment and enhancement of the environment are our number one issues, and we intend to see them done in all cases.
When it comes specifically to aboriginal people, where there are some responsibilities with respect to the province, we're ensuring that aboriginal people are treated fairly and equally with other British Columbians, recognizing the rights that have been determined, either through the court process or through treaties or through other processes, and that we have a responsibility to reflect those rights in our decisions.
M. de Jong: Aboriginal peoples will tell me, as they will tell the minister and the government, that a different standard, which takes into account cultural and heritage concerns and distinguishes them from other British Columbians, needs to be applied to them. Is that an argument that finds favour with the minister?
Hon. E. Cull: As I said, the first priority of the ministry is environmental protection. When it comes to protecting endangered species or a significant habitat or any of the other issues that the ministry is responsible for, that takes precedence over all else. That doesn't mean that we can't recognize historical or cultural practices that fit with that, but if a practice is in direct contravention of the behaviour or action that is needed to save protected or endangered species, protection has to come first.
[4:30]
We talked about whaling not long ago. I think both the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I made it quite clear that the protection of a species that has just recently been removed from the endangered list has to remain the overall consideration. I can't think of things that would allow you to overrule those kinds of fundamental environmental protection issues to the detriment of the environment.
M. de Jong: The minister mentions a recent incident that, in conjunction with other incidents, led to the suspicion that the government was contemplating different standards for aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. Some people will say that there need not and should not be those different standards. The question they ask is: when is the ministry going to articulate in a very clear way the guidelines around which those different standards will be applied?
If that information is available, and the minister wishes to refer me to it, that's fine, but I don't think it is. I think that we are guilty, as a government and as a state, of drifting from crisis to crisis in that sense. When an issue arises, we're responding on a very ad hoc basis. That has people concerned and ultimately doesn't lend itself to very equitable treatment.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, there are no different standards. Let me make it very clear that on the issue with respect to the harvesting of grey whales, which was proposed by a band in the United States, both the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I made it absolutely clear....
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: I'll just stop for a second, hon. member; I want to make sure you hear the answer, and I don't want to have to repeat it.
As I said, the issue of harvesting grey whales, which was proposed by a band in the United States, is one that clearly illustrates that there is only one standard. I said that the protection of a species that had just been removed from the endangered list must come first, and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said the same thing. We were very clear on that.
The aboriginal people can put whatever issue they wish on the table. We can't prevent them from putting issues on the table, but when it comes to protection of the environment and conservation issues, conservation and protection come first. The rights that first nations have as a result of Delgamuukw and other decisions have to take second place to the precedence that is given to conservation and environmental protection.
M. de Jong: I hope the minister will permit me to return to those areas and review them in further detail when we get into wildlife and habitat protection.
Returning to the departmental analysis we began with, one of the areas that the strategic plan focused on was taking
[ Page 16156 ]
action that would promote management efficiencies. I believe the information I got earlier in the spring was that significant resources had been devoted toward achieving that. What programs and manner of training took place to enhance management efficiency? Can she or her senior staff tell me whether those programs have been successful or unsuccessful?
Hon. E. Cull: Well, across a ministry as large as this, there have been a number of different initiatives, so I'm just going to mention three as an illustration. First of all, we've implemented a program evaluation unit which is available to do the kind of analysis that ensures that we are operating as efficiently as possible.
The second initiative, which is a very significant governmentwide initiative, concerns the partnership committees which are charged with the responsibility of finding more effective ways of doing business. They have been struck in all ministries, including ours. Our partnership committee has been actively engaged in doing that within the Ministry of Environment.
The third area is maybe a bit more concrete for the member. We eliminated our regional offices in the Parks part of our ministry, leaving just the local offices and the headquarters office of Parks, and taking out a layer of administration and overhead that was probably unnecessary, or at least could be considered to be of low priority and therefore removable. I might also remind the member that 450 supervisory and management positions are being eliminated governmentwide this year. The Ministry of Environment expects to contribute its fair share to that total number.
M. de Jong: I'd like to go through those three areas that the minister has mentioned. What are we talking about in terms of dedicated personnel to the program evaluation unit? Prior to creating that entity, what objectives were set for it, and how is the ministry measuring whether those objectives are being met?
Hon. E. Cull: The purpose of the unit is to provide an outside look -- outside the department or the branch -- at activities which are currently going on in some part of the ministry. There are ten FTEs in this unit that are looking at a number of different projects. One example is a review of the way we issue waste management permits, looking particularly at time lines and the various activities and input that are taken to issue those to see if we can't do a better job.
Before the evaluation is undertaken, criteria are established to determine what is going to be reviewed and what the expected outcomes of the review are. The review then takes place, with discussions with the appropriate branch. A report is provided at the end. I understand that in the waste management permit review -- and I'm not sure if it's totally completed yet -- we're already starting to see some very significant recommendations coming forward which will allow for greater efficiencies.
M. de Jong: The minister is going to become impatient with me as I keep repeating the same questions in different areas of the ministry. What will be the measure of the success of the program evaluation unit? At the end of the year, what will the minister look at to say that these ten FTEs have delivered value for the money we've spent on them? What is the expectation with respect to that group?
Hon. E. Cull: First, I'll be looking for a work program outlining the priority areas that they are going to review as a result of the establishment of the branch and what ten FTEs can do. You obviously can't review all parts of the ministry, so I'll look for an identification of what is going to be reviewed, and then at the end of the year, I'll look for an indication that those reviews have been completed.
Beyond that, I will look for the results of those reviews. Have they saved us money? Have they allowed us to reallocate resources to other parts of the ministry that may have a higher priority need? Have they increased service provision to the public in better turnaround, more positive outcome, fewer rejections, more complete applications received, shorter time frame, etc.? The other thing would be FTEs, which I see mostly as a reallocation as opposed to simply laying off people, because we have a crying need for FTEs in other parts of the ministry.
It's quite straightforward. They had a plan, and they completed the plan. At the end of it, they saved money and people and provided better services to the public.
M. de Jong: Does that mandate exist in written form now? Has that group of ten individuals -- if it is ten individuals -- been provided with written confirmation of what the minister's expectations of them are and of how they are to be assessed? If it does exist, is it a document that the minister is prepared to provide to members of the committee?
Hon. E. Cull: I understand that the division is working from a written mission statement and operating plan. I should assure the member, however, that what I've outlined as the answer to his question is what I as minister would expect in terms of outcomes to satisfy me at the end of the year that the branch has performed its duties adequately. I have not given that list in reference to exactly what is written down right now. I have given that list in terms of what I think anybody who has any familiarity with program evaluation would probably come up with.
M. de Jong: Fair enough. I emphasize again that I am aware that this one body within the ministry came about long before the minister had responsibility for it.
Returning to something I said earlier, I had asked the minister if she was at all concerned that the sort of mandate we were discussing was being created later, after the fact, rather than at the time the body or task force, if you want to call it that, was created. That would have been the time, prior to devoting the resources, to say: "Look, this is what we expect of you, and this is how you're going to be measured." It strikes me as putting the cart before the horse to be developing this now, afterward.
Hon. E. Cull: The member misunderstands what I've just said. I did indicate that the branch is operating from a mission statement, which was created at the time the branch was established, and that it does have to prepare an annual operating plan, which is prepared prior to each fiscal year. They haven't done the plan after the fact.
The member asked me a few minutes ago what criteria I would apply. I answered that I will have to look at their mission statement and their operating plan to see whether it matches what I have just said. I would be highly surprised if it
[ Page 16157 ]
didn't, however, because what I've outlined are fairly standard criteria for any program evaluation, and anyone who is familiar with doing program evaluation would probably respond in the same manner as I have just done.
M. de Jong: Is the minister in a position to release the mission statement and planning documentation she referred to?
Hon. E. Cull: The mission statement is publicly available, and I will make that available to the member. I'd have to review the operating plan, because I'm not certain of its status.
M. de Jong: Sorry. What did the minister say she wasn't sure of?
Hon. E. Cull: I said that I wasn't clear of the status of the operating plan at this point.
M. de Jong: Without belabouring it, is the minister saying she's not sure that it can be released or that it's been completed or both?
Hon. E. Cull: Both.
M. de Jong: Then the concern I tried to articulate in a very clumsy way is a legitimate one. If the strategic plan isn't yet complete -- or whatever we want to call it -- or if it's being created after the fact, I think that's unsatisfactory. I don't know how long this body has been in place. A mission statement doesn't cut it for me. Mission statements are in vogue right now, but they hardly contain the kinds of criteria you can use to scrutinize the performance of ten individuals. So my concern stands if the minister is saying that the performance plan doesn't exist.
Hon. E. Cull: I would caution the member not to prejudge the information that is in the mission statement, because he may find that it answers all his questions. With respect to the operating plan, it is prepared annually. I simply answered the question by saying that I don't know whether it is complete or if it goes from July 1 to June 30, when obviously it would still be in preparation. If it happens to run on a fiscal-year basis, then I would expect it's complete, but I haven't received it yet.
M. de Jong: I take it from the minister's comment that there is an operating plan in place at the moment and that there may be a new one being worked on for the coming year. Then my question would simply be: can the minister undertake to release the plan that is presently in place?
Hon. E. Cull: I have said that I would review that. Once I've ascertained the status of it, I'll answer the question on whether it can be released.
M. de Jong I will simply say that my understanding of that answer is that the minister is not certain that she can release that document without having first reviewed it.
Hon. E. Cull: That's correct, because not having looked at it, I don't know if it's in final form. Even if we're talking about the current operating one, I would want to review it to make sure that there isn't information in it which would be prejudicial to the government or to the successful completion of a plan. I suspect that this may be a very innocuous document. If that's the case, there is no difficulty in releasing it. However, I think I would be misleading you if I just said yes without having had a chance to look at it.
M. de Jong: I have one last point on that. I anticipate that if the minister is not able to release the document, she will advise me of the reasons she can't.
[4:45]
I turn to another area the minister touched on, which is the elimination of the regional offices in the Parks area. Can I get some hard data regarding what that means in terms of FTEs and the budgetary implications of making that change?
Hon. E. Cull: The elimination of that layer in the Parks part of the operation resulted in three regional director positions being taken out of the ministry and the reallocation of about 50 staff primarily to district offices and some to jobs in Victoria.
M. de Jong: The minister has anticipated my next question. From a practical point of view, what did that mean in terms of locating personnel in Victoria versus field offices and regional offices?
Hon. E. Cull: There was some relocation involved. We don't have the details of exactly how many individuals were relocated. Again, I can provide that information to the member.
M. de Jong: At the same time, I wonder if the minister would consent to provide some information relating to the costs involved in those moves. I understand she's prepared to specify the numbers of individuals involved and the nature of the moves. Perhaps she could also confirm that she would provide information relating to the costs of those moves.
Hon. E. Cull: I can undertake to do that.
M. de Jong: I wonder if I can turn to one of the substantive programs that exist within the department. Maybe I should confirm that first with the minister. I understand that the first program -- the recycling program -- falls within the environmental protection department.
Hon. E. Cull: Is the member asking about general recycling programs? I'm sorry, could he just indicate?
M. de Jong: We're going to tires.
Hon. E. Cull: We're going to recycling of all kinds and shapes and varieties. Yes, that is in this part of the ministry.
M. de Jong: As I began to gather information, briefings with the ministries and various individuals and organizations that were involved, I came across information relating to the recycling of tires that surprised me.
I bought tires for my car a couple of weeks ago. Like all British Columbians, I spent the $3 per tire on the green levy, as it's called. My assumption was that the $3 per tire I spent
[ Page 16158 ]
would be devoted to the cost of recycling those tires and would ultimately result in those tires being recycled for use as another product, be that track-and-field facilities, children's playground equipment or paving bricks.
One of the ways in which these tires are removed from this planet is by being sent to concrete kilns, and they power the concrete kilns. I have to say to the minister that I think most British Columbians are supportive of the concept of recycling this product and, if not happily, are prepared to pay the $3 per tire that is assessed to them when they purchase a tire.
I also have to say to the minister that I was not particularly impressed to learn that a significant percentage of the tires -- I do mean significant percentage, and the minister will confirm for me in a moment what it is -- that are purported to be recycled are being put on a truck to Annacis Island and being dumped into a concrete kiln. That's not what British Columbians have in mind when they support this program by paying their $3.
If we can launch the discussion at this point, I'd be interested to know from the minister whether she has any concerns that in this program a less well known -- this isn't advertised.... People don't know that the recycling of these tires is taking place at a concrete kiln. Can she indicate if that's something she has concerns about or if that's consistent with her vision of recycling?
Hon. E. Cull: The primary objective with respect to tires is to get them out of the landfills. First of all, the recycling initiative was trying to prevent them from being landfill, and we've fairly well achieved that particular objective.
The member is correct that some proportion -- I don't have the percentage; a significant proportion -- of tires are being used as an alternative fuel in cement kilns. I should tell the member that it meets all environmental emission requirements. The practice actually has another positive environmental impact besides tires not ending up in the landfill. It means that those operations don't have to use other fuels -- fossil fuels, etc. -- which have an environmental consequence just by using them.
We are trying to gear up the recycling industry. I expect that over time we will see a greater and greater proportion of recycled tires truly being recycled into other uses, as opposed to simply being recycled as an alternative fuel.
M. de Jong: I'm going to suggest to the minister that at the present time the demand from those individuals and companies involved in the use of tires for the production of alternative products, as opposed to their use as an alternative fuel in the concrete-kiln business, presently outweighs the supply that is being made available. The information I have is that those who produce things like bricks, roads and track surfaces can't get the tires they need. They want more than they are able to obtain.
Hon. E. Cull: I'd be interested in getting the information that the member has. We don't have any evidence that it is in fact the case that there are people who want to acquire used tires for purposes other than just burning them and are unable to access them. It may be a question of their not being able to pay the transport costs -- although I understand that there is some subsidy involved in the way we manage the levy -- but may be other factors are coming into play. It may be availability in a particular area.
My understanding, and the understanding of our staff, is that the circumstance where people would really like to get hold of tires to do something else and are unable to get them, and where they are being shipped to the cement kilns and other places for burning.... If the member had evidence to the contrary, then I'd ask him to share it with me, and we'll follow up on it.
M. de Jong: I think the minister has touched on some of the problems relating to the manner in which the levy has been utilized, to what portions of the program it has been devoted and how it has been collected. For example, I am told that the levy for a passenger or light truck tire is the same as the levy for a larger or medium truck or industrial vehicle -- meaning those huge tires we see on mining vehicles -- though the cost of transporting those two items is significantly different. The suggestion has been made that that doesn't make a lot of sense. What are the minister's thoughts on that?
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct that the levy is the same, but I'm not sure that this actually affects the discussion we're having with respect to whether those who want to access recycled tires to turn them into some kind of product, as opposed to simply burning them up, is a problem. If he has information, I would ask the member to share it with us, because I would be quite happy to pursue this and to ensure that that's not the case.
M. de Jong: My colleague suggested I advise the minister to FOI it, but that's not an option that's available to me. I'm happy to share with the minister what information I have.
One of the corporations involved in this is Western Rubber Products, which is one of the entities that has had some dealings with the ministry. Their concerns can be summarized in the following way: they have a suspicion about the manner in which funds are flowing from the consumer into the ministry and into the sustainable environment fund for ultimate use in this program. I think they're suspicious about that and of the use that is made of the funds that ultimately enable them to purchase the product or to get hold of the product and turn it into a renewed product.
[5:00]
That's one organization, and they have had dealings with the ministry. I'm not certain, but I think the minister's deputy was involved, and they most certainly have concerns about how they have been dealt with. I guess it comes down to whether the minister can tell me whether the ministry subscribes to the principle that a new tire-derived product is of higher use or more advantageous than a tire-derived fuel. In the minister's view, does that take priority with respect to this program?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes.
M. de Jong: The minister might have alluded to this, and she may not have the information available. Can the minister indicate to me the total monthly volume of the tire-derived product processing by a group like Western Rubber Products that would be supportable? I think the present rate is $183 per
[ Page 16159 ]
tonne. Maybe the minister can confirm that first, or indicate that the substance of my question doesn't hold water. Is it $183 a tonne?
Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, I don't have either piece of information the member is seeking. I said that I would provide information with respect to the breakdown between what goes to new products versus what gets burned. I don't have the dollar amount here.
M. de Jong: I'm advised and was briefed by ministry personnel regarding the Coopers and Lybrand report conducted with respect to this program. The report addressed some of the issues I'm trying to bring to the minister's attention today. It's fair to say that the report and some of the surrounding documentation suggests there is reason to be concerned about things like administrative costs and the flow of money as it relates to the consumer and makes its way ultimately into the program. What can the minister tell us about her degree of comfort with how that is presently operating?
Hon. E. Cull: The member has an advantage over me on this one. I haven't had a chance to review the Coopers and Lybrand report, but as a result of this line of questioning, I will make myself familiar with it.
L. Fox: I listened with great interest to the member for Matsqui talk about tire recycling and the sustainable environment fund. I want to suggest that in my neck of the woods, the problem is just the reverse of what the member brings forward. In fact, we have many tire companies and sales of tires, and companies that would love to get rid of their excess tires. They have them stacked waiting for a market for them.
The question I have is whether any of the sustainable environmental fund goes toward subsidizing freight to bring those tires to market. I've had repeated phone calls from people who have stacks of these things and have no place to dispose of them.
Secondly, has the ministry been proactive in trying to retrieve those used tires and bring them to a central location for storage -- recognizing, of course, the dangers of that?
Hon. E. Cull: The sustainable environment fund, which has the money from the tire levies in it, is used almost exclusively for transportation subsidies. There is money available to move the tires where the need is.
I'm glad to have this member confirm what I was just saying to the other member. Our understanding is not that there are manufacturers with great products and great ideas who can't get hold of tires, but that in fact there aren't enough of those yet to use up all the tires that are available for recycling. As I said, as the industries that can use tires to manufacture them into new products grow and expand and new ideas come about, we expect over time to see more tires diverted to that.
To answer the member's specific question about how we get the tires where the need is, the tire levy is being put almost exclusively to transportation subsidies right now to move the tires to users.
The other question you asked was whether we'd been looking at centralized storage. I don't believe that we have. We're trying to match those who have to take back the tires with those who can use them, and not create a situation where the province acts as a middleman. Through the work of the ministry, we're trying to link users directly to one another so that the tires can be transported directly to the company that's going to reuse them in some fashion.
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's answer. The only follow-up question I have to that is: what happens when these tire companies have only limited space for the storage of old tires, which routinely used to get hauled -- and I totally agree with the minister on that -- into the landfill? They're causing great grief, particularly for the smaller companies, that don't have large storage spaces. I know there has been ample correspondence to the ministry requesting help to get rid of those tires. What is the ministry doing with respect to that problem, if anything? According to the phone calls I'm getting, they're being backed up, and they have no place to send them.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, let's talk about the principle, which applies not only to tires but to all products that we're trying to divert from landfills into a reuse-and-recycle stream. There has to be some responsibility on the part of those who manufacture, sell and use products that are problematic to recycle and reuse. In the case of these products, we can't simply say that the taxpayer is going to pick up the cost. I say that in a very general way, because I think the polluter-pay principle is important.
Having said that, though, my staff advise me that they work with local government to provide the kind of relief that you're alluding to here, where a small business may not have the ability to store the quantity of tires that are returned. If there are specific problems that you're aware of in your area, the best thing for you to do is get directly in contact with Ministry of Environment staff, and we'll start to work on those problems. There are ways to deal with some of those issues, but it's best if we just deal with them on a case-by-case basis. I'd be happy to have my staff meet with you to discuss the specific problems in your area.
M. de Jong: I have a couple of questions about the transportation credit system, which the previous member alluded to. Part and parcel of this program, as I understand it, is something called R2D2, which is a loan system that I am told has....
An Hon. Member: It's a robot.
M. de Jong: It was a robot, as well. If I have incorrectly identified the program, perhaps the minister will correct me, but as I understand it, it's a system of loans and grants that was designed to facilitate research and development into products that could arise out of this whole recycling-of-tires business. I wonder if the minister could indicate the amount of money that has been dedicated to that, the number of FTEs within the ministry that has been devoted to making this work and whether she is aware of some of the complaints that have arisen regarding the manner in which this research-and-development aspect of the program has been implemented.
Hon. E. Cull: Once again, I don't have the details of the information on that program with me today. I know that about $1 million was provided to this kind of research a year ago,
[ Page 16160 ]
but I don't have the up-to-date numbers on it. With respect to that and the FTEs, I'd be happy to provide that to the member later.
M. de Jong: If approximately $1 million has been spent, I wonder if the minister could indicate what that money was spent on and what technology has arisen as a result of that grant.
Hon. E. Cull: Most of the research, I understand, was related to applications and to testing out whether you could use the product in various ways -- things that you have already mentioned: roof tiles, running tracks, roadbed support, etc. Again, when I am able to provide the member with the exact budget amount that's available this year, I could also provide a list of the various research projects that are being undertaken.
M. de Jong: Just so the minister isn't caught off guard, the information I have been provided with indicates that there is a suspicion that in spite of the money having been spent, no meaningful new technology has arisen. That may be sour grapes on the part of a competitor that didn't get any money. Who knows? But in providing that information, I wonder if the minister would also include a description of just what bang the taxpayers got for their million-dollar buck in the way of new technology.
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I'll undertake to do that.
M. de Jong: Staying with the tire issue, I was made aware that some of the difficulty seems to be manifesting itself in the breakdown of the relationship between the processor and that person or that organization doing the transporting, which impacts on the relationship with the retail dealer. Apparently that is also the case in other areas of the province. Can the minister, with the assistance of her senior officials, indicate for the record her understanding of how that transport credit system should be working? Then I will perhaps give her the information I have that suggests it's not working. I'd like to hear first what she has to say about how that is supposed to work.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, it appears that my staff have briefed my critic better than me on this issue, so I'll have to take a pass on that question. We'll hear his concerns and then deal with them.
M. de Jong: All things being equal, it's clear that a tire that goes to a processor for recycling into another product is going to employ more people and be environmentally friendlier than a tire that is getting dumped into a concrete kiln. So is the ministry presently directing that a preference be shown to product recycling as opposed to fuel recycling? If that's the policy, I wonder if the minister can point out to me how we're seeing the practical effect of that.
Hon. E. Cull: All things being equal, I think it's probably fairly safe to say that more jobs are created when tires are diverted to product manufacturing as opposed to simply replacing a fossil fuel or other fuel in a kiln. I'm not sure I can be quite as definitive in terms of its environmental benefits. Our priority as a ministry is to see that tires go to new recycled products as opposed to alternative fuel.
[5:15]
In fact, we do reflect that policy in the way we provide assistance through the sustainable environment fund. There is a differential paid in terms of transporting the tires to those who are going to recycle them -- say, into roof tiles -- as opposed to those who are simply going to burn them up. We reflect that in paying a higher amount for the transport to get the products to those who will recycle them into other products.
M. de Jong: I'm advised that some of the concrete companies receiving these old tires are reselling them, deriving revenues in that way. Are the minister and her officials aware that that is taking place, and if they are, do they think that that is a satisfactory practice?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure that I can imagine what they would be reselling them for, particularly given the other questions we've had from the member indicating that those who want to acquire tires are having a hard time getting hold of them to manufacture them into something else.
I'm not aware of anyone taking and then reselling them, but again, if the member has information that my staff can follow up on, I'd be happy to do so.
M. de Jong: The only specific information I can offer to the minister is the information that was passed on to me: these tires are making their way south of the border. I don't have more specific information than that. If that is the case, does the minister believe that that's an appropriate course of action for companies that are in receipt of government subsidies to be taking?
Hon. E. Cull: Again, my staff advise me there was an allegation made along those lines, but in following it up there was no evidence that that was happening. If the member has specifics, something new that we haven't looked at, I'd be happy to have a look at it.
M. de Jong: I'd also like to canvass some issues relating to the paint stewardship program. I wonder if we can start with the minister explaining to the committee the objective and mandate for the program when it was introduced earlier in the year.
Hon. E. Cull: The objective is very similar to the one we've just been talking about with respect to tires: to encourage stewardship on the part of the manufacturers for their products and not to put the responsibility on to the taxpayer by having the provincial government or municipal governments come along and solve the problem of what to do with unused paint but to make it a responsibility of the paint manufacturers to ensure that they provide appropriate stewardship for their products.
The objectives were to prevent paint from ending up in landfills or being inappropriately dumped -- as it sometimes is -- into storm sewers, and to encourage its reuse, if possible, through paint exchanges and recycling, if possible, and through collection in a convenient manner so that the public has reasonable access to a place where they can take their paint and have it either given to somebody else who might happen to like that particular shade and can use it, have it
[ Page 16161 ]
recycled into some kind of paint that can be used for an industrial purpose or, as a last resort, have it used as an alternative fuel.
M. de Jong: The program obviously incorporates aspects of the private sector. Retail outlets are also involved. But I wonder if the minister can tell me, in terms of volumes of paint -- market share, as it were -- what the ministry thought, when it embarked on this path, would represent a reasonable response or reasonable indication of success that consumers were responding to the initiative the ministry had set out.
Hon. E. Cull: First, maybe I should provide a bit of information. Three separate stewardship programs were approved by the ministry. I'm sure the member is going to review some of the problems that we're currently experiencing, and I'd be happy to acknowledge them and talk to the member about them.
There are three stewardship programs: one is with Home Hardware, where there is a return-to-retail program; the other is Sherwin-Williams paint, which is also a return-to-retail program; and the third is the Paint Care Association, which covers everybody else. It is not a return-to-retail program but a proposal that involves setting up depots or collection facilities in all regional districts in the province. Again, success will be achieved when people in all parts of the province have convenient access in order to return unused paint, whether that be directly to retail or to a regular, convenient facility that is open a sufficient number of hours to make it worthwhile for people to save their paint and return it on a regular basis.
The member may be aware that a number of years ago -- certainly prior to our government -- there were seven or eight household hazardous waste depots around the province. They used to be open once a month on a Monday, from something like two to four in the afternoon; they were never advertised, and one always had a devil of a time finding out when and where they were open. What we're trying to do is move away from that very inaccessible and inconvenient approach to one that is convenient for households to use. The objective is that they be around the province, that they be convenient and that they are open a sufficient number of hours to meet the needs of the public.
M. de Jong: This is my standard question. Can the minister indicate the number of FTEs within the ministry and within the department that have been devoted to introducing and implementing the program and the portion of the departmental budget that is allocated to this particular program?
Hon. E. Cull: I neglected to answer one of the other questions that the member asked. Through the depots of the Paint Care Association, over 600,000 litre-can-equivalents have been returned to date. I don't seem to have the Home Hardware number here. It's a smaller number, obviously, but maybe I'll find it as we go along.
There's probably about one FTE in the ministry actually devoted to this. It is an industry-run program. A very important part of this, as I've said, is that the manufacturers of the product have to take responsibility for the safe disposal or recycling of their product. Our staff have done work on legislation and may be involved in enforcement, but in terms of actually setting it up, it does not involve much in the way of resources.
I might just mention to the member that I had the opportunity to observe firsthand one of the Paint Care Association events in Oak Bay a couple of weekends ago. I took in a bunch of my paint and had a chance to talk to people there. There were representatives from the Paint Care Association, the municipality of Oak Bay -- because the association was using their works yard -- and the Capital Regional District, because waste management is a CRD function. Ministry of Environment staff were not involved because it was an industry-local government initiative where they were using the site of the local government but it was run by the industry.
M. de Jong: I confess ignorance in one significant area relating to this program -- well, ignorance in a lot of areas, but I'll confess to this one. What happens to the paint?
Hon. E. Cull: Having done my own on-site research, I can tell the member exactly what happens to the paint. Cans that are mostly full are put aside, and people can pick through them and decide whether to take the risk that the label on the can is exactly what it is. There is a disclaimer, because obviously the label on the paint may not be exactly what's inside.
If anyone wants to go, I left a couple of cans of bright green that didn't quite look the colour I wanted it to look when I got it home and put it on my wall. Somebody hopefully will find that colour of bright green to be just what they were looking for. Who knows? Maybe there's a hall somewhere in Oak Bay that's now painted the colour that I thought I was going to paint mine.
Some of the paint, though, can be simply shared among people so they can use it. The other paint -- I believe most of it, because of its quantity, particularly oil-based paint -- is burned. It creates a source of fuel.
I think some of the other paint can be mixed. You may have heard of what I think they call Seattle beige, where they mix all the paints together. I think when you mix all leftover paint together, I was told you get a very unsuitable colour of brown or grey. For some purposes where color is not the important aspect but it's just for protection of the surface you're painting, it may be possible to put that paint together and use it in an industrial application.
M. de Jong: Is recycled paint at the manufacturer's level broken down and reconstituted at all? If there is no use for it, how is it ultimately disposed of?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, it is. Just as an example, Home Hardware, which takes back its own paint, sends it back to the manufacturer in Ontario. It is then broken down and somehow repackaged in a way that can be reused.
M. de Jong: The minister alluded to some of the areas where her ministry has been frustrated and has run into some difficulties. Far be it from me to inject a partisan note into these debates, and one of the ways to avoid that perhaps is to let the minister explain in her own words where she feels some of those glitches and frustrations have arisen. If she doesn't mention it, I will ask specifically about the enforcement provisions, and that might be one of the areas she touches on.
Hon. E. Cull: There is a schedule. Prior to April 30 of this year, the Paint Care Association was required to have collec-
[ Page 16162 ]
tion programs approved by the GVRD and the Capital Regional District. Prior to May 31 of this year, they were required to have programs in an additional ten regional districts, and so on. There is a schedule of the points by which they are supposed to have put their collection programs in place in each of the regional districts.
Sherwin-Williams is in compliance with its approved program, so that's not a problem. Home Hardware is in compliance with a recently amended letter of permission, because they've had some difficulty getting their program up as quickly as they had initially committed to. We have reviewed that with them and have agreed to a somewhat longer time frame for implementation.
[5:30]
Right now, the areas of compliance are just not meeting the time frames for putting the collection programs in place as quickly as originally committed and agreed to by the ministry. We are attempting to work with the industry to make sure they understand that this is a serious commitment of the government and that we expect them to live up to their obligations. While we are not going to be absolutely rigid in imposing a deadline if there are compelling reasons to be somewhat flexible about it, we certainly don't intend to see them abuse our flexibility and extend the time lines and not provide the services that the public desperately needs in this regard.
The Chair: I'd like to bring to the attention of the committee the hour. Is there one more important question?
M. de Jong: No, I'm prepared to move the traditional motion that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:31 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]