[ Page 3953 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

J. Weisgerber: I'll resist the now traditional northern disclaimer and simply introduce a friend and constituent. In the gallery is Sharon Gevatkoff. Sharon is the mother of my constituency assistant, Sharlene Gevatkoff, and she is joined by my legislative assistant, Claire Vessey. Would you please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I would like to introduce Alison Pochereva, the daughter of Wilf Hurd's constituency assistant. She is visiting the Legislature with her classmates and teacher Miss Findlay from South Meridian school in Surrey. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd also like to welcome the classes from South Meridian, especially as one of the teachers is my younger sister Val Hammell. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Plant: I'm honoured to be able to introduce a remarkable young man named Steve Hayward to the members of this assembly. Steve is 28 years old, and on March 5, 1997, after more than 2-1/2 years of remission, his leukemia relapsed. Steve's best chance for survival is a bone marrow transplant. Unfortunately, he has not yet found a genetic match, and so Steve is campaigning to encourage all British Columbians to register in the unrelated bone marrow donor registry. A simple blood test is all it takes.

Steve has come to Victoria today to raise awareness for his personal situation and for all those who may someday need a bone marrow transplant. I urge everyone who would like to save a life to telephone the Red Cross at 604-879-7551, and I urge all members to join with me in welcoming Steve and his girlfriend Sakura Iwagami.

The Speaker: Because we all support the member, I will make the point he didn't -- that's local 411.

G. Robertson: With us today, hon. Speaker, we have Darrell Smith and Larry Cooper, two fine west coast loggers. Darrell and Larry are both members of IWA Local 1-71, also known as the loggers' local and a local that's steeped in great tradition and history. Please make them welcome.

P. Calendino: Today I'm going to steal a phrase from the member for Peace River North, who says frequently that he doesn't get to do this very often. I'm going to do an introduction in Italian first and then in English, mainly because the person I will introduce is from Italy and does not know English.

Ho il piacere di presentare al parlamento della Columbia Britannica un caro amico residente nella mia circoscrizione, Il signor Michele Castagno, una persona molto attiva nella comunit� italiana di Vancouver e proprietario del Caffé Mondiale a Burnaby, dove spesso vado a gustare il cappuccino e guardere le partite di calcio in diretta dall'Italia.

Con lui c'é il fratello Luigi, sottufficiale della marina militare italiana, qui in vacanze, ma normalmente residente della bella citt� di Genova, citt� di nascita di Cristoforo Colombo, e secondo alcuni storici, anche luogo di nascita di Giovanni Caboto, l'esploratore che per primo mise piede in Canada, a Bonavista, nella regione della Terra Nuova.

If I may say it in English, I would like to introduce to you, hon. Speaker, and to the House a good friend of mine from my constituency, Mr. Castagno. With him is his brother, who comes from Italy. He is a retired Italian navy officer, visiting here from Genoa, the birthplace of Christopher Columbus and, as some historians say, also the birthplace of the first navigator from Europe to set foot in Canada, John Cabot. Would the House make them welcome, please.

J. Doyle: I'm going to try an introduction in English. [Laughter.]

The Speaker: I'm glad you advised us.

J. Doyle: Okay, if we could get a little respect. Even the new British Prime Minister has apologized to the English people, as you know.

But on to my introduction, hon. Speaker. All the way from Golden, in the galleries today we have Karl Meyer. Karl has just retired from a major employer in Golden, Evans Forest Products. With Karl today are his daughter-in-law Corrie and his two grandchildren, Christine and Susanne. I ask you to make them welcome.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from Port Alberni are Eric and Angela Jantzen. With them are: Alex, 10; Burt, 8; Amy, 7; Josh, 6; Ben, 5; Ike, 4; Sam, 3; and Olivia, nine months. Yes, hon. members, that's eight. Eric tells me it's in the water in Port Alberni. Also, I noticed when he drove up in his van that his licence plate reads: "LUV-ANG." I ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 31, the Family Relations Amendment Act, 1997. This bill is the first of two pieces of legislation that I will be introducing today to further government's commitment to improve the lives of children. In a few moments my colleague the Minister of Human Resources will introduce another initiative under the BC Benefits Act.

Bill 31 will amend the Family Relations Act to provide the statutory framework for using child support guidelines to determine the amount of child support awards under the act. The amendments are consistent with changes to the federal Divorce Act that came into effect on May 1, 1997. This will ensure that parents' obligations to support their children are consistent under federal and provincial legislation, so that children will be treated equally regardless of whether their parents were ever married. The bill will also expand the scope of the act to give same-sex couples all the rights and obligations that common-law couples currently have under the Family Relations Act, including the right to apply for maintenance and custody and access for themselves and their children in relationship breakdowns.

[2:15]

[ Page 3954 ]

only to married couples. However, the bill contains a provision that will allow common-law and same-sex couples to enter into agreements and be bound by the property division scheme in the act. The bill will also clarify the intent of some of the provisions for dividing pensions to resolve some confusion that has arisen since those provisions came into effect in July 1995. These amendments will improve the lives of British Columbia children and families. I will elaborate on the nature of the amendments during second reading of this bill.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31 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.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to introduce Bill 32, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1997. This bill will amend the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to strengthen the act's enforcement provisions. It will introduce a number of new enforcement measures that send a clear message that maintenance payments are debts that must be paid in full and on time.

The bill contains provisions for reporting payers who default on their maintenance payments to credit bureaus, so that maintenance arrears will appear in their credit history like other unpaid debts. The bill also contains provisions to prevent the issue or renewal of a defaulting payer's driver's licence, as well as innovative provisions to collect maintenance directly from a payer's personal corporation or a corporation controlled by the payer and the immediate family. These two measures are being introduced to deal with difficult cases where substantial arrears have accumulated and other enforcement tools have not been successful in collecting the maintenance owed.

The bill will introduce a yearly fee to be assessed against defaulting payers to recoup some of the costs of enforcement incurred by government to collect the maintenance they owe. The new enforcement measures included in this bill complement the amendments to the Family Relations Amendment Act which I have just introduced. Together they will promote the well-being of children and families by helping to ensure adequate support that is paid in full and on time when separation or divorce occurs.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32 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.

BC BENEFITS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 33, the BC Benefits Statutes Amendment Act, 1997. The government of British Columbia recognizes that in cases of family breakup, it is parents, not taxpayers, who are primarily responsible for supporting their children.

This bill, together with consequential amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, enables government to apply for, monitor and enforce court orders on behalf of income assistance recipients.

The bill embraces identical amendments to the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, the Disability Benefits Program Act and the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act. Assignment of maintenance will become a condition of eligibility for income assistance, youth allowance and disability allowance. The amendments follow along similar lines as maintenance programs in other jurisdictions in Canada.

When families break up, the parents' responsibility to support their children does not end. These changes to the B.C. Benefits legislation are key to ensuring the well-being of children and fair treatment for children and for custodial and non-custodial parents.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33 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.

Oral Questions

PATIENT CARE

My question to the Minister of Health today is about the case of Evelyn Boubette. She's 73 years old, and the other day her doctor diagnosed her as being in the midst of a heart attack. The emergency physician in Port Alberni tried to get her into Nanaimo Hospital, but she was turned away from that hospital because there were not enough beds. So Ms. Boubette was sent from her home in Port Alberni to Victoria. The ambulance took her to the wrong hospital in Victoria. When she finally was admitted to the hospital. . .within 24 hours her heart had stopped three times.

My question to the Minister of Health is: how can anyone have confidence in a health care system when a 73-year-old woman in the midst of a heart attack is moved from hospital to hospital to hospital?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I do take this situation very seriously. I'll have to take the question on notice, and I'll get back as quickly as I can.

G. Campbell: A separate question, hon. Speaker. Reading the family's account and knowing what the situation is in Port Alberni, I think it's very important for the minister to look carefully at all of the factors which have led to this case.

We have a hospital which has serious physical problems. We have a situation where the family has significant financial 

[ Page 3955 ]

trauma, and we have a government that has said to the people of British Columbia that they're going to bring health care closer to home. In Port Alberni and in parts of this province all over the province, what we're finding is that the government is not bringing health care closer to home. They are moving health care further and further and further away from the people of this province.

My question to the Minister of Health is: how can the people of Alberni or anywhere else in the province have confidence in a minister who is more comfortable finding excuses than she is finding hospital beds?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume that the Leader of the Opposition will wait for the answer to the question that I took on notice.

Just a couple of comments in terms of the allegations the opposition party continues to make around the health care system. It wasn't us who said that the health care system could do with $1 billion less in this province; it was that opposition party that said that. It wasn't us who continually undermined the process of regionalization and moving the decisions closer to home; it was that opposition party that did that. It wasn't us who continued to lobby for a two-tier health care system; it was that opposition party that did that. It wasn't us who said that the federal cuts weren't deep enough; it was that opposition party.

In light of massive federal cuts, we continue to fund the health care system. It is going through major organizational change. It is going through positive change. We have discussed that over and over and over again in this House. The changes are slow-moving in a big system. They're positive changes. We will continue to put the needs of patients first for better care. That's what our government stands for -- unlike the opposition.

G. Campbell: It was not the opposition that mismanaged the health care system; it was the NDP that mismanaged the health care system. It is not the opposition that puts their friends at the top of the health care list and forgets about patients; it's the NDP that does that. It is not the opposition that has shuffled patients from hospital to hospital. It is not the opposition that initiated a regionalization program which has cost millions and taken services away from patients in British Columbia. It is the NDP that has done that.

The Speaker: I want a question.

G. Campbell: I have a question.

The Speaker: Please.

G. Campbell: Ms. Boubette's situation is not the first time this has happened in Port Alberni. The question to the Minister of Health is simply this: why does she insist on finding excuses instead of finding the resources to open more hospital beds so patients can be at the top of the list in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have taken the question on. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Even after taking the question on notice, the Leader of the Opposition continues to fearmonger and say that this is an example of. . .over and over again. I have taken the question on notice. I actually take patient care very seriously and will look into the matter.

But let's just talk about the resources in the system; let's just talk about the resources in the central Island. It is a burgeoning population; the population of the central Island has increased incredibly. We have managed to maintain funding for health care in this province, even in the face of an aging population and an increasing population. We haven't cut the health care system; we have not cut anywhere in the health care system at all. Hospital funding has increased by $83 million this year. For doctors -- the physicians who supply the services -- funding has increased by 2.4 percent. And yes, front-line workers continue to receive adequate training and wages to deliver the services available.

S. Hawkins: Health care horror stories are becoming more and more common under the management of this NDP government. In a letter to the minister, Mr. Kingston writes: "I'm told that doctors and health care workers are feeling at a loss on how to care for the sick and injured people that have come to them looking for relief for their medical problems."

My question to this Minister of Health is: when will this Health minister start listening to patients and front-line workers and admit that under this NDP government, patients are not getting the treatment they need when they need it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just earlier this week this same opposition party was absolutely denigrating the benefits of the health labour accord, which actually values front-line workers, trains them properly, and employs them in proper care in the health care system. This opposition party said that was outrageous. I also happen to know that the front-line workers' representatives can't even get a meeting with the opposition party to discuss issues in the health care system. The opposition would rather stand up in this House and grandstand and allege, over and over and over again, without actually meeting with the front-line health care workers and hearing about the real issues. This opposition would rather stand up and defend the pharmaceutical companies, day after day after day. It's costing this health care system tens of millions of dollars each and every year.

Hon. Speaker, it is really time for the fearmongering in the health care system to stop, and for us to look at ways we can actually ensure the integrity of our health care system, which is the goal of this government.

S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, if this minister listened to front-line workers, she'd find that they are saying that patient care is compromised and lives are at risk.

An official at Nanaimo General Hospital informed Mr. Kingston that his mother-in-law could not be admitted because all the beds with cardiac monitors were in use. It appears that not much has changed since I visited Nanaimo General and found patients being treated in holding areas.

Earlier this week the member for Prince George-Mount Robson said that she doesn't see anything wrong with having patients lying in hospital hallways. That's the nature of health care under the NDP.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the Health minister tell us if she agrees that having patients lying in hallways is acceptable in B.C.?

[2:30]

[ Page 3956 ]

What the Minister of Transportation said was that when the opposition Health critic, the member for Okanagan West, visited the system, she snuck in. She didn't talk to all of the people that were involved in the system; in fact, she managed to offend a fair number of people.

There are major improvements that have been made in the health care system to deliver services. There is increased funding that occurs each and every week and month in our health care system. We have managed to maintain the integrity of the health care system by cutting deeply in other areas of government. That point was made over and over and over again.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Does that prevent the opposition from asking for funding in that area too? No, they want everything, hon. Speaker, with no responsibility. . . .

The Speaker: Order, minister, please.

MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
AND PROVINCIAL RIGHTS

Hon. D. Miller: I thank the member for his question. As all members know, we held a debate in this House. All members agree that the MAI represents threats to the ability of the British Columbia government to work in the interests of British Columbia citizens in terms of job creations and other issues. We have written to the federal government, asking that there be consultation in Canada. There was a motion of this House asking for that same thing to be carried out. Indeed, I will work with the member to try to get a copy of that draft and to make it public.

G. Wilson: My understanding is that the minister's office has that draft. I welcome the fact that it will become public. The issue that is supplementary to that question is that within this draft, I am told, there are new agreements with respect to monopolies and monopoly control that will directly affect the ability of the provincial government to be able to maintain monopolies in areas such as B.C. Hydro.

Will the minister commit today, in the making public of that report, to formulate an all-party committee of this House to look at the implications of that monopoly section, particularly in light of the agreements that are currently being negotiated with respect to downstream benefits from the Columbia River?

Hon. D. Miller: I will take that question under advisement. But if I could use one example for the use of a Crown corporation in British Columbia to ensure the retention of jobs in British Columbia, it would be the B.C. Lottery Corporation awarding a contract to Pollard Banknote in Kamloops -- B.C. jobs. That contract cost the B.C. Lottery Corporation $2 million more than they would have had to spend if they'd gone outside our borders, to the detriment of B.C. workers. Instead, that contract was awarded to a British Columbia company. That's the policy of this government. We will use the vehicles we have -- Crown corporations -- to ensure the maximum benefits for British Columbia workers and the British Columbia economy.

KELOWNA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT

Can this minister explain why his government has so badly mismanaged this project that Central Okanagan now has to throw good money after bad?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This government has an unparalleled record of building new schools in this province, and that includes schools in Central Okanagan.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Do you want to hear the answer?

The Speaker: I would like to hear the answer, minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises a serious issue about a school that is close to the end of its useful life. That is why the school district and Okanagan University College have jointly brought forward a very innovative proposal for using the old university college site for the rebuild of Kelowna Secondary, and disposal of some assets.

The ministry is going to be providing funding to look at the feasibility of that. It is a very good proposal which will save the taxpayers money and get a badly needed new senior secondary school in Kelowna. If the member wishes, I would be pleased to have ministry officials brief her thoroughly, since obviously her constituency office has again failed to let her know what's actually going on.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Petitions

Tabling Documents

[ Page 3957 ]

Orders of the Day

CHILDREN'S COMMISSION ACT
(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This legislation is part of our commitment to the children of British Columbia. This government is a leader in its commitment to creating a high-quality child-serving system that is open and accountable to the people of British Columbia. The Children's Commission plays a vital role in making changes to our child-serving system and informing the public about the status of this changed agenda. This agenda is a long-term commitment that both sides of the House feel strongly about: improving the services of government to promote the health, safety and well-being of all children in British Columbia.

This legislation gives the children's commissioner the mandate to review and resolve complaints concerning the rights of children in care and decisions concerning the provision of designated services, monitor the plans of children in care, conduct random audits of plans of care to ensure an end to foster care drift, review all child fatalities, and investigate those found to be suspicious or unusual. Her office is creating a database that will allow a more thorough understanding of how to help children and families that are at risk, automatically investigate critical injuries of children who are receiving designated services, and provide public education and information so that we're all more aware of how to support children and families and how to ensure that children are no longer neglected or abused. The Children's Commission will use the data collected in the course of its duties to make recommendations, supported by extensive information and research. This process will be one of the most comprehensive in North America.

This legislation is about ensuring that the child-serving system is open and accountable to children and their communities. Regular public reporting by the Children's Commission will play a crucial role in continued public accountability. This legislation is about assisting professional service providers across all sectors and communities to better understand how to help children and families thrive, and what to do when they know a child is being neglected or abused.

The legislation will ensure more of a focus on children in care by making sure they do not get lost in the system. It is crucial that children in care are given the love, support and planning they need to become happy and productive adults.

This legislation creates a process for reviewing child fatalities and critical injuries that is the most comprehensive in Canada. It is already helping government understand and respond to systemic weaknesses, through the recommendations for change. The establishment of the Children's Commission will ensure that we honour the memories of all children by learning how we can prevent further deaths.

The complaint process will mean that children and their caregivers are provided a respectful external body that will hear their concerns and try to resolve them. Data collected and research completed in the course of our reviews will, of course, be used for good purposes by both the commission and the ministries that deal with children.

The ongoing work of the Children's Commission will ensure that change is constant but rational, driven by evidence of the need for change and the right direction for change. Evaluation and openness will become routinized in this process.

The Children's Commission is committed to ensuring that the child-serving system learns from the past and that the public is informed, at the end of the day, as to how we can better assist children who are at risk in all of our communities.

B. McKinnon: I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill 23, the Children's Commission Act. As it stands, this bill establishes the Children's Commission and the powers that go with this position. My biggest concern -- and a concern I have always held -- is not part of this bill: that the children's commissioner be independent and report to the Legislative Assembly as a whole.

I fail to understand the position this government has taken on this very important issue. It makes one wonder why there is such a fear of having an independent children's commissioner. Judge Gove stated in his report, the Gove inquiry into child protection, that the province should establish by legislation an office of an independent children's commissioner, who would be appointed by order-in-council for a fixed term and be independent of any affected ministry. Judge Gove, in his report, stated on page 52 of his "Executive Summary":

"Had an independent children's commissioner been overseeing death and injury reviews, every death or serious injury would have resulted in a report. Systemic failures in the child protection system that contributed to Matthew's death might have been remedied before his death. The children's commissioner would have reviewed these reports to look for patterns and for inadequacies in the qualifications, training, investigative techniques, risk assessments and case planning decisions made by child protection social workers.

"The children's commissioner would have ensured that appropriate action was taken to address the conclusions and recommendations arising from these reports. Being independent from those funding and delivering child protection services, the children's commissioner would have pressured the ministry to remedy these inadequacies in a timely way, or would have reported publicly on the ministry's failure to do so."

[2:45]

Another concern I have is that this office does not become a huge bureaucracy that ends up costing taxpayers a large 

[ Page 3958 ]

amount of money. If that happens, the children and the reason that the children's commissioner was established in the first place will get lost in the paperwork it created. This bill gives the commissioner more powers than Judge Gove felt were needed, but I am sure, through her investigations into the deaths of children so far, that the commissioner has found the need for stronger powers in order to do the tasks put before her.

Matthew Vaudreuil's legacy has shown us that children can fall through the tracks and we, as government, have to be vigilant in finding ways to prevent another Matthew. Can we truly say that we have accomplished this goal yet? I would have to say no. We have seen a number of children who have suffered and died needlessly since Matthew.

In trying to help and make the right decisions for children, especially our youth, it is important that they have a voice in those decisions that affect them. When we don't listen, we take their dignity and self-esteem away from them.

I am pleased to see that this bill will provide children and families the opportunity to be part of the decisions that affect their lives so dramatically. Government must protect children from abuse and neglect, for they are our future, and without well-adjusted children ready to take over our roles in the future, we would not have much to look forward to. I support this bill, and I'm looking forward to the committee stage, for I have many questions regarding it.

Tabling Documents

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. It's my honour to table a report of the auditor general of British Columbia. There are two reports in his report No. 9 to the Legislative Assembly in 1996-97: "B.C. Transit: Managing Operator Productivity"; and "B.C. Transit: Its Success as a Market-Focused Organization."

Thank you, members; I appreciate that.

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this bill today. It's been many years in coming.

There have been a number of people in this House who I think deserve credit for this bill. The member for Langara on my left is one, and the present Minister for Children and Families is another. I congratulate them both for their support in making sure that this bill came forward.

Change is not always easy, and it is not always comfortable -- especially for governments and for bureaucracy. This change today, the Children's Commission Act, changes in a major way how the citizens of this province will view the Ministry for Children and Families and how they will view the programs and policies that it implements.

This side of the House would prefer to see the commissioner independent and reporting to the Legislature. I would suggest to you that that could be accomplished if the commissioner reported to the Standing Committee on Health and Social Services and then through to the Legislature. That would be the final part of what I think has taken place.

There have been changes over a two-year period that open up this ministry and open up how the citizens of this province view child protection. I think they've been positive. I haven't always agreed with the policies that have been put forward to bring this ministry into existence. As opposition, we will continue to push to make sure that children are safe in this province and that we learn from the mistakes of the past.

I believe the Children's Commission has an awesome task ahead of it. It will bring confidence back to the bureaucracy and will go a long way to making your front-line child protection workers confident that they are doing the job to the best of their abilities and that the policies and procedures are in place to check on that so that the citizens of this province will have confidence in the system.

I always think it's important that we remember that the children that are in our care -- in government care -- are in the care of the four million people who live in this province. In taking a child into care, in taking a child into any of the programs that are now offered by this ministry, we now have a commission that oversees any problem that is created for a child's safety: the death of a child, the serious injury of a child. There isn't a way that we as British Columbians can now say that there isn't someone overseeing the bureaucracy, overseeing the ministry.

But I would stress again that there is one final policy change that needs to happen. The children's commissioner reports now to the Attorney General. The office doesn't report to the Minister for Children and Families but does report to the government. I think you'll find that over a period of time, you in government on the other side of the House will want to change that. You will see that it is not giving up power; it is, in fact, sharing more power with the citizens of British Columbia. That it is not giving up power; it is in fact sharing more power with the citizens of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we have, and have had, a committee overseeing the implementation of the 118 Gove recommendations. That committee, I believe, has worked very well in that it is an all-party committee, and it is a committee where the members are dedicated to one cause: seeing the implementation of those recommendations in a timely manner, which all of us in this House can be proud of. I think all of us here, the 75 members representing close to four million people, want the same thing: we want to make sure that the safety of children is foremost on the agenda of government, of opposition and indeed of all people in British Columbia.

I believe that committee has shown the government that there is an opportunity for government and opposition and third parties to work together. Our party has offered to do that through the standing committee or any committee or commission that the government wishes to set up and that the children's commissioner specifically reports to. I would see in the future that the children's commissioner, the advocate, could report to the Legislature through a standing committee. Only then, Mr. Speaker, will you see an opportunity for this House to work together for one cause.

I realize that in a system that has a government and an opposition, it doesn't happen very often that you see an all-party committee work together. But I, for one, can't see a reason why there would be a difference between what the government wants for the safety of children and what the opposition wants for the safety of children. It's not what the 75 of us want; it's what the millions of British Columbians want for their children and their families.

I'm supportive of this act, because it's moving along a continuum, where I see a safer, kinder bureaucracy and a safer, kinder atmosphere for children and families. The act 

[ Page 3959 ]

supports families. It has the new ability to give children support that they didn't have before. In many instances, this act, although it had been asked for for many years, is probably going to give better service because of the turmoil and the change that the ministry has gone through. So I support the Children's Commission Act. I will have some points to bring up as we go into committee stage and some suggestions for the Attorney General for ways that this act could be enhanced.

I also reiterate the offer from this side of the Legislature to work on an all-party standing committee on child welfare and child safety problems in this province.

V. Anderson: Today, as we discuss the Children's Commission Act, I think it's important that we put that act in context. The context I think I'll speak about first of all is that what we are talking about here is the well-being of the children in this province, all of the children in this province -- hopefully, not a select few, but all of them.

Over the past years we've had a great deal of discussion here in this Legislature on how we go about protecting, supporting, caring for and enabling our children to have the best opportunities in life that we as adults are able to provide them. That's a task not only for parents but for the whole of the community in which we all live.

We have often talked about who's first. Sometimes we say the adults are first, the parents are first, the husband or the wife is first, women or men are first, but I think in all reality that we must say that children are first. In this sense, until they become adults, they have the right to expect that we will give them first call for every concern that is of importance to them. We as adults will have the responsibility for and with them that they might grow up into mature persons in every way possible: physically, socially, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually.

It's important that we think of this particular bill, the Children's Commission Act, in that context. As I was taught in my first class in philosophy at the university, a text without a context is a pretext. So we must have in place that this has relevance only in the broader context of how we live and share with our children in our communities.

[3:00]

I'm interested that one of the things that has happened in recent years is that we have had legislation regarding multiculturalism, for which I'm the critic. The legislation was written so that every department of government was to have a requirement laid upon them that for every action they undertook, they should ask the question: how does this affect and support the multicultural nature of our community? But I'm not aware that there is any similar provision at this point -- although we are moving closer to it with the new Child, Family and Community Service Act -- so that every aspect of government, before they move ahead with whatever program it is, would say: how does it affect the children of our community today, tomorrow and in the future?

We've had some aspects of that when we've come to environmental concerns. We have some aspects of that when we come to election times, and you hear during electioneering that we're doing this for our children. Yet if we look at the legislation that's before us, it's seldom the case that it's that obvious.

We've had a concern that there are certain people who have been overlooked in our society and who have been treated unequally. So we have had equity legislation that deals with women, people who have disabilities, people who have mental illnesses, people from a variety of ethnic, educational and cultural backgrounds. Until very recently we really haven't had legislation that highlighted the priority we place on children, who should have equity within the community in which we live.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that we have been challenged in this regard by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. And thank goodness for the United Nations, where nations of the world have come together and made common agreements on how we can care for children and respect the children of our communities around the world. Some 190 nations of the world have come together, and this is part of the context of this bill. Yet in the provinces of Canada, we find it difficult to come together on items of less significance than this. We find it difficult to come together on a common position across Canada on how we would care for our children, except that, fortunately, Canada and all but one of the provinces of Canada have signed -- as has British Columbia -- the convention on the rights of the child. That's the background for which we have the opportunity to deal with this act on the Children's Commission.

We must also put it in context, because over the years we've had various difficulties dealing with how we work with our children in our community. When I first came into this Legislature, there was a focus, through Social Services, on supporting families and giving them the kind of support they needed to work with their children. In that regard, we were pleased with much of what was done, but there were a great deal of things that were being overlooked. And then there was a change, because of some disastrous things that had taken place to children within our province.

There was a new focus, and the focus said that in our concern for families, which, unfortunately, was interpreted to be a concern only for parents and not for children. . . . I'm not sure how that interpretation came about, except that it's kind of the way we think of adults first sometimes. But the focus reversed, like the pendulum, to the opposite extreme and said that we should be concerned for children primarily, as if children didn't have a concern for their parents. Parents and children are bound together in their growing years, and the convention on the rights of the child pointed out to us that children have a right to know their heritage. They have a right to be loved; they have a right to be cared for. Even if there is a breakup in that family structure, they still have a right to know the heritage from which they have come, and not to be cut off from it.

In our important concern to protect children, we have sometimes built around them a wall that isolates them from the very things that can give them the help and concern that they need. When we met in the all-party committee of the Legislature to choose an advocate, one of the persons who was then working on behalf of Social Services -- I'm glad to say -- came to speak to us to give us the perspective of children and youth who had been abused, who had been neglected, who had lived in care, who had been on the street. That person was Cherry Kingsley, and I've had the opportunity to meet her since. It was just this last week that she 

[ Page 3960 ]

shared with us her study, "Finding Our Way." She undertook the study, on behalf of Social Services, to listen to and hear what the young people who have been going through these circumstances have to say. One of the things she said to us was that young people want to find a way home. They want to find a way home to a place that's loving and caring, in which they are respected and identified as being unique and important.

There are two things she found, regardless of what the history of the circumstances of those persons was. There were two things common to all of them: one was a sense of loneliness, and one was a sense of isolation. In that sense of loneliness and isolation, walls were built that they were not able to penetrate, because in many cases they had not been given the opportunity to have the love and the care and the growth so that they were able to reach out. Apart from that, what they found was that the walls of the community had been so raised against them that they were isolated on an island from which they could not escape.

It was interesting to have her draw a diagram for us, and that's important as we look at the context of this particular enactment. The diagram said that there were three interweaving circles which were fundamentally important: one was the family, one was the community and one was the culture. It is within the context of those three elements that any person is to find the nature and the self-respect they must have. As you looked at her diagram with that interwoven circle, and at how young people were forced by circumstances outside that circle and not able to get in. . . . What has happened with all our good intentions is that when we came to these young people and offered them our formal, in-care support network, what we didn't do was take them into the family, culture and community. We took them further out and made the distance even greater than it was before. We separated them even further from their families, their communities and their culture. In fact, they were taken away from the culture in which they were nurtured previously. They were taken away from the very communities and friends and people they knew, and they were taken away from their family. In many cases, they lost touch with their families completely, because the official system did not really work on their behalf. In our attempt to protect children, we were the very ones who abused and separated them and created their loneliness and their isolation.

It's important that we look at the commissioner's role in this context, because the commissioner's role is, in effect, after the fact. It's when we've had a mistake, when we've goofed up, when we've done the wrong thing on behalf of these children, not just as families but as a government and as a community, that the commissioner steps in and asks: "Whoa, how come you went in this direction?" That's not just a legal question. It's a fundamental personal question of how we relate and how we consider our children.

Let me give you an illustration of something that I have raised with the commissioner herself. I raised it in this Legislature, and I think it's extremely important to show what happens. Up until now -- and it hasn't changed yet that I'm aware of, and I hope it will soon -- if there is difficulty with children in their family or in their primary relationship, and if the government feels it has to step in for their well-being, then the authority to do that is through the courts. Regardless of whatever else happens, whether the treatment of them has been fair or just, whether the caseworkers have had time and experience and training to do a proper investigation, finally -- one way or the other -- it ends up with the courts.

And there is one of the greatest injustices we do to our children, because in our present system, once they get involved with the court, there is very little hope for them, because all the lawyers, the legal power, the money, the system and everything else is on the side of the social services that act on behalf of the government before the court.

The amount of information and knowledge, right or wrong, that is presented by the system on behalf of those children, presumably, outweighs any opportunity that parents, foster parents or relatives have to give, by any opportunities that neighbours or teachers or anyone else who works with these children have to present into the situation, because they are basically all shut out of the system. They have no opportunity to be heard. Even if they could and were able to collect themselves in order to push themselves forward, they have not the resources and ability to hire the lawyers to work on their behalf.

[3:15]

If we assume that sometimes the social services ministry is biased on one side and that sometimes the caregivers, the parents, may be biased on the other side, then what we discover is that there is no representation for the child. There is no independent representation. There is no person who sits down with the child, talks to them and gets some kind of feeling and understanding of what the child would like and feels and would be and do.

That's one of the concerns even in this commissioner's study, that though the Child, Family and Community Service Act says children should be heard and listened to, it really only says in this act that they should be heard and listened to if they're 12 years and over. If they're under 12 years, there's no representation for them in this act. If they're under 12 years, there's no one, really, to hear or speak on their behalf.

Now, we did appoint a child advocate. I'm quite pleased with the work that she's been doing. One of the recommendations of the Gove report was that the child advocate should have the ability to provide the legal counsel for those children when it is needed and required.

But in her appointment, that authority wasn't given to her. Even though the Gove commission and the children's commissioner herself have recommended that it be enacted -- and hopefully it would have come forth in this act or one like it -- still it has not come forth to give the child advocate an opportunity to represent the child legally in the courts. Without that, the representation is impossible. So without that, then, the children's commissioner has a flaw at the very beginning to try to represent the needs of those children, because what we find here, as mentioned, is the question of whether the commissioner is independent or not.

I recommend highly that the children's commissioner and the youth advocate, all of those people, should work with the all-party committees of the Legislature, because unless we set up that mechanism for them, they have no good way, even though they're responsible to the Legislature, to work with us. So they have been put out in the independent place and left there on their own.

[ Page 3961 ]

But the children's commissioner is under the Attorney General's ministry. That has good things about it and some difficult things about it, because what the act says when it puts out all of the good qualifications and duties of the commissioner, many of which we would agree with. . . . I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the present commissioner, who was the interim commissioner and who wrote the design, in effect, with her team, about the child, family and community service and the integration and approach. I think she has done a tremendous job, and I'm delighted in the outline she's given us.

But when you put that down here into this particular case, what you discover is that the regulations can be changed at any time by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The parts of the act which designate over which children she can have authority and which ministry is involved are left in the hands of the government to change at will, at any time. So when you look at the regulations and the power in the latter part of this act. . . . As you read the first part of the act, you get quite excited. Then finally, when you come back to the back, when you get to "Power to make regulations," you find that she really doesn't have any power, that the commissioner really is dependent upon. . . . "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows. . . ." And it lists a whole host of regulations. You can designate different services or programs for the purposes of the different provisions of the act.

It may be argued that this is to facilitate and gradually move into the process of giving her the ability to do this task. But what we've found so far with the Children and Families ministry is that those controls are still being held by the government. They have not been given to the ministry to be as free as they could be with them. So if we go through the act in the context of what we're attempting to do here, what we realize is that as significant and as important as this act is, what it still must do is be in the context of the total action of the Children and Families ministry.

There are guiding principles. The guiding principles, in a sense, say that you should be concerned with the child and their family. But it doesn't spell out that confusion that we've had all the way along -- that it isn't either a child or a family; it's both. Sometimes within a family that priority is given to the child, over all of the other family wishes. That is what we as a society have said should happen. But by saying it, priority to the child doesn't mean -- as many take it to mean -- that there's no concern that part of the priority for the child is to give priority also to supporting their family, because that's their history and their heritage. That's an important aspect that's not necessarily dealt with in this act.

There are a number of cases in which we're dealing with the age as 12 and over. But what it says is that if decisions are being made, they should be explained to the children who are 12 and over.

But when my daughters were three years old we explained to them. When our daughter was a year old, we explained to her that she was adopted. We explained to her why she looked different from her other siblings. All along, at every place in her life, we explained to her what she was about, and she understood it. She understood it very carefully. She was only three years old after we had been studying in the United States and had come back. One day my wife had taken the car to the garage, and the garage man whispered to her. It was the time in the United States when Vietnamese children were being adopted into the United States by servicemen and families, and the garage attendant whispered to my wife: "Is she Vietnamese?" She's Japanese in background. Our three-year-old daughter piped up and said: "No, I'm a Canadian, I'm Japanese and I'm adopted." She knew at three years old who she was. She could understand who she was, so I can't understand why we have set it at age 12 and neglected to put into this act that children should be concerned with the opportunity to be part of the decision-making from the very beginning.

What we still have in this act is adult mentality. Why aren't we trying an adult protection mentality -- instead of an adult, family, parent, support mentality -- that considers children of whatever age as equal members of the society and of the family, able to participate in their own way? Sometimes they are able to get through with messages that no one else in the family can tell us.

I had that driven home very clearly when I was doing graduate studies and got in over my head. I was totally discouraged and, as I discovered afterward, impossible to live with for my family and anybody else. My good wife tried to get the message across to me. The neighbours and my fellow students tried to get the message across to me, and I didn't hear any of them. One night at supper, my six-year-old, in the middle of a quiet conversation, leaned over and said to me: "Dad, it's okay if you fail." I said "Pardon?" She said: "Dad, it's okay if you fail." She was wiser than I was. I had told her many times that it was okay to fail, but you see, I didn't believe it when it came to me.

Out of their mouths comes wisdom. We all know that phrase, but it's not in our Child, Family and Community Service Act. It's not in this act. It's not in this act that our children, whatever their ages, need to have representation on their own behalf. They need to be able to speak and talk with people who are concerned with them, who mediate between them and their parents and between them and all the do-gooders who would work on their behalf. We all need that kind of person sometimes in our lives. It's important, and that kind of understanding isn't here within the act.

I'm sure another thing will be questioned along the line, so I'll raise it. It is in a completely different vein, and this is in the materialistic rather than the spiritual vein. It says that the children's commissioner's remuneration shall be at a level that equals or exceeds the amount paid to a deputy minister. It was that word that surprised me. I had no problem with "equal" -- but "exceeds"? How far? I mean, what's the reason? We'll have to ask that when we come to the situation.

This is about the commission and its members. My final comment on that is: how come it's not the commissioner who selects these but the minister who decides with whom she has to work?

E. Gillespie: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: While the member for Vancouver-Langara was speaking about the well-being of children, we were joined by a number of grade 5 students from Lynndale Elementary School in Lynnwood, Washington, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Rayton. I hope all members of this Legislature will join me in welcoming them to the precincts today.

L. Stephens: I'm very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 23 and to support this legislation and the choice of commissioner. I had the opportunity to get to know Cindy Morton 

[ Page 3962 ]

a little when she was the Deputy Minister of Education and I was the Education critic. We had a very good working relationship, and I have great respect for her talents and abilities.

This -- talking about child protection -- is not a simple issue, and as the House knows, the opposition has made an offer to participate fully in an all-party committee of the House to look at this very complex issue of child protection and services to families and children. I would hope that the government would think closely about this offer and perhaps set a bit of a precedent in this House, using standing committees or all-party committees in a way that would certainly further the interests of the people of British Columbia.

[3:30]

"This Bill establishes the Children's Commission and gives the Children's Commission the following powers: to monitor the development and implementation of internal review processes across ministries and agencies of government to ensure they are respectful, timely, effective and child centred; to provide a comprehensive avenue for external complaints for children to ensure timeliness, accessibility and accountability; to ensure all children in care have a plan that meets their needs; to investigate critical injuries that occur when children are receiving designated services; to review all child fatalities and investigate any that are suspicious and unusual through an investigation and multi-disciplinary process; to report on the progress made by the child serving system in implementing change as recommended in any or all parts of the Children's Commission's mandate to better protect children."

Events in the past have proven the need for this particular piece of legislation and for a children's commissioner. Judge Gove's recommendations were quite clear in what was needed for the protection of children in this province, and indeed the commissioner's report that was just released on June 4 highlights some of the reasons for increased legislation and for increased scrutiny of the child protection system in British Columbia.

Day after day, month after month and year after year, there have been events involving the abuse and deaths of children living in poverty, neglect and violence that hit the headlines in the media. Some of the examples were given in the commissioner's report. There were 16 cases that were looked at, and I'm just going to highlight a couple of areas where she made some recommendations.

One of them is ensuring suitability of placement. This is an issue that I think concerns everyone, and on some of the recommendations she has made and has referred to the Ministry for Children and Families, the ministry's response has been that these issues will be included in the systematic audit process that is scheduled to be implemented in September 1997. Those commitments by the Ministry for Children and Families are on the record and in the Children's Commission report, so we'll be watching very carefully, monitoring the ministry to make sure that these audits are in fact being carried out.

The second recommendation that I think is really important is the adequacy of ministry planning and the completeness of the file record. That speaks to this bill and what the recommendations and procedures will be. Again, the ministry has responded by saying that the systematic audit process, which is scheduled to be implemented in September 1997, will assist in ensuring that social work practice meets policy requirements, and that file documentation ensures a complete, comprehensive record of each child's development, as well as the decisions made on his or her behalf. So we will be watching and monitoring to make sure that in fact those kinds of practices are happening.

On page 3, under "Guiding Principles," the bill talks about the importance of the child's best interests. This is a term that is bandied about quite regularly when we talk about children and protection and services around children. It's acting in the child's best interests. I think there needs to be more definition of what is a child's best interests. What are the bottom-line conditions in which a child should be expected to live? Is it ever appropriate to allow a batterer custody of a child? Is it ever appropriate to allow an alcoholic or a drug addict custody of a child? What is an appropriate standard of living for a child? What is an appropriate level of love and affection and stability that children need? These are questions that I think are going to come up, and we are going to be monitoring the Ministry for Children and Families to help the children's commissioner do her job.

I want to say that the front-line social workers -- and I think all members of the House would agree -- have a very difficult job. It's fraught with decision-making that tends to be second-guessed from time to time, and they tend to have all of the responsibilities for these decisions. Sometimes they're good and sometimes they're not so good, but those are issues that the new ministry and the children's commissioner are going to have to really take a close look at and develop best practices for, and develop ways and resources that will help those front-line workers do the job they want to do.

We talk about prevention and early intervention as being extremely important, and they are. I'm pleased that this is the way the ministry is moving to look at services and the delivery of services, because if we want to tackle and hopefully eliminate these kinds of issues, we need to talk about early intervention and prevention programs -- providing services to families on how to be better parents and how to make sure that children are living in situations that are in their best interests.

There must be tougher measures to deal with people who abuse children. I'm glad the Attorney General is here, because we really have to talk about how we're going to do that, what kinds of issues are going to be addressed and what kind of legislation is going to come forward in the justice system to deal with some of these serious problems.

I want to make some comments about the policy of child protection. I'm going to take this issue up further in the Ministry for Children and Families estimates debate, but it's about the percentage of complaints that are investigated. I wonder if the Attorney General would note this, because there has been some concern about complaints made and not followed up, proper questions not being asked or individuals not interviewed as to the validity of complaints. There have been suggestions that there is an unwritten policy that the number of individuals investigated for child abuse cannot look after everyone. So there are decisions made on what kinds of allegations will be investigated and what kinds of allegations will not be investigated. The whole issue of intake and training of whoever the intake workers are and however the single-entry system is going to work needs to be highlighted as a serious concern.

The government has an outstanding opportunity to do this right. There's a new ministry and a new organization of that ministry, with new ideas. I sincerely hope that this 

[ Page 3963 ]

is going to break the back of the old attitudes, the turf protection and all of those other things that went along with previous administrations and previous social services and child care and child protection agencies. We need to really make sure that the front-line workers have the kind of support and resources they need to do the job they need to do.

What we have is a new ministry, a new commissioner and Judge Gove's blueprint for action, and an opposition that will be watching very closely to make sure that the government do what they say they're going to do. I just want to say that this is a fair warning. Members on this side of the House take this particular issue very seriously. I want to say, too, that the past actions of this government have not been encouraging in the areas of protecting women and children where it counts -- and that's in the justice system.

We have to get tough. We have to get tough with batterers, pimps, pedophiles and pornographers, and with all of these other individuals that prey on our children. So I want a government that acts tough, not just talks tough, and I want standards for foster parents, homes monitored for the appropriateness of care, and best practices followed by the ministry -- the management and the workers.

If the NDP put as many resources into protecting children and women as they do into feathering the nests of their union friends and insiders, if the government understood the simple economics of a market economy and the dangers of overregulation, and if the NDP government was as dedicated to public service as it is to building bureaucracies, then the money to provide the services, training and resources to front-line workers would be there.

I think this legislation provides an important principle, and it establishes this watchdog for children. I think it's about time, and I want to commend the government for bringing this legislation forward and for appointing a children's commissioner. The new ministry has been given a chance to learn from the past and to make the necessary changes to deal with the realities of children's lives today, and the realities of many children's lives today are poverty and violence. I have a great deal of respect for the demonstrated understanding and abilities of the children's commissioner. I am pleased to support her efforts on behalf of all children at risk by supporting this bill.

K. Krueger: I think if there is any valid measure of the worth of a society or the quality of a society -- whether or not a society is civilized -- that measure would be the way a society treats its children, its aged and its ill. This is a tremendously important piece of legislation. It seems as though the area where we have the most common ground in this Legislature is in the concern that we all share for children in British Columbia, and the revulsion we all feel for the horrible things that we've heard have happened to children and that somehow continue to happen to children in B.C.

So I want to start off by really commending the government for bringing this legislation forward. There are things we'd like that have already been mentioned and that possibly the government would still consider including, one of them being that we've had a sad history -- in the Vaudreuil case, for example -- of ministries cocooning somewhat, and of the alteration of reports by individuals within ministries. People have their own motives for doing things like that.

We'd like to see the children's commissioner genuinely empowered to act as an officer of the Legislature and not have reports edited, but to bring these things forward in a rapid and efficient way so that we, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, can all deal with solutions together. As the Leader of the Official Opposition has repeatedly proffered our assistance to the Ministry for Children and Families, we express our very genuine desire to be involved in rapid solutions in the protection of the little ones of British Columbia.

[3:45]

That was a lesson to all of us, and one that our society often seems to have forgotten. In fact, our society almost seems to be waging a war on childhood innocence. It doesn't last anywhere near as long as it should, and that's a great tragedy of our times. Somehow, we need to reverse that; we need to protect children, protect their innocence and stand together, especially as Members of the Legislative Assembly, to ensure that they are protected, that they are safe. Honestly, one of the ways that I think we need to rethink government activities and government ventures -- government decisions -- is through the filter that says: "How will these activities -- this program, this means of raising revenue -- affect children in our society?"

Probably everybody on the government side is bracing themselves for what will inevitably follow from the official opposition gaming critic, but this government's massive gambling expansion in British Columbia is going to hurt children. There's no doubt about it. The literature that's available to us from all over North America demonstrates that in other jurisdictions that have gone into gambling expansion, the effect on families has been terrible. The effect on children is drastic.

That's already happening here in British Columbia. I talked to a woman just last weekend who grew up in the home of a gambling-addict father here in B.C. They never knew in their home whether or not their dad would lose the house on any given day, depending on how the cards fell for him, depending on how carried away he got. She could always tell when he'd been losing at his gambling, because he would come home and beat her and beat her mother and be abusive. Her life was a life of not just uncertainty, but of fear and dread and horror -- nothing at all like a little girl's life should be.

Somehow a decision has been made, in the face of public opinion, to throw open the gates to gambling expansion here; to expand all the operations, essentially, that have been underway in British Columbia for gambling, and to add a whole lot more; to increase the betting limits by 2,000 percent -- from $25 to $500 a bet -- so that a gambling addict could easily, in a legitimate charitable casino, lose his house in one night, apparently, with drastic consequences, of course, for his children, for his wife, for all of their hopes and dreams as a family and for all of the ways things should have been in that particular household.

This government has made a drastic mistake. Of course, it's not too late to reverse it. We haven't got any new casinos in British Columbia yet as a result of gambling expansion. I personally intend to do everything I can to ensure that we never do. The opposition stands united against gambling expansion in B.C. and the harmful effect on B.C. families.

When the spouses of pathological gamblers attempt suicide at triple the rate of women in the rest of the general 

[ Page 3964 ]

population, of course that has a terrible effect on their children. A child who loses his or her mother at any age loses far more than just a family member. He or she loses love, guidance, affection, role-modelling -- the whole vast spectrum of what a mother provides to a child and to a family. It's a terrible consequence for the child, for the family and for all of society.

Here we have an act that deals with the protection of children, brought on by a government that obviously cares about children and yet has somehow chosen to close its mind to the effects of this gambling expansion -- predictable effects, effects that were discussed by members opposite in the years when they were in opposition.

I look at the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. I've often read his words, and I know they were sincere. He didn't believe that gambling was something that fit the fabric of British Columbia's society. He didn't believe that in 1987; I'm not at all certain that he believes it now. I think that the government, in its zeal to generate revenue, has somehow pressed on in this dangerous direction without giving individual Members of the Legislative Assembly, or even cabinet ministers, the opportunity to really look at the effects on B.C. and on children. As a result, a decision has been made that is going to be very harmful.

Psychologists tell us -- and this is well documented -- that the spouses of pathological gamblers experience a strange form of reactive violence to the problem that exists within their homes, and that 37 percent of them abuse their children. That's not the gambling addicts themselves, although many of them also abuse children; it's the spouses of the gambling addicts. These are hard facts. They're documented by academics. It's nothing that I or the official opposition commissioned. Those are studies published by experts who have examined gambling expansion and what it does to societies, what it does to families and what it does to children.

The addicts themselves, of course, commit suicide at a greater rate than any other type of addict. Again, that has horrible consequences for their children, for their homes and for the future of their families. It's something that the government should have weighed carefully before it pressed on with gambling expansion, but doesn't seem to have.

On the date that the Minister of Employment and Investment made his announcement concerning his intention to press on with gambling expansion, members of the NDP caucus were interviewed going into their caucus meeting. Apparently they thought that they were going to be debating gambling expansion. Lo and behold, they emerged to find out that the minister had actually announced it already. Even cabinet ministers appeared to have been taken by surprise. We've records throughout Hansard of quotes from individuals who are in cabinet right now who clearly were, and I believe still are, opposed to gambling expansion.

As the government takes this very honourable step of bringing forward this legislation, which the official opposition surely intends to support, we want to urge the government to look through this filter at its gambling expansion plans. Think again about making a move as drastic as that. Clearly one of the highest priorities, possibly the highest priority of this government, should be and perhaps is the protection of children.

We've come a long way since the election in May 1996 toward the protection of children. We have the implementation of Mr. Justice Gove's recommendations, the creation of the Ministry for Children and Families and the extremely energetic and wonderful work of the minister responsible for that ministry. I think the accolades from both sides of the House and from outside the House have made it clear that British Columbians really value what is being done by that minister in the direction of protecting children.

But things aren't happening fast enough. We don't say that it's the fault of the minister; we want to see things happen much more quickly. We want to see children protected. We want these horrible incidents to stop. We want children in British Columbia to know that they're safe and to feel safe every hour of the day. On this side of the House we certainly don't approve and can't accept government implementing decisions, taking new steps and launching policy initiatives that we know will be harmful to children -- and gambling expansion is one of those.

When I looked at the explanatory note and listened to the Attorney General introduce this bill, it sounded to me as though the children's commissioner would have some authority, some power to review government's intentions when it considers new programs and new approaches that will affect children. I hope that it is the case.

As I read it more carefully and as I read the whole act, I didn't quite see the teeth that I initially thought were going to be there for that particular function. Certainly there's a great deal of focus on individual cases. That's good; that's needed.

But in looking at the first bulleted explanatory note, it gives the Children's Commission the following power: ". . .to monitor the development and implementation of internal review processes across ministries and agencies of government to ensure they are respectful, timely, effective, and child centred." I looked at that at first, and thought: that's it; that's the sort of responsibility that the Minister of Women's Equality spoke of frequently during her estimates. She is charged with the mandate, she said, of looking at initiatives of the government -- through what she referred to as the gender lens -- and determining whether or not those initiatives might have a harmful effect on women, which is a good thing.

It doesn't appear that she really had the opportunity to do that with regard to gambling expansion. That's something we've dealt with at some length already in this session of the Legislature and will, of course, be dealing with some more. But she has that power. I was hoping the children's commissioner might have that power, too. Broadly interpreted, perhaps that bullet does set that out.

So I looked for it in the text of the act, and I didn't see a whole lot that really fleshes out that power for the children's commissioner. In section 4(1)(h), it does say: "At the request of a minister of the government or on the commissioner's own initiative," -- which I was really pleased to see -- "conduct special investigations and prepare special reports concerning matters affecting children."

Well, that's good; gambling expansion certainly affects children. I don't see anything herein that would prevent the commissioner from reviewing gambling expansion and its devastating effect on children, even though it has already been launched. Perhaps the government would do us all the favour of actually asking the children's commissioner to do that.

Of course, section 4(1)(h) doesn't really set out what force and effect such a review by the children's commissioner would have. I suppose a report might languish on shelves throughout the Legislature or be disregarded by ministries if they felt that the decision had already been taken by someone as powerful as the Minister of Employment and Investment -- the Deputy Premier of the province. So I don't really see the 

[ Page 3965 ]

protection for children, insofar as the review of contemplated government actions and programs such as gambling expansion, that I hoped to see in this act.

I do see a lot of good things. We all meet people in our lives who, when they walk into a room, bring peace and security and a sense of calm into the room, into a situation, into a meeting, into a family. And we all, unfortunately, meet people who take those things away, people who bring the opposites of security and peace and calm into a room. Many children, unfortunately, live with the latter type of people: angry people, abusive people, people who are taking out the unhappiness in their own lives on those around them and very frequently on those who are the most defenceless -- on little children. That's something we all want to stand against, I'm sure. Any right-thinking person abhors a bully, and any right-thinking person wants to defend those who cannot defend themselves and are bullied and abused in any way. Again we commend the government for moving in this direction.

I hear about horrible circumstances from constituents who come into my constituency office. I hear of awful conflicts in relationships between former spouses and of terrible consequences to the children, who are sometimes used as weapons against an estranged partner. Of course, sometimes new partners or organizations come into the picture. I know of one example, for instance, where I'm told that the Hell's Angels organization is on the side of one of the estranged partners, and the children are living in a state of fear as a result.

Those are situations that need to be dealt with urgently, and sometimes it seems as though all of the regulations and procedures that we have in place cause children's safety to fall through the cracks. In that particular case, matters aren't moving along nearly as quickly as I believe they should be.

[4:00]

There are also general concerns within our society about children and how they are cared for. One which comes to mind that has been raised to me recently by constituents concerns children who have fetal alcohol effect or who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, and whether or not those problems are recognized properly by the education system or by a particular school district and whether or not those children receive the kind of care they should while they are children. If they don't, experts tell me that there's a strong likelihood that they'll be led astray as they become adolescents and move into early adulthood. They may well end up in lives of crime that might have been avoided if society had devoted the resources it needs to at an earlier stage of their lives.

I hope that issues such as that will also come under the purview of the Children's Commission. Once again, all of that will be of the best value to the Legislature if the children's commissioner is truly allowed to operate as an officer of the Legislature and not just a person who writes reports for ministries -- that they may or may not ignore, however inadvertently.

Special needs adopted children are another group. We have an anomaly in British Columbia where children adopted before a certain date don't receive near the level of programs and assistance from the provincial government that children adopted after that date do. Generally, I would like to see the whole issue of abuse of children of any kind -- all of these things -- come under the purview of the children's commissioner in a way that will be effective and that will oblige this Legislature to focus early attention on the concerns.

Again, we'll be referring to the details of this legislation as we work through it. Looking at section 11(1)(a), I had some concerns, in that the commissioner is plainly sidelined by situations where an internal review process of a ministry or agency is available to deal with the complaint and that process has not been exhausted. Well, what if it's been dragging on? What if it appears not to be getting the job done? I'd like to see the commissioner have some authority to impose a deadline and say: "I don't see the job getting done here, and I'm going to step in and involve myself in getting it done if the ministry hasn't accomplished its proper goal by a given date."

Every child needs a champion, and every child should have a champion -- someone who does not put up with other adults or society or the system or a ministry or a government or whomever abusing that child; someone the child knows that that child can go to and that there is going to be protection, there's going to be a champion. Certainly this is an opportunity for the provincial government to ensure that children in B.C. have a champion in the Children's Commission.

I see the commissioner, potentially, as a kind of keeper of the gate, closing the gates against those who would harm children and against errors in the structure of society that might inadvertently bring harm to children. Subsection (2) of section 11 does give the commissioner the opportunity not to pass up a complaint but to defer the investigation until the commissioner is satisfied. I think that will be helpful, but that's a concern that I had in reviewing the legislation.

There are other particulars. Any piece of legislation, I suppose, could be abused by people who are so minded, and this seems to be a rather broad "hold harmless" for persons who bring complaints which might well not be justified. I'm looking at section 27(2) when I say that, and I wonder about people who bring complaints maliciously or dishonestly. Hopefully, we'll have that concern addressed as we work through the committee stage, recognizing that the children's safety will be paramount in any complaint that looks like it has any justification whatsoever.

I've seen a number of things happen in British Columbia in recent years that clearly aren't in the best interest of children, and a number of things are contemplated that I don't think would be in the best interest of children. For example, traffic safety initiatives which were announced a couple of years ago -- and very lately some of them have been brought on stream. . . . The only one that was brought on stream relatively early was photo radar -- with some difficulties but with some positive effect, it seems, as well.

One of the issues that traffic safety initiatives were meant to address was the graduated licensing of drivers, particularly new drivers, whether they be adults or young people just reaching driver's-licence age. The program hasn't really been brought into effect let alone up to speed, and I'd like to see that happen. It's not good for young people to be licensed before they're ready or without due understanding of the potential that they could come to harm through the operation of motor vehicles. Certainly those are the types of programs that I'd like the children's commissioner to be able to have a look at and advise government on.

[ Page 3966 ]

We had a new vice-president of public affairs. . .road safety introduced to ICBC several years ago -- a sort of affirmative action hire. She announced immediately that she couldn't see the point of having traffic safety programs in elementary schools because those kids aren't drivers. She essentially yanked the programs out of schools, and that was a ridiculous mistake. She didn't understand the very successful history of traffic safety programs at ICBC and in British Columbia, and she blew it. It's very hard to ever work your way back into the education system and into the curriculum when you've been pulled out that way. That sort of decision should have been reviewed by someone like a children's commissioner before it was ever taken.

When government considers issues like no-fault car insurance or failing to balance their budgets and saddling the children -- who will be adults in the future -- with the responsibility of paying off old debt and interest that is run up on debts that were of no benefit to them, I think that that's the kind of thing that a children's commissioner might want to look at as well -- an overview of the general course of government.

As I say, the very first task I'd like a children's commissioner to be assigned to after this legislation is enacted is a review of the government's whole gambling expansion initiative. Through the estimates process, as I talk to one minister after another -- the Minister of Women's Equality, the Minister of Health, even the Attorney General himself -- I find that cabinet ministers haven't been mandated or allowed to review the whole issue of gambling expansion with regard to protection of the people under their care.

I'm going to pause for a moment, because I would like to yield to a colleague to make an introduction.

G. Plant: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to say that present in the gallery, I believe -- certainly present in the precincts today -- is a classroom from Jessie Wowk Elementary School in my riding. I believe they are accompanied by Ms. Borthwick and perhaps also Ms. Ridout. I hope that the House will make them all very welcome.

K. Krueger: I'm going to wrap up my comments urging the government to have a second look at this whole aspect of who the commissioner will report to -- whether he or she might be a full-fledged officer of the Legislature reporting directly to the Legislature, which is certainly what we'd like to see, to avoid any self-serving outcome or cocooning of ministries, where ministries might not want to act on recommendations of the commissioner. I'd like the commissioner to have that ability to take a broad look at present and contemplated government programs which will have an effect on children in British Columbia and report back to all of us -- to every member of the Legislative Assembly.

G. Wilson: In rising to speak to Bill 23, I went back and looked at the Hansard debate on a number of other bills that I've spoken to in past years that were going to provide the solution to the problems that we face with children in care, children who are suffering as a result of injuries that are effected in care. Yet we've seen a litany of examples of how the past legislation didn't work. And this legislation, which essentially is a enhancement of the past, is supposedly going to solve the problem.

I think, in speaking to the principle of this bill, that we have to understand -- and I'm sure the Attorney General does understand -- that the problem in the vast majority of cases, the systemic root cause here, is poverty. It is a question of people being poor, being unable to fare for themselves in a system and society that, once they are entrapped in that web, makes it even more difficult to ever get out. That's the root cause here.

Children, unfortunately, are the ones who suffer the most, because not only do they suffer as a result of their inability to take advantage of a moderate and certainly basic standard of living but they suffer the difficulty of a parent who is under enormous stress and tension to be able to try to provide for them. They often suffer in a broken home in which, very frequently in these cases, substance abuse is an issue. Many times, there is an extended battle between parents over custody, over placement of a child. They become pawns in a bigger fight, in a bigger war, that really has nothing to do with their welfare whatever but has a lot to do with the punishment of a former spouse.

Children are in jeopardy not because there is a lack of a commissioner. They're in jeopardy because we have developed a society and rules within that society that have become so complex, so difficult to try to wade our way through, that we have lost sight of the very basic requirement, and that is compassion -- compassion for those who live within our communities but, most of all, compassion for those who are members of our families.

In all of this legislation, in all of what we see here in terms of the entrenchment of new rules and new regulations. . . . My goodness, Bill 23 puts in place layer upon layer upon layer of new rules and new bureaucracy and new bureaucrats who are all going to come in and sort out what's in the best interest of that child -- what that child's interests and needs are best suited toward. Nowhere in here is there an examination of the existing rules, regulations and laws that would provide us an opportunity to put in place things as simple as family rights, grandparents' rights. Nowhere do we say there is an obligation on the extended family and a requirement to make the extended family more directly involved in the well-being and welfare of the child. In fact, in this province it has become more and more difficult for family members to engage themselves in the direct care of those children who are in that extended family.

[4:15]

You know, I don't want to get into a long diatribe in my comments today, but I'll tell you that I don't think the establishment of a new commission, of new guiding principles and regulations for new bureaucrats, is going to be the salvation of the children of this province. It is incumbent on every individual who lives and works in this province to look after the wellbeing 

[ Page 3967 ]

of those who cannot, for reasons beyond their control, look after their own welfare. That's everyone's obligation and our obligation under the social contract that we have in a free and democratic society.

First and foremost, it means that we have to look after the well-being of those people who are in our immediate family and our extended families. That obligation shouldn't fall to the state. It's not for the state to become parent, because the state doesn't make a very good parent, frankly; neither should it.

I question in all of this why it is that we haven't simply moved to try to put in place regulation and law that would provide us an opportunity to enact some of that which is on the books even today. You know, we had the child, youth and family advocate give us a report in which there were a number of key recommendations. I wonder how many of those key recommendations have actually been acted upon. How many have we put in place before we introduce this new, complex bureaucracy that's supposedly to look after children in B.C.? A simple one, section 9 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, in terms of its implementation with respect to children 15 to 19 years old -- is that in place today? Is it actively working today? It certainly wasn't as of mid-April or early May.

It seems to me that the government can provide all kinds of appearance of doing things but in fact not be doing much at all. If that sounds like harsh words, it's intended to try to draw attention to the fact that as legislators we simply cannot put in place any law that will provide and protect for our children unless we go to the systemic root causes -- and that is poverty. People are in poverty in this province, one of the richest in Canada, a society that has on a per capita basis one of the greatest wealth bases in the world -- yet kids are in poverty.

Children are finding themselves on the streets in greater numbers. Just walk down the streets of Victoria between where I live and where I work in this assembly. I walk that route frequently. The numbers who are sitting panhandling -- wanting dollars, wanting money -- and that are on the streets make me ask a bigger question: why are they there? What's caused our youth, our children, to be sitting on a street corner with cap in hand, some perhaps more talented with a guitar but nevertheless sitting there as I go by, saying: "Excuse me, can you spare some change? I need some food"? What's happening? Where are their families? Where are their parents? Where is the broader network of people who have an obligation to that individual?

Some may say: "Well, once they reach a certain age, they don't want that. They want to stand independently. They want to be treated independently and get on their own feet." Then implement the recommendations that were put forward with respect to section 9 and provide them that opportunity to be treated that way.

We heard in this recent federal election about youth offenders. There are those who stand up and say: "Let's lower the age to ten, and if they commit a crime, let's throw them in jail and treat them like an adult." But, you know, that's the only time we'll treat them like an adult. We won't treat them like an adult at any other time in their lives, until they've breached the law and committed a criminal offence. There's something bigger that's wrong than we can fix with this bill. It seems to me that as a society we've come to the point where we have to start to explore some other solutions to our problems.

Some time ago there was talk about the implementation of a guaranteed annual income. I think there are some issues around that that need to be addressed in a broader social debate, because as a society we have become so focused on debt and deficit reduction, so driven by the International Monetary Fund and the major chartered banks -- who are telling us what we have to do and can and can't do as a society because of the extended levels of debt that we've incurred -- that we forget that we are in charge here. We're the ones that can make those decisions and choices, not those who are external from our borders and who are telling us what we can and can't do. Yes, retiring the debt is important, and maintaining balanced budgets is important.

But this year, if it is similar to 1996, we will have raised, through corporate and individual taxes in this province, close to $42 billion. That's what we will have split in half -- half of it sent off to the feds and the other half sitting in here. Three and a half million British Columbians, $42 billion, and we've got kids in poverty. We've got children whose families can't feed them.

There's something wrong in our society, and what's wrong in our society isn't going to be fixed by Bill 23. So what is Bill 23 to do? What's its intent? Well, the Attorney General outlined it very clearly. I don't take issue with anything he said; I think that's exactly what the bill is intended to do.

Should one support it? Well, I guess one has to have some measure of putting in place some guiding principles that are going to determine how children in care are looked after and maintained. Where children in care are abused or there are problems associated with it, there have to be mechanisms for them to be looked after and dealt with. So one would say yes, you have to support this bill.

But, you know, I remember once a speech that was made by the member for Vancouver-Langara. I don't know if you'll remember this speech, but it was one of the more moving and better speeches I've heard in this chamber. It was some years ago. It dealt, essentially, with the issue of food banks and with legislation and language that was there with respect to the provision of food banks. The one thing that stuck in my head. . . . The member, as people will know, is among those who were involved in the founding of food banks. His lament was that they have become an institution now, not a solution -- an institution in which we now make provision for those people who will be locked into their services because we haven't fixed the problem. That's the same thing with this commission.

The difficulty is children in poverty. That's what we have to pay our attention to; that's what we're going to have to try and fix. We're going to have to try and find out what it is in our society, this great wealthy society that we live in, that drives people into that state of despair, keeps families involved in it and allows for that cycle of violence, poverty and despair to continue -- because it's getting worse, not better.

Perhaps those of us who are in this chamber or our friends and our immediate families may not feel that direct pain, because we do have a reasonable income, and our families may be in the upper middle class in terms of our abilities to earn. But I don't think there's any one of us in this chamber that doesn't know somebody very closely associated with or very near to us that isn't feeling that same problem. I think each of us has an obligation to go well beyond what is intended with respect to this commissioner and how this commissioner is going to replace the existing services. Each of us in our own communities and our own constituency, the constituency that elects us, have an obligation to those people who cannot, for reasons beyond their control, look after themselves. Children in need are the most vulnerable of all.

[ Page 3968 ]

Yet I can tell you that there are two other bills we'll be coming to soon that were tabled today: Bill 31 and Bill 32. They don't speak to the solution; they'll compound the problem. What we are doing is attempting to get bureaucracies and bureaucrats, rules, laws and regulations to govern that which can only be dealt with at home. We must provide the opportunities for those that are either directly in the home situation or immediately appended to them through an extended-family relationship to get involved more specifically and more directly, not only with the children but also with the parents of the children and with the safe living situation that exists there. We haven't done it. We haven't even come close to doing it, because we're not looking at the problem. We're simply trying to design a bigger band-aid to put on the wound, and it isn't going to solve our problem.

I want to conclude my comments with two specific references to this bill in terms of two of the sections. I think the resolution-of-complaints section is far too complex. There are too many levels at which this complaint is going to get encumbered. In the committee stage, I want to talk with the Attorney General, through the Chair, to sort out why it is that some of the choices that have been made in that complaint section were made. It strikes me that we couldn't design something more complex than we've designed here. It seems to me that there has to be an easier way. Given that the idea is that we want to move to a closer-to-home concept, there has to be a mechanism that would provide an opportunity far closer to the real situation than what this resolution-of-complaints process requires.

I serve notice that that is one of the areas that I think we need to take a look at. There may be very good reasons for it; I don't know. Certainly through reading that section, one really can't imagine how we could make things a little bit more complex, given the fact that we've got other agencies who are directly involved in trying to solve the same problem. It really does start to make things very complex.

The second area that I think is important with respect to this issue is the powers with respect to the commissioner. I think it was alluded to already. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson talked a little bit about the powers of the commissioner, the extent to which there is an opportunity to act within the role of the commissioner and the extent to which that opportunity is going to provide some level of security in terms of privacy of information, in some instances. In other instances, it is going to protect the right of families to be able to have a direct intervention prior to the commissioner's ruling. That's a contentious issue right now. As the Attorney General is probably well aware, there's a very active grandparents' rights association in the province right now who would like very much to be more directly involved in this kind of discussion.

So those are two areas in this bill that I think we really have to focus in on. But on the principle, I cannot stress strongly enough that the reason our children are in crisis is because of systemic poverty. As a society we're going to have to deal with that. The second reason is that our communities are building a greater level of intolerance for each other, often for people of another colour, people of other language and religion. Those divisions that are happening are happening more and more openly and more vocally, with far more damage.

In order for us to really deal with the children, we have to look at the issue of poverty. In order for us to do that, I think we have to act with a good deal more compassion than we have done in the past.

[4:30]

I think that this act, the Children's Commission Act, responds to one of Judge Gove's recommendations, but it falls a bit short of what he had envisioned. I have three areas of concern with the act. One of those is the reporting authority; secondly, the increased bureaucracy; and thirdly, the potential regional inequities.

I support the establishment of a Children's Commission, but the act must be improved to truly reflect Judge Gove's recommendations. I think we heard a moving speech from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about how he feels or what he thinks some of our problems are with children and with our families and those types of things.

I've often commented that one of the biggest problems in this great country of ours is the breakup of the family. I don't think there's an easy solution, nor should there be, to a very complex problem that all of us have to face in this great country of ours. I listened intently and agree quite wholeheartedly that poverty is much of the problem that we face in a country as wealthy as Canada.

But it's not just a poverty issue, and I need not embellish that. I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast brought that out clearly. There is a responsibility that goes along with all of us and many of those out there. The member talked about seeing many children on the street. There is a responsibility that goes back to the parents or to the grandparents, to the aunts, to the uncles, whomever -- friends, neighbours -- to try to work with those young people.

I think what we find in the society we have today -- what we've moved away from so much from what I grew up in -- is that family is no longer close. I can relate that to my own individual life. Living in the north, my two children never got to know their grandparents, because they lived a thousand miles away. It's difficult to get to know your grandparents; it's difficult to get to know your aunts and uncles. In fact, I've lost contact with many of them -- cousins, those kinds of things.

There is a responsibility, I think, for each and every one of us -- British Columbians, Canadians as a whole -- to look a little more closely at how we have to intertwine, interknit with one another, so that we can have a better society. I think poverty and responsibility are two very important parts of it. Responsibility goes to those who think that they can have families, leave those families and not have any responsibility. Unfortunately, that's got nothing to do with poverty, in many cases. It's got a lot to do with being too affluent and thinking that the state can just. . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I'm saying something that's funny over there, I don't think I am. I think there are some real responsibilities for those in society who think they can do those kind of things and clearly walk away from their responsibilities.

Having said that, I'm going to touch briefly on the three points that I have some concerns with. The first is the reporting authority. I believe that the commissioner should be an officer of the Legislature, so that that commissioner would report directly to the Legislature regardless of what political party is in power or who is in opposition. That shouldn't matter. This kind of issue should transcend political lines.

[ Page 3969 ]

Unfortunately, under this act the commissioner reports directly to the Attorney General. I'm not saying that the Attorney General of the day doesn't have the compassion or the understanding to deal with it. I'm certainly not trying to indicate that at all. What I am saying is that if the commissioner did report directly to the whole House, then we could work together -- all parties. It has been offered by all parties -- the opposition parties specifically -- to work on these issues collectively with the government to see if we can't get to some kind of resolution to deal with these issues.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Society tries to write up legislation that we think can fix every problem that there is in society, and in many cases it makes it worse. I think of a grandparent in my constituency that's been trying to get access to a grandchild for two years, and because of. . .not this bill, but many like it, cannot. Here we stand and talk about family getting together and trying to deal with these issues, yet we seem to be more divisive and drive apart families that need some help to get together.

I certainly am not going to stand here and say that I have any magic way of doing that; I don't. So all I can do is comment on what I see in here that I think may be detrimental to children and families in the future. I think that if we all work together, collectively -- opposition and government -- on issues such as this bill before they come before the House, we may be able to come forward with something that may be a lot more acceptable to a whole different cross-section of people in British Columbia. I think that's where we have to get to.

Secondly, the increased bureaucracy. I think we as MLAs know how difficult it can be to get through the bureaucracy. It's not that those people aren't good people; they're doing their job, and all of them are doing their best. But what happens is that each one has a certain set of rules or regulations that they have to follow, and it goes on and on and on.

The person out on the street who needs help and wants to access this doesn't understand how many different levels you have to go through, how many different kinds of people you have to talk to, how often you have to talk to them, how many days and how you appeal. In a lot of cases it's not because they're not well educated; it's just that they don't deal with this stuff in their average daily life like we do. We find it difficult, so it's no wonder that people out there who are trying to solve problems within their families have some difficulties.

I think the state does cause a fair amount of difficulty, even though the state is trying to rectify some of the problems. Judge Gove commented in his report that the act may follow and increase bureaucracy, which may hinder and complicate the commissioner's work. He said that in his report. Let's keep it as simple as we can and try to get to the end as best we can.

The third one is regional issues. Again, I speak as a member from a rural constituency. How we deal with issues in rural B.C. . . . I think back to a while ago when the Minister for Children and Families commissioned a study on foster homes. I commend the minister for it, and I did at the time. She has rectified this, but how it started was that we were going to do it all in Victoria -- all the case studies were going to be in Victoria. Now, it was understandable why it would originate here. What wasn't understandable to a member from rural B.C. was that in an area where there are the best health services, the best social services. . . . It's the best of everything; everything you want is at your fingertips just a short walk away from here. And that's where we're going to do our study.

I gave credit to the minister when I spoke to her. She said: "Yeah, you're right, we will look at rural, and we will go to the northeast and do a study there." So I'm thankful for that, but what I see here is dominated again. . . . I guess probably the greater number of problems are on the lower mainland -- maybe, I'm not sure -- when you look at it. But I think there are certain problems that happen with children and families in rural British Columbia, and how we deal with these issues is totally different from the way we would deal with them in downtown Victoria, downtown Vancouver or downtown Kamloops.

It's just something that I think we have to look at. In fact, I would hope that the commissioner would travel to the Peace; I would hope that the minister in charge, the Attorney General, would ask the commissioner to travel to the Peace and see it firsthand. I was just in Fort Nelson, talking to people there about child development centres and the difficulty they're having with someone coming through once every three months to check in and see what's going on. By that time the problem has already exacerbated itself so much that you can't deal with it anymore. I've spoken about our court system, our travelling court system and our probation system. All of that in the rural part of British Columbia is woefully inadequate, and I can't see this being any different. So I have some real problems with that.

Hon. Speaker, with those remarks, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill, where we can maybe research and go into some of these areas a little bit more -- the three areas of concern that I have brought up -- and the minister will be able to answer or help me out as to how we can deal with those issues in rural British Columbia. With that, I will take my place.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Attorney General, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, much has been said, and I have made the initial remarks. Therefore I will not waste any more time, other than simply to say that this is obviously a very serious issue. In some ways I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast hit the nail right on its head when he said that there are other things that we have to do so that we don't have to have legislation like this. Unfortunately, the fact is that we need legislation like this while we continue to try and do as much as we can to prevent this legislation from having to be used.

The member for Peace River North, who just finished speaking, indicated that the establishment of the commission, with the seat of the commission being in Victoria, may have some different regional impacts. Obviously it's important for us to keep those issues in mind, and we will. This is an issue regarding the independence of the Children's Commission and where the reporting should be. I think that that issue was dealt with in the estimates debate, and we'll deal with it now.

With that, I conclude my remarks and move that we read the bill a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 23, Children's Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 3970 ]

CHILDREN'S COMMISSION ACT

On section 1.

G. Wilson: The definitions section obviously is usually fairly important but also is often very straightforward.

I have a couple of questions. The first is with respect to the definition of "child," meaning a person under the age of 19, although I notice in reading the legislation that in fact that can be varied. I wonder if that's a general guideline unless otherwise amended by the act, or. . . . In the case of somebody who's incapacitated, for example, I understand that the age of 19 does not apply. Am I wrong? Because it would seem to me that's what the act says.

[4:45]

G. Wilson: I'll pick up my particular question when we get to that one section where it seems a little ambiguous.

The second question I have is with respect to the "continuing custody" definition. Could the minister explain: ". . .(a) an order under the Child, Family and Community Service Act placing a child in the continuing custody of the director, or (b) a permanent order made under the Family and Child Service Act"? I'm assuming that this does not apply, then, to a first-time order. Are we dealing with a situation where a person is in continuing care at that point? We're not dealing with somebody who's under apprehension, who's just simply been apprehended. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct.

G. Wilson: With respect to "guardian," I'm assuming that this means the legal guardian and not the person who is essentially providing care, necessarily, for the child. Under many court orders, custody and guardianship are defined specifically; in some they are not. It may be that a child can in fact be under the "guardianship" of an individual even though that individual may not be deemed the legal guardian. I wonder if that's made clear here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It means the legal guardian of the person.

V. Anderson: The simplicity of this act in being able to be used by the community. . . . I didn't get a chance, once I realized what it was there. . . . I would like "child in care" to read, "means a child who is in the custody, care or guardianship of a director or the director of adoption," instead of, "has the same meaning as in the Child, Family and Community Service Act" -- which means that you have to have two acts. Not everybody carries around two acts. So you get this act in order that you can deal with it, and then you have to go and get a copy of another act.

What I'm suggesting is that child in care include the same definition, which is the one I read, which is in the Child, Family and Community Service Act: instead of referring to it, we actually put the words in. So I'd like to move -- if it's in order -- an amendment that we use the wording out of the Child, Family and Community Service Act so that it's simple for the community to read it when they get this act.

The Chair: Hon. member, you've moved an amendment. It seems to be in order. Do you wish to speak to it?

V. Anderson: No. I've spoken to it already. I moved it.

On the amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On the face of it the suggestion from the hon. member has some merit. But it is a drafting convention to refer to a definition in another piece of legislation which has a direct connection to this legislation, so that someone dealing with this legislation knows that it should be married to the legislation that is mentioned in this definition. That way, in a sense, it makes it easier for people to relate two pieces of legislation, whereas otherwise one would have to look at both pieces of legislation to determine whether or not child in care means the same thing.

V. Anderson: I think the minister's explanation proved my point that you have to have both pieces of legislation in order to deal with and understand this legislation. What I'm trying to say is instead of saying "child in care" and referring the definition to the other legislation, the definition should be there. It would be in front of you. When I go to a dictionary to look for a definition, it doesn't refer me to another dictionary; I don't have to refer to another book, another dictionary, to get the definition. It should be there.

In our office, for instance, when people ask for an act, if they get the act and then they've got to go back and get another act. . . . This doesn't make any sense in the community. We talk about writing acts in plain English. If we have a definition, a definition is not to refer us someplace else; it's to say what the definition is. You may want, at the end of that, to give the definition and indicate that it's the same as in the other act. I have no problem with saying it's the same as in the other act. It's a moot point, but I think it's important to have it here, because you can't understand this act without that definition. It's very important.

Hon. Chair, the definition that I read is simply the one that's there: " 'child in care' means a child who is in the custody, care or guardianship of a director or the director of adoption." All I'm suggesting is that that definition should be here where it says "child in care." If you want to say at the end, "as in the Child, Family and Community Service Act," I'd be quite happy with that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said, while the hon. member's amendment has merit on the face on it, it does cause problems, because it would simply mean repeating the definition; whereas you also have to tie in the two pieces of legislation. One does not work without the other. Those who are going to work with this legislation would know what the definition is in the other legislation. The other legislation would be the most-often-used piece of legislation. In fact, the Children's Commission Act will rarely be used by ordinary individuals; it would be the other piece of legislation. This would be used by those who are then dealing with complaints to the commission.

Amendment negatived.

V. Anderson: I raise the same question with regard to "parent"; it says it "has the same meaning as in the Child, 

[ Page 3971 ]

Family and Community Service Act." Again, if you're trying to work through this act, it needs to have that definition there. If you're at all trying to deal with the public, and if the minister is indicating that it's only for a few bureaucrats that we're writing this legislation, then I think we're wasting our time. I thought we were writing legislation for the people in the community, so that the people in the community could use it. If parents pick up this act and try to deal with it, the act doesn't tell them what "parent" means. It says you refer to another forum to get that definition, and I think that's just not plain English; it's not plain writing. It's just not coordinating activities in the way that the ministry has said that it should. It goes to a lot of effort. They've even hired. . .to have plain-English material, and they've redone the estimates in plain English in a whole variety of areas. And then, in something as simple as a definition, to say it's irrelevant and that only the people who use the act would understand it, is a poor answer.

I would make the amendment, but I'd waste my time, because the minister has already indicated that he won't make the changes. So there's no point in trying to deal with it in that sense. The minister is shaking his head and nodding that he agrees with me, that he won't change it. But I do want to protest, and I want to protest fairly strongly. Because this is an important issue, and it will come up in acts. The definition of parent has hung up many people using the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

There are cross-references in that act which are also cross-references in this act. These are fundamentally important and have implications in court cases; they have made a difference as to how court cases have gone. I think, therefore, it's important that that should have been upfront. When it's not upfront, it concerns me. So I would just protest strongly that these definitions aren't in the interpretation section.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I appreciate the sentiments that the hon. member expresses, but if we followed that logic we would have to, in fact, add many things to this piece of legislation. For instance, the next thing, "rights," means the rights given to children in care by section 70 of the Child, Family and Community Services Act. We would have to re-enumerate those rights in this definition, if one follows that logic, and there are many other places where that legislation is mentioned. These two pieces of legislation are going to work together. Those people who are going to need to work with one piece of legislation are going to need the other piece of legislation in their hands, whether they be laypersons or professionals. It is plain English; however, the statutory relationship has to be made clear. We're simply following the drafting conventions and what's required.

[5:00]

The rights of the child which come into play when they're under care. Are those rights and the rest of the aspects of the act in play in that week or two weeks, or whatever it may be, from the point of the time of the custody to the time of a hearing and a court designation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Children, either in temporary or permanent custody, have those rights accessible to them. During the period that the hon. member refers to, from the moment of apprehension -- if I can use that term -- to the moment the child is presented to the court, those rights come into play, as well.

P. Calendino: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

P. Calendino: In the gallery this afternoon, we have about 40 very bright honours students from the best school in the province, Burnaby North Secondary School. They're here with their teacher, Ms. Vukosavic, and some parent volunteers. I would like the House to make them welcome.

V. Anderson: This section on continuing custody is very significant, because it indicates the dividing line of those to whom the commission and commissioner are responsible. I wanted to follow it up one step further. If a child is in their family. . . . And let me use an illustration in this regard; her name is Jane. If Jane is having trouble in her family, she would not be able to refer to the commissioner, because she has not been "taken into care." But she would refer to the child advocate, who is responsible for children who have not yet been taken into care. The distinction I am trying to make is: are the commissioner and commission responsible for all the children of the province or only for a certain number of children who have been designated under certain ministries that are responsible for those children? That's a major distinction in the authority and the area of responsibility of the commissioner and commission.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the complaints aspect of the commission's responsibility, any child in the province would have access to the commission to make a complaint with respect to a designated service. With respect to other issues such as fatalities and critical injuries, the commission has a much wider mandate and can examine matters with respect to any child in the province.

V. Anderson: I'm trying to get at the distinction, then. If the child, Jane, has a concern and is looking for some help, why would Jane refer to the child, youth and family advocate rather than to the commissioner? What would be the distinction between these two roles of referring to the child, youth and family advocate for assistance or referring to the commissioner, or do you refer to both? Or if you refer to the child, youth and family advocate, does it automatically become the responsibility of the commissioner to see how that's dealt with, and vice versa? I'm trying to make the distinction between these two persons.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In many instances the child could in fact go to either or both of the bodies: the advocate or the commissioner. But the commissioner has an investigating and decision-making function, while the child advocate simply has an advocating function. There is a distinction, obviously.

V. Anderson: To follow up that distinction -- which seems fairly important to me -- if Jane went to the advocate, all the advocate could do would be to recommend to somebody that somebody do something; the advocate couldn't do anything on her behalf. If she went to the commissioner, the commissioner could make a decision about what she could do. Now, is the commissioner there to deal with the issues of children, or is the commissioner there to review decisions that have been made by somebody else?

[ Page 3972 ]

I understand the commissioner is there to review deaths, to review critical incidents -- the commissioner is there for those purposes -- or to review whether actions taken by somebody else in the government ministries are appropriate. I don't understand that the commissioner is there to take action that is under the authority of other people. There's an important clarification in what the duties of the commissioner are here. Or can the commissioner do anything she wants -- since it happens to be a she at the moment -- about any issue and make decisions on every issue? Or is she only dealing with deaths and critical incidents and whether or not a process or standard is operating properly?

I thought the commissioner was a watchdog in a review process, not an initial-decision-making person. I'm trying to get a clarification here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the commission will not substitute itself for the ministry. The commission will review the decisions of the ministry and make recommendations to the ministry as to what should or should not be done in a particular case. If the hon. member looks further down, to section 16(3), some of these issues will become clearer. I think we'll come to these issues.

V. Anderson: I just want to clarify if, as far as being able to make decisions, the commissioner can only make decisions once there is a custody order or some formal order in place or some formal action by the ministry. If somebody in the ministry has apprehended a child, then at that point the commissioner. . . . Somebody in the government has to do something before the commissioner becomes active in making decisions. Prior to that, the commissioner is able only to refer to the relevant authority. Am I right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commission's mandate is much wider than the hon. member perceives it to be. The commission can make decisions with respect to children that are in care, children that are being apprehended, children with respect to whom the ministry has taken certain actions and made certain decisions, or children with respect to whom the ministry may be guilty of omissions -- in fact, no action; a lack of action. I think it has a much wider mandate. As we go through the sections, that will become clearer.

V. Anderson: This is helpful, but I think this definition is important. It will become clear later on, I hope, but it's important, because I see the minister indicating a far broader focus and purpose for this commission than was envisioned, as I understand it, in the Gove report. I'm not saying this is wrong at this point; what I'm saying is that it's far broader, because what this. . . . According to the minister's words, the commissioner is now not only a watchdog for the things that the government does with respect to children -- and that's any aspect of government -- but is also a watchdog for and takes initiative on any aspect that the government fails to do or doesn't initiate with regard to children. That sure broadens the area quite a bit.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Once the service is designated -- once it becomes a designated service -- the hon. member is correct: the commissioner can make decisions and recommendations.

Maybe we should move on. That is the commissioner's mandate in section 4 of the legislation. Then we can talk about that.

M. Coell: Just a couple of short questions before we move on. In Bill 23, the definition of child is "a person under 19 years of age." In the act itself, a child is defined as "a person under 19 years of age and includes a youth." Why is there a change there between those two definitions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, youth have a certain set of rights. There's a special provision of certain rights for them in that legislation; that's why they are mentioned separately in that definition. But under this legislation before the House now, all children have the same rights with respect to the commission's mandate.

[5:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Under Bill 23, all children would have the rights given to them either under this legislation or in the CFCSA -- if that's the correct acronym. For instance, in Bill 46, which is the Child, Family and Community Service Act, if you look at section 9, it talks about what youth could do -- for instance, enter into agreements because they're over the age of 12. Children under 12 can't do that. So it provides them certain special rights that younger children don't have.

With respect to our legislation, we treat all children the same. However, when you then refer back to the CFCSA legislation, you will then treat them accordingly. With respect to the children between 12 and 19, if they have the right to enter into agreements, that would obviously be preserved under the commission's legislation and respected and dealt with.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. McKinnon: Could the minister explain how many deputy commissioners the commissioner expects to have. It uses "deputy commissioners" in the plural. How many deputy ministers will she have? What is the reason for having a number of them, if there's a large number of deputy ministers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: At this time the intention is to have one or two deputy commissioners and no more. There is a total staff of 25 within that office, including the commissioner herself, and you need individuals to delegate authority to, to do the work.

B. McKinnon: Also in this section, the term for the current children's commissioner will be moved up to six years rather than three once this bill is passed. When will that term actually begin? Did it begin back when she first became commissioner, or does the six years begin once the bill is passed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commissioner will have to be reappointed under this legislation once it becomes law.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister tell me why the six years? Is that so it runs in tandem with the other appointments that are done for officers of the Legislature?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. It is to give, in fact, the commissioner that kind of stature and security, so that there is both the perception and the reality of independence in that office.

[ Page 3973 ]

V. Anderson: The discussion that has been raised by a number of people is about the reason why the commissioner is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and then as part of the Attorney General's ministry, rather than being a person that's elected as are other officers of the Legislature. Can you give us the reason why the person is appointed at this point under that designation rather than being elected as an officer of the Legislature?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We had an interesting debate around this issue as part of the estimates, and I can tell you again that I think that there is a myth out there that you cannot have independence without having an officer of the Legislature. When we make that argument, we tend to ignore all of the other officers that are appointed by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and do wonderful jobs for British Columbians in many aspects of our lives.

I'll give you just one example: for instance, the Human Rights Tribunal makes decisions that are very, very important to the lives of all British Columbians. They are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The chief commissioner of the Human Rights Tribunal is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. No one would ever say that they are not independent.

So I think it's important for us as legislators to take a reality check and decide whether we want to continue to proliferate officers of the Legislature. At the end of the day, they are accountable to the Legislature, but I am much more accountable to the Legislature because I sit here day in and day out and you can ask me questions.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: And you get the answers.

So I think it's important. And that's not to say that they are not accountable, but in reality, if one really looks at this issue, I would say to you that they are seen to be much more independent. They are just as independent as the commissioner would be under this legislation, and they perhaps have higher stature in the eyes of the public because they are officers of the Legislature. But I would say -- and that's not to criticize the officers of the Legislature, for all of whom I have a lot of respect -- that they are less accountable in real terms to the Legislature than would be the independent commissioner who would be reporting to the Attorney General, because the Attorney General would be accountable to the Legislature day in and day out, in a much more direct fashion.

I think that at some point all of us have to begin to say that yes, there are individuals in British Columbia -- yes, there are people in British Columbia -- that do their job with integrity, with independence, under the legislation that gives them those powers. I think that we need to start looking at these kinds of issues in that light, and I believe that this office would be completely independent in its operational functions and as to how and why and when it does the things that it is supposed to do.

B. McKinnon: Listening to what the minister just said, then, if he believes all those things that he actually just said, what is it that is so difficult about making the children's commissioner independent? In Judge Gove's report, he specifically asked for the children's commissioner to be independent. He specifically said that one of the reasons that the children's commissioner should be independent is that if the Minister for Children and Families didn't do what it said it was going to do, the children's commissioner would have the ability to go public and to criticize the ministry if need be. And I think this is one of the important things you are missing in this. The opposition very strongly feels that the children's commissioner should be independent. In Matthew Vaudreuil's death we saw that there was cover-up by workers, and we fear that the same thing could happen. I'm not suggesting that it would, but it could happen. And if we have an independent children's commissioner, I think we would all feel better about it. If you feel the way you said you felt, what is the difficulty in making the commissioner independent?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Just the other day, I believe, the commissioner submitted reports on 16 children, and several recommendations are quite critical of the Ministry of Attorney General. And I'm quite happy about that. I mean, that simply goes to show that this office would function -- and the legislation gives the individual the powers to function -- in an independent fashion. As I have said before, it's a decision that has been made.

I understand that Judge Gove indicated he'd be quite happy with an appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but one reporting to a ministry that was not dealing with children directly -- the Ministry for Children and Families. I am told that after the release he was asked a question in a press conference and indicated that that would be fine too. I don't want to misquote him. I don't believe that Judge Gove is wedded to the idea of independence by way of being an officer of the Legislature; Judge Gove is wedded to the idea of independence.

I'm quite certain, given the legislative framework we're establishing for this office, that there is independence and integrity in this office.

B. McKinnon: I think that Judge Gove, as I read in his executive summary just last night, was very clear on the independence of the children's commissioner. I find it very difficult to understand. When you argue about the commissioner's independence, why do you feel that her reporting to the Legislature as a whole, rather than, say, to your department. . . ? When you get the information, the information then goes to Children and Families. Then, when you're ready to release it to the rest of us, we get it. We do not all get the information at the very same time. So I say to you I am still not convinced that the commissioner should not be independent.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously that's a difference of opinion, and I'm not going to persuade you. I have indicated to you that Judge Gove was of the view that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment, made with a legislated framework that guaranteed independence, was sufficient. I understand that he indicated that in a letter to the Premier. I am told that; I haven't seen the letter myself.

With that, I think I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[ Page 3974 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the House do now rise and stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:30 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)

J. Weisgerber: I want to raise a number of Peace region issues today, particularly related to the grain industry.

As the minister is well aware, we had the wettest fall in history last year. About 65 percent of the crops remained in the fields over winter; those that were harvested were harvested on incredibly wet field. That resulted in a lot of soil damage which needs to be repaired before a crop can be planted again. The loss to farmers and to the community is in the tens of millions of dollars. The value of the crops left in the field was estimated in the area of $45 million -- a significant part of the community's income.

[2:45]

I was quite forthright in my assessment of that at the time the offer was made, and there's been nothing that's happened since then that would change my mind. About six weeks ago I had the opportunity to sit in the minister's office with a number of officials to discuss the possibility of a spring that was not conducive to an early harvest and to replanting of fields harvested. It was suggested at that time that I was being pessimistic.

My pessimism was not misplaced. The wettest fall in history has been followed by an incredibly wet, late, cold spring. Most of the grain remains unharvested; most of the fields remain unplanted. So the $45 million loss that we saw last year is going to be further compounded this year because, in fact, the grain hasn't been harvested in many cases. The grain that was harvested was harvested too late for farmers to be able to replant their crops, and in many cases even fields that were harvested last year have ruts left in them and have been too wet to allow for any cultivation, never mind planting of spring crops.

So having kind of laid out the situation as I believe it is today -- and I haven't for a moment exaggerated the situation; the situation is at least as bad as I've described it over the last couple of minutes -- I would like to start discussions around the ministry's response to this situation by hearing from the minister his analysis of the situation, his understanding of the crisis that exists in the grain community in the Peace, perhaps to hear from the minister what response he sees the ministry making in light of the very unsatisfactory results of this very cold, wet spring.

The very pessimistic "what if" that I laid out in his office six weeks ago has indeed happened. Where do we go from here? I was told six weeks ago: "Let's wait and see; maybe we'll get a warm, hot, dry spring, and all the crops will come off and be replanted." Well, it hasn't happened, so I now look to the minister for a response to the "what if" question.

Hon. C. Evans: Firstly, just sort of for the record, I think it's true what the hon. member says. Somebody might have said his view is pessimistic, but he knows it wasn't me. I didn't say it and didn't suggest that it was. I just thought, in case this turned out to be a mailer, I'd make that point.

Secondly, the reason why the hon. member had a meeting in my office -- and we've talked both here and in the Peace in the last year -- is because we have been attempting, I think, to address this issue with some coordination between representatives of the area and this ministry.

The hon. member asks for the minister's view of the situation and for my response. Firstly, the view of the situation is largely as the member describes it, although somewhat worse in two respects. Last year, for the first time in a long time, both prices and soil conditions in the spring were suggestive of a bumper crop saleable at a price that would make money. That led many people who had seen drought conditions and low prices in recent years -- in fact for a long time -- to make a business plan for last year that suggested that they seed and fertilize, with heavy input costs, in the hope of recouping some losses that they had experienced earlier in this decade. It was a logical assumption and led lots of people to acquire credit for those input costs, which is rumoured to be payable at the time of harvest or to be contracted at 30 percent interest in case of failure to pay it at the time of harvest.

The weather then deteriorated -- and here it's sort of hard to describe, because we're not there and it's hard to imagine. It deteriorated in such a way that, while the crop did in fact mature, ground conditions made it impossible to harvest the crop without destroying the land or destroying the machinery. In order to make that point, growers there supplied me with a video to show me what working the mud looked like, but they also took me to see brand-new machinery -- machinery that ought to have lasted ten years -- partially wrecked within a season in an attempt to remove a crop from land too soggy to work.

Now, the necessity to remove the crop was because so much was riding on it. That's in terms of people's ability to make the kind of investments that they'd had to make for the future and also because of the kinds of investments they had made, either in machinery or input costs, based on the crop.

The adequacy of the government's response is hard to measure. There's an irony going on here, I think, in that it appeared to me that people who voted for the hon. member in the Peace tended to think that the government's response was reasonable, and people who voted for me in the Peace tended to think that government's response was totally inadequate. I think both things are true.

If you interpret the government's appropriate response as being the state intervening to assist a region in time of disaster 

[ Page 3975 ]

and make them whole, then the government's response was wholly inadequate. If you assume that the correct government response is to be an agent of change -- to attempt to assist people to make different decisions in future, more appropriate to the market or to the weather conditions or to their own decisions -- then the government response was appropriate and maybe even creative. I tend to be of the former camp, and yet I am minister in an era when the latter decision is more appropriate to the fiscal situation that government experiences.

Also, as the hon. member knows, I am minister at a time when the response in the Peace is actually pretty much in keeping with our response around the province to similar issues in this fiscal year. I would cite greenhouses on Vancouver Island, floods in Creston in my own constituency, the crash of the biggest potato grower in the interior in my own constituency -- all due to outrageous weather conditions, and all situations in which the government has been unable to respond in the traditional government way of making the farm community whole again.

In terms of the hon. member's question about what we do with this spring situation, given that his pessimism may in fact come true -- farmers may not be able to harvest last year's crop. . . . Firstly, as the member knows, we did not go to the Peace with our $1.2 million in isolation; we went to the Peace to encourage federal and municipal governments to work with us within the context of their fiscal ability and their responsibility to contribute, as well. That resulted in the federal government deciding to make arrangements for unharvested grain last fall. It also meant that the federal government operated other programs with which it is involved in a way, to attempt to respond to the crisis. I actually think that, in the main -- at least until recent months, when the federal government began to run for office rather than govern -- last fall the federal government did as well as they could at assisting. The net result was that a good deal of money was pumped into the Peace at a time of travail.

I should back up and say that we had quite an intense meeting -- the kind that you don't have in Victoria but you do have in a rural hall somewhere -- in a college in the Peace, largely on the issue of crop insurance. The government, of course, provides crop insurance in order to allow farmers to make a business decision to insure against situations exactly like this. So when I sat up and said, "We provide crop insurance," the farm community was articulate in saying to me: "Yes, you provide crop insurance, and the nature of that insurance is actually so lousy that only about 3 percent of us buy it." Is that right -- 3 percent? No, 30 percent buy it.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: That's right. That's why I'm not the Minister of Finance. At least, I have the sense to ask, however.

So we put a whole bunch of energy, between last fall and this spring, into trying to fix what the farmers told me was broken, resulting in a situation where this year more than twice the number of grain farmers are buying crop insurance. We also expect that last year's program may very well pay out $3.5 million against last year's crop.

[3:00]

That's a long answer, because I actually think that we made a fairly complex response. But if the question inherently is, "How come you didn't come forward with $45 million -- or some substantial part of $45 million -- to make the people whole?" there's a very short answer, which is that government doesn't have $45 million. As inadequate as that may sound here, in the hall in the Peace there wasn't a soul there who would have doubted that government didn't have $45 million. In fact, I would suggest that while the people there were really articulate in their desire to say to me, "We need the money," they were more articulate than anyone who works here at saying: "We also know you don't have it."

J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me assure the minister that I'm far more interested in finding a resolution to the difficulties of the farmers and the difficulties faced by the Peace River community than I am in developing a mailer. So my purpose in coming here is entirely focused on the needs of the people that I represent. Whether they voted for me or didn't vote for me makes not a whit of difference to me after the election. So when farmers who are known supporters of mine come and take one point of view and those who voted for the party which you represent take another, I feel obliged to represent the interests of farmers generally, and I genuinely try not to differentiate between those.

We're going to talk about this for a little while, I think, and I don't want to spend a lot of time dwelling on last year. I think that the response from government was inappropriate, and we disagree with that. The question that is front and centre with me now is that we are at the sixth day of June. The crops mostly have not been planted. Twenty percent of the crops have been planted at a date when most farmers believe they've reached the cutoff for all except possibly canola or grain feed. So the possibilities that were discussed in your office have in fact come to happen. So now the question is. . . . Rather than wait until this fall or next spring when the crunch will hit, I'm suggesting -- and I want to do it in an open and amicable way if we can -- that we say that the problem we saw last year is going to be exacerbated by the time farmers are faced with planting a crop in 1998.

If only 20 percent of the crops are planted, regardless of how good the crops are or how good the prices are this year, most farmers are going to be facing a far more difficult situation in terms of cash flow and the ability to plant a crop next year.

I'm now trying to move forward, to think about the issues that happen next year, and I know from my years around here that if we don't start moving in that direction today, the answer will be precisely the same as it was last year: "Well, there's nothing in the budget for it." I'm suggesting to the minister that there is a problem now. That's not a speculation as to whether there's going to be a financial crisis in the Peace, whether or not that's going to occur. With the loss of last year's crop, in large measure, and the fact that crops have not been planted in any significant way, it suggests to me that that's already occurred.

The minister suggests that he sees the new role of government as being an agent of change, and I have some sympathy 

[ Page 3976 ]

with that approach. But when the minister was in the Peace, one of the things he did was go to meet with the group organized during the 1992 drought crisis -- the PRASPS organization -- to tell them that there was no more funding for them. So these agents of change don't seem to have the kind of horizon or the kind of vision that perhaps one would look for in an administration that was seeking to fundamentally change the direction. There's no doubt that the money -- the $1.2 million that I referred to earlier -- will very likely be used in large measure for field trials, variety trials, etc. That's a useful enterprise and no doubt a productive enterprise, but that's not going to be an agent of significant change; that's not going to change the face of farming. It may change the variety of wheat or oats or barley or canola that a farmer chooses to plant, but I suspect that's a bit less dramatic than what is perhaps envisioned in making change.

The minister cited a number of examples of crises in other areas of the province -- other industries and other sectors. Let me say for the record that the government's response to Evans Forest Products was quite dramatically different than the government's response to the farmers in the Peace. If the minister wants to argue with that, I'd be happy to listen to the argument. But I'll tell you, I believe -- and all of those very sober, wise farmers that he met with at the college believe -- that the government had a far different set of standards for the people of Golden and Evans Forest Products than they had for their industry. If you want to dispute that, fine.

For the greenhouses, for the flooding, at least there's a provincial emergency program. Again, perhaps the response was inadequate. But I'll tell you, I think the response in terms of dollars in the pocket for losses suffered was significantly more in each of the examples that the minister used compared to the example of a farmer in the Peace country.

Again, I want to underline that I think the second shoe has fallen. When we met with the farmers at the college, one of the things that we both came away with was the fact that most farmers said: "I'm okay this year. I'm going to make it. I'm going to be able to get myself through this fall '96 crisis." And that was an observation that anyone would make. I would suggest to you that those same folks are going to find it much, much more difficult to sustain two years in a row, either with crops left in the field or significant acreages unplanted.

Finally, before I look to the minister for a response, I think that while officials in the area and perhaps officials within the ministry recognize. . . . The Peace and this issue are not homogenous. It's not 20 percent of the crops in every community and in every section of land that remains unharvested. It's not only 20 percent of the crops across the Peace that are planted. There are areas -- north Rolla, Doe River -- where the crops were harvested and in large measure replanted. There were other areas to the west of Dawson Creek -- Sunrise Valley, Sunset Prairie, Groundbirch -- where almost no crop was harvested last year and almost no crop will be planted this year.

It's a disservice to the people, the individual farm families, to think that you can simply statistically line these things out and say: "Gosh, they got half their crop off. They've managed to get 20 or 30 percent of their acreages planted again. They're going to be eating hamburger instead of steak this winter, but they're all going to make it through." That's just not the way that weather patterns and soil conditions in the Peace have caused the hurt to be distributed. It's not evenly distributed across the region. There are communities in the area that have been incredibly seriously hit, and there are others that have suffered hurt, but to a far lesser degree.

So I do believe that something more than a contribution to diversification will be required before the 1998 crops are planted again if we are going to see a farm grain industry in the Peace that continues to have the kind of strength that it has exhibited over the last 40 or 50 years. This is a once-in-50-years occurrence at the very best.

Hon. C. Evans: First I'll respond to the question about PRASPS. The member is correct that there was $100,000 left in PRASPS to spend and that the government took the money back. Government does that. I've observed that government does that a lot. That's the exact reason why it seemed to me that the $1.2 million in actual money that people could put in the bank and draw down on their own, and that the people controlled so government couldn't fail to deliver it, or change its mind, or run upon hard times, was probably ten times more valuable than the annual budgetary promise that PRASPS represented. In fact, I kind of figured, since the PRASPS decision was made before the $1.2 million, that the $1.2 million was an effort to address precisely that anomaly -- that unfortunate anomaly.

Now, the second issue is: what are we going to do about the land that doesn't get planted? Well, 70 percent of the farmers have actually applied for crop insurance, and it's my understanding that crop insurance will pay out -- in the case of the disaster that the member described -- $20 an acre for land unplanted, if the land is unplanted because of the inability to get on the land. I don't really want to suggest that that's a panacea either, although it does recognize that the function of crop insurance is to allow people to make business decisions to protect themselves against crises.

So that's bit of an answer, or at least a structural answer, to what the government's response is to the other shoe dropping. The member is correct that he and I both heard people say. . . . On more than one occasion, individual farmers would say: "Well, actually I'm all right. I had some money saved in NISA; I have a job on the side; I actually got some of my crop in. My debt levels will absorb this. But my neighbour or my friend. . . . I know people who will lose their farm."

What I hear the hon. member saying is that this year, there's a possibility that it will stop being a third-party concern, where everybody knows somebody that's in a jam and move to be a situation where the people themselves are in crisis. So I guess what I'd like to do is ask you, so that I can consider your thoughts on the subject: what did you come here, as the representative, to propose that I do? Surely your constituents have said to you, regardless of what they thought of our response last year: "Here's what we think you ought to do." And I'd like to hear it.

[3:15]

I'm coming to the minister to suggest now that the budget process start to consider and accommodate the needs that are going to be very clearly identified for next spring. I'm suggesting: "Let's look at what's going to be necessary in order to make sure that farmers next year -- recognizing that this year is going to be a serious crisis in terms of planting, harvesting, sales, etc. . . ."

We heard a number of suggestions. The minister has heard it; the minister's staff have heard it. I can spend some time 

[ Page 3977 ]

here trying to recall some of the precise programs, but I would suggest to the minister most specifically that he start now to look at having the money available for an appropriate response next spring. Ten months from now, farmers are not, in large measure, going to have the money necessary to plant a crop and to buy the inputs, this fertilizer, the seed and those things that go with it. That's a prediction that I believe is based not only on supposition but on the reality of where the Peace country is on June 6 or June 7 -- whatever day it happens to be.

Maybe I'll let the minister respond to that, because I do want to get on to the crop insurance. That was the next item that I wanted to talk about. If the minister is asking what I propose, I'm not proposing a bunch of grants, a bunch of handouts. I don't think anybody has ever asked for that. But I do believe that there is going to be a credit crisis in the Peace next year, and I'm hoping that the minister will start now. I don't expect him to make an undertaking other than to do whatever it is he is prepared to commit to attempt to do or to undertake to do. I don't want to have us say in April of 1998: "Well, gee, the budget has already come down and we didn't plan for the fact that we're going to need this money, so of course our budgetary process didn't accommodate it." I'm attempting to use what little experience I have to say that this time around you have a ten-month lead on what you need to have available come budget time next year.

Hon. C. Evans: I would be pleased to work on that idea with you between now and next spring. I don't think either of us have any idea of whether or not we would be successful, but I felt when I was in the Peace that the issue of input credits was the largest single impediment to people being able to solve the problems themselves. When you have to solve the problem yourself at 30 percent interest, it's basically like gambling for a living. So I think your idea is good, and I'd be pleased to work on it with you.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I think that's as good a response as not only I but also the farmers could hope for today.

I want to clarify now about crop insurance, because I think there are some misconceptions around crop insurance. I think it's an area where statistics can tend to be a bit misleading. I don't suggest that someone is deliberately misleading; it's just that the crop insurance has changed quite dramatically.

The basic crop insurance is very inexpensive. I think it's in the neighbourhood of $100 to $150 per farm or $150 per crop, a commodity -- something like that. It's relatively inexpensive, and one would predict a major increase in participation in that program. But the reality is also that that basic coverage provides for 60 percent of production to be insured at 80 percent of the projected market price. So what you're really talking about is coverage to a maximum of 48 percent of crops. And that is. . . . It's a basic coverage, and I guess it's not a bad coverage for $100 or $175. But, at the end of the day, it isn't going to provide the kind of insurance that we might anticipate having on our automobile or on our home to provide us with protection against the loss.

I want to get clarification, before I get too far into that issue of coverage, about the statement the minister made earlier about crop insurance paying $20 an acre if weather prevents planting. I wonder if, perhaps before we get into these other things about premiums on crop insurance, etc., if the minister can clarify for my benefit -- I'm sure the farmers understand it -- how that crop insurance works, and how it would be applied in the situation we're discussing with respect to the Peace country this year.

Hon. C. Evans: First, I want to say that the hon. member can certainly be excused if he doesn't understand it. It took me three minutes of asking questions to make sure I had it right, but exactly what I said is true. Tier 1, which is basic insurance, which is $100 per crop per farm. . . . You pay your $100 and by March 15 in a given year, you have to declare to crop insurance how many acres you intend to seed. Now, if you say that you're going to seed ten acres and pay your crop insurance by March 15, and then are unable to seed that ten acres and the date by which you can seed anything passes and crop insurance comes and certifies that in fact you couldn't because of weather conditions, then you have $200 coming.

Now that I've just said that to the hon. member, I'm going to turn around and ask staff to nod yes or no. Is that exactly right? That's generally right, which is as close as I get.

There are a couple of other things that I need to say. Firstly, the hon. member pointed out that you're getting 60 percent of 80 percent and it's really 48 percent. We're talking basic crop insurance here, and the biggest criticism. . . . I'm in the front of the room, and there are 200 people in the room and they're all saying to me: "The thing is broken because it's crop insurance, not disaster insurance, and here in the Peace, we need disaster insurance. We need insurance that all of us can afford -- not just the richer of us or the more gambling of us, but that everybody can afford -- that will kick in in case nothing happens, in case we are wiped out, so that we don't lose our farm." They interpreted crop insurance to be a product that you go buy; you go take it off the shelf.

You know, the hon. member talked about car insurance. That's right. You go buy your car insurance; you want to cover your whole car. But you make that decision. When you buy basic car insurance, you just cover the other driver. You have the option to buy various kinds of car insurance. Well, that's what the farmers think crop insurance is. It's an entrepreneurial thing. "I'm a business person. I get to decide. I get to get off the shelf the kind of insurance I need to cover the kind of crop I want to grow."

But disaster insurance is something that we can all afford and that will cover us all. Hon. member, those are exactly the kinds of changes we made over the course of the winter so that we would come to March 15 this year, with people being able to buy in at a very nominal cost in case the second shoe fell.

J. Weisgerber: Just to add to the confusion, in reviewing the press release announcing the crop insurance -- the December 3, 1996, press release -- it suggests that there would be a premium of $100, plus $75 for each crop. So it goes on and on in terms of being a program. . . . I'm not being critical at all. It's just that crop insurance is very, very complicated, and I guess it will remain so.

I don't want the minister to think I was being critical of the basic coverage. What I was drawing to the attention of anyone who might read these debates is that to say that last year 30 percent of the farmers had crop insurance and that this year 70 percent have basic crop insurance, and therefore we've more than doubled the participation in crop insurance, is not a very good comparison to make. That's the only point I wanted to make with respect to basic crop insurance.

I will ask one other question. Given this experience, I would expect that in future, if I were a farmer, I would be very optimistic in March about the number of acres that I was going to plant if I lived in the Peace. I wonder if that is just a feature of the program. Are you limited in any way to declaring. . . ? Is there something that would inhibit someone from being particularly optimistic about their spring planting?

[ Page 3978 ]

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member might be right, but there are two things here mitigating against manipulating the program. Firstly, $20 is nothing; $20 is a very small amount of money. No one would not seed an acre of ground in order to make $20. Secondly, we have people who go out and inspect crop damage or disasters. They have to be able to take somebody out and show them that, in fact, they didn't seed this acre. This acre isn't making them any money, because of some reason on the ground, and the inspector has to be able to see it. If every single year, you listed 100 percent of your acreage that you intended to seed in order to make the $20, that would be fine, but then you'd have to be able to take the inspector out and show them the 50 acres you couldn't seed because it was too wet.

J. Weisgerber: That's fair enough. I raise the point for this reason. Time and time again, we've heard from farm organizations, individual farmers and ministry officials that one of the reasons crop insurance doesn't work is that people start to farm for crop insurance rather than for their products, and therefore farm insurance becomes increasingly expensive, premiums go up, and then people don't buy the coverage, because their neighbour is farming crop insurance -- as the saying goes. So whenever I see a new program, I start to wonder how someone would go about farming this particular program. So I ask the question, and I have an answer. I guess there's no point in me belabouring that.

What I want to do now is talk about the so-called plus coverage -- that is, a farmer, having decided to buy the basic insurance now has the choice, as the minister so eloquently described, or the opportunity to come in and buy additional coverage. As I understand it, one of the changes in crop insurance is that the premium for the additional coverage is now payable on filing of the seeded-acreage report on June 21, whereas previously an application for insurance was included when the seeded-crop report was made, but the premium wasn't payable until such time as the farmer harvested the crop and had the cash available to pay the premium.

[3:30]

Hon. C. Evans: Well, first, let's make it clear that I think the member and I are talking about the same thing. The $100 per farm and $75 per crop basic coverage is not what the member is worried about, because pretty much everybody can afford that out of their grocery bill, or something like that. So we're covering off this basic $20 an acre at a cost that everyone can afford. The issue the member is raising is the various kinds of coverage that you can buy by choosing to cover individual crops or to cover a higher percentage around your farm or to cover against hail. Indeed, we ask for them to pay for it up front.

Now, let me tell you my experience as minister before they ever made this change. One of the biggest issues I dealt with in crop insurance was an individual, actually in my own constituency, with a history of signing up for crop insurance and not paying for it if he got the crop off, and then changing the name of the crop insurance applicant next year to another member of his family, applying for crop insurance and not paying for it if he got the crop off.

In your previous question, the hon. member pointed out that people tend to denigrate the program if the program supports people who farm the program instead of farming the ground. Since insurance is really a product that covers you from the time you put it in the ground to the time you harvest it, and you don't need it after that -- you harvest the crop, you don't need that product. So what we've really said is that you're buying something that's for a period of time, so maybe you should pay for it during that period of time, instead of actually waiting until the year when you crash and then saying: "Well, okay, I'll pay for this year's crop insurance, because I actually intend to collect on it this year, never mind the previous five years."

Hon. member, we're not saying: "You put it in the ground, and you're going to have to pay us on the day you put it in the ground." We're saying that the government's rate, far from being usurious, is 90 days interest free -- which is almost to the fall before we even start charging you interest. So I would suggest that you're at least 50 percent of the way through the period of time that you're trying to cover before you actually have to pay us anything. Not only that, the farmers themselves, I think. . . . You're right, people are saying: "Well, why don't you change the program and make it more like the old way?" But those very same people go to the coffee shop and say: "You know, Jack here is farming the program instead of farming the crop." We're trying to change the program so you can't do that. You actually have to farm the ground.

J. Weisgerber: Well, if there's 90 days, that takes you through to September 20, I think -- July, August, September 20. The grain producers are suggesting that October 31 is a more likely date at which they will have harvested. I mean, September 20 just takes them to the middle of harvest at the very best. So I'm looking for and hoping that there will be some response to the grain producers saying: "Well, you're going to have 90 days free interest -- if that's what the deal is -- and for the next 45 days we're going to carry you at 5 or 6 percent or something like that." I don't think you'd find anybody argue very vigorously with you over that.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

I think there are ways to deal with the kinds of problems the minister describes. The crop insurance could certainly be a charge against the land, and you simply don't get insurance until you've paid the last premium. I'm not particularly interested in that debate, if the minister wants to pursue it. I'm just saying that given that the next 24 months in the Peace is probably the worst possible time to change the payment date for crop insurance, if you can find some way with 90 days interest-free and a nominal interest charge through to November 1, I expect that we'll hear a very good, very positive response from the people in the Peace.

I assume by the lack of response that that's what we can anticipate will happen.

[ Page 3979 ]

Two issues I want to cover with you. One is the issue of what is referred to by the Peace River regional district as endemic weed control. I don't know if that's exactly the way I would put the words together, but the problem that exists here is that the province owns road allowances, hydro rights-of-way -- although I think it's a problem to a lesser degree -- road rights-of-way, Crown lands, riparian lands along rivers, etc., that are infested with weeds. They are infested to the degree that none of the agencies would permit a private landowner to maintain their lands in the condition with respect to weeds that public lands are maintained.

The province has said to the regional district: "Well, we're not going to look after them anymore. That's your problem." Effective 1998 we simply are not interested, as I understand it, in participating in weed control on the lands we own. At the same time, legislation permits the regional district to hire somebody to go in with a swather and take out a crop, if the farmer doesn't control those same weeds on their property. So it seems to me quite an incredible double standard that government takes with respect to weed control, and I wonder if the minister has any response.

Hon. C. Evans: Staff think the percentage of the total cost in the Peace that used to be contributed by the province is approximately 16 percent. The province has withdrawn that 16 percent. We've withdrawn our funding to the regional district to deliver the program.

First, let me say in complete sympathy that that's an unfortunate event. Secondly, the hon. member suggests that the Crown is operating under a double standard here -- I think those might even have been his words -- because there are weeds growing on Ministry of Highways rights-of-way and the like, and the ministries aren't looking after their land.

If that's the case, then I think it's highly unfortunate. The way the regional district operates, they can go and spray your land if they have to, and then they can get the money off your taxes, but since the Ministry of Highways doesn't pay taxes, they can't do that. If in fact there's a double standard with provincial ministries not looking after land that the provincial ministries are responsible for in the Peace, exacerbating that 16 percent into a much higher number, then I would ask the hon. member to go home, take some photographs and come back, and you and I will go visit each and every one of those ministers and make the point that their ministry has to be looking after their land at least as well as municipalities and private landowners are being asked to.

J. Weisgerber: I appreciate the undertaking. I'll take the minister up on it.

Just to reinforce the urgency, the Peace River regional district has adopted a resolution to abandon noxious weed control in 1998 unless there is participation from government. So once again, if that happens, the group of people that will pay the price are the adjacent landowners. No matter how hard they try to keep their land weed free, weed seeds will simply blow in out of the ditches, etc. What we will have succeeded in doing as government, in the larger sense, is moving the responsibility from the province to the regional government and back to the individual, who has the misfortune -- or the good fortune in the Peace -- to have a road running past their property. As people look at the roads, they may well start to view them as misfortunes, rather than the traditional good fortunes. But the minister is giving me an undertaking, and I will follow up on that.

The final issue that I want to touch base with the minister on. . . . Over the last number of years, probably almost as many years as I've been in Victoria, I've had a discussion with the Minister of Agriculture around the forage seed initiative.

Hon. C. Evans: Before we get to forage seed, I just want to address this question about the municipality abandoning their spraying program.

It is thoroughly appropriate that municipalities be involved in weed control. In fact, that's the way it is all the way across western Canada. We are not the only agrarian economy in western Canada, and in all the other provinces there is a municipally driven program. In the main, I think it's even 100 percent. Is that true? They nod. Yes, that's true.

What isn't okay is if the municipality walked away from the program. I think that would be the anomaly. That would be the only place in western Canada where municipalities decide not to have some responsibility for what's going on.

What I'm committing to is that the province has to behave like a good landlord. We ask the municipalities to do so; we have to do so. We have to look after our rights-of-way so that the problem doesn't move as weeds from government land onto private land. But to unilaterally walk away from the private land issue would be creating a whole other problem.

J. Weisgerber: I just want to make a point, and I know the member for Shuswap would like to get into the debate, because I suspect this covers far more than the Peace region.

The only response I would have for the minister is that my suspicion is that the province -- whether it be Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba -- makes contributions to municipal programs, and regional governments in turn supply the service, if you like. I don't believe. . . . I will find out -- and I'm sure the minister will before we go at this again -- how much each province contributes to their municipalities for the purpose of weed control, because that's the real issue.

In looking at a related issue in Alberta, municipal or regional governments -- county governments -- provide road services, but they provide them with money that comes by way of a grant from the ministry of transportation and highways. The regional district in the Peace region -- and, I expect, in others -- provides weed control programs. They just feel that the 16 percent the province was contributing was insufficient to cover weed control on public lands owned by the province and to withdraw from that entirely was unfair. I think the minister has agreed with that.

[3:45]

The issue of knapweed control specifically has been a very important one in the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, as well as the regional districts up north. I think it's probably not unique to either. Right through the province there have been some very genuine efforts made by regional districts to try to get a handle on the knapweed problem particularly. I know that in some cases other weeds come into question, as well, but knapweed has been the big problem across the province and the one that most weed control efforts have been dedicated towards controlling.

I think there is enormous frustration right now among all regional districts -- and I know this is the case with the 

[ Page 3980 ]

Columbia-Shuswap regional district -- with the termination of the provincial grants for weed control. The argument that's being made by the regional districts is a very powerful one: how can they be expected to try to undertake weed control efforts on private lands when Crown rights-of-way are not being taken care of?

I think this frustration is leading, in the case of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, to consideration of terminating their weed control program, as well. I've seen, during my years on the Columbia-Shuswap regional board, at least a couple of cycles in terms of the levels of provincial support for weed control programs. The bottom line invariably is: unless there is a provincial contribution, the regional weed control programs simply don't last. There's too much frustration associated with trying to do a job on adjacent private land when the Crown rights-of-way are not being taken care of. So, not surprisingly, the local governments respond to the provincial reductions by reducing or eliminating the programs themselves.

The consequence of that, hon. Chair, is that knapweed gets out of control for a couple of years, the province decides that the problem is bad enough, I guess there's another cycle that occurs in provincial finances, they kick in some money again, and we start back into weed control. Obviously everyone, particularly farmers in these affected areas, would be far better off if there were a consistent and predictable level of funding from year to year to ensure that those Crown rights-of-way are taken care of.

Again, just to underline the point, it's impossible to control weeds on private land if the adjacent public lands are not taken care of as well. Most of these weeds tend to spread along the rights-of-way and the corridors along highways. People pull in along the edge of the road with their four-wheel drives and so on, the weeds get caught up in the bumpers and undercarriages of the vehicles, and then they travel on and fall off in some other area.

These control programs can be very successful, but in large measure they depend on the government coming through with a predictable level of funding. I think the province should look at it in terms of not necessarily having the highest level of funding but at least in terms of having a predictable level of funding, so from year to year local governments don't have to go through this frustration of trying to build a program with money that they don't have either.

Hon. C. Evans: Look, you make good points. I was trying to say before that you make good points. I think the fact Columbia-Shuswap is continuing the program right now is a wonderful thing. They deserve credit. Same with the Peace. I hope they don't stop. The fact that the province is not contributing is unfortunate. It's likely to go through the cycle that the member suggests; I completely agree with you. In fact, I'll make you an offer: you get your House Leader to give you time in question period to stand up and say: "Do you support weed control? Why not put the money in?" Then I'll stand up and say: "The hon. member is bang on, and I completely support him. As soon as I can find some money, I'll put it in." Because I agree with you.

I actually think you should raise it in a different venue: raise it where your urban members are, where the TV can show it. Raise it in such a way that we can deal with what the actual population is working with -- which is ignorance. They don't understand; they don't know. In order to make the general population, whether they're in the regional district or in the province, support this thing, we're all going to have to explain it to people. Why is it the responsibility of people in the city? Because they're out there on their skidoos, aren't they? They're moving these seeds from place to place. They're riding their three-wheeled trikes; they're sending their kid out to play on his motorbike; and they're spreading it all over the place. They're going out on their summer vacation, and they're spreading the weeds all over the place.

It's everybody's responsibility, and I'm supporting you. But if we want contributions going into this kind of program, we have to tell the story to a broader audience than just in this little room where all the people -- with some exceptions -- are rural people struggling with the problem.

J. Weisgerber: The one issue that I want to finally discuss is this issue of the forage seed initiative. The minister may recall back about 1989 or 1990, forage seed producers in the Peace made a presentation to government. At that time they argued -- convincingly, I believe -- that the Peace region and Oregon are the two primary areas in North America where forage seed, such as fescue and to a lesser degree clovers, etc., are raised.

The province is or has been a huge buyer. Government and government agencies are major consumers of forage grass, whether it be for road rights-of-way -- the Island Highway or the Coquihalla when it was being constructed -- hydro lines, forestry now, particularly where sheep are being used in weed control, etc. The province, directly or indirectly, buys an enormous amount of forage seed. They buy most of it from, appropriately, the seed distributors in the Fraser Valley.

The difficulty is that the seed distributors in the Fraser Valley buy their seeds from Oregon rather than from the Peace. We have been pushing this government and the government that I represented before them to have a requirement in the description of the seed in the bid proposal that these seeds be of B.C. origin.

That would have two primary benefits. It would, first of all, make sure that the fescue seed and others that we are paying for as taxpayers through the provincial government were being bought from our producers in British Columbia. Secondly, it would connect those seed distributors in the Fraser Valley with the outstanding group of producers in the Peace. There are farms in the Peace where they grow 15,000 acres of fescue every year -- I can't translate how many tons of fescue seed that produces -- and it's sold around the world. The tragedy is that here in British Columbia, we haven't been buying.

I've raised it with this minister and with every minister going back as far as 1989. Every year I get a very sympathetic ear, and every year I get an indication that a solution is in the offing. So I find myself here in 1997 wondering whether I'll get the same response I've had over the last nine years, or whether this is the breakthrough year when we actually start to buy B.C. forage seed for our multitude of uses here in the province.

Hon. C. Evans: When you were in cabinet did you actually go to the other cabinet ministers' estimates and stand up and ask the same question?

J. Weisgerber: Actually, I did a little more than that. I convened a cabinet meeting at city hall in Dawson Creek. Members of cabinet representing the various ministries -- Forests, Highways, etc. -- came to the cabinet meeting, and we invited the forage seed producers in and they made their pitch. I have been on a pursuit with subsequent ministers, either in estimates or some other forum, ever since.

[ Page 3981 ]

Hon. C. Evans: Well, no wonder the hon. member understands that it's sort of difficult. If you actually got the buyers in the room with the sellers and they couldn't make the deal, it's indicative of how difficult the issue is. I didn't understand that last year when the hon. member asked this question in these estimates in this room. I just turned to the person next to me and said: "Go fix it." So they went and talked to the Purchasing Commission, and the Purchasing Commission agreed to buy all their seed from B.C. instead of from somewhere else. But I'll bet you $5 that all that means is that they bought it from this member's area, and the seed producers in this member's area bought it from somewhere in Washington, or something like that. So it had the B.C. label on the bag and not necessarily B.C. seed inside the bag.

Let me say on the record: I understand that turning to the person next to me and saying, "Fix it," was a failure; and calling a cabinet meeting in Dawson Creek won't fix it, either. So I will endeavour to actually go to this member's constituency this year and look in the bag and see how to encourage the people who put the seed in the bag to buy fescue from the Peace instead of from Washington. I won't, however, encourage them not to buy fescue from Creston, because I think that would be a really good idea; we could solve both problems at once. And then next year, God willing, if you have your job and I have mine, you can ask me again and I'll be able to say that I fixed it.

R. Neufeld: Just briefly, all the talk about fixing the problem. . . . I guess the easiest way I can think of fixing it is telling the government of B.C. not to purchase its seed in the Fraser Valley but to purchase it directly from the seed producers in the North and South Peace. Then you get away from all those kinds of problems. That's all that has to happen. There are folks up there that can supply the product. You don't have to go to the bag and look in it to see whether it's got Peace River stamped on the seed or whether it's got Oregon stamped on the seed. All you do is purchase it from the area where it's grown, and it's all done.

Hon. C. Evans: I got into an argument with a member of my own caucus the other day when I thought, mistakenly, that he was suggesting that institutions in Vancouver should buy wood products produced in Vancouver instead of from somewhere upcountry. That individual and I -- and I'm pleased to say that he didn't say what I thought he said -- are in the same political party, and I took pains to explain to him that we are also in the same province, and the fact that something might be produced in my region and not his ought to make no difference. So I will not -- and you know I would not, and you would not if you were standing on this side -- say to any agency in British Columbia: "Purchase from this region and not from that region." Were we to begin to walk down that road, the system of running a society in a cooperative way would begin to break down. There will always be issues that irritate me or irritate you -- inequities -- but we are not going to use political influence to decide from which region of British Columbia the government will do its purchasing.

[4:00]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: It's interesting to hear the minister's comments. I just think briefly back to a few minutes ago in question period and to the response from the Minister of Employment and Investment, who was very emphatic about directing the British Columbia Lottery Corporation to have their tickets printed in Kamloops, so that we use British Columbia people to produce those tickets -- at a cost of $2 million more to the Lottery Corporation to have it done. I find it amazing that half an hour later we walk into estimates and I have the Minister of Agriculture telling me that they will never use political influence of any kind to be able to use British Columbia products.

I think just briefly back to the Island Highway and the contract there. It was to use local hire; it was directed at local hire only. That was to eliminate Alberta contractors. I remember that very clearly. I'd go back and maybe get some of the information about that to remind the minister. So I think it's a little stretch to say that no, you won't use any political influence, because I think you can. I think we've done it, and I think we just have to listen to what the Minister of Employment and Investment said recently about how they used political will to be able to use a British Columbia product -- at a higher cost, by the way.

Hon. C. Evans: If anything I said gave any inference that I was talking about British Columbia as opposed to other areas, I take it back. Of course we use political will to buy B.C. We write it large; we build it in as a government policy wherever possible. What I thought you were saying, hon. member, was that I should say to the government that it should buy its seed from the Peace instead of from the Fraser in order to solve the problem of what goes in the bag. I kind of think the Peace and the Fraser are both in British Columbia. We can't -- and you wouldn't if you were working here -- parse the province into pieces and say: "This is more British Columbia than that." If you took what I said to be differing from the Minister of Employment and Investment, then I spoke badly. He was talking about Kamloops or Texas, which are in different countries.

R. Neufeld: I am not going to belabour this any longer. I am talking about Oregon and the Peace. That's what I'm talking about. I think the minister's quite well aware of the inference I'm making. Rather than buying seed that's grown in Oregon, I would think it would be better for British Columbia itself -- the government -- to be buying seed from British Columbians. That's all I'm trying to infer, and I guess we're on the same wavelength there. All I meant was that if the people in the Fraser Valley buy all their seed from Oregon, let them go ahead. That doesn't bother me. But if we're going to buy seed with taxpayers' dollars for use in British Columbia on roadways and those kinds of things, I think there are some other ways that we can go about that to make sure that we use the seed that's grown, at least, in our province and not. . . . Although it's not as far as Texas, it is Oregon, and it is south of the line.

Hon. C. Evans: I agree.

J. van Dongen: I just want to make one further comment on the issue of weed control. This was drawn to my attention 

[ Page 3982 ]

at the recent B.C. Cattlemen's Association meeting. I felt fairly good about the progress that had been made by the minister at that meeting, in terms of a whole lot of the issues that the cattlemen were concerned about, including the whole business of privatizing, if you will, the brands inspection and also the decisions that were made to establish a review process for a lot of the issues that are concerning cattlemen, such as the grazing enhancement funds and range improvement issues. I thought that there were some good decisions made in that area and some good progress made.

But after talking to one of the individuals there who I thought was very knowledgable about weed control and those issues, I guess it was the one area that I left the meeting with a bit of concern about. I think the minister has made some good comments about what we on this side of the Legislature can do to assist him in that area, and I simply want to indicate that we're going to try to do that. But I just want to underline that I think the whole area of weed control is a serious issue.

I want to just finish up our conversation on the hog scheme. The minister, before lunch, had made the offer that he would undertake to extend the hog scheme with a sunset clause for another year. Given the fact that there have been so many extensions for so long, I'm wondering if that's an indication that the decision has been made to just continue with the sunset clause. Or is it an indication that there has been no decision made and no discussion on whether or not it should actually be removed? I guess my concern is that the hog industry has been living on the edge with this thing for quite some time, for quite a number of years. They're looking for a more permanent solution and for discussion of that.

Hon. C. Evans: It would be wrong to think that I made the commitment before lunch that we were going to remove the sunset clause and the present system would exist forever; that would be incorrect. However, we just got a brand-new chair, and we kind of thought we ought to look around and think about it for a little while and put in place a system that would work. So please tell your people that are asking you, "Shall we just expect that this will go on forever, with government annually deciding not to make any changes?" that the answer to that would be no. We just don't wish to make the wrong changes.

J. van Dongen: Could we get a commitment from the minister today, in addition to the one-year extension, that he and the staff of the Marketing Board -- whoever he delegates the job to -- will enter into discussions? I know that there are some issues now involving dual marketing systems, for example, that are being discussed and, I think, have been implemented in parts of other provinces. So there are some relevant issues to be pursued. I guess I'm just looking for a commitment that a consultative process will be started in the near future, so that we're not faced with this same situation the next time the sunset clause is approaching.

Hon. C. Evans: It started yesterday and will go on.

J. van Dongen: Just some other questions in the area of responsibility of the B.C. Marketing Board. The minister and I had some conversations and correspondence regarding the use of pricing committees by the price-setting marketing boards, and I just want to get some clarification. Is it now a policy that all those boards that have pricing powers have advisory committees? Is that a policy decision that the ministry and/or the Marketing Board have made?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, the B.C. Marketing Board has made that policy and told each of the boards, but it has said that they aren't going to say what those pricing committees should look like. They are leaving it up to each of the boards to come back with a suggestion of how they would implement that policy for their own commodity group.

J. van Dongen: So in terms of how they would implement the issue of composition of the board with respect to each commodity, it's up to the recommendation of the individual marketing board.

Hon. C. Evans: Well, that also will be sort of a consultation. They'll come back to the Marketing Board and say: "Here's how we think we should do it." The Marketing Board will be able to say, "Yup, that looks like it works," or: "No."

J. van Dongen: But there are. . . . Some of the boards already have committees. I'm wondering: is there a set of guidelines that has been established as to the purpose and role for how they operate? Have there been any guidelines established?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, there is a generalized generic policy. Each of the boards has been advised that they will have an industry advisory committee and some general guidelines about who will be on it and what the makeup of that committee will be -- but not specific, not saying: "There should be three people from this kind and three people from that kind."

J. van Dongen: What is the experience, from the Marketing Board's perspective, with the pricing committee so far? Do they feel that they're adding something to the operation of the boards?

Hon. C. Evans: The simple answer to the member's question, "Do they find them useful?" is yes. On the other question -- "Do they all work?" or "Do we have experience?" were the member's words, I think -- the most difficult advisory committee is the pricing committee for chickens, and it has growers, processors and representatives of the Marketing Board on it. It's actually in mediation, as we speak, and dealing with some very difficult issues.

I personally have met with growers separately and with other representatives, processors separately and with other representatives, and people who work in processing plants separately and with groups of others -- and so, probably, has the hon. member. And it's hard: hard issues and tough negotiations. But I personally think that mediation is the way to go, rather than some kind of directive from me or from some officials. And that's the way it will go so long as it seems to be working or going in a progressive direction.

[4:15]

[ Page 3983 ]

very good structure, and I generally encourage farmers, processors and everyone who has a stake to use the system that's available to them. The system we have was put together for a very good reason, and I've said to people in the industry that if they can't solve their problems through the processes available to them, then they are probably making a mistake thinking that the minister or any other politician can solve it for them under those circumstances.

I guess I asked the questions about the pricing committees and the guidelines because I continue to believe that they're very, very critical for the proper functioning of those boards, in a manner that's consistent with their original purpose. And the intent is that the authority, the final authority for making the decision, has to rest with the actual marketing board -- in most cases, now, elected boards.

Hon. C. Evans: We're having more of a discussion than questions and answers. Yeah, I agree with you, and I think you're agreeing with me. The boards work better if there's less interference. On the other hand, there needs to be a feeling that there's somebody else watching if they don't work. I guess the system works best because of the tension created there. If the boards believe that they don't have to deal with issues and they'll just go away, then they can ignore them. But if they think that there is the Marketing Board itself and ultimately that the minister and the government are going to get involved -- and that's actually not what they want -- then their interest is to struggle and deal with the hard questions and resolve the problems. That's how I think it ought to go. Do I think that the hon. member and I ought to stand here and debate what the price of chickens ought to be? The answer to that is singularly no, and I hope we're never into it -- and if we aren't into it, that's because we made it work.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased that the. . . . I think the minister does understand it, and I just thought we'd cover those points off. We can't talk about everything at breakfast, you know.

I want to get into the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. Maybe we could take a look at the five-year business plan which had been, I guess, approved and tabled in early January. I thought it was a fairly good document, particularly from the perspective of the kinds of accountability measures that the deputy ministers council, in particular, within government has been working on.

I want to really just canvass a number of points within the book. So if we go to page 9, it talks about the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority operating as a facilitator and a catalyst for revitalization. It sets out some short-term performance outcomes and some long-term performance outcomes, in the middle of the page, the first short-term performance outcome being an increase of over 50 percent in industry revenues by the year 2000 -- from current levels of approximately $50 million to $77 million.

In view of the changes that have taken place in the last six or eight months as a result of the whole downsizing and cutback decision, maybe the minister could first of all comment generally. Are any of the targets in this five-year plan still feasible and achievable? Maybe he could comment in a general way. Then I want to go through each of these individually to try and get some sense of how the minister feels the program -- which has been developed with fewer dollars -- will unfold, in terms of these performance outcomes and objectives that had been established last January.

Hon. C. Evans: I do think that we will meet the target of a 50 percent increase in revenues by the year 2000. Staff think we might actually exceed the target, since we're going to exceed the acreage that was intended to be replanted when the program was started.

I think the second question was: what does the minister think about the changes that we put in place since the downsizing of the fund? Is that right?

J. van Dongen: Okay.

Hon. C. Evans: Well, it wasn't any fun. The clawback in this particular area was like looking around and trying to find the most articulate and politicized sector of your entire client group and then going out and seeing how grumpy you could make them all at once. So the minister thinks that he hopes he never has to repeat that experience.

On a less personal and more philosophical note, I actually think it's going to work. The purpose of the replant program was to provide hope and give incentive to enough people to have enough faith in the future of agriculture and in making money, so that you could take a lot of older orchards growing apples, in the main, that don't sell very well and replace them with younger varieties that have a higher market value and a greater tonnage per acre. So people would look across the fence and see that their neighbour was making money, and then they'd follow suit. It was kind of a pump primer of hope, and it's really unfortunate to have to cut something as positive and progressive as that.

However, the good news, I think, is that during the years that the program went on, the OVTFA went from a place where it was when I was first running for office, a long time ago, where even orchardists themselves said, "Get rid of this; it is an institution created by government to tell us what to do," to a place where it had buy-in.

In fact, talking about irony. . . . I think that in the first election I ever ran in, I ran against Lusztig, Bill Vander Zalm and the OVTFA all at once. And then, when I became minister, the OVTFA had become a bit of a hero, because the spirit of hope had worked well enough -- that people had enough faith -- that more and more people were signing up for the program.

So what do I think? I think it's going to work. I think it's really unfortunate. . . . What we did in the cutbacks did more damage to government or this administration or myself than we did to the program, because the people still think that changing varieties and replanting is working for their neighbours. They can see it across the fence, even if they don't hear it coming out of my voice. And then a wonderful thing happened, as you know, after we got past the part about 400 people in a room. We got to the conversation about: "What are we going to do now?" And the people said to me: "Actually, we want to plant the acreage, with or without the government. Now, how can we figure out a way to plant the acreage?"

The deputy went back and forth to the Okanagan. We had some negotiations, and we figured out a way to loan the program some money so that the people who had signed up for a certain amount of acres to plant this year would actually go plant them. OVTFA would change the nature of the grant, and we would make the smaller amount of money work to plant as much land. After all, planting the land was the point, not farming the government, not paying off farmers to do something they didn't want to do.

[ Page 3984 ]

So I have high hopes that the net result of the program will be just as progressive without the money as it would have been with the money. I'm going to try and work to make that happen, and I'm sure you are, too.

J. van Dongen: I want the minister to know that I've already cut out some stuff on the basis of the offer of breakfast. So we'll do our best.

When I look at the long-term performance outcome -- near the bottom there -- it says that the tree fruit industry is a prime contributor to the regional economy and to sustaining the livability of the region. When I looked at that, it reminded me of some of the ideas that have come from the more progressive group of tree fruit growers, looking at the whole area of trying to deal with land use issues. I saw something in one of their communication plans about property tax review -- I don't know what that was about. I think the minister and the ministry have been approached on that. I think there's some potential there in terms of making sure that we maintain an industry in the Okanagan, which is sometimes open to question.

Can the minister give us any thoughts on whether or not the ministry is considering, or would consider, some sort of specific initiative to try and do a review of all of the land use issues and to try and explore some creative options to get better utilization of the farmland in the ALR? This is particularly from the perspective of facilitating lease operations, property tax considerations and other creative land use ideas that could help progressive growers remain competitive in an industry and an area of land which is really open to some serious competition from much larger-scale operations -- in Washington, for example.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I think the ministry is, and I am, and the more progressive farmers are. There has been a struggle ongoing since the seventies, that I know of. It's internal to government here and to the grower community in the Okanagan, and it's about whether or not the initiatives that the member's talking about will happen or whether farming will go away, and about what the people and the government actually want. If you want farming to succeed in the Okanagan, you have to get the people together to talk about. . . .

[4:30]

And you have to change the tax policy so that it's not easy to be a doctor -- or a person; I shouldn't denigrate doctors -- with a lot of money to buy up farmland, stick your kid's horse out there, call yourself a farmer and get a tax break. We ought to create a situation where tax advantages can flow through that person with money, if they're the owner, to a farmer who leases the property. A person with less money can't afford the capital costs but actually can lease the land, plant the land with long-term crops, make some money, and the tax advantage would flow through to the farmer.

All that stuff -- I personally think all it takes is buy-in. We have been engaged for so long in a left-right land use argument between those who would like to farm condominiums and those who want to farm apples, in an environmental-against-agricultural argument concerning the future of the water and in an argument between native and non-native about the future of the fishery that we can't actually get on to the progressive, across-the-piece look at the Okanagan that the member is talking about.

Personally I think we ought to, but I don't think it's up to the member and me. It's up to the people who live there to say: "Okay, we're gonna farm this valley, or not." It's the political equivalent of the replant program, isn't it? Can we as government create an environment in which people have enough faith in agriculture that they come forward and say: "Okay, now let's create the land use context for our business"? And I'd be rooting that that's what happens.

J. van Dongen: I agree with the minister that that initiative is maybe not up to him and me, but I just want to be sure that the minister is receptive to a specific initiative or proposal, because I think that it's going to be critical in terms of maintaining an industry in that area in the face of some very serious competition for land and water and other resources, as he mentioned. So I just want to raise that, because I know that the progressive growers are interested in it.

The other thing that I want to mention, which I think ties in with the previous comment that the minister made, is that at the time of the meeting with the 400 people there was a comment made to me that the government saved $1 million, and it will cost them $10 million -- that sort of thing. I don't know if that will be true or not, but I think it was an indication of how much it shook up growers in the industry. Again, I think it speaks to the whole issue of value for money and how we make decisions, particularly when we make changes in programs midstream. I just wanted to mention that.

If we go to page 10, there's a heading there, "Key Directions," and a subheading of "Key Strategic Adjustments." It talks about the board of directors of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority endorsing four strategic changes: the first being the need to focus on replant programs; the second, to coordinate replant extension efforts; third, partnership and delivery through the industry; and fourth, to leave restructuring to the industry.

I wonder if the minister could just comment. I've had a fairly extensive explanation of what has evolved in the briefing session, but I'm wondering if the minister could just tell us, in terms of these four strategic changes approved at the time by the board, what is left within the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, given that virtually all or most of the resources have gone to replant?

Hon. C. Evans: The OVTFA is going to concentrate on the replant program. That's basically all they're going to do -- with my blessing, because as we just discussed, I think that is the change agent. Those other objectives will be delivered, I hope, by various people. For example, the BCFGA, the packinghouses and the commodity teams in this ministry are going to address the context for the marketing part of the orchard business, while the OVTFA concentrates solely on replant.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the Tree Fruit Authority itself -- the entity, the corporation -- what is left in terms of staff within the corporation, and how will it be operated in the near future?

Hon. C. Evans: There's one employee -- one part-time free director -- and a board of directors meeting occasionally, consisting of eight people.

[ Page 3985 ]

J. van Dongen: Is it intended that the corporation would continue to operate right up until the sunset clause in the legislation?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, it is my belief that that's what's going to happen. But it isn't necessarily a static situation. There are some who think the program could be delivered by industry itself, and that discussion may continue. My own opinion is that we have stabilized the situation in the past few months in quite a healthy fashion, and I would be loath to destabilize it unless somebody had a really good reason.

J. van Dongen: Page 11 talks about strategic priorities, the first one being orchard renovation. I think there are five strategic priorities. Under "Measurable Results" on page 12, it talks about providing assistance for the replanting of at least 2,500 acres and, in the outcomes expected, "replanted acreage with a resulting improvement from the current average revenue of $2,500 an acre to a minimum of $5,000 per acre."

As far as the minister can foresee today, given that this entity will continue to operate, first of all is there going to be any focus on monitoring performance based on these projected outcomes? Secondly, would this first target be the one that is still achievable?

Hon. C. Evans: The acreage target is expected to be met and exceeded by 900 acres. I don't want the hon. member to then simply change the words in his book and come back next year and ask: "Now how are you doing?" The target is 2,500 acres, but yes, we believe that -- even with the decreased funding -- we can make 3,400 acres by making the system work.

The second question is. . . . I am unable to say whether or not we can do that. The other partners in the industry are going to have to work at it to achieve a success rate of 90 percent.

On the subject of the per-acre figure, yes, I believe that we can, depending on the varieties that we wind up with. Those are the choices of growers. For example, Galas at the present time are $20,000 an acre. So if that variety was to have been chosen three years ago, every acre would be four times our target. By the year 2000, we will see how we're doing, but it is certainly achievable.

J. van Dongen: Well, the minister talks about a particular variety. I think if we could all choose stocks and choose varieties in retrospect, we'd all be millionaires. But that applies to lots of places in life.

I just have one other question. On page 14 it makes reference to Tree Fruit On-line. I'm just wondering: what is Tree Fruit On-line? What is contemplated there? Will it still go ahead?

Hon. C. Evans: It has been disbanded, because it was found that the same information was available in the state of Washington or from the USDA or from some larger facility, and British Columbia growers tended to go past their own organization to the larger data bank. So it made no sense to maintain a smaller data bank for our own growers, if they were going to go get information somewhere else.

J. van Dongen: So this information was price information, I assume -- price and market information.

Hon. C. Evans: Price management, pesticides, insect controls, recommended densities, varieties around the world, field trials -- what have you. Just basically information.

[4:45]

Hon. C. Evans: The guides aren't being discontinued. It's the role of the government that's being changed. We're working with the BCFGA to have them take it over and manage its production distribution -- but with us. . . . Earlier, we discussed funds from the communications budget of this ministry that were being partnered with the industry itself to produce production guides. And that's an example.

Also, in the year that the member's talking about, we didn't discontinue it. We produced an update that you could take to use with the existing guide. If you have a letter from someone who couldn't get one, then the system didn't work as well as it ought to. The main guide should still be in production. Then it just simply has an annual or periodic revision.

J. van Dongen: Is there still a continuing activity, then, in terms of all the production guides? I think there's probably a fair number of, say, horticultural crops and field crops, where production guides were being developed and provided by the ministry. I'm asking the minister to confirm that. What is the range of production guides that have been produced? And what is in the future for those other commodities?

Hon. C. Evans: We used to do them all, even if nobody grew the product or the commodity. Now we're trying to move to a place where, at the very least, we don't produce it unless there's somebody growing the product. So there is some client group, rather than us telling people what to do. And if there is a client group, then we're trying to work to a place where we produce the guide with the group, or they produce it. We may still be producing some, but we are definitely moving to a place where we produce none -- and they don't get produced at all unless there are people that actually want to grow that commodity. In that case, staff work with those people to produce a production guide for other entrants.

J. van Dongen: This might be an opportune time to ask a question that's roughly connected. As part of the downsizing, there was a fairly significant reduction in the number of technical staff in the horticultural area -- in particular, I think, at the Abbotsford location, where a demonstration site was operated. I'm wondering: is that site now completely deactivated? Is there nothing happening there? I'm talking about the facility across the road from the main building.

Hon. C. Evans: It's not being used at the present time. It isn't deactivated. It's just standing still while we talk to the Horticultural Coalition about what we might do with it in conjunction with them, or what they might do with it in conjunction with us. So in other words, it isn't up for sale, but we're not sure what its dispensation will be.

[ Page 3986 ]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to hear that those discussions are going on, and that maybe it'll be put to some useful purpose, because there was a fair bit of money invested there. Hopefully, it can be utilized in some future program or partnership.

I wanted to -- particularly given the minister's enthusiasm, in his opening remarks, for the SIR program -- just ask the minister to comment on the provincial involvement in that program. As I recall, there was a fair amount of money in the tree fruit authority allocated for the SIR program. Maybe we can hear what's happening to that.

Hon. C. Evans: For the record -- because the hon. member knows but the Chair probably doesn't -- the SIR program is the sterile insect release program, where we're attempting to deal with codling moth by creating an environment where there are no codling moths. That will then reduce the amount of pesticide that has to be used. Codling moth attacks the apples, and once we reduce the pesticide, more good bugs come back. Then we need less pesticide for other things, and soon we'll be able to sell the best product in the world.

There are a heck of a lot of good reasons why we should make the sterile insect release program work, and there are two reasons why it may not. Firstly, we don't know where to get all of the money to finish the program. I don't. I have committed lots of money: $200,000 this year and $600,000 over the next three years. I could quote the millions involved since the beginning. The federal-provincial contributions thus far have been $7.4 million. The first problem is that it's difficult to find the funding to carry on into the next century.

The second problem is that not enough people know about it. I think the growers themselves have been guilty of being unwilling to talk about the success of the sterile insect release program. Some of them weren't interested, and others were afraid that if the public found out there was such a thing as a codling moth and they actually sprayed against it, people wouldn't buy their apples. I think that the growers are now starting to realize that they have something they can sell. They have a wonderful thing. They have a product with reduced pesticide use -- a higher-quality product that the world might want to buy. But unless the growers tell the story, I think the taxpayers in the Okanagan and in the province who have been assisting to fund the thing are going to back off.

So we've got two problems. One is public ignorance about the program, and the second is where to raise enough money to keep it going. I had high hopes that it would be solved during the federal election campaign. Some growers told me that they had a plan; they had a fix; they had a deal. The deal didn't materialize; now I'm quite worried about it.

J. van Dongen: I wasn't aware that the federal government had not made a commitment. I think that's very unfortunate, because they were certainly involved in those discussions.

I think there was an allocation of funding of about $1.4 million within the Tree Fruit Authority. Could I just clarify that? Is that the extent of the provincial commitment? I know the minister talked about $200,000 this year and $600,000 for three other years. Is that the $1.4 million that had been allocated within the Tree Fruit Authority for that program?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes. That is the extent of the provincial contribution: $1.4 million, which we contributed to the program through the OVTFA. The component of that annual funding is $200,000, and there are only three years left. We also contributed half an FTE to help them make the program work.

J. van Dongen: As the minister knows, there's a lot of concern by the growers that are supportive of the program, and I think a lot of them should have the funding. I think the difficulty with this program is that in order to get value for all of the money that's been invested to date, we have to either make a decision to get out or keep going. And it's fairly difficult now.

I'm assuming and hoping that the minister and the ministry will continue to work with the industry and other levels of government on this program to find a way to make it work. But I wanted to just confirm the nature of the commitment on the $1.4 million. Is there any possibility at all that that funding may disappear -- for some political reason or whatever -- a year or two down the road? Because I think that's sort of the bottom line I'm hoping to establish in terms of the provincial commitment.

Hon. C. Evans: No, the money won't disappear. We gave the money to the OVTFA. It's already there and they won't be taking it away -- but that doesn't make any difference. The program is going down unless the public hears about it and supports it and we find some more money. I mean, this conversation is academic. It's a wonderful program. They don't have enough money. We don't have any more to give them. Somebody has got to go find another place to get it. It won't appear by you saying to me: "Corky, we've got to support the program." We are supporting the program, and they need some more money.

That means they need public support. That means they had better get on television and tell their story -- tell it to their municipalities, tell it to the consumers and get some people out there who want to support it. Get the federal government to put some money in. We built the building; we made the program work. It's been a success, and it won't work to try and solve the problem in this room, because we don't have the money. It's got to be solved out there in the marketplace by the growers themselves. Please go and tell them: "Corky wasn't very friendly. He said 'I'll give you $200,000; go tell your story.' "

J. van Dongen: Well, I just want to convey to the minister that I'm not under any illusions that a lot of problems get solved in this room. At least we can raise them -- and try and solve them somewhere else.

Just one other issue that I wanted to raise, again, just for the sake of raising it, is the wildlife issue. Is there any effort or activity within the ministry to try and find some resolution to that problem? It's an ongoing, very serious issue for fruit growers -- one which I firmly believe is not being properly addressed. I think it's totally unfair, totally unreasonable, totally inequitable to expect fruit growers to carry the risk and the actual damage to crops created by wildlife, which, presumably, is being preserved as a public resource.

Hon. C. Evans: Okay, there are three answers. The first one is that we are working in the province to have an integrated policy between ministries. I have no idea how long that will take; it's been going on as long as you and I have been alive. The second answer is that the federal and provincial ministers, when they meet -- in Quebec, I think -- are going to discuss it and try to get a national agreement, because this problem is not limited to British Columbia, and we need to engage all kinds of governments. I guess the third answer is that that's the good news. I mean, the hon. member is a Liberal and I'm a New Democrat, but the one piece of good 

[ Page 3987 ]

news I can think about from the federal election is that all those Reformers may actually change the gun control law, and people will be able to solve the problem themselves.

J. van Dongen: As a provincial Liberal, I don't have any difficulty supporting that concept.

I wanted to just take the risk of wading into the crop insurance area, which. . . . I guess there's already been some discussion on that by the member for Peace River South. And I'm not going to even ask the minister to explain all of the details, because even if he could explain it, I'd probably have difficulty understanding it. But I want to simply canvass the issue from the perspective of the tree fruit industry, which, admittedly, is one of the major users of crop insurance.

The way it was explained to me. . . . We won't go through all the processes of how we got to where we are today in terms of the discussions of that program. I was interested in the earlier comments about insuring against disaster and trying to get everybody involved in participating in a program which is supposed to cover off any potential disaster situations, versus buying insurance. I think the ongoing debate or the last area of contention within the tree fruit industry probably hinges somewhat on where you cut off between protecting yourself against a disaster and actually buying a fuller package of crop insurance. It seems to me that the biggest difficulty revolves around this area or element in the program termed "quality-yield offset," which is, as I understand it, part of the tier 1 program.

[5:00]

I want to maybe give the minister an opportunity to respond to that. Maybe I'm dead wrong. I just wanted to give him my perceptions and see what he and his staff can say in response.

Hon. C. Evans: It's difficult for me to perceive how that discrimination that the hon. member talks about works.

Staff suggest that perhaps the discrimination is assumed to be in that if you have an exceptionally good year, which is above the average of your previous five years' or so many years' production, crop insurance doesn't account for. . . . If you have an extra tonne per acre and that tonne per acre is damaged, crop insurance is only paying you on the basis of your average production and not that exceptional production. However, in the question of. . . . But it's your average production, not the average production in the Okanagan Valley. So if you were a good grower and I were a lousy grower, you're being insured on your own production. Is that correct?

If you have an old-fashioned plantation of full-grown trees, and you cut it down and you go to a high-density plantation, it will cover the greater density. So I'm not sure how the discrimination works.

I do know this, though: there is a philosophical point that some people have raised with me about the section the member has referred to, which I always think as the hail damage part of it. That is, if you live in a place where there has traditionally been hail damage, you can't get crop insurance against the amount of hail damage that you traditionally get. Is that correct? So some people who live in areas where there traditionally is hail damage are arguing: "We should be protected just as much as the person who lives where it doesn't hail."

That would be true if what we were doing here was socialism. That would be absolutely right. You know, to each according to their need. But it isn't -- it's a business. I mean, never mind where I run for office; selling insurance is a business. The price of insurance against snow is different in Victoria than it is in Nelson, because it snows all the time in Nelson. I guess I would have to defend the program and say that it's not discriminatory; it makes common sense.

If you are running an orchard in an area that experiences hail damage so frequently that you can't buy decent insurance against hail, then you've got to move to another place to run that orchard or simply change crops or operate without the insurance. It is a tough answer, but any other answer would be essentially a form of subsidy: "You can run a business in whatever area, regardless of the microclimate in that area." You wouldn't go running a business in an area where you couldn't get water.

J. van Dongen: Again, it's probably an issue of where you draw the line. The purpose of any basic insurance plan is to cover off against things going wrong, and maybe if you have an area where it hails every year, yeah, you shouldn't be eligible for insurance. But in areas where it's not predictable but it is going to happen, that's maybe part of the problem.

I appreciate the minister's explanation on the issue of the actual yield versus the average yield on the farmer's individual farm. But as I recall from the annual meeting of the fruit growers, there had been quite a lot of development work done on the new proposal at that time, and it was acknowledged by the minister at the time that maybe there were some design issues in the program that needed to be reviewed. I'm wondering if the minister would explain what those were and what was discussed and negotiated subsequent to that meeting.

Hon. C. Evans: After the meeting that the member is talking about, staff did indeed engage in a dialogue with the growers, and the growers identified the problem of hail damage on an overabundant crop. So the tier 2 part of the program -- that's the part of the program that you pay for; you choose the above-$100 part of the program -- was adjusted to allow you to buy insurance against that overabundance. There is now a disagreement between growers and staff -- or myself, I guess, although I hadn't been aware of it -- about who should pay for that second part of the program. There are apparently people who think it should be free, and perhaps there's a case. I don't know, but that's where it stands.

J. van Dongen: What the minister said is true, as I understand it. The solution that's being offered is to buy a package under tier 2. I guess the problem with that is that if the philosophy is that tier 1 is intended to deal with disasters -- virtually any sort of disaster that can be predicted -- and we want a high participation rate so we can get away from ad hoc programs, I'm not sure that the way it's currently designed and proposed is going to do the job.

[ Page 3988 ]

It seems to me that a big part of the crop insurance program that we had was the participation rate, and there's really no question about participation rate in tier 1 because it's virtually for nothing. I think the problem that still exists -- and this issue we're talking about is an illustration of it -- is that there'll be very little if any participation in tier 2. I wonder if the minister can give me some indication of what the experience to date is in terms of participation in tier 2.

Hon. C. Evans: There is now a 30 percent takeup of people in this particular area who are concerned with acquiring a tier 2. It is expected that in the month of June the rest of the people will decide whether or not to participate. Then we'll be able to ascertain whether or not we have real problems.

Hon. Chair, how would I do it if I wanted to ask the member opposite to adjourn with me and have a little chat for five minutes?

The Chair: Just ask for a recess, minister.

Hon. C. Evans: Can I ask for a recess for five minutes?

The Chair: With the agreement of the committee, we'll recess till 5:20 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:12 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

H. Giesbrecht: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:24 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada