[ Page 5733 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

G. Brewin: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a very special visitor, Ms. Robyn McMorris, who is a lawyer living in Calgary. She is in the members' gallery, and she is being welcomed to Victoria by her uncle, who is the Clerk of the House. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I had a delightful lunch with four women from the Cowichan Valley and my colleague the Minister of Women's Equality. Three of the women are with us today in the gallery, but I would like to introduce all four who have visited us today. They are Dee Kinnee, Doran Doyle, Marilyn Guille and Kate Mortimer. I'd like to ask all of the members of the House to help me make these terrific women welcome.

R. Neufeld: Again, it gives me pleasure to be able to stand in the House and introduce some guests. [Applause.] Thank you for the round of applause. Unfortunately, these people are not from the north, but it goes to show that even us folks from the north have some friends in the south. I'd like the House to make very welcome my son Nathan Neufeld and his friend, Dana Kowalski. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Susan Penev, a constituent of mine in New Westminster. She is very active with the John Robson Elementary School in helping to alleviate the problems in our community posed by the drug trade and prostitution and the threat that poses to our kids. I'd like the House to join me in making her very welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: Visiting us in the gallery today is a very special friend and someone who doesn't come here very often. My wife Wendy is here to find out what's keeping me from doing all those jobs at home. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming members of the Cariboo Communities Coalition who are down here for discussion with government. They are Grant Huffman, Terry Tate, Brian Goodrich, Diane Walters, Wade Fisher, Lala Hampton and Guenter Weckerle. Please make them welcome.

A. Sanders: I have an individual in the gallery who wanted to come down and see what kinds of people I hung around with all day -- on the other side as well as on this side. She's a very important person: my mother Lila Robertson.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before I call on the Clerk for orders of the day and other business, I would like to make a very brief announcement. All of us in this chamber are certainly well aware of the blood shortage that has confronted the citizens of this province. I'm pleased to advise you that by arrangement with the Red Cross, we have established a couple of particular times for a clinic in the next two days.

This is to advise members that there will be a return bus shuttle service leaving from the library steps at the rear of the Legislature, leaving every half-hour from the chamber, and you will also get a ride back. That will be between 2:30 and 8 o'clock today as well as tomorrow, and I would dearly hope that all of us who are able to leave these premises will be able to do so and donate blood. It's obviously a worthwhile cause.

Oral Questions

KELLEHER-READY REPORT ON
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

When the interim report was released, the then Minister of Labour said: "I asked two of British Columbia's most respected industrial relations experts to look at changes that have taken place in construction, and they have reported back with an excellent summary for employers, trade unions and government."

I have spoken with Mr. Kelleher, who tells me that they are not preparing a final report, and no work has been done on the review panel for the past year and a half. My question to the Minister of Labour is: why has the minister not given instructions to Kelleher and Ready to complete their final report?

Hon. J. Cashore: Kelleher and Ready did an excellent job in their interim report. The information in that report has been very important. They did say that one size does not fit all, and we have taken that approach. We have consulted broadly over a great many years with regard to the vital issues that are addressed in this legislation.

This legislation is on the order paper, it will be discussed in second reading, and it will be discussed very thoroughly. We'll be listening very carefully to the points that the hon. member has to make.

C. Hansen: Kelleher and Ready were very clear in their interim report, and they recommended against sectoral bargaining. The quote that they have in their report is: "The complexities of the industry militate against a single negotiated agreement" -- and as the minister said, one size does not fit all. What they're bringing in is what Kelleher and Ready recommended against. Kelleher and Ready have been muzzled by this government, and instead this government is listening to only Ken Georgetti and the union bosses in the building trades unions.

To the minister: does the $265,000 that the building trades union donated to NDP coffers speak louder than the thousands of dollars that taxpayers spent on the expert opinions of two of British Columbia's top labour experts?

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, if this was to get into a debate about who donates to whom politically, I could go on for a long time, and that side of the House would definitely lose that debate.

But as I said, what we have brought forward is not one-size-fits-all, and the appropriate place for that debate to take place is once that legislation, which is in the Orders of the Day, comes forward.

C. Hansen: One last question to the minister: why has he not given instructions to Kelleher and Ready to proceed with their review panel and to complete their final report?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have answered that question. We've consulted very broadly over a long period of time with the full spectrum of British Columbians, and we have brought forward our decision based on that taking place.

[ Page 5734 ]

EFFECT OF LABOUR CODE CHANGES ON
HOUSING PRICES AND CONSTRUCTION JOBS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members! Members, please. Our time for question period is very finite.

R. Coleman: According to the Urban Development Institute, the NDP's radical changes to the Labour Code would increase house prices by 10 percent and reduce the number of people who qualify for a new home -- first-time homebuyers -- by 15 percent. Will the Minister of Labour tell British Columbians why he insists on putting the dream of home-ownership further out of the reach of young people trying to buy their first home?

[2:15]

R. Coleman: Higher prices for new homes means fewer homes will be built. Fewer new homes being built means fewer jobs. Can the Minister of Labour tell us how many construction jobs will be lost when his government forces through these radical labour changes?

Hon. J. Cashore: The residential housing sector is not unionized, has not been unionized and will not likely be unionized. The proposition the hon. member puts forward is without substance. Again I would appeal to this hon. member not to, through misinformation, seek to dissuade investment in this province.

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICIES
AND PEACE REGION JOB LOSS

Has the minister instructed any of his staff to travel to the Peace region, with decision-making authority, to discuss face to face with company executives what his government must do to keep jobs in the Peace?

Hon. A. Petter: As indicated in the budget, the commitment of this government is to work with the business community and other sectors from throughout the province to develop investor confidence and to encourage job creation. I'd be very happy to talk to the member about how I might ensure that representatives from the Peace region have a voice as part of that process or in relation to it. This government did cut taxes for small business by 10 percent in last year's budget. This government has an enviable record in terms of job creation over the last five years, and this government remains committed to encouraging investment and growth in all parts of British Columbia, including the Peace region.

R. Neufeld: The minister knows full well there's a 20 percent differential in costs from British Columbia to Alberta. That's our problem, and that's what your government doesn't want to own up to. But interestingly enough, the Premier made no bones about his moves to entice a company with reportedly questionable international labour practices to set up shop in British Columbia. Isn't it ironic that this government has more time to cosy up to U.S.-based businesses than to meet with existing Peace region businesses employing hundreds of local British Columbia residents? In fact, the Premier has spent more time south of the border trying to lure new businesses to the lower mainland than in trying to keep established businesses and jobs in the Peace region.

The Speaker: Question, please.

R. Neufeld: Does the minister believe that it is better to focus on keeping good, high-paying, quality jobs in the Peace region instead of on some cross-border shopping?

Hon. A. Petter: This government's commitment to create jobs knows no geographical bounds, and we will make efforts to attract investment from offshore as well as increase jobs in the Peace. I'd remind the member opposite of the extraordinary efforts this government made to help establish an oriented strand board plant in the Peace region. When I was Forests Minister, I had the happy opportunity of going up to the Peace region around the time of the opening of that plant.

Let me assure the member that it is not a matter of trading off international investment and international opportunities against the Peace. This government is going to work in every part of this province to bring in investment, to encourage investment and to create jobs. That's our commitment.

PHARMACARE COVERAGE OF
SCHIZOPHRENIA DRUGS

To the Minister of Health: given the medical evidence, why does the government refuse to fund these medications that would make such a positive difference in these people's lives?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the hon. member were concerned about this being such an important issue, she would actually put the facts on the table. I consider this a very important issue, too. The Pharmacare program actually grandparented each and every person on risperidone. There are 4,000 patients 

[ Page 5735 ]

on risperidone. We are paying for olanzapine and risperidone as a second-line medication. In fact, the record of special authorities is that 99.9 percent of all special authorities of olanzapine and risperidone are being paid for by Pharmacare. Those are the facts as they exist today.

What are we doing about the concerns raised by the community -- both the medical community and the families -- and the people who have to take risperidone or olanzapine? We've done a review, a consultation -- a very thorough consultation. The fact of the matter is that the decision to put this on special authority was made by the therapeutics initiative and the pharmaco-economics initiative. However, there are people in the community who say otherwise. We've done a review, and that review is almost complete. I met with the Schizophrenia Society on Friday, and an announcement will be made very shortly.

A. Sanders: You know, hon. Speaker, one of the things I've learned about this government is that when it's all said and done, there is more said than done. It is not an issue of whether people are grandfathered or there's special authority. It is that this medication should be available to every single British Columbian with schizophrenia who needs it. That is the end of the story.

Aaron Millar is a young schizophrenic man accused of murder. This Victoria youth is accused of killing his own mother while untreated and in a psychotic state. My question is to the Minister of Health: is there any price of any treatment too great for government not to have done whatever it could to have prevented this tragedy?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the hon. member knows that the tragic death of Mrs. Millar is under a coroner's investigation, and under public investigation as well. Frankly, if the hon. member is offering some information that so far is not known, I think she should bring that to the attention of the coroner.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING
AND SECURITY AGAINST CRIME

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please. Let us hear the question.

K. Krueger: . . .the chief of police released a report, and the results are shocking. Robberies were up 218 percent, vehicle theft up 166 percent and burglaries up 100 percent. My question is to the Attorney General: what specific plans does the minister have to cope with the crime wave that British Columbia must expect as a result of the NDP's massive gambling expansion?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It never ceases to amaze me that some members of the opposition continue to sensationalize whatever minimal consequences our modest expansion of gaming may have in British Columbia. I want to say, as I said yesterday, that we are in ongoing discussions with the chiefs of police in British Columbia. As it is, with the amount of money dedicated to gambling issues vis-�-vis law enforcement, I can indicate to this House that we are in front of the pack nationally, and we will pour more money into those resources.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Reports

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

Leave granted.

P. Calendino: I'm sorry that this introduction is late, but I didn't see them when we came in. With the consent of my other colleagues from Burnaby, I'm happy to introduce an old friend of ours, a former school trustee, a very active member of the Burnaby Arts Council and of the Burnaby Multicultural Society and a current instructor at BCIT. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Rudy Spence and his wife.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would like to advise the members of the House that we will be sitting tomorrow. By leave, I move that in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the committee be empowered to sit during any sitting of the House.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

G. Plant: I rise to move the amendments to section 1 of this bill which stand in my name on the order paper. I should perhaps observe first that there are amendments to three subsections of section 1, and I intend to speak to those three amendments collectively. The amendments that are in my name on the order paper to section 1.1 and a series of other sections to the bill are consequential amendments. They stand or fall according to whether the amendments that I'm going to speak about first stand or fall.

[SECTION 1(a), by adding the following definition:

"domestic partner" means a person who, except under parts 5 and 6, lived with another person for a period of at least 2 years in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, physical intimacy, sharing and interdependence, if the application under this Act is made within one year after they ceased to live together, and for the purposes of this Act the relationship may be between persons of the same gender.

SECTION 1(c), by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

[ Page 5736 ]

(b) except under Parts 5 and 6, lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years if the application under this Act is made within one year after they ceased to live together.

SECTION 1(d), by deleting subparagraph 2(b) and substituting the following:

(b) lived together in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years, or

(c) lived together for a period of at least 2 years in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, physical intimacy, sharing and interdependence, and for the purposes of this Act the relationship may be between persons of the same gender.]

G. Plant: I appreciate that. Thank you, hon. Chair. That would be a most expeditious way to deal with this.

I spoke yesterday in second reading about the larger context of the issues raised by this bill: the issues of principle that are raised by this bill, the public policy purposes of this bill, and the concern that has been expressed to me and to other members of this assembly by a wide variety of British Columbians from a wide variety of backgrounds with respect to the terminology issue that is raised by the definitions in section 1 of the bill, and in particular the definition of "spouse."

[2:30]

I want to just spend a moment or two explaining how that happens. That happens in a number of ways: firstly, by adding a new term and a definition. The new term is "domestic partner," and it will be added in section 1(a) of the bill. It will become a new definition in the act, and I'll come back and speak about the terms of that definition in a minute or two.

The second thing I do with these amendments is make changes to the definition of "spouse" as it appears in the bill. The definition of "spouse" in the bill has four parts: " 'spouse' means a person who. . .is married to another person"; and under subparagraph (b) it means, in some circumstances, a person who has ". . .lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years if the application under this Act is made within one year after they cease to live together and, for the purposes of this Act, the marriage-like relationship may be between persons of the same gender." There are two other subparagraphs for the definition of "spouse"; neither is particularly significant to the point that I am making here.

It is subparagraph (b) in the definition of "spouse" which creates the concern for those who have expressed that concern. The current definition encompasses relationships under the umbrella of marriage-like relationships. It encompasses two kinds of relationships: relationships that are marriage-like between persons of opposite genders and marriage-like relations between persons of the same gender.

The amendment that I propose to section 1(c) of the bill before us is to take out from the definition of "spouse" that part which refers to the relationship that may be between persons of the same gender -- to delete that. So what would happen is that we would be left with a definition of a relationship which is to be described as marriage-like and would be a relationship that would presumably only exist between two persons of different genders: a man and a woman. So that's the next stage of the process.

Finally, the third stage of the process of these amendments takes us over to that part of section 1 of this bill which redefines step-parent to include people living together in a marriage-like relationship, whether they be of the same gender or of different genders. Again, the intention here is to break out that definition into two separate categories so that there is one category for people who are the same gender in a relationship, and another category of relationship is for people who are of the opposite sex. So that's the starting point to the structure of what I propose.

Then the next task of the amendment, as I said, is to preserve all of the rights and obligations that are imposed by this bill and by the act on persons in particular relations and to preserve all of those for the people who will come under the umbrella of the new definition of domestic partner. So what I think is the most expedient way to do that is to simply work through the act, and in every place where the term "spouse" appears, take out the word "spouse" and replace it with the phrase "spouse or domestic partner." So as one moves through the Family Relations Act, one would find that in each case where the act made reference to a spouse, there would now be a reference to a spouse or a domestic partner. Both of those legal actors, if I can put it in that technical language, would then have all of the same rights and obligations.

There are one or two exceptions. I can't remember if it's in this bill or in Bill 32 that there are provisions about compellability, which relate to husbands and wives giving evidence against each other. There are old rules of the common law that deal with that, and I don't think that what the act does in that respect needs to be amended to accommodate this issue.

So I have created a new term. The new term is "domestic partner," and the definition is there on the order paper. " 'Domestic partner' means a person who, except under parts 5 and 6" -- and I'll pause to say that that language is put there to be consistent with the expanded definition of spouse, so again I'm trying to maintain consistency between these amendments and the original bill -- "lived with another person for a period of at least 2 years" -- and I pause again; this language is the time element of the triggering requirement that is exactly the same as that in the existing act -- "in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, physical intimacy, sharing and interdependence. . . ."

I pause there. After that, there are some words about the triggering of these statuses that are exactly the same as the words in the current bill. Again, I'm trying to be consistent. Finally, my definition concludes with the words: ". . .and for the purposes of this Act the relationship may be between persons of the same gender." Again, those are words found in the current act. So that is the structure of the amendments and their intention and how they would work as you move through the act.

[ Page 5737 ]

I want to say a word or two here about where some of these new words come from. They are not mine. They're not original to me. I have taken them for a variety of sources. There are other jurisdictions, both in North America and in Europe, which have used and legislated the concept of registered domestic partnership. That is a device that is used to encompass what traditionally might have been common-law relationships, whether they are relationships between people of the same gender or people of different genders. There are other jurisdictions that use registered domestic partnerships as a vehicle somewhat analogous to marriage, which allows a distinction to be made between marriage -- which for many people has a very special significance -- and this other concept, which is the concept of a registered domestic partnership.

Now, I am not in a position here to advocate that there be a registry of domestic partnerships. That would go far beyond the bounds of what I'm allowed to do in an attempt to improve the government's legislation. So I have not attempted to draft a scheme that would allow for registered domestic partnerships. But the term "domestic partner" is the term I am interested in putting forward for debate and consideration. As I said, it is not a new term; it's not an original term. It's a term that is used in other jurisdictions, and so far as I can gather, it appears to be used with some success.

Secondly, in my definition about close, personal relationships, there is language that describes those relationships -- the phrase "primary importance in both persons' lives" and the phrase "attributes of permanence, physical intimacy, sharing and interdependence." I've listened with interest to the helpful and thoughtful speeches that were made on the other side of the House yesterday about these amendments in the general terms that they were cast then. I got the feeling that perhaps these words were seen by some members of the other side as being new or unusual. Again, I want to assure the members that I have not made these words up. These are words that come from the jurisprudence of Canadian courts that have tried to deal with the issues of discrimination and equality around the definition of spouse.

Let me tell you specifically where I have taken these words from. I have the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment delivered in December of 1996 in the M. v. H. case, and that's a case which is on its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. I don't want to spend a lot of time going through the technical parts of the judgment in that case, but I want to assure the members opposite that there are some important passages in the judgment in that case, which use some of the same phrases I have used in this definition.

In the majority judgment of the court in that case, there is reference to a report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. The Ontario Law Reform Commission report talks about the need to focus a statute of this nature on relationships that "embody the fundamental elements of intimacy, mutual economic interdependence and living together in a 'close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives,' which we see as the essence of the concept of 'family.' " This is the Ontario Law Reform Commission speaking; this is not a completely ill-considered body. This is a careful and thoughtful study of the issues raised by this bill and the issues raised in Ontario.

I've taken language that is used in judicial decisions to deal with this issue, and I have put it forward in my amendment. It may not be perfect language -- I said that yesterday and I'll say it again. There may be ways to improve it, and I look forward to any suggestions that the members opposite may have in order to improve this language. But I think it's a starting point. I think it's a way of achieving the accommodation of building the bridge and finding and enlarging the consensus that exists on the major principles of this bill. It is, in my view, something of the essence of a compromise and a way of moving forward on this bill, which I commend to the members opposite and all members of the House.

[2:45]

Equality for all is something like the struggle we have within our own family, when each member of the family has their own individual opinion and we have to arrive at a collective decision. The collective decision probably may not be totally agreeable to any of the individual members who are part of that family unit. So we are in that situation with this particular bill. We're striving as a legislative body to arrive at laws that can accommodate and respect very widely held opinions and ideas about what is right. I sincerely believe each of these opinions is striving to arrive at equality for each of those persons who are involved within our community.

It's that struggle as a legislature to speak on behalf of everyone, which we do not have in a way in other elements of our society. . . . That's our task here, and mine as a legislator is to acknowledge my own position, and having acknowledged it, to say that it's not my position which should be placed upon all the citizens of this province. Rather, it is my and other legislators' obligation to balance out our positions and the many other positions that are there and see if we can come to accommodation that can be meaningful for all of us.

I spent a number of years in interfaith work, so I'm very aware of the variety of intense beliefs which many people have been willing to live and to die for. They're not things to be taken lightly or thoughtlessly. It's always hard when you have a definite opinion of your own, which you believe to be totally right, to accept that other people who have a totally opposite opinion to yours also believe themselves to be totally right.

Perhaps I have mentioned here before one of the lessons that was taught to me by a farmer in Saskatchewan, which is relevant in this discussion. He came out one Sunday after a sermon, and I gather he did not particularly agree with what I had said in that Sunday sermon. He looked at me very seriously and said: "There are three sides to every question." Of course, I had to ask him what he meant. He said: "Well, there's your side and there's my side and there's the right side." What we're trying to discover here and put into legislation is not my opinion or somebody else's opinion, but the right side. We're truly trying not to do a political thing here. We're trying to be honest to the people of our community, for we have heard. . . . All of us have received countless letters on all sides of the issue -- some for and some against the particular amendment, and others for parts of it and not for all of it.

I think the majority of us very clearly accept the intention of this bill, which is to provide protection for children in 

[ Page 5738 ]

whatever relationships those children may find themselves in during their growing years. So we're striving to find that statement which can acknowledge the protection of children and also deal with the very real and serious concerns of our community. I appreciate that the amendment has tried to accommodate that very purpose.

The current misunderstanding of the legislation is unfortunate. It's unfortunate because the community at large has not had the opportunity to have this legislation before them, to study it in its wholeness and to understand its intent to protect children. So many of those, if not most of those, who are responding are responding out of context and out of a lack of awareness of the purpose of the bill itself. We need to take that into account.

I would say clearly that I would have to vote against the bill as it is in this section, because I don't feel that it fairly reflects the community to which we are responsible. But I would vote, then, in favour of the amendment, because it moves to respond to those wishes without depriving the rights of other people. It acknowledges the equal rights of everyone in society by putting the amendment forth as it is at this point.

I was interested when, after this had been proposed, after it had been put forward, finalized and made public, I was visited by Mr. Vandezande -- who, incidentally, was the person who was invited by the Premier to come to the Legislature and be the keynote speaker at the Premier's meeting with the representatives of the faith community across the province, to talk about public issues and people's concerns about them. Mr. Vandezande is part of Citizens for Public Justice. This is the longstanding, reputable organization which for many years has been working on public policy, making representation to federal and provincial governments -- both in Canada and around the world -- from the base of strong religious conviction, both Christian and multifaith.

It's important to know a little bit about this organization. Briefly, I will quote part of the statement from their principles and founding documents. "Legal Equality," which is the name of the pamphlet which they had produced to talk about legal equality, "maps out a public justice approach that respects the values and beliefs as well as the rights and responsibilities of all members of society." It goes on to amplify that by saying: "It is probably safe to say that most Canadians and certainly most Christians" -- who this document was aimed at -- "support the concept of public justice. After all, who would argue with the general statement that all members of society should be treated fairly and equitably and that governments should respect the rights of all citizens?" As part of that presentation, during the last year they made a presentation to the federal government of Canada. That federal government presentation was given these concerns. CPJ has proposed that a new legal category of relationship be established alongside of marriage, which would be called "registered domestic partnerships." This new category would be open to heterosexual and homosexual couples alike, and for public purposes would be legally equivalent to marriage.

So as the member for Richmond-Steveston said, we are not bringing this amendment forth without some history, background and understanding of others across the country and around the world who have tried to put forth equal justice concerns, at the same time respecting the beliefs, the attitudes and the cultures of all of those who live in our communities and in our society.

I say again that I would not vote for the original category here in this document; I would vote for the amendment instead. But whether that amendment wins or loses, I would still vote for the document because my understanding is that the principle of caring for children cannot be undermined. We will have to come back and review the subject again many times, no doubt, in the future.

So I speak in favour of the amendment, and I hope others will seriously consider it as one way of meeting and responding to the needs and wishes, the cultural and religious beliefs, that are there in our multicultural, multifaith, democratic community.

J. Dalton: I also rise in support of the amendment. Bill 31 invites us to sanction marriage-like relationships, of course, including same-gender relationships.

Marriage, as dealt with in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Egan v. Canada, "is by nature heterosexual." The Egan case goes on: "It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage." The U.S. Supreme Court has also commented on marriage: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." I have some other comments as well, and I just want to make sure I get all of these on the record.

I think we all agree, certainly on this side of the House as well as on the government side, on the obligation of the Attorney General and the government to protect children who will or could be affected by relationships breaking up. But I would submit that we should not, by doing so, erode the foundation of our society, which is the family.

A noted American author, Mark Halpern, has made some observations in the aftermath of last year's U.S. elections. Again, I'm going to quote from some of his comments. He comments in one of his articles that in his opinion the Americans went through a form of revolution, as last year's election results demonstrated. Mr. Halpern writes:

"It is a revolution in which individual rights have become group rights, in which responsibility has become entitlement, marriage has become divorce, birth has become abortion, medicine has become euthanasia, murder is neither a surprise nor necessarily punishable, pornography is piped into almost every home, gambling is legal, drugs are rife, students think Alaska is an island south of Los Angeles and mothers of small children are sent off to war with great fanfare and pride."

[3:00]

I've also sought some legal advice on the contentious phrase that we are seeking to amend with our amendment. Just to give you some sense of the legal opinions that have been expressed to me, one family practitioner is of the opinion that the phrase in question, the phrase "marriage-like," is not needed to fulfil the purpose of this bill. Given the uncertainty it will create, it's his opinion that there will be a lot of litigation. And I would submit that that is quite likely to be the case. Another lawyer, who's not a family law practitioner but has been in practice for over 25 years, comments: "It is unnecessary to redefine the term 'spouse' to protect children." And again I have to concur with those legal opinions.

So I support the amendment that the Attorney General critic has put on the order paper and that we're speaking to right now. I would invite the Attorney General and all members opposite to do likewise.

[ Page 5739 ]

M. de Jong: I've chosen to interject in the debate at this stage for a particular reason. I don't want there to be any confusion about the nature of my concern with the bill and how those concerns can be properly addressed. Bill 31 really is one of those pieces of legislation that cause many legislators to ponder, again, what it was that brought them to elected office, why they sought elected office. We all know how we get here, and that is a very partisan, at times exciting -- generally exciting -- exercise that I very much enjoy. But when we get here, it occurs to me that beyond bringing with us all a vision of what we want to see our society built around, we bring with us -- although it's sometimes difficult to discern in this chamber -- a desire to build consensus around that vision, to involve as many people in our society as possible to build that cooperative spirit that makes us better as a society. It was with that in mind that I examined and reviewed Bill 31.

It also occurred to me that this Legislature and the laws we pass really acquire their legitimacy in a couple of different ways. We can talk about the legalities of passing a bill, of it receiving royal assent and being proclaimed. That is certainly one way that that happens. We can talk about the operational component of the law and the Legislature and how the courts enforce the provisions that we pass here. But we also have to recognize the social component -- that the laws we pass here are designed to respond to a recognized social need or objective. All of those things need to be balanced, and if they aren't, we run the risk of alienating a significant portion of our society. Those are all important components, in my view, and I examined Bill 31 with those in mind.

Let me share with you the presentation I received from one constituent. I don't know if it's a majority of my constituents. I know that it represents a significant component of my constituency, but I learned long ago that it is a dangerous game we try to play in ascertaining whether a particular view represents a majority or a minority, and those measurements tend to be very difficult to make. I can say this about this constituent. She is thoughtful, she is fair -- in my mind -- but she is genuinely troubled. To be troubled, in my view, by a component of Bill 31 doesn't make her any less thoughtful, any less fair-minded or any less tolerant. It just leaves her troubled.

Let me say that as best as I can tell, I'll talk about the things she's not troubled by. She's not troubled by expanding the application of maintenance obligations to ensure that all children in all manner of circumstances are protected. That doesn't trouble her. She's not opposed to the application of child support guidelines. She wants them to be applied in a fair manner, but she does not object to the legislation's attempt to do that.

She's not opposed to a legislative regime that will provide for an equitable division of pensions. That does not trouble her. She is not in any way troubled or opposed to the courts compelling the full disclosure of assets and income to ensure that there are equitable maintenance awards and property divisions. In fact, I can say that I have received no submissions from any quarter expressing any fundamental opposition to those general propositions.

What she is troubled by -- extremely troubled by -- is that in seeking to achieve those objectives, the government would, from her perspective, so easily tamper with a definition that for her and many others holds great symbolic, moral and indeed spiritual significance. She writes in her letter to me: "Any law enacted should protect all children, and surely all children can be protected without changing the definition of spouse." I have to say that hers is a sentiment that has been expressed to me very often in the past couple of weeks.

I happen to be Catholic. That has been mentioned in this chamber in the past. At the same time, though, I believe that it's absolutely essential that we maintain the separation of church and state. That has become the hallmark of our legislative democracy. I think it was St. Augustine who talked about rendering unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and unto God that which is God's, and that is fundamentally important.

But I would be less than honest if I didn't admit that when the archbishop of the Catholic church makes a submission to the Premier, I take notice. I will quote the paragraph in the letter, where he writes:

"One of the primary objectives of the legislative proposals is the protection of children. I commend your government undertaking this important objective. All children, including those in the care of homosexual persons, should be afforded the benefit of child support and family maintenance. I believe, however, that children can be fully protected without altering the present legal definition of spouse."

The amendment that we have tabled here today accomplishes that goal. You have heard the words of the member for Richmond-Steveston. The amendment appears on the order paper and purports to define a "domestic partner." I will reread the definition. It says: ". . .a person who, except under parts 5 and 6, lived with another person for a period of at least 2 years in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, physical intimacy, sharing and interdependence. . . ."

There are same-sex couples. Nothing we do in this chamber is going to change that fact -- nor should it, quite frankly. There are same-sex couples who are raising children. Nothing we do in this chamber is going to alter that fact -- nor should it. What we are charged with, and the challenge that we face, is responding to those circumstances, achieving the objective that we have set insofar as protecting children in all circumstances in a fair and equitable way.

I will conclude my remarks by saying this. There will be those who are dissatisfied and will be dissatisfied with the approach that I have chosen to take to this bill. There will be people who are angered that I have spoken against the existing section and instead opted to urge acceptance of the amendments that are on the order paper via the member for Richmond-Steveston.

Others, I am sure, will argue that the amendments don't go far enough. There are people watching and listening to this debate; some of them are my constituents. I will say to them and to others that I have done my best to give voice to the concerns that I have heard to try to achieve that synthesis -- more importantly that consensus -- that I think, at the end of the day, is the objective we all seek when we come into this chamber insofar as crafting a society that works for everyone.

I need to say one last thing, and that is to express how obliged I am to my constituents -- many of them have taken time to write to me, to call me, to meet with me -- and that my ability to respond to this section is made a much more mean-

[ Page 5740 ]

ingful exercise by their involvement. As I say, my response will not satisfy all, but at the end of the day, I am able to say that I have done my best in responding and giving voice in a way that I think would achieve the consensus that we all seek when we come to this House.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, I'd like to show my appreciation for the many sentiments that have been expressed yesterday and today in debating this bill, especially in recognizing that relationships between people, regardless of their gender, are a unique bond and a unique union.

I feel an undertone in all the debate -- that we're all trying to struggle with how we can overcome the controversy that has been created by the introduction of this bill. And for me, in particular, it's a very difficult thing to speak to. When Bill 31 and Bill 32 were introduced, it was to put something in place to make sure that children who are in an adoptive environment are going to have the security and the protection of the law -- and, I think, the rights -- that regardless of the union of the people that have adopted that child, the protection will always be there, and also in case the union no longer continues to be. To me, that is the real merit of the bill: how we can make sure that children will not ever become victims of a commitment made by adults to these children in that environment.

For me, it has been very unfortunate to see the focus, which should have been on the well-being of children, being put aside, and this bill becoming totally focused on the word "spouse" and the consequences of the term "spouse," as seen by various groups.

In the end, I am going to support the bill. First of all, I am going to support the motion. I hope that the other side will consider the motion seriously. After I have finished speaking, maybe I will have been able to put another element into the thought process to be considered by the government side.

[3:15]

I have asked many of my gay and lesbian friends how the definition of man and woman becoming husband and wife through wedlock would apply to their relationship, and if they felt the need -- in order to see rights become equal for all people -- for that spousal definition to apply to their relationship. Quite frankly, I have found very few gay and lesbian partners that felt comfortable with that spousal definition as I described it from Webster's.

As a matter of fact, I can say that after having lived with a same-sex partner for 26 years of complete happiness, I have never in my life called my partner "spouse" and have never in my life had my partner introduce me as his spouse. I would like to leave it that way, because when I am introduced as a spouse, there is a risk that the next question is going to be: "According to the definition, what are you in the relationship?"

Why should we do that? Why can't we just celebrate the uniqueness of every relationship? I am convinced that this is not just a heterosexual issue. This is an issue in the gay and lesbian community, as well, because I don't think people in the gay community are looking for a new label today. They are looking for rights, and they are looking for equal rights. I'm talking about equal rights and the need for equal rights.

In the political climate, we still see politicians standing up and saying that if a person works in a store and a client is not totally happy with the person because he or she is seen as a gay person, that it is okay for that person to be put at the back of the store, out of sight. There are politicians who believe that -- thank God, not in this House -- but as long as that kind of thing can still be said. . . . Because the law is not clear about protecting people from that kind of evil thinking, I will fight and stand up for gay and lesbian rights. But I don't think this definition does that. This definition will just put another label to a bond or a union that can really stand on its own and be recognized on its own.

I hope that the other side will understand that this is much more than just the issue of the family relationship where this law will apply. If we ignore the sensitivity that is shared by traditional couples on this issue, then rather than getting people to understand that gay couples are equal in any way, shape or form when it comes to how they live together, how they relate to others. . . . I'm afraid that if we start pushing laws that include elements that offend people, that make people feel uncomfortable, we are not serving the gay community at all; we're actually taking a step back.

I say that because some of the people I have spoken to are regular, heterosexual couples that have always been totally comfortable with my lifestyle -- with any other gay or lesbian lifestyle -- who I consider my friends, and they are saying: "Does it have to be?" When I have had these discussions in the past I talked about common-law relationships, and they immediately said: "That's great. I want you to have the protection of the law, just like we all have. But don't undermine some of the values that we personally have when it comes to identifying that relationship."

So I don't think that this is going to do much for the gay and lesbian community. I think this is going to offend more people and give them that feeling of: "Well, why should I support them if they can't respect my values? Why should I have to respect the gay and lesbian values?" So there's another reason that we should really look at the definition that gives us that right, that gives us the equality. If we do that, then I think we are creating a framework -- a base -- so that every law that comes into this House in the future will include the need to recognize the union between two same-gender people, and so that that bill will then be discussed on the issue of the bill rather than on a definition.

I hope that we keep that in mind, because this is not the only time we are going to see "spouse" in a bill. Every time it comes up we will see the forces of opposition rise, get stronger and create more animosity toward gay people. So I don't think this is positive in that sense, either.

Having spoken with gay friends, lesbian friends and heterosexual couples, these are the issues I think have to be considered. To me, their responses, which I have shared with you, merit very much this chamber indeed including in the definitions the new definition reflecting the union of two people of the same sex without being a threat to values that other people cherish. I ask everybody to support the amendment to the bill.

M. Sihota: I want to spend a few minutes talking about what's happening in the Legislature during the course of this 

[ Page 5741 ]

debate on this quiet Tuesday afternoon. I think what's happening in this debate goes beyond just the context of this legislation and this amendment. It speaks volumes about what's happened during the course of this entire legislative session, and in some ways it gives us a good glimpse of what's happening politically in this province, particularly with the party opposite.

Let me start by saying this. This bill is before this House because on this side of the House we come from a particular value system. There wasn't one person in our caucus who in any way flinched over this legislation coming to this House. There's a glue that is very common to all of us, and a fundamental recognition of the equality of all people is one of those glues that binds us as members on this side of the House. When the Attorney General first advised our caucus that this bill was coming forward, the reaction was one of saying that it is long overdue that we come to recognize the inherent equality of people and that the value system we have in terms of recognizing the equality of people must be expressed in legislation. Therefore we had no difficulty coming forward with legislation that says that all people engaged in a relationship, all spouses -- and I remind the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi that spouse is a gender-neutral word -- ought to be treated in an equal way, whether they are in a relationship that is composed of a same-sex couple or of people of different sexes.

Contrary to the comments of both the member for Matsqui and the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the amendment that is before the House violates that basic tenet of equality. What the amendment does is create a different class. It creates a different class of discrimination. It creates a higher and different test for those that are engaged in a common-law relationship than for those that are involved in a same-sex relationship. It creates a different test and a higher test. By so doing, the opposition is seeking to entrench an inequality. They are proposing that we make a law that states that we can treat people differently and a law that says that inequality is now enshrined in legislation. That's why it will be rejected by this side of the House, because it runs as a crosscurrent to the fundamental tenet that we have on this side of the House about equality.

This is more than simply an amendment to legislation. It goes way beyond that, hon. Speaker. It also speaks to what's happening in that opposition caucus. There are traditional Liberals over there who would probably support what we on this side of the House have brought forward. There are Vander Zalm Liberals over there -- if I can put it that way -- or Socred Liberals who would be violently opposed to this. There are Reform Liberals over there who are trying to outdo the Reform Party.

I thought there were some very thoughtful comments yesterday from the member for Peace River North. I'm just reading his comments. It's not often that I get the opportunity to quote him. Speaking of this legislation, he said: "This is all based on equality, and I look at this bill as dealing with things such as that based on equality amongst people in whatever type of union they intend to have. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with any of the unions, but I should respect them on an equal basis."

It's interesting that a Reform member of this chamber has struggled with the notion of equality. He has received many of the letters that all of us on this side of the House have received, but he thought the issue through. He didn't try to make some artificial distinctions. He didn't try to sort of stumble and babble as much of the rhetoric we've heard today has done around this amendment. Rather, he stuck to the principle of equality of treatment.

Yet this divided opposition is incapable of doing that. In doing so in the broader context, they have demonstrated the fundamental weakness they have. During the course of this session, they have demonstrated that they are divided on the issue of leadership. It's apparent to all of us on this side of the House and to many in the gallery who sit here and watch. It is evident to us that they are divided on matters of policy, this being one of several examples. It is evident that they are also divided on matters of fundamental rights, and that's also evident to all of us in the context of this debate directly.

If this session has marked anything, it's marked the end of that party. It's the end of that party, mark my words. You know, the opinion polls we've seen over the past few weeks demonstrate the depth of the problem that they are facing opposite. They have seen it; they have seen their numbers fall; and they know that they are an opposition without a beacon. This debate demonstrates that the Liberal opposition is bound by one thing only. They have one glue that binds them, and that's a sense of opportunism. That was lost when the verdict of the last election came down, and now they're drifting. They've drifted since March, they've drifted into July, and they're just drifting. It's inevitable, and this debate has brought it all home.

[3:30]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Farrell-Collins: We've seen what I thought was some extremely enlightened debate around an extremely difficult and volatile issue over the last number of days. This issue has percolated through the people of British Columbia, and many feel strongly one way, on the one hand, and many feel just as strongly, if not more so, about this issue on the other hand. I must say that in the last two days I've been extremely proud to be a member of the Legislature. We've had that sometimes vociferous -- having read some of the letters -- sometimes almost violent debate in the public around an extremely difficult issue, something I'm sure every member of this House has taken inside and had to listen to and think about quite deeply. I was proud to hear the speeches that were given. I was proud to hear the cooperation. I was proud to see members moving freely back and forth across the House to talk to each other about this issue. I was proud because I think that as members of the Legislature, you're here to lead. You're here to take those difficult issues, you're here to listen to what people have to say, and you're here to try and calm things down sometimes and actually try and bring people together with a consensus.

I was proud to be a member of this chamber until about four or five minutes ago, when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin rose and made some comments that I think -- if I can try and be as polite as I can -- were designed to do nothing other than inflame those very divisions, those very issues that are out there. But he did more than that. He demeaned the members of this House on all sides by discrediting members' rights to have an opinion and to express that opinion in this chamber.

[ Page 5742 ]

Without repeating his speech, he called members opposite by a variety of names; he dragged in a number of issues that have nothing to do with this difficult issue. I can honestly say that at a time when leadership was required, at a time when members had a duty to their constituents and to the people of British Columbia to take a stand on a difficult issue, to respect each other's opinions and to come to some sort of an agreement or agree to disagree, that member debased the debate, debased the process that we've gone on and debased the tenor of this House.

I must say that I'm disappointed by that. I'm disappointed by the behaviour of that member; I'm disappointed by his comments. I think he did a disservice not only to the members of the Legislature and not only to the people of British Columbia: I think he did himself a great disservice.

G. Wilson: I want to get to the specifics of the amendment that's before us, but I want to say. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Just have your seat for a moment. The member rises on point of order.

M. Sihota: I'm sorry. I left the chamber a minute ago after giving my comments on this bill. I got down to my office, and I understand that a number of members opposite were calling me a coward, and I would ask that that be withdrawn.

I went down because I have an appointment. Any member opposite who wants to come down with me and know that that's the case can satisfy themselves that that's the case. But I would ask the member who made that comment to withdraw it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe a number of members made a comment. I wasn't one of them, but on behalf of the Liberal opposition, if anything we've ever done offended the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, then I would be more than happy to withdraw that.

And I. . . . Well, I'll leave it at that.

G. Wilson: As I was saying, I want to come back to the substance of the amendments on this bill, but before I do, I want to make a couple of comments with respect to what it is we're dealing with.

This is, I believe, a profoundly important piece of legislation. It is one that is going to be very difficult for people to understand who do not have the benefit of reading it and studying it as we do. It is also one that I think attacks both legislative issues and, in the minds of many, moral and religious issues. Whenever that comes together, it means that we have to treat with the utmost sensitivity what it is we're doing.

I know that the comments I made in second reading have hurt some people and hurt them deeply, and these are people whom I care about, because they are members of the homosexual community. They are personal friends of mine, and they expected that I would take a different position or point of view. I'm sorry for that, because I don't intend to hurt anybody.

I think that the difficulty is exacerbated when the extreme points of view in our society -- and they exist; we all know they do -- are brought forward and held up as examples of what the average person out there is thinking or writing or saying. When we do that, it paints this debate on two sides: those who are supportive of the homosexual community and those who are not.

This bill is not about that; it's not about that at all. I would hope that the Attorney General would take note that part of what stemmed this was the comment that much of the literature that has been received -- I think his words were -- "bordered on hate literature." I don't doubt that there are people who are homophobic who write hateful things about people who live within the homosexual community. I don't condone them, I don't support them, and I would wish that they wouldn't do that. We have laws in the province to try to protect against it, and I support those laws.

But what we're dealing with in this legislation is not marriage between homosexual people. If that's what this is about, then the government should have been honest enough to come forward and bring in amendments to the Marriage Act, because that's what the Marriage Act. . . .

An Hon. Member: That's federal.

G. Wilson: It is not federal, hon. member. The Marriage Act is in the statutes of the province of British Columbia right here in front of me. This is the Marriage Act, right here.

If we are talking about marriage rights between homosexual people, then amend the Marriage Act. If we are not, then let's address what it is we are really talking about. We're talking about money and the ability for people who are in a same-sex relationship to get support or to have children who are within that context supported in the event that that relationship dissolves. That's what this bill is all about. There is nothing in the provision of those requirements that requires any amendment or change to the term "spouse" -- nothing.

Within the Family Relations Act, there are two definitions that are critical to the way the act is applied. The first is the question of parent, because there are obligations within the Family Relations Act for those who are defined and are addressed as a parent. The second is one with respect to father or mother, and the responsibilities and obligations for a father or mother are different than for a parent.

So one has to ask, when we're dealing with the term "spouse" in the relationship, what are we really talking about? Are we talking about the rights of children? No. We're talking about the rights of people who wish to cohabit in some form of union, and that's got nothing whatsoever to do with what we're told this bill is all about. We're told it's about trying to find adequate support for children, and yet the whole debate so far has centred around the terminology, around two people who wish to cohabit who happen to be of the same gender. What on earth has that got to do with the well-being of a child? If people of the same gender want to care for children, they will care for children whether they live together or they don't.

What is it of marriage that we're talking about here? The fact is, marriage is in the head and in the heart. You are only as married as you want to be married. I don't care what paper you've signed, what the law says. People who come together who honestly and truly love and care and share the relationship of people are, within the context of their head and heart, married. Should the state give any care whether or not they are of the same gender if it's a loving, caring, honest relationship? No. It has no business making definition or commentary on it. But we have got to respect the institution of marriage as it is defined, not just within the statutes but within the sanctity of those who believe it is a sacrament before God, and there are hundreds and hundreds of years of history that define it that way.

So let us be very, very clear that people of the Jewish faith, people who are of the Muslim faith, the Hindu faith, the Sikh 

[ Page 5743 ]

faith, the Catholic faith -- Christians, generally -- all have definitions and concepts within the sacrament of the term "marriage." It has been the most fundamental right of passage for thousands of years. And what is the reason for that? It is to provide some measure of definition of the rights of the children born to the union. That's what it is about. And if this bill is about children, then let's stop fiddling around with nonsensical -- and I mean that with no disrespect -- definitions of the concept of spouse, and let's get down to what I believe the Charter talks about, and that is the fundamental right of every individual to equal benefit under the law.

If we're talking about benefits and the applications of benefits, let's talk about benefits. To me, it makes no difference if I come before whatever authority and say: "This is the person to whom I wish to have my benefits apply." What does the state care if we're in a marriage-like relationship or not, and how in the hell did they define it? Excuse my language, but I get carried away.

Why should the state interfere in my personal relationship, beyond the fact that we each have individual rights to have those benefits applied -- as the Charter provides? It can be done now within the confines of the laws as they exist. It does not require this amendment. Neither does it mean that we have to change the definition of spouse.

I will tell you this. We hear a lot about equality. It was raised in the context of these amendments, and a number of people said that this deals with equality. That's rubbish! Equality doesn't mean sameness. We can be equal under the law and still each of us be defined differently on the basis of our age, the institutions that we tend to join or the religion that we practise. It doesn't mean we're not equal because we are different. And if that applied under the Charter provisions as the definition so loosely defined over here on equality -- and we hear it all over the place -- that every person must be equal to every other person. . . . We're not. We never can be. But we must have equal opportunity under the law, and we must have equal access to the benefits that the law provides us. There is nothing to prohibit that from occurring within the confines of this act -- without getting into a change in the definition of spouse.

[3:45]

It goes on to say: ". . .except under parts 5 and 6, lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship. . . ." What does that mean? What does marriage-like mean? And why does that have any bearing whatsoever on a child who, after the splitting up of two people who have lived together, requires adequate resources for the child to be adequately and properly cared for? Why is this even relevant?

I'll tell you the downside to this definition and the reason I can't support the amendment. It does not speak to the distinction that is made between the term "parent" and the term "father" or "mother," because once we get into the question of father and mother, we have to get into the question of whether we're talking about biological father or biological mother, or whether we're talking about a stepfather or a stepmother, or how we're dealing with that relationship. Not only is that important in the definition and distinction in the Family Relations Act and the Marriage Act, but it becomes important in the inheritance act. . . . It doesn't talk about, in the inheritance act. . . . It doesn't say "responsible for a biological father." It says "for a father." Well, who is the father?

Similarly, we have to think this through carefully, because if we're talking about the rights of children in these relationships and we're going to sanctify, through this bill, the amendment and change to the definition of "spouse," we have to consider what the rights are of the children come into this new relationship. I don't think we've thought that one through, frankly. I don't know whether or not we've really thought through what the rights of children who will now be in these new unions are going to be, to the extent that the biological father or mother is not on the scene or to the extent that the financial responsibility is applied against the parent but there are no rights of access to the child. Remember, as the Attorney General himself said, questions of access have a lot to do with the child's right. We haven't thought that through clearly at all.

So I'm going to oppose these amendments because they don't do anything except make the water far more murky than it already is. I would hope that we can really start to understand the fact that we can accomplish what is needed -- and that is adequate financial support for the children -- without going in this direction and this route. It can be done more simply; it can be done under existing legislation with a minor amendment.

If the government was really trying to introduce a change to the Marriage Act, then it should have had the courage to come out and do it straight up, and not try to do it through the back door, which is what they're doing in this bill.

T. Stevenson: For many of us, this is an emotional subject -- obviously for some more than others. I would like to start off by rereading a decision of a Supreme Court judge in the Egan and Nesbit case, directing this particularly to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who I must say I'm tempted to get into a far more partisan discussion with after his attack on me some time ago. But I will leave that for now and pick that up at a later date. The judge said: "It is possible to be pro-family without rejecting less traditional family forms. It is not anti-family to support protection for non-traditional families. The traditional family is not the only family form, and non-traditional family forms may equally advance true family forms."

There is much discussion today around the term "spouse," obviously. From that same decision, Justice Cory had an important thing to say:

"The definition of 'spouse' as someone of the opposite sex reinforces the stereotype that homosexuals cannot and do not form lasting, caring, mutually supportive relationships with economic interdependence in the same manner as heterosexual couples. The appellant's relationship vividly demonstrates the error of that approach. The discriminatory impact cannot be deemed to be trivial when the legislation reinforces prejudicial attitudes based on such faulty stereotypes."

[ Page 5744 ]

 was: "Why are they doing this?" Is this to appease all of these people who are in opposition? Is this to appease the Catholic bishops who have come out so strongly opposed? It is my belief that this won't do it, anyway. It is my belief that those people who feel strongly about the term "spouse" will feel just as strongly about the definition of domestic partner -- which at first I read as domestic help, but I found out that that wasn't quite the case. So I would ask the opposition to rethink why it is that they feel this is necessary.

One of the speakers said that the term "spouse" is of great moral, symbolic importance, and I agree, but not just to heterosexuals; it is to gay and lesbian people, as well. That's what this is about: it's about equality.

As the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi pointed out, there is a debate within the gay and lesbian community, but it is around the term "marriage." It is not around the term "spouse" -- at least, certainly not with the gay and lesbian people I know, and I have been active in that community for 20 years and have been receiving letters and phone calls from across the country. It's not around the term "spouse"; it is definitely around the term "marriage." The community is divided on that. Some see that as a heterosexual term and a word that they don't want. Others say: "That may well be, but we want to choose whether or not we want to embark on this institution called marriage. We don't want Catholic bishops or others deciding whether or not one can marry." Again, that's off the point; we're talking about the term "spouse."

There has been much talk about respect, and I agree. But I can tell you about a number of letters I have got -- and there are not just a few; there are many -- that are very spiteful letters and that it's difficult for me to respect. I do not respect the homophobic views that I have heard over and over, even though I might respect the person, any more than I respect the racist views of some people, although I can respect the person and try to talk to them about why I don't think racism should be upheld and why we pass laws against such things. So yes, I am willing to respect people, but no, I am not willing to respect everyone's views just because they have a point of view.

I would also like to speak a little about the issue of whether or not the government should be taking the lead. It was suggested yesterday that we should be reflecting the views of the constituency -- of these people who have such diametrically opposed views. If we felt that way about capital punishment, for instance, we'd still be hanging people today. I think that the government has taken and must continue to take the lead, as it is doing in this particular bill.

I reject this new definition of domestic partner, because it now sets up two categories of people. It doesn't move towards equality; in fact, it moves in the other direction, in my opinion. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said that gay and lesbian people didn't want any more labels. Well, that's precisely what the opposition is giving them: a brand-new label, when one, "spouse," should suffice for heterosexual couples as well as for gay and lesbian couples.

I was also concerned about how people are embracing certain parts of this legislation. For instance, some members said that they liked the idea that responsibilities were expanded -- that gay and lesbian couples now had more responsibilities. I agree with that, but I don't want that in isolation without the rights. People balk, saying: "They don't want 'spouse,' but as long as we're giving more responsibilities, let's do that." They go hand in hand: rights and responsibilities.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I'm sure you're all aware that yesterday the Anglican church came out in favour of this legislation -- four bishops. I was very pleased to see that, because it balanced the bishops that were opposed in their press statements two weeks ago.

I'm also very pleased today to read a letter that just arrived half an hour ago from the executive secretary of the United Church of Canada, which is, of course, my own denomination. The secretary writes:

"I am writing to express my support for your government with regard to bills 31 and 32, currently before the Legislature.

"The United Church of Canada has a history of supporting initiatives which extend the same rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian persons as are currently in place for heterosexuals. The United Church would also be supportive of legislation which would seek to strengthen and protect families and their members, whatever the particular configuration of the family.

"With regard to same-sex partners, our church offers the same benefits and support to such couples as it does to any other committed relationship.

"I'm aware of the fact that you have received messages of opposition to these bills from some religious leaders. In response to this, three facts that are important to consider.

"First, despite the appearance created by a recent story in the Vancouver Sun, there is no consensus on the role played in our community by same-gender couples. Many of our congregations extend the blessing of the church to persons in covenanted" -- which means marriage-like, or marriage, if you wish -- "same-gender relationships. They would want their government to do no less.

"Second, for those who are opposed to same-gender relationships on religious grounds, the legislation which you propose does not prevent communities within our province from establishing their own ground rules for such relationships within their own community.

"Third, religious groups do have a right and responsibility to criticize government when they feel that a proposed action will do harm to the fabric of society. In the case of this legislation, I am confident that no harm will be done and that, in fact, the legislation will strengthen the family. From personal experience I know that some of the healthiest, some of the most creative and some of the most integral families are those parented by gays and lesbians. The legal recognition of the validity of such families cannot help but enhance and enrich our understanding of both the importance and the diversity of the family unit."

[4:00]

I wish to thank all of the members for the debate. It has been thoughtful, and I have appreciated being part of it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, this has not been an easy debate. I want to say that all of the members have participated in this debate with all the seriousness that it requires.

Let me deal with some of the issues that have been raised, and then I understand the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston wants to say something, since these are his amendments.

Let me first give some comfort to the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. There is no attempt in this legislation to do indirectly what cannot be done directly by the province. The province is powerless in providing the capacity for anyone to marry in British Columbia, because that capacity is governed by the federal Parliament and federal common law. The province cannot change that, nor do we intend to change that, with this legislation.

[ Page 5745 ]

The provincial Marriage Act simply deals with the solemnization of marriages and procedures around marriages -- if you're under 16, what conditions are required to be met; and if you're over 16, what other conditions are required to be met. That's my understanding of the law as it is. I just want to make it clear, therefore, that there is no attempt here to provide any capacity to marry, nor am I sure whether the homosexual community wishes us, even if we had the power, to grant power to marry. That's not at issue in this debate.

The point has been made by many speakers that we're all willing to provide protection to children, rights around custody, access and maintenance for children. That's a wonderful thing. We forget that if we provide rights around custody, access and maintenance, there are corresponding rights of the parents with respect to that custody, access and maintenance.

In this particular instance, what we're trying to change is to extend those rights to, firstly, the children of same-sex couples, and secondly, the obligations as well as the rights to same-sex couples. I think that's an important distinction. One goes together with the other; you can't separate the two. It's important that we understand that.

My colleagues have made the point with respect to what the amendments attempt to do. I understand the honest intent behind these amendments, and we are trying to grapple with a difficult issue. We are trying to arrive at an objective, though by different routes, and I take the amendments that are made in that context. However, there is a flaw in the amendments, and that flaw is as follows.

What we have currently are two categories of couples in the family relations legislation -- that is, the ordinary married couples and common-law couples. What we will have, if we allow the "domestic partner" definition to be substituted for these changes, is three categories. That point has been made. With the utmost respect, I want to say most humbly that that in fact entrenches inequality rather than provides equality.

The other point I want to make is that the definition of domestic partner that is provided for in the amendment is so onerous a definition that I'm certain that there are many married couples across this land, both common-law or legally married, who would not meet that test. If they were tested under that definition, the rights that ordinarily flow to them now under the current legislation would not flow to them at all.

Therefore I think there is an element. . . . I say this most humbly and I could be wrong, and this is not to be critical but it's my view. I believe that we are entrenching an element of discrimination by providing for gay and lesbian couples a higher onus, a higher burden, to be able to gain some of the rights that might flow from meeting that test.

I want to say as well: let's assume that there is not a higher test; let's assume that it's the same test that other couples have to meet under those different definitions. I believe, given the most liberal interpretation of the amendment, that this amendment truly describes all the attributes of a marriage and of what spouses are to each other: how close they are; how interdependent they are; how emotionally linked they are; how physically intimate they are.

If this definition prescribes the attributes of spouses or a spousal relationship, then I believe we should have no hesitation in really going with the definitional changes that we have currently before the House, without the amendment. We should then in fact have the obligation to call a spouse a spouse and let the legislation proceed as it's presented, without the amendment. If we allow the amendments to proceed, it would, as between common-law couples and same-sex couples, provide for different tests.

I suggest and I submit that that is not a reasonable approach for that reason. I believe what we're trying to do is right a wrong and move in a positive direction. It is a difficult issue. We're all trying to wrestle with it, and I'm not suggesting that our approach is inherently better. I've basically indicated to you, the hon. opposition, that we believe, having considered all of what's presented by the amendment, that it is appropriate to reject the amendment and press on with the legislation -- this section -- as it's presented.

G. Plant: I did want the opportunity to speak one more time, because frankly, before now, I had not heard from the other side of the House on the arguments they would put forward as to why the amendment does not do the things that they think it ought to. I want to spend a minute or two dealing with those arguments, now that I've heard them.

The first point I want to make is that the argument that this amendment represents an exercise in appeasement is not an argument that I find convincing on any level I choose to examine it. It seems to me an argument that calls into question the good faith of the amendments, and frankly, I don't find myself assisted by having to engage in a debate on whether something is in good faith. I think that argument is unhelpful and unnecessary.

Let me deal with some of the points made by the Attorney General and others as to the issues that are of concern to them. One of the points made is that this amendment would create a separate category and that that in itself is wrong. To that argument, I say with the greatest of respect and in all humility that that is to confuse form with substance. That is, it is the intention of this amendment to focus on substance rather than form.

I was much struck by the force of the points made yesterday by the member for New Westminster, when he said that we should look not at the details -- not look at this as lawyers -- but rather from the point and perspective of the value statements and the principles it represents. That is a point I find helpful in this context.

Yes, it would create a separate category of individuals in a statute -- again, I say with respect to the Attorney General, and notwithstanding what he says -- which is in fact filled with multiple categories of individuals. Step-parents of different forms, biological parents, adoptive parents, spouses of different forms, people who are parents and not step-parents -- there are lots of different classes of people.

There are lots of different legal statuses created in this bill and in other bills. I think that the creation of a different one -- one more category -- is not an expression in any way of a lack of equality or a further discrimination but is rather simply a device that is intended to give effect to equality in substance. I understand that point, but I don't accept it.

The next point that's made is that the test that would be required for someone to demonstrate that they are a domestic partner is too rigorous. I actually don't think that that statement is true, because what we will find when the courts of British Columbia eventually have to grapple with the phrase "marriage-like" -- which they're going to have to do if this bill passes in its present form -- what they're going to do is look to the decisions of other courts in other places, having to wrestle with what it is that's at the essence of these relationships.

[ Page 5746 ]

Frankly, they will find all of the terms that are in my amendment to be the very indicia of the nature of a relationship which is sufficiently serious, sufficiently important, sufficiently permanent and sufficiently stable to warrant the law stepping in and then imposing on the partners and members in those relationships serious and significant legal obligations. To put it more simply, the phrase "marriage-like" is, in effect, a synonym for that which I have said in my amendment. The Attorney General has his point of view on that; I have my point of view. I suppose time will tell, and we'll see. I think that that is the answer to the position of onerousness.

The last point I want to make, then, is a point about compromise. It is a point about how compromise is both real and difficult. Compromise is about recognizing that a sentence that begins with the words "I want" is not a sentence that necessarily leads to the conclusion "therefore I get." It is an exercise in realizing that sometimes we do not always get what we personally want. It is an exercise in realizing that we all have to sometimes compromise, take steps away from our personal set of values and beliefs towards the recognition that others believe strongly and in good faith in other propositions. If we do not attempt a bridge between them, then we're not doing our job.

[4:15]

"What can be reasonable hoped for? Recognizing that our aspirations wrestle with our limitations, this question asks what can be done in the here and now. It is about strategies as much as solutions.

"A growing segment of our world calls itself, or could be called, marginal: it does not easily fit into the mainstream. To fashion a genuinely civil and democratic society, the marginal must interact with the mainstream. As important, they must perceive themselves to be interacting -- that is, to be taken seriously."

"But they are currently caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, the mainstream does not always accept their efforts. If the marginal want to belong, they have to bend so much that they cannot remain true to themselves. They are forbidden from bringing anything truly new to the table, so their participation is negated. On the other hand, if the marginal refuse to bend, and retrench into identity cliques as their only source of affinity, society will never be transformed. It will hurtle further toward calcified borders, a cynical public, unresponsive institutions and poisoned daily politics."

G. Wilson: Before voting on this amendment, I wonder if I might get a clarification from the Attorney General. I understood him to say that the marriage of people was something that was constituted federally and that the province had no ability to amend or change that. I wonder if the Attorney General might explain what he meant by that in light of section 20 of the Marriage Act, under civil marriage, which reads:

"A marriage may be contracted before and solemnized by a marriage commissioner under a licence under this Act and on payment of a prescribed fee if (a) the marriage is contracted in a public manner in the presence of the marriage commissioner and 2 or more witnesses, (b) each of the parties to the marriage in the presence of the marriage commissioner and the witnesses declares, 'I solemnly declare that I do not know of any lawful impediment why I, A.B., may not be joined in matrimony to C.D.', and (c) each of the parties to the marriage says to the other, 'I call on those present to witness that I, A.B., take C.D. to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband).' "

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The remarks that I made earlier were in fact borne out by the sections the hon. member refers to. Section 20 essentially prescribes a procedure for this marriage, and then section 34, about the certificate of marriage. . . . That is simply so that a certificate can be produced as evidence in court of marriage having occurred pursuant to this act.

This act deals purely with how, where and when a marriage can be contracted and under what conditions. Capacity to marry cannot be given or bestowed upon anyone by the province. Inherent capacity to marry. . . . Whether I, as a man, could marry another man -- that goes to capacity, not to procedure. That is not something within the powers of the province to do.

G. Wilson: I understand that point; however, the important issue is with respect to section 20(c), which reads: ". . .to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband)." Under the act that is before us now the definition of spouse, which currently reads "wife or husband" is removed. At that point the person under the new definition of spouse is put in place. Hence what I'm suggesting is that by virtue of the amendment that is before us, surely that changes a definition which currently speaks to it. I recognize that doesn't automatically amend the act. What I'm saying is that that surely provides opportunity for legal argument that would say, thereby, that this act is essentially no longer applicable.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is no, not true. Obviously one act doesn't automatically change another. That's true. The definition that is going to be changed in the Family Relations Act would apply for the purposes of that act to define those relationships for certain rights to flow from those relationships. The right to marry is not one of them.

G. Wilson: This is my last question on this, because we can better deal with this when we get back to the bill itself. Surely what the minister is saying, then, is that all of the rights and obligations are going to be provided to this new definition of spouse, which will include same-sex couples. So in effect, they will be under all the legal obligations of any married person, except that they don't have the right to marry. Clearly that is something that is going to have to be addressed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Attorney General doesn't usually give legal advice, but I will do my best to simply say to you that the Family Relations Act definition does not apply to any other piece of legislation in British Columbia except for the rights that flow from these definitions within the context of 

[ Page 5747 ]

this legislation, unless the Family Relations Act is specifically mentioned somewhere else. By reference, those rights can be incorporated elsewhere; otherwise they can't be. Therefore there is no danger. In fact, I can tell you -- I said this yesterday and I've said this before -- that I am going to be ordering a comprehensive review of all of the legislation in British Columbia to make sure that we may proceed towards full equality. Even if we do so, we still will not be able to provide the right to marry; that's federal.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will put the amendments to the assembly. The amendments are to sections 1(a), 1(c) and 1(d) of Bill 31. I'm going to be dealing with them all together, but I want to make sure that the members know that all those three will be done in one vote now.

[4:30]

YEAS -- 28
Dalton	Gingell	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	Plant	Sanders
Stephens	de Jong	Coell
Anderson	Nebbeling	Whittred
Thorpe	Penner	Krueger
McKinnon	Masi	Nettleton
Coleman	Chong	Weisbeck
Jarvis	Abbott	Hawkins
C. Clark	Hansen	Reitsma
	J. Wilson
NAYS -- 34
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Pullinger	Farnworth	Kwan
Waddell	Calendino	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Giesbrecht	Walsh
Kasper	Orcherton	Hartley
Petter	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Cashore	Ramsey
Sihota	Randall	Sawicki
Lali	Doyle	Gillespie
Robertson	Smallwood	Janssen
	G. Wilson

The Chair: I declare the amendment lost. That will also affect the amendments to section 1.1 and sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 22, which are therefore out of order; they are consequential amendments.

G. Wilson: I'm assuming, and I'd like confirmation, that because we are adding the section that deals with the definition of child support guidelines which reads, " 'child support guidelines' means the child support guidelines established by regulation under section 129 for the calculation of maintenance awards," there are other areas in which Bill C-41, which is a federal statute, is now applicable with respect to the Family Relations Act and the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, and that the new calculation that is talked about here brings into conformity the grid that is established in Bill C-41. I wonder if the minister might confirm that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I didn't catch the question completely, but if the hon. member's question is what those regulations are going to be, at this time we are going to be incorporating into the regulations the federal child support guidelines pursuant to the Divorce Act.

G. Wilson: So the answer to my question is yes, it will include the grid that is established under Bill C-41. It then brings into conformity the provincial Family Relations Act with the Divorce Act -- something that is not a bad thing. If we can look to the good things, that's not necessarily a bad thing, although that doesn't mean that we like the federal bill, which is another issue. Given that it does bring it into conformity, there are a number of areas within Bill C-41 -- and I will leave it to your ruling how far we want to stray into debate on a bill that has already passed the Commons and is in effect now -- where, particularly in the application of variance orders, the grid can be varied on the basis of a number of different circumstances. That becomes very complicated when you look at our Family Relations Act, but more particularly the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, which we have here.

I wonder if the minister might tell us how much consultation took place with the province in advance of establishing the grid, how much input we had into the setting of the rates within the grid and whether or not he has an opinion as to how much autonomy the province might decide to show in relation to variance orders that are more properly governed, I think, under our Family Maintenance Enforcement and Family Relations acts.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The courts will have some jurisdiction to vary those orders from those guidelines.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Deviate is not the appropriate word; courts never deviate. Courts will have some jurisdiction to vary their orders or make their orders different from the guidelines if they so choose, based on the factors that are enumerated in our legislation.

We are going to be monitoring the guidelines that we append to this legislation, at least for a year or so, to see if we need to make some changes. At this time, for the sake of uniformity, we are going to be completely incorporating those guidelines into our legislation.

Yes, we were involved right from the beginning in terms of drafting and considering those guidelines. There may be several concerns with respect to those guidelines. One of them comes to mind -- that is, what may be an appropriate amount in the lower mainland may not be an appropriate amount somewhere else in the province. So we're going to monitor the application of these guidelines for a year or so and see if we need to make any significant changes.

G. Wilson: I'm just trying to establish some baselines under this particular section, because I think the whole issue needs to be more thoroughly debated under section 93. I think that's probably a more appropriate place to pick this up.

The minister does make reference to some of the many concerns there are with this: the whole question of differential support payments on the basis of where one lives and also one's occupation in terms of seasonal employment. Those sorts of things are issues of concern. I'm interested to hear that there was wide consultation with the government. I'm now questioning how much consultation the government had with family lawyers and also with more broadly based organiza-

[ Page 5748 ]

tions within the community who have been established to monitor, to make reference and to provide advice on these matters.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the federal government consulted with all of those groups as they were developing these guidelines, and they consulted with us, as well. Now I see the hon. member is shaking his head. Obviously we're not going to resolve that issue here.

We have determined that those guidelines are the appropriate things to incorporate. The family lawyers are aware of these guidelines. They were in fact waiting for these guidelines to be implemented. We are late in bringing in this legislation.

The guidelines have been effective, pursuant to the Divorce Act, as of May 1 this year. I haven't come across much criticism of the guidelines, except that I attended the family law conference on Friday and one of the lawyers talked to me afterwards and indicated that there might be some problems with respect to these guidelines. I gave her the same answer as I'm giving you -- that is, we would be monitoring the implementation of these guidelines across the province and see what changes we might need to make next year.

G. Wilson: I doubt that you will get much complaint from the lawyers. The people who are going to have concern are the people who are subjected to pay them. That's not the lawyers. In fact, lawyers get paid for arguing to get the maintenance paid, if you follow my reasoning.

Clearly the guidelines and the amount of dollars that the guidelines require are the subject of another bill. It's not an issue that we can get at too deeply here, and again, perhaps the proper place to do that is later in the bill rather than under this definition -- except to say that by introducing by regulation, I'm pleased to hear that there is going to be a period of review. That gives little comfort, however, to people who are on the list of lawyers lined up to take back variance agreements, as has occurred in other provinces where this bill has been put forward. Under the guidelines, what is provided now is that for existing maintenance orders -- maintenance orders that are currently in place on the application of one party -- the lawyer may go before the court and simply have that new grid applied, even though there is an established maintenance order in place and even though that maintenance order may have been completely complied with without complaint.

So this is simply a ticket for one party or the other to increase the amount of revenue they get, if they look at the guidelines and see that under the new grid they're "entitled" on the basis of a Commons committee to get more money. That has occurred certainly in the other provinces, as we've monitored it. It gives little comfort to those people who will be subjected to that, even though a judge presumably has made an award with respect to support on the basis of what the judge believes is in the best interests of the children and is affordable by the non-custodial parent. I wonder if the Attorney General might have a comment with respect to that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can understand the hon. member's concern. Whenever there is a change in procedures that have been followed for years by lawyers or clients -- people involved in these disputes -- there is a certain degree of discomfort. I can appreciate that there would be that degree, if not more, of discomfort around these changes.

The decision has been made for reasons of uniformity. I'm hoping that once this regime kicks into effect in British Columbia, we may have fewer applications before the courts to have orders made and varied by the courts. In many instances, for people who are earning a living, it is very easily quantifiable as to what their income is. Any individual can look at the table and decide what should be paid under these guidelines. We're hoping that it will lead to less court activity and less fees for lawyers like me, which is a good thing for people. I think that's the intent here. I know there is a certain degree of discomfort, and I appreciate that.

G. Wilson: Well, I think we're going to avoid the latter part, because it gets into a debate that really doesn't have any bearing on this bill. It has more bearing on the dollar bill.

On the first point, as a point of law, I wonder if in establishing the regulations for this bill, the Attorney General considered that the province might exempt people of British Columbia, who have an established court order for maintenance payment and who have been making that payment, from essentially an application to the court by the party who simply wants to increase the amount, because a Commons committee which has absolutely no knowledge whatever of the salient points of the case at hand, which has no knowledge of why the judge made the award in the manner that the judge made the award, which has absolutely no knowledge of the individual circumstances of either the custodial or the non-custodial parent. . . . A Commons committee came up with this arbitrary set of guidelines -- and it is arbitrary -- that now an established court order, which has been complied with in some cases for many years, can be varied simply because the province has decided to blend the Family Relations Act and the Divorce Act on this question. On a point of law, I wonder how the Attorney General feels about the Commons being able to essentially amend what is an established court order for payment.

[4:45]

What the hon. member is asking in terms of grandparenting existing orders would be something like this. If we were to bring in the Family Relations Act regime today and not 20 years ago when it was done, where there was no division of property available to women mainly, one could argue that we should grandparent all the couples who were married prior to that day and that they should have no right to division of property based on the new law. Only the new couples that get married should have that. I think that would lead to all kinds of inequities. When law changes, it changes for everyone. I know that a certain destabilizing effect occurs, and that's inevitable, but we're prepared for it. We're going to have 20 family courts across the province assisting people with variations and the like that they need to make. I appreciate what the hon. member is saying -- that a policy decision has been made. If there are any difficulties that are major and significant, we'll deal with them.

G. Wilson: So on a point of law, what the minister is saying by way of his example -- which I don't accept -- and if I can use a comparison, is that if the posted speed limit was 60 in a zone up until Tuesday evening and on Wednesday they posted it to 40, those people that were travelling 60 previously 

[ Page 5749 ]

were in violation of the new posting. I mean, it's a court order that has been established on the basis of some judge presumably sitting down and weighing the evidence in front of him or her and making an order with respect to a maintenance payment. Now, that judge has had the detail of the case in front of them. A court order has been made; full compliance has occurred. The only condition that has been required in order for that court order to be varied is the fact that this new grid is in place, and it provides for one or the other party to simply make application to the court to have the grid applied. That's the only reason. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the original order.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We agree to disagree, and I've indicated all the reasons why we're doing this. But, in the example the hon. member gives, if you had a vehicle that was. . . . If the speed limit was 60, and you agreed with someone to have your vehicle fixed at 60 kilometres per hour, and you never went higher or lower than 60 kilometres per hour until the day a new law was changed, you would then have to change the speed of your vehicle when the law was changed. It's not that you were retroactively doing something wrong; it is that from the day the new speed limit comes into place, if you continue to go 60, you'd be doing something that's illegal.

I don't really want to get into this debate. I think it's appropriate that you raise these issues, and I've given you my concerns. No, those people who had orders made by courts, appropriately, were living within the law. Now the circumstances and the reasons and the guidelines would be changed as of the day this legislation, once passed, comes into effect. If they continue to do that by consent, the two parties to whom the order applies can actually, by consent, remain outside the guidelines. That's a provision that's available to them. But one party cannot force the other party to not go and apply for a new order under the new guidelines. If you continue to provide the same amount of money that you were ordered to pay pursuant to a court order, and the court decides that you should be paying something different, from the moment the court decides that you should be paying something different, you would be violating the court order that would now be made pursuant to this legislation.

G. Wilson: So you're guilty of speeding unless everybody agrees it's okay. Let me stop the analogy and come back to this particular point. What the Attorney General is saying -- and I want this to be clear, because I think the record needs to say it; it's going to affect many, many British Columbians -- is that where a court order has been made on the basis of the detail that's in front of the judge, and when full compliance with that order has occurred, by virtue of this act and the regulations which will be brought in, which brings us into compliance with Bill C-41. . . . Well, the Attorney General is saying no. The fact of the matter is that in this act, we can say that within the province there can be protection for those people where there is an existing court order. We can do that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: A decision has been made to not discriminate based on existing orders; the decision has been made to not grandparent existing orders. However, the day this law comes into effect, if and when it's passed -- and if we continue at this rate, it might be many days and weeks -- and receives assent and becomes the law, either party to that existing order would have the right to approach the other party to change the order, by consent, and failing that -- or without that, in fact -- can go to court directly to change the order. Once that order is then changed pursuant to the order, the new order obviously is in effect and the old order is null and void.

So it is not automatically that what you have been doing is wrong. It is that either party can go and have it varied pursuant to these guidelines, or change it by consent.

G. Wilson: Let's be quite clear. Where there are areas. . . . The truth of the matter is this: where conflict continues between spouses, and support payments that are being made are lower than what is in the grid, they're going to go back to court and get more money. They're going to say, "Pay me the money you owe me, because it's in the grid, or I'm going to go to the court," and unless there is a proof of hardship, the judge will really have no recourse but to assign the new grid.

Effectively, Parliament has imposed a support payment that overrules. . . . The Attorney General is saying that we're changing the rules. The point is that the rules previously were left to the discretion of a judge who presumably heard evidence. What Parliament has done is say: "Be damned the evidence; we're going to set this rate based on your income." That's exactly what Parliament has done, unless the minister is prepared to tell me that in British Columbia we are going to have, as part of the law, consideration of the income of the custodial parent. Are we going to have that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, judges had discretion. Yes, they took into account the incomes, the needs, the tax consequences of both parties when they made those orders. Yes, the judges will not have as much discretion under these guidelines, and that's a deliberate policy on the part of this government and the federal government, because we want to make sure that we take away all of the aggravation and the frustration that's caused by unnecessary, numerous applications before the courts just to get some maintenance.

When people look at the chart, they know what they have to pay. That's how simple this is. I understand that the hon. member is saying that the previous process was different. Yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it was more just.

G. Wilson: You won't get an argument with me there, and I'm not sure that this is going to be any more just, frankly. Time will tell. I don't think any of us know whether or not this new system is going to be better or worse in terms of fairness in the system. I think what we have to do is wait and see how it goes, which is why I'm pleased that I heard that there was going to be a review.

The question that I asked is: in the deliberations that took place between the federal government and the provincial government in establishing the calculation for maintenance awards as put out in this definition here, did the provincial government at any time say that one of the issues that needs to be considered in the establishment of the grid is the income of the custodial parent?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of those permutations and combinations were obviously discussed by the group that dealt with this issue. Assumptions were probably made that both parties made the some amount of money; assumptions were also made that both parties made different amounts of money. At the end of the day, I think the rationale behind this approach is that if you are a non-custodial parent, you should be contributing proportionate to your earnings towards the well-being of the children.

The implicit assumption is that the custodial parent would obviously be providing a certain lifestyle for the children which is commensurate with his or her income added to the support and maintenance that he or she may receive from the non-custodial parent.

[ Page 5750 ]

Sometimes -- in fact, quite often -- we ignore the fact that without any orders being made, custodial parents contribute to the support, maintenance, guidance and welfare of the children -- perhaps much more than the non-custodial parents ever could. In fact, it is much easier, my hon. friend, to pay a certain amount of money than to look after children and to contribute even a minimal amount financially towards the well-being of the children, as well.

I can tell you. I have three sons and they're now 19, 22 and 23. It hasn't been easy for the two of us, my wife and myself, to bring up those children with relatively large amounts of money that both of us have been making, with the busy lives that we've been leading. In fact, the custodial parent is left with all of the responsibility -- financial as well as social and all of the other responsibilities. In fact, in many instances, if the custodial parent is also working in addition to looking after the children, there is no time on the hands of the custodial parent.

I don't really want to get into this debate of the non-custodial parent paying a large amount of money and therefore being somehow penalized. That is simply not acceptable to me. I have done enough family law to know how aggravating it is for custodial parents, mostly women, with the significant amounts of support that they receive in some cases, to make a go of their lives looking after their children.

G. Wilson: I'm tempted to get drawn into that debate. I'm not going to, because it will. . . . I'll just put this on the record and leave it: I don't know many non-custodial parents who have lost custody of their children and who think that's easier. I don't know very many of them that think that simply paying so much money a month is an easier route. Anyway, let's not get into that debate.

The issue around this particular child support guideline definition is that it talks about the calculation of maintenance awards. The Attorney General suggests that it's mostly women. Well, times are changing and the awards are changing, and that's probably good.

The problem is where you have a non-custodial parent whose income is sufficiently low that they are going to be forced by these guidelines to pay a proportion of that income that will mitigate against their ability to live the kind of life that all of us would expect at a minimum, and who may be paying that percentage to a custodial parent who may have anywhere from two to ten times the earnings. Surely the Attorney General is not saying that a woman making $26,000 a year, let's say, and who loses custody of her children is, by this grid, going to be forced to pay a fixed percentage of that $26,000 to a former spouse who may be earning $140,000 a year. This is fair? Is it? Maybe the Attorney General can tell us that not taking the income of the custodial parent into account in relation to the non-custodial parent is a fair way to assign those support payments.

[5:00]

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are child support guidelines. Children, whether they live in a hostel or with a custodial parent, cost a lot of money. It actually costs, if I remember the statistics, more than $10,000 to $12,000 per year -- if you had the money -- to educate, clothe and shelter a child. No, we don't have that kind of money, but if you want to do an adequate job, that's how much it costs. So I'm not really going to worry about the tears of a non-custodial parent -- who may have lost custody for legitimate reasons that are in the best interests of the children -- and suddenly he is going to have to pay a large amount of money. So be it.

G. Wilson: It's interesting that the gender-neutral language changes substantially when it's a question of "he" and "so be it" and when the Attorney General says "for legitimate reasons." These are all value judgments that the Attorney General is placing into this debate, and I don't think that is useful. Anybody would say that somebody who has lost custody for legitimate reasons that are in the best interests of the child presupposes that in fact that is the case, and it may not always be the case. I would be happy for the Attorney General to look at the 140 files that I have on this issue.

The point is this. In this definition in these guidelines, in the support of this principle that the federal government has brought down, what the Attorney General is now saying is that this province is deliberately going to put in place a grid of payment that is going to remove from the judge the opportunity to fairly assess the incomes of the two individuals and assign fair support for the children. That's what the Attorney General is saying he is prepared to consciously remove. What he is going to put in its place is a flat grid that does not take into account any of the individual circumstances of the case in front of that judge. Surely it isn't going to give the judge a lot of comfort if that judge can see quite clearly that that is not the appropriate award but doesn't have the opportunity, because of the language of Bill C-41, to make the variances necessary because you can't prove hardship.

That's what it says. It ties the hands of a judge from making a fair assessment, because the Attorney General thinks it is better to have a flat grid that doesn't take into account the individual case circumstances of the people that are in front of somebody who presumably has the information at hand on the specific case to make a more informed and intelligent award.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have indicated that we are moving away from the kind of philosophy and consideration that the hon. member is talking about. We have made a deliberate decision to move away from that. Yes, we are restricting the discretion of the courts in terms of maintenance awards. There is no question about that. We pass all kinds of laws that tell judges how they should make decisions. I make no apologies for that.

This is to make sure that over time, 70 or 80 percent of the maintenance issues are resolved out of court, before ever going to the doorstep of the court. It is important that we do this.

It is also important that regardless of the income of the custodial parent, the non-custodial parent has an obligation, and that obligation is imposed upon him or her, to make a certain contribution to the well-being of the children. If that causes a hardship, obviously the judge has discretion to make the change.

[ Page 5751 ]

Obviously the hon. member and I are at different ends of the spectrum on this issue. We agree to disagree, and let's move on.

G. Wilson: Just before we do, I have two other issues that relate to this first section, the child support guidelines under regulation. One has to do with an issue that the Attorney General raised just a few minutes ago in the debate. There was some discussion of the concerns that the Attorney General may have for people who reside outside of urban downtown Vancouver and who may in fact have a residence elsewhere in the province. I find it passing strange, or somewhat curious at least, that the circumstances of an individual by virtue of their residence, by virtue of their geography, where they may reside or where they may be, is a consideration that the Attorney General thinks may have merit -- and I would agree that it does -- but that the individual circumstance of the non-custodial parent who lives within the urban centre doesn't.

In the mind of the Attorney General and in the implementation of these regulations where he says his concern is for the different costs of living that may be associated with living in an urban centre or a rural area, I'm curious to know exactly what he's referring to in terms of the grid and the application of the grid, which makes no distinction for where you live.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was simply wondering out loud what possible factors one might need to take into account as we monitor this issue. I'm not wedded to making any changes at this point. That was just one thought that came to mind. Once I look at it, I may totally reject it altogether, so I'm not going to get into debate on that. I haven't made up my mind.

I have said that we will monitor these issues for a year; I have not said that we will review it at the end of the year. We are going to monitor this on an ongoing basis, and if changes need to be made, we will make them.

G. Wilson: The last point on this first paragraph (a) that I want to make goes back to something the Attorney General said a few minutes ago. The Attorney General said that the non-custodial parent has an obligation to contribute to the well-being of the children. I don't have an issue with that. With the exception of a small minority who simply want to absolve themselves of any obligation, most non-custodial parents don't take issue with that. In fact, they are more than willing to contribute to the financial well-being of their children, because I think most parents are good parents. That's the fact of it. Even though they may not get along as husband and wife, I think most would recognize that the children should be their first concern.

There was an issue that I raised, and I think the Attorney General just bypassed it when he suggested that the payments being made in support were paid to the children. In fact they are not. The payments made are not paid to the children, they are paid to the custodial parent. If the minister wants to look at what is one of the most contentious issues in the Family Relations Act and in family maintenance issues -- we talked very briefly about it in second reading -- I would suggest that the Attorney General might want to turn his attention to. . . .

I'm not sure if he finds this a jovial situation or not, but I hope he would take seriously the fact that many people in this province -- and I would again invite him, if he wants to come and look at the case files I have in my own constituency -- are making a contribution of a substantial sum to a custodial parent, only to find the custodial parent is in fact not applying that money to the welfare and well-being of the children. There is no way to audit whether or not the custodial parent is indeed taking that money and putting it into the well-being of the children or whether or not the custodial parent is expending it on something else.

That issue is at the heart of a lot of concern, where genuine concern of the non-custodial parent for the child cannot be addressed in any way through the statutes, because the payment isn't made to the children. It can't even be put in trust for the children. You can't even establish an educational trust. There is no way to define that income to go to the well-being of the children. It goes to the custodial parent, the former spouse -- however you want to define it. That is a critical issue, and I wonder how much discussion there has been, or if there has been any discussion or debate around whether or not awards can be made that would be more specifically directed to the well-being of the children, so that there can be some measure of audit to make sure that when those awards are made, the children -- something that that side is saying this bill is all about -- are being looked after.

I'll tell you, in the cases that we've seen, especially in low-income families where the state is involved with respect to matters of custody or social assistance, that this is an issue that is not properly or well addressed. So never mind the wealthy and the well-being; I'm talking now about people who are in dire financial hardship. So I ask the Attorney General what his views are with respect to that question.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My views are irrelevant in this regard, except to say to the hon. member that at the end of the day, once an order is made, the money is to go to the custodial parent to spend for the welfare of the children, as the custodial parent sees fit. If the hon. member or any of his constituents feel that that money is not being well spent, then perhaps there's a real question as to the fitness of the custodial parent. Then the appropriate action. . . .

I'm not going to give you legal advice, but if I were the lawyer dealing with it, I'd try to do one of two things: one, make an application to court to see if the custodial parent can be directed by the courts to spend certain amounts of money in a certain way. Courts are very reluctant to do that, but that's something that the hon. member can try. Secondly, I'd really seek custody for the children -- to say that this particular parent is unfit and therefore your constituent wants to take over custody. If the court sees fit to make that order, that order would be made. But if the hon. member suggests that we should have a huge police force in British Columbia enforcing the appropriate expenditures of maintenance orders, it would just be impossible. It is impractical, it's impossible, it can't be done.

G. Wilson: I'm going to reserve further comment on this until we get to Bill 32. But for someone who has practised family law as long as he suggests he has, to suggest that somebody -- particularly women, the people most affected -- can simply find recourse through the courts. . . . These people can't afford it; they can't afford to have recourse through the courts when they find out that the custodial parent isn't spending money on the child, when they're spending it in a bar. And then to suggest that somehow we can, through recourse to the court, get an easy variance on a custody order that's already established. . . . I don't know if this Attorney General has been out of practice too long or hasn't been on the front lines where people have serious concerns about custody issues and questions. . . . Frankly, the courts have an abysmal 

[ Page 5752 ]

record of dealing with people -- especially low-income people -- when it comes to the matters of the safety and sanctity of the child and the right of that child to receive some kind of benefit from the money that's being paid.

But I'll pick that up under the next bill, when we can talk about those issues more specifically to the legislation.

[5:15]

As I listened to the debate that has just taken place, I observed that at times it has been quite spirited. I'm reminded of the fact that oftentimes litigation in family breakdown is extraordinarily spirited. It's very emotional and very divisive. And we are here, engaged in a process of looking at ways in which we can structure the legal rules that come into force upon family breakdown in a way, from one perspective, that may work unfairness in some cases. That's an issue that certainly has been argued, and at this point I don't intend to re-argue any of that. Perhaps it will have the objective of reducing the volume of litigation by creating a set of rules that allow for lawyers to advise their clients in a way that has more certainty and predictability, and I'll come to a bit of that.

I am reminded of the urgent need for this government to continue to pursue and invest in the programs that create and encourage processes and ways for the members of families, upon breakdown, to resolve their disputes outside the forum of the courts. The family justice projects that the Attorney General has overseen are steps in the right direction. I know it's unrelated to the debate we've been having, but in a much bigger sense I think it probably is related. So I encourage the Attorney General to continue to ensure that there is adequate funding for those kinds of programs, because hopefully, in the long run, those are the ways that will actually resolve some of these very emotional issues.

But now back to something a little more specific. I'm sorry if I missed this in the opening questions of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, but I want to ask a little bit about what this act means when it talks about child support guidelines. When it talks about child support guidelines, it talks about guidelines that will be established by regulation of the provincial cabinet. There is a relationship, at least as expressed in the broader public, between those guidelines and the guidelines that have been established by the government of Canada for proceedings under the Divorce Act.

I wonder if I can just impose on the Attorney General to say what he conceives that relationship to be. That is, is the province simply going to enact, as regulations, the federal guidelines? Or is it going to enact its own guidelines with some variation from the federal guidelines?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Initially, we intend simply to incorporate those federal guidelines into our regulations, monitor them over time and see if we need to vary them over time.

G. Plant: In the context of the monitoring and the varying that the Attorney General spoke earlier about, is there a possibility of recognizing regional diversity and the fact that the costs of living are higher in some parts of the province than others?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, particularly if the parties are living in separate jurisdictions. If they're living in the same jurisdiction, I don't think it would make any difference.

G. Plant: By separate jurisdictions, does the Attorney General mean different provinces within Canada or different parts of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, separate parts of the province -- my apologies.

G. Plant: That leads me to a point. It's not a very big one, but I want to make sure that it's here on record.

As I see it, one of the singular virtues of the approach taken here in this bill is the fact that it will ensure that there is consistency across federal and provincial jurisdictions -- legislative jurisdictions, if I can put it that way -- in respect of these guidelines. We will now know that the same guidelines exist whether the proceeding is a divorce proceeding under the Divorce Act of Canada or a family separation proceeding under the Family Relations Act.

I know the Attorney General is as alive to that need as I am, but I want to say this. In large measure, for all the concerns that could and do exist and have been expressed with respect to whether the guidelines will work, the virtue of consistency is extraordinarily important. Speaking from my personal perspective, I have to say that I have regarded that value of consistency as being sufficient as a point of principle to override some of the concerns that have been expressed about whether the guidelines work.

As the government monitors, as it considers how the guidelines work in practice over time and as it approaches the question of whether to vary them, I know the Attorney General will bear in mind this issue: that if we vary these provincial guidelines, and certainly if we do so in any significant way, we will create the very inconsistency I think we are trying here to avoid.

I hope I have the Attorney General's understanding of the point I'm making and perhaps also his agreement on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes to both.

G. Plant: If I can relate the definition in section 1, paragraph (a) to what I guess will become section 129 of the Family Relations Act, which is at the end of this bill, the government seeks here to give to itself the power to make guidelines of almost. . . . It's probably not of any sort, but there's a wide discretionary power being given here to cabinet to make guidelines for child support. But it is the intention of the government in the short term -- now, at any rate -- simply to bring into force here in British Columbia, not by way of administrative delegation or any fancy constitutional stuff but simply by means of section 129, the guidelines that are the guidelines currently established by the federal government.

I want to pick up one theme, if I may, that was part of the debate between the minister and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I wasn't sure if I understood it completely or correctly. Yes, the guidelines, when they come into effect, may -- and probably will -- create a disparity between the existing provisions and court orders in British Columbia for maintenance and the numbers that would be found in the guidelines.

As I understand it, the parties or partners to these orders have two or three options. One is to agree among themselves as to whether they will vary the existing order to adjust to the guidelines. The alternative is that if one or the other refuses to do that, then the other party can go to court and ask the court 

[ Page 5753 ]

to vary the maintenance order, presumably arguing that it ought to be brought into line with the guidelines. The third scenario, which I think the Attorney General will assure me is not going to happen, is that the implementation of these guidelines will not as a matter of law actually change existing court orders -- that is, for there to be change in the provision of court orders, the parties to those orders will have to take some action. Am I correct in that assumption?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Has the Attorney General studied how many maintenance orders are out there and given any thought to the number of orders that may in fact be affected by the bringing into force of these guidelines?

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there are around 54,000 orders.

G. Plant: Is that the Attorney General's estimate of the total number of maintenance orders that exist in British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: FRA and Divorce Act combined.

G. Plant: I take it that some of those orders will be enrolled in the family maintenance enforcement program and some would not. The Attorney General's nodding, and I am grateful to him for that. So that is the total number of maintenance orders that are out there in British Columbia. Has any attempt been undertaken to determine -- I suppose it would be a kind of variance analysis -- how many orders are going to have to be revisited as a result of the bringing into force of these guidelines?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's very difficult to estimate what number might be changed. There hasn't been a rush to court on the part of those who had orders pursuant to the Divorce Act, so maybe we won't have the kind of rush that we worried about when we were talking about these guidelines in the first place.

G. Plant: I was going to move on to some other parts of section 1. I don't know if there are any other questions about the child support guidelines issue at this point; I don't see any.

Let me then ask a few other questions about other issues that are raised in section 1. The definition of spouse in subsection (c) includes the phrase "marriage-like relationship." What does the Attorney General think will be the indicia of a marriage-like relationship?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Courts have historically looked at many factors to determine whether there is a marital relationship in existence: what the attributes of a marital relationship are, whether or not parties are living under the same roof, what their sleeping relationships might be, whether or not they have sexual relations, whether there is any degree of fidelity or not -- many issues. What the arrangements are with respect to sharing meals and other chores around the house; whether or not there is financial interdependence, sharing or pooling of resources -- those and many other factors go to defining a marriage relationship, and a marriage-like relationship would essentially be the same, without the existence of a legal marriage.

G. Plant: The existing Family Relations Act contains a definition of spouse that encompasses common-law heterosexual relationships but defines them by reference to the phrase "a man or woman not married to each other, who lived together as husband and wife. . . ." So we are now moving from a regime where that phrase was the triggering criterion, if I could put it that way, into a regime where the triggering criterion would be the existence of a marriage-like relationship. Presumably, the criteria that will be developed, which may include those that the Attorney General has just said and which, frankly, remind me an awful lot of the words of a particularly interesting amendment that I was speaking about only recently. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: The issue and the point being that "marriage-like relationship" will now, for the courts, be something that, if this section and this act pass, has to be examined in the context of relationships between people of the same gender as well as relationships between people of different genders. Does the Attorney General think that there will be any change in terms of the umbrella, if you will, of heterosexual, common-law relationships? In other words, is this a change in the definition of the trigger for the existence of a relationship that will actually have any practical effect for common-law, heterosexual couples?

[5:30]

G. Plant: I have had brought to my attention an interesting article in this morning's Globe and Mail, Tuesday, July 15 -- it seems like it's been a long day. The article is about the question of step-parents in child support. Apparently there is a case going up to the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Supreme Court of Canada will be asked to clarify the obligation, if any, which a step-parent has to pay child support after a failed marriage. I suppose the context here is that we have a natural or adoptive parent of a child who then marries someone or perhaps enters into a common-law, same-sex relationship and in that relationship the step-parent assumes support and maintenance obligations for the child, which I'm sure is quite common. Then the relationship ends, and the issue is how much longer the step-parent, who no longer has a relationship with the father or the mother of the child, continues to have obligations of child support.

I'm sure this will be an issue of some interest to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is one of those issues, though, that could perhaps be resolved legislatively by ensuring that we define step-parents in particular ways or that we limit the extent of their obligations. That may or may not be the right thing to do. This bill sees as a triggering event for the obligation of a step-parent to be the duration of the relationship and the fact that the step-parent has supported and maintained the child, both of which seem to me to be reasonable tests for the commencement of the obligation.

I wonder if the Attorney General has any perspective on the end of the obligation, and whether that is something that should be dealt with in legislation or should be left to the courts.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be difficult for me to think of any circumstances under which this Legislature or any other 

[ Page 5754 ]

legislature across the country should limit the obligation of a person who has been in loco parentis to a particular child for a certain period of time. I believe those decisions are best left to the courts. The law in British Columbia has been that if you stand in loco parentis to a child you then assume all of the obligations of a parent, whether you're a step-parent or a common-law parent, after a certain number of years. You continue that obligation. The court can always look at the competing contributions that are being made towards the support of that particular child under the circumstances and determine who should continue to pay and for how long.

It is very difficult to mathematically say that that obligation should end at a certain point. That would be an injustice to children, and children don't have the opportunity to come to court. It is parents who do that on their behalf. I believe that step-parents, if they step into the shoes of the parent -- and that's why I assume they're called step-parents. . . . I'm just making it up as I go along on this issue. That's the correct terminology -- you step into the shoes of the parent; you're a step-parent. You have an obligation to support the child or children as a parent would.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for that interesting response.

The way the act works is a bit confusing to me, and I think I figured it out; I hope I'm not oversimplifying it. Somebody becomes a step-parent by marrying a parent or living together in a marriage-like relationship. Those are the triggering requirements for becoming a step-parent. Then, as I understand it, a step-parent, this statutory entity, can in some circumstances become, for the purposes for this act, a parent. Those circumstances are that the step-parent has in fact contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for a year and that there has been a proceeding commenced against him or her within a year after the date that the step-parent last contributed to support and maintenance.

It seems to me that there's this two-step process under which someone can first become a step-parent and then in some circumstances become, for the purposes of this act, a parent, which means they have the obligations under this act of a parent. I wonder if I could ask the Attorney General if I've got that basic structure right.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I'm wondering, then -- and I apologize if this is a terribly stupid question; it won't be the first time it's happened, I'm sure -- what the situations are in which it is significant that somebody be a step-parent under this act. What are the rights and obligations of step-parents? Or is this really just simply a kind of two-step drafting technique that is intended to turn people into parents? What is it that happens to step-parents under this act, in so many words?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The amendments simply include them in the definition of parents.

G. Plant: That's helpful. The last thing I wanted to refer to -- although I think we're going to have to come back to it at some length later -- is the aspect of the definition of spouse which deals with partners, either same-gender or different-gender, in common-law relationships and that excludes from that definition parts 5 and 6 of the act -- that is, the definition of spouse in sub-subsection (c), (b) is a definition that applies except under parts 5 and 6.

I think probably the best way to deal with this right now is simply to alert the Attorney General to the fact that when we get to the amendments that are made to parts 5 and 6 of the act, I'm going to have some questions about what that exception clause really means, and how it is that the exception clause no longer operates or has limited operation when the partners in the relationship enter into an agreement. I want to bring that to the Attorney General's attention now as an issue that we will have to return to later.

G. Wilson: I want to talk a little bit about the "step-parent" definition, because I think it is important to recognize, in the language that has been changed here, the way that "stepparent" will read, by repealing paragraph (b) of the definition of parent in the existing act and substituting the following. It reads: ". . .a stepparent of a child if (i) the stepparent contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year, and (ii) the proceeding under this Act by or against the stepparent is commenced within one year after the date the stepparent last contributed to the support and maintenance of the child." I'm assuming that we have to look to the next section. I guess it's subsection (ii) -- and it's rather confusing -- that talks about whether or not the definition of parent, with respect to the step-parent of a child, also means that they have to be either married or living in a marriage-like relationship.

I wonder, first of all, whether or not the Attorney General will recognize that if two people, when one is the biological parent and the other is not the biological parent, come together and either live in a "marriage-like relationship" -- which I'm going to talk about in a minute -- or are married, the individual who is not the biological parent of the children in that domicile is the step-parent. What this act says is that we're going to take out all of the references to step-mother and step-father in order to get to gender-neutral language, presumably, and take out the second section, which says, "by the stepparent and the mother or the father of the child living together as husband and wife. . . ." That's gone.

My question, to start this line, is to suggest, first of all, whether or not it's the determining factor of the step-parent. . . . Is it, as in section 1, paragraph (b), that the financial contribution to the child is the determining factor as to whether or not you're the step-parent -- whether you've contributed financially to the well-being of the child -- or is it by virtue of the fact that they were married or living in a marriage-like relationship, as under subsection (ii) of the act? Or does it have to be both?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would suggest that it would have to be both. The parties would have to live together for two years and would have to have supported the child for at least one year.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the Attorney General might further define, then, what is meant by "contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for. . .one year."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those words have been defined for decades by courts. It would be very difficult for me to define them here, but those definitions exist.

G. Wilson: To simply acknowledge that they are as the standard language is fine.

It then goes on to say, under (b)(ii), now that we've established that the step-parent has to be living in a marriage-

[ Page 5755 ]

like relationship or married to one of the biological parents of the child -- at least that's what. . . . Maybe it doesn't say that, because we've taken out the reference to mother and father, so the children could presumably be adopted, I suppose. That's not the salient point of the question, anyway.

The question is. . . . It says: ". . .the proceeding under this Act by or against the stepparent is commenced within one year after the date the stepparent last contributed to the support and maintenance of the child." I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us how one determines what that is. Is that the time that they no longer live together? Is it the time that they were separate and apart but still making contributions? Is it the time that they were. . .what?

[5:45]

G. Wilson: Let me see if I understand this correctly. Two people, one a parent who has children, come together, live together -- under this act I'm assuming it's a member of either the opposite or the same sex; it doesn't distinguish -- for a period of two years, at which point one person may leave. Ten months later, the person who has not previously made application for support can come after that other person and say: "I now want support for that child." That's what the intent of this act is. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, and that's the same as before; that's not being changed. The language is simply being made gender-neutral so that we can include same-sex couples and step-parents in the definition of parent.

G. Wilson: The point that we come to, then, with respect to the change, with respect to step-parent. . . . I'd like an answer to this; I raise this just by. . . . I suppose I could get it in another section, but let me bring it up here. At what point, then, are we looking at the rights of that step-parent with respect to the child? There's an obligation here for support and maintenance. But if we look at the Family Relations Act with respect to what the obligations are with respect to parental guardianship under section 27, it is interesting to me to notice that in fact there virtually is no right with respect to guardianship rights for step-parents.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to guardianship, step-parents or others don't have any rights -- except the mother or father. Except there is a section in the legislation where a court can appoint anyone a guardian of any child, and I believe that that would then give the right to any person to stand in loco parentis and say: "I want to be the guardian for a particular child."

With respect to custody maintenance and access, there is no time limitation for parents to apply for any of those. No, with maintenance there is. With maintenance there is a one-year limitation, but with custody and access there are none.

G. Wilson: Could I also have the Attorney General clarify the role of the step-parent in what is defined as the "child of the marriage"? That is, given that the marriage takes place, a child of less than ten months. . . . I think that is the standard application. I could be wrong, and if I am you can correct that. The court has ruled on the child of the marriage with respect to a whole bunch of issues. Generally, if the child is that young, the court -- certainly in the judgments that I have seen -- doesn't rule it as step-parent; they rule it as parent. I wonder if the Attorney General might refer to that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Maybe when we come back after recess we can deal with that. The term "child of the marriage" is usually with respect to Divorce Act proceedings, and not with respect to Family Relations Act matters. We can deal with that when we come back.

However, at this time, I 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.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m., and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:52 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

C. Clark: I'd like to pick up where we left off, which was with greenhouse gases and, more specifically, the impact of Burrard Thermal and its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in the lower mainland. Could the minister tell us if she or her ministry accepts the estimate by the GVRD that Burrard Thermal's contribution is around 12 percent?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, to begin with I think we should make clear that the contribution to the provincial greenhouse gas emissions was, in 1990, 1.3 percent and in 1995, 3.8 percent. Nonetheless, the member did ask about the GVRD, and the greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 were 2.9 percent and in 1995, 9.7 percent.

C. Clark: Could the minister clarify for me the difference, then, between the numbers that the GVRD quotes in its corre-

[ Page 5756 ]

spondence? I'll quote it for the minister. This is a letter to a director of the GVRD from Bob Smith, who's the administrator for air quality control at the GVRD. He says, "To help put the Burrard CO2 into some perspective, I used a consultant's estimate of districtwide CO2 emissions of 18,117,000 tonnes for 1990," which are the latest figures available, according to him. "That would put Burrard's contribution at about 12 percent." Of course, he goes on to add that a more accurate percentage will be available once the 1995 emission inventory is complete.

My point, though, is that these are the latest, most accurate numbers from the only level of government that appears to be doing monitoring in the lower mainland for CO2 emissions. I wonder if the minister could clarify why there's a difference.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member earlier asked a question about greenhouse gas emissions, and those were the statistics I gave her. If you're asking about CO2 emissions, the information we have is 12.2 percent in 1995 from the GVRD.

C. Clark: I'll have to assume that the minister has had that information for a little while or that the ministry has been aware of it for at least a little while. I'd like to inquire whether that information has prompted the ministry to reconsider or at least consider revising the greenhouse gas action plan to include some actions that would limit Burrard Thermal's contribution to our total greenhouse gases. Is that indeed under consideration by the ministry in light of these new revelations?

Hon. C. McGregor: The current greenhouse gases action plan does not include any specific reference to Burrard Thermal. We are not actively considering amending that plan at this time.

C. Clark: Just for clarification, does the minister know how much. . . ? We have these numbers for the lower mainland, and I assume the 9.7 percent greenhouse gases is also for the lower mainland. Does the minister know what that contribution would work out to on a provincewide basis?

Hon. C. McGregor: Earlier I gave the member the provincial greenhouse gas emissions number at 3.8 percent. The provincial CO2 emissions number is 4.7 percent.

C. Clark: Does the minister also accept the numbers in John Allan's report? I'm specifically referring to the numbers that he produced which talk about the COx emissions, NOx emissions and I guess what he groups as "other emissions." He lists -- or the commissioners list -- in the report specifically some numbers for the exact tonnage of emissions from Burrard Thermal. I just wonder if the ministry concurs with those numbers or if they have any argument with them.

Hon. C. McGregor: We accept the numbers in the report.

C. Clark: I'm going to quote for a moment from the IPP panel review, which, as I've noted, was written by the former Deputy Minister of Environment, among others. On page 37, he says: "The review panel would rank the Island co-gen project ahead of the Port Alberni co-gen project on overall air emissions. The Burrard repowering" -- this is the repowered project, the one the minister says is supposed to be so much more environmentally benign -- "would be ranked last, in large part because its location in the [lower mainland] requires that it pass more stringent ambient air rating criteria than projects located in less populated and less polluted airsheds."

One of the things he is saying there is that not only is Burrard Thermal old technology, not only is it technology that pollutes more per megawatt of energy than other projects which are already under consideration by the government, not only is the technology out of date, but it's located in the worst possible place this kind of a dirty polluter could have been situated. I wonder if the minister accepts that conclusion by the Allan report. I'd be interested in her comments on it, as well, because certainly the issue of how we would replace the power from Burrard Thermal has been a big issue. The fact that not only does it pollute more than comparable projects but that it's in the worst possible place it could be. . . . I wonder if the minister could comment on that and tell us if her ministry concurs with that conclusion.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would reply to the member by saying that this report will be considered in the context of any decisions related to the projects that were included in the report.

[2:45]

Some of the analytical work that was done by this committee should have been already considered by this ministry, just in the course of its due diligence. I mean, the ministry is committed to a greenhouse gas action plan, or so they say. They're committed to reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000, or so they say. The ministry finally admits that they are already 15 percent behind the targets in order to get there.

This report reveals that Burrard Thermal is amongst the dirtiest sources of this power that we could find. The GVRD has now revealed that Burrard Thermal contributes at least 12 percent -- and the minister's finally confirmed it, 12.2 percent -- of the total greenhouse gases in the lower mainland.

And still the minister is prepared to say, before lunch, "Oh well, we're committed to meeting our targets for greenhouse gases by the year 2000," and willing to say before lunch: "Oh well, this greenhouse gas action plan is actually meaningful." Then after lunch she's faced with all this information; she's confronted with this information. And she's not prepared to say she's going to revisit it in light of the fact that we're 15 percent behind our targets, and this contributes 12 percent of the total greenhouse gas in the lower mainland.

It sure makes the minister look like what she says is unbelievable. It makes it hard to believe what she says before lunch and what she says after lunch, because they're two totally different things. If she won't revisit the greenhouse gas action plan in light of this information, then her commitments to meet those targets are pretty hollow indeed.

The comments that she made in her opening statements about this government's commitment to air quality are about as firm, I guess, as her government's commitment to protecting fish habitat. They're just not there. They're hollow; they're empty. In that respect they share something in common with almost all the other promises that this government has made. I'll tell you, by the year 2000 this government is going to be 

[ Page 5757 ]

facing an election. This minister is going to have to answer some tough questions about why they have broken these very serious commitments that they made such a big deal out of during the election, because it's just not good enough.

I know the minister doesn't live in the lower mainland. But for people who have respiratory problems, particularly in the Fraser Valley, who can't leave their homes on hot days in the summer, it's a big issue. When we're talking about global climate change and the impact that it will have on everything from fish species to forestry to terrestrial species, it's a big problem. It's shortsighted and irresponsible for the minister not to live up to her commitments on this; it is absolutely irresponsible.

I will leave my comments at that for now and invite my colleague from Penticton to make a few comments, as well.

R. Thorpe: I'm going to just ask a few questions on the expanded container legislation, if I could -- or the plan. On April 7 of this year, the minister announced an expanded deposit refund system for beverage containers for British Columbia. That was to be effective April 1998. Can the minister advise us if that date is still within reach?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that the ministry sent out some 36 letters inviting people to propose nominees to the board. Could the minister please advise us how many of those groups have responded?

Hon. C. McGregor: I've been informed that, while we may not have already received their letters, all of them have indicated that they will respond.

R. Thorpe: So here we are at the middle of July. I think that was supposed to be concluded by June 25. I guess my concern here is that as time moves on, suppliers and people that have to do business are going to be left holding the short end of the stick as we get closer to April '98. Can the minister advise us if the draft regulations have been completed?

Hon. C. McGregor: They are nearly complete. We are targeting to have them out to discuss with stakeholders in early August.

R. Thorpe: Those documents, those draft regulations -- will they be public documents? Or will they be held within the stakeholder group?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll actually put them on our web site. But we expect that probably the vast majority of responses we'll get will be from the stakeholders themselves.

R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that this project in the Ministry of Environment is being managed through the pollution prevention organization. I believe it's currently headed by Ron Driedger. Could the minister advise us how many staff and what budget are allocated in this fiscal year for completion of this task?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're currently working on our annual operating plan. We haven't finalized that number yet, so we can't give it to the member at this time.

R. Thorpe: Here we are on July 15. Let me see -- April, May, June -- it's four months into a fiscal year. A major initiative is going to be in place by April of '98. The ministry does not have its operational plan or know what resources are going to be committed to this project. I ask that question once again: does the ministry not know how many people and how much resources it is committing to this project at this point in time?

Hon. C. McGregor: I remind the member once again that we're working with industry on developing this strategy. This is not a top-down process where we decide how it will be designed. We've asked industry to take leadership in this regard. Obviously there will be some staff support that's required. But we haven't got the total details of the stewardship package put together yet, because we are counting on the industry, in particular, because they have expertise in their particular beverage container. They have different waste streams. There are different issues around a wide variety of issues as to how to proceed with this. We haven't made top-down decisions. We're going to work with the industry to design that program. As I've indicated to the member, that work is ongoing.

R. Thorpe: I'm not going to get in an argument with you. This work has been going on for years and years. Fortunately or unfortunately, I've had some firsthand knowledge of it as do some of the staff members sitting with the minister today, and quite frankly, I'm shocked at that.

But we'll move on, because apparently some things haven't changed very much in five years. Can the minister confirm that much of the program and the operating style that's going to be put in place here have been studied and are in fact programs that have come from Alberta?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, in this regard I think we have fallen behind the rest of Canada. There are a number of provinces that have engaged in initiatives related to beverage container deposit and recycling programs. But I will admit that I have personally looked at the Alberta model. I think it has a lot of merit. I've met with some people from the recycling sector who also think that model has some merit. So obviously it will be considered in developing our strategy.

R. Thorpe: I guess I take that as a definite maybe. I guess the part that bothered me -- and I certainly came in here with a positive attitude -- was that we were finally going be moving forward. Yet we do not have the resources; we don't know what the resources are. We're less than eight months from starting up a huge expanded system.

As I read the minister's letter that recently went out, all of the stewardship plans are going to have to come back into the ministry for approval. Could the minister then advise what staff allocations are going to be dedicated to this approval process and what turnaround times you expect to be able to supply each stakeholder who's going to be supplying you with information?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to make sure that the member is aware that we'll be assigning whatever staff and resources are necessary to be able to review those stewardship plans when they come forward. There will also be a role for the board of directors in reviewing those stewardship plans, and they will be able to give us excellent advice on the approval process itself.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please answer the last part of my question: in what time period, what defined period, are 

[ Page 5758 ]

you going to be turning around these stewardship plans and getting back to the stakeholders? Is it going to be seven days, 14 days, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days? Or are you ever going to get back to them? We're less than eight months from launching this program, and surely when you're this close to launching a major initiative, you must have some firm turnaround benchmark things that you're going to tell industry so that they can get on and do the job.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, in large part the answer to that question depends on how good the plans are and whether they address all of the issues. There's always a period of time through which there's a back-and-forth dialogue between the industrial sector or group and the ministry.

We don't put in place rigid time lines. We would prefer to work cooperatively with the industry in this regard. I've made this point to your critic as well. We depend a lot on the judgment of our staff, we expect professionalism, we expect timely responses, but we don't give people arbitrary deadlines through which to work.

R. Thorpe: Yet we are committed, and the minister has said we're committed to have this up and running by April of 1998. In order to facilitate some professional review of the reports -- and I'm not talking about the staff; I have worked with many of the staff there, and they are professional -- are there going to be, in the stewardship plans that are going to come forward from the various stakeholders, whoever they may be. . . ? Are they going to be prepared in the standard methodology and with the key criteria? Has all that been defined -- what the ministry is looking for in evaluating its stewardship programs?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated to the member earlier, the regulations are nearing completion. It would include details on what those stewardship report plans would need to include. So the answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: So now we're going to have plans that are being developed going to be part of regulations. It will be interesting to see how that's going to work, if in fact it does work. Let's be hopeful.

I guess the interesting thing to me is -- and I'd like the minister to give me some background on this from her point of view: what is the relationship going to be between the board and the ministry? Is this board going to be independent, and is it going to operate the -- for lack of a better word -- Container Corp, or whatever it's going to be called? Is it going to be able to make the day-to-day decisions, influence how things are done and make sure that stakeholders' voices are heard, or is it going to be an advisory group and the strings will really be pulled from the Ministry of Environment?

[3:00]

R. Thorpe: Obviously I'm not as familiar with the inner workings of some of the programs that the minister has to administer, because that happens to be her job and that's not my job. I just want to understand, then. I thought I heard that in very, very large part -- at least, my takeaway from what the minister said -- the industry and whoever the board members are are going to be primarily responsible and that they're not going to be having ongoing, day-to-day, month-to-month interference from the ministry. Perhaps the minister could comment on this. Are they going to prepare an annual business plan, and once that business plan is approved on a timely basis in accordance with your regulations, are they then going to be able to go out and run their business in an effective way?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, the first thing we need to do is make sure the regulation is in place. Really, we're presupposing some of the decisions -- some of the elements -- that may be a part of that regulation, whether it is the inclusion of annual reports or not. I'm not certain that that's a fundamental requirement for an industrial stewardship program, but perhaps others could persuade me otherwise.

Nonetheless, the ministry is very committed to this program. In fact, we've had a lot of support from local governments, the recycling sector and consumers all over the province. I can't recall an individual who has been opposed to this initiative. They're very excited. They think it's long overdue, and I would certainly agree with that. I'm certainly very pleased to have had the opportunity to bring this initiative forward.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I could have. If I did say "annual report," I did not mean to say that. I meant to say "annual business plan." That's what I thought I said, but perhaps I didn't.

Is there going to be an annual business plan for this expanded operation of a -- for lack of a better word -- Container Corp? Is there going to be an annual business plan that is approved on a timely basis, and then they're going to go out and do their jobs, and it's not going to get all tied up in whatever goes on here?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

R. Thorpe: When will the ministry -- if in fact it is the ministry. . . ? I assume it is. Maybe I should ask the question: who is going to select the board members?

Hon. C. McGregor: The groups that will have representation on the board include: beverage producers; the B.C. Bottle Depot Association; local government; retailers, including the liquor distribution branch; environmental non-government agencies; consumers; and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I will make the decision on who is appointed to the board.

R. Thorpe: The answer to the question, then, is that the minister, or the minister's office, is going to make the decision about who is on the board.

I'm sorry my friend from Peace River North isn't here, because I know he would want to know the answer to this question. How are we going to ensure, and how is the minister going to ensure, that every region of this province is fairly and equitably represented on this board?

Hon. C. McGregor: In total, there should be between 16 and 20 appointees to the board. As part of the selection and decision process, regional considerations will obviously be given.

[ Page 5759 ]

R. Thorpe: Can I take it that the minister is undertaking here today, and has perhaps undertaken at earlier times on this issue, that all parts of British Columbia, where recycling and returns are dramatically different than Burnaby. . . ? Let me assure you that Chetwynd is different than Burnaby, which is different than Burns Lake, which is different than Peachland. Are we going to be assured that the people outside the lower mainland, who control almost everything that goes on in this province, are going to have a large and substantial voice on this board?

Hon. C. McGregor: In large part, the answer is really determined by who the individuals are who are nominated by the different sectors we sent correspondence to. Obviously, as the member points out, there are very different needs in parts of the province outside the lower mainland. For instance, in this area, people commonly think that blue box programs are great, because they've got the ability to access that kind of system. We certainly don't have the resources to do that in Kamloops, where I come from, or in other parts of rural British Columbia.

I remember my trip to Smithers, where I went to a recycling depot. Volunteers hand-crush their glass, bag it up, put it in their own trucks and drive it in. Because of the size of community, there are no other ways in which they are able to deal with their recycling issues. As the member points out, that's a very important consideration, and I won't hesitate to make sure that that's addressed as a part of the board's appointments.

R. Thorpe: The minister said they may not have received all the replies yet, but I guess they've been talking to people and things are in progress. No doubt, with vacations. . . . Some people actually get vacations in British Columbia. When the minister has all the nominations from all those associations, would she make those nominees public before final selection?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't plan to at this time, but obviously we would be covered by any freedom-of-information requirements.

R. Thorpe: I guess what I'm hearing from the minister is that the only way we would perhaps be able to access it is if we filed a freedom-of-information request. As the Premier said earlier -- I think it was this year, or perhaps it was last year -- they are going to build a partnership to make British Columbia better. Would the minister agree to sharing the nominations, if she has some confidence issues with the official opposition, to see if we have any input to assist in making this container corporation as good as we all want it to be?

Hon. C. McGregor: Appointment to this board is my responsibility, and I will make efforts to carry out my job.

R. Thorpe: I guess that was a no. Can the minister confirm that there is a group currently on the producers list that is not represented and has had some discussions with the ministry or has advised the ministry -- a new juice producers group? Is the minister, or are the minister's staff, aware of that?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of a new juice producers group. We have invited a nomination from Dairyworld.

R. Thorpe: In looking at the producers, unless I've made a mistake here -- which is always possible, I suppose -- the brewers don't seem to be on the list of producers. Could the minister advise why the brewers aren't on the list of producers?

Hon. C. McGregor: They're not currently on the list, but we're leaving the door open to have them considered for membership on the board, perhaps at a future date.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise, then, if the very efficient return-to-retail system that the brewers of British Columbia have developed over the years is going to stay intact or if it is subject to this new model being developed?

Hon. C. McGregor: The brewers have a very successful beverage container strategy, and they get a very high rate of return. In fact, I think it's 95 percent. That's a very successful program, and that's the program that currently exists and will continue to exist. That doesn't mean that there won't be some consideration of return-to-depot, for instance, because there has been concern expressed by other sectors that it is something we should consider. That's still open for discussion.

R. Thorpe: Things are still open to discussion. Here we are on July 15, and we're going to be up and running by April '98. When will those decisions be made with respect to the brewers, who have businesses to run? When will they know those kinds of things?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated earlier, once the board starts to operate, these kinds of operational decisions will be made.

R. Thorpe: That's interesting. Right now nominations aren't sought from them, for whatever reason -- perhaps they didn't want to; I don't know -- yet you're going to have a board that could or could not make decisions based on a hugely successful return system out there. What kind of safeguards are going to be in place for producers who have done an excellent job in the marketplace?

As a matter of fact, one of your colleagues, the Minister of Labour. . . . I attended an expansion announcement at one of the facilities in the province and complimented them very much on their achievements. But what kind of safeguards is that industry going to have? They're potentially not sitting at a board table, and other board members are going to make decisions on a day-to-day basis. What kind of safeguards are they going to have to protect the efficiency of their operation, which, quite frankly, has been successful because the consumers have endorsed it?

[3:15]

R. Thorpe: In realizing that the members haven't even been selected, therefore the board hasn't even been put in place. . . . They haven't even put forward their stewardship plans yet or their plans. In the broad sense, how many depots do you see operating throughout the province of British Columbia at this point in time? I understand there are 120 or so right now. Do you see 240 or 350? What kind of range do you see?

Hon. C. McGregor: The definition of depot is really a more broadly framed one than what currently exists in com-

[ Page 5760 ]

munities today. We're really looking at some alternative strategies and alternative ways of returning beverage containers that might look different than depots do. I'm sure the member has seen, for example, reverse vending machines. We're looking at these -- they are used in other jurisdictions, as well -- as one of the strategies to increase consumer convenience. Of course, this strategy can only be successful if it's convenient enough for consumers to access. Other possibilities include kiosks, which could be mobile in nature.

These are all issues that need to be explored fully with the board. We also need to look at work that's been done in other jurisdictions. Obviously there's going to have to be a significant expansion with a depot-based system for consumer convenience. At this point it would be premature to target a number.

R. Thorpe: Did I hear the word "lots"? I thought I heard the word "lots," so I guess that's more than 120. I would think 120 would be sufficient, but by today's standard not. . . . Therefore "lots" must be "lots more."

It's my understanding that there's only one exemption at this point in time. Can the minister confirm that there is only one exemption and just give a very quick background as to why that product category is exempt?

Hon. C. McGregor: Milk products and similar milk products, like infant formula, are exempt. The reason they are exempt is really twofold. One reason that's been given to me, which isn't the most important reason, is that there is a concern about bacteria in containers and the collection of that. The other more important concern is that milk products are very much a staple for small children, and there was a concern that there might be some impact on the price of milk. We did not want to do that. The other reason is that in other jurisdictions milk is also not included.

R. Thorpe: The minister said something rather interesting to me, or at least it twigged my attention -- the impact on the price. Could the minister just give us a little bit more background on the comments she made on the impact on price?

Hon. C. McGregor: When industry sets up its board, through which they will set up their depot-based system, they have to pay for it. There is a concern that perhaps the milk producers would increase the price of their milk to pay for their portion of the costs for the model.

R. Thorpe: Then I guess that concern -- the minister's concern and her staff's concern -- could possibly relate to other products, too. I would think that would be a normal conclusion, but I don't want to get into that now.

Just as the minister is approached by various groups, surprisingly enough we also get approached from time to time by groups. One of them happens to be juice suppliers. I'm just wondering why. . . . I'm not talking about blended drinks; I'm talking about juices, as I understand are defined by federal law. Federal taxation guidelines apparently deem 25 percent content to be a juice product, which also has substantial nutritional value. I'm just wondering why -- not the blended drinks and that kind of thing -- juice products that are defined by federal law or regulation would not also be exempt. Perhaps exemption was considered and ruled out. Maybe the minister could comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm certain the member could try and make the argument that it's an essential food group, but I think milk stands alone as an essential food group -- to my mind, putting it in a different category.

R. Thorpe: One of the concerns that I've had brought to me by groups that are out there working in different part of British Columbia is what is deemed in the industry to be discount depots. In the new vision as we move forward here, the ministry is, I guess, going to approve the stewardship plans and the business plans because the board is an advisory board. Does the minister see uniform deposits throughout the province of British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: No. As a part of the original announcement, we set what the deposit rates would be. They are based on container size and are the same as those that currently exist.

R. Thorpe: I'm taking from the minister's answer, then, if in fact through. . . . I don't know what to refer to this as -- the container corp, for lack of a better word again. If in fact there are discount depots out there where consumers. . . . In earlier comments the minister rightly said that one of the focuses has to be on the consumer. So, if consumers are going to be taken advantage of, and not receive full refunds for the container in various parts of British Columbia, then would it be fair that part of this organization would have methods to remedy such situations?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is currently a problem, but the new board will have an opportunity to review this. I would think that it will become far less of a problem in the future.

R. Thorpe: Since it is a bit of a problem -- now that we've had that acknowledged by the minister -- and since the minister has said that it's probably going to be less of a problem in the future, I guess we can conclude that in the new business operation there will be remedies.

The British Columbia grape and wine industry has met several times with the Ministry of Agriculture with respect to the implementation of expanded deposits. Can the minister advise if the concerns, as addressed through the Minister of Agriculture -- and I understand that the Minister of Agriculture has undertaken to champion these with the minister, his colleague -- are being adequately addressed? Could you comment, please?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there have been discussions on an ongoing basis with the wine industry, and one of the concerns they had was representation on the board. So that's one we can address -- also, setting different targets as a result of the U-brew sector, so that the percentage recovery rates would be different for the wine industry than for, say, some other beverage containers because of reuse through the U-brew movement; also, you know, things leaving the province. Frankly, we're doing a lot of promotion of B.C. wines, so that's a factor, as well -- that they actually leave the province. So that has to be addressed in setting the percentages for return targets. The other issue is that we're working with the liquor distribution branch to ensure that deposit is added after markup so that that creates a financial benefit for them.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much to the minister for that answer. I just want to clarify one thing: it does not provide a 

[ Page 5761 ]

financial benefit to the wineries. Having the deposit after markup provides the benefit to the consumers of British Columbia. I'm sure you know that they are taxed at the highest rate in North America now, so I'm sure they'll appreciate that.

One of the other concerns that comes up from time to time is that many suppliers in British Columbia -- producers of various beverages -- buy their glass in the province, whereas other people don't. Is there going to be some consideration, or are you reviewing how that's going to work in your formula -- I want to be careful with my words here -- for stewardship?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member makes a good point. The closed-loop system of glass that's produced and used here should be given consideration. We are still working on ways that we can promote that.

R. Thorpe: I know that we do represent the government and the opposition. I'm well aware of that. This has been an issue that has been going on for many, many years in British Columbia. I'm the one with all the grey hair, and the minister has very little, if any. She's probably a lot younger, too.

One of the things, though. . . . I want to make it very, very clear that -- as some of your staff know -- we too are very concerned about our environment. We don't want to be adversarial about this, but we do want to make sure that the consumers and the producers of British Columbia get the best deal that they possibly can.

In wrapping up my questions, first of all, I want to wish you and the ministry every success. I would ask you -- I know you don't think about the opposition very often -- to keep us informed on a timely basis rather than on an untimely basis as this unfolds, because not every issue has to be fought in the Province or the Sun. We do want to make British Columbia better, we want to make our producers efficient, and we want to give the best benefit to our consumers.

My last question to the minister. On April 7, when you announced this program, you made the statement that an expanded deposit system would not result in any cost increase to the consumers of British Columbia. Are you still confident today that that is not going to be the case when this new system is put in place?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member asks a very good question, because it is important for consumers and from the consumers' point of view. That's what the deposit system is meant to do: to be of no cost to the consumer. The consumer pays the deposit when they purchase the product; they receive the deposit back when they return the product. That promotes. . . . In fact, the research shows that that is why people return containers. It's for the deposit. As much as it might not seem much of a financial incentive to some of us in the room -- I know I've been guilty of putting mine into the blue box -- nonetheless, it is a major financial incentive to individuals, and that is the reason why we have such a high return rate with beer and pop, for instance. So, yes.

[3:30]

I have had some calls. We have a very, very large retirement community. One of the concerns is that the major retailers are getting this out of their stores and putting it in industrial areas. I've had two calls from senior citizens, ladies who have said: "How come I'm not going to be able to take my bottles or cans, whatever they may be, back to" -- and I'm not going to mention any particular store, because that wouldn't be fair -- "XY supermarket?" Is the return-to-retail under this? I'm talking specifically about the grocery stores, the chain stores. Are they not going to have to take back any returns under this new system?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, it's not banned, if that's what the member is asking. The regulation is not going to say that you can never return anything to retail again. It is going to be. . . . Obviously what we are doing is moving to a depot-based system. Most retailers will chose not to have return-to-retail any longer. They would prefer not to; that's the representation we've had. On the other hand, I want to tell you that I met with a local recycler in Kamloops who seems to think that he will be able to work with the retailers in the Kamloops area on a daily pickup system. If that can be worked out with the retail sector, I don't see any reason why the retailers might not be interested in continuing to do that.

So it's not prohibited, member, but obviously the concern was raised by the retail sector that they were not interested in continuing to have to devote large spaces in their operations to the return of beverage containers. As you can appreciate, with new containers coming on line, that would require even larger space and handling costs for them. So it is something that will be permissive.

R. Thorpe: My particular concern was for senior citizens. I don't see too many senior citizens going out and carrying big new containers, so I'm concerned about the convenience to them.

Unredeemed deposits. What is going to happen to unredeemed deposits?

Hon. C. McGregor: The producers would get to keep them, but we want to leave open the option for the board to use that as an incentive to increase the percentage of return. It's not set in stone, so to speak, but that's the way the system currently works.

R. Thorpe: I know how the system works now. What I'm concerned about -- not nearly as much as I used to be -- and what producers are concerned about is where those unredeemed deposits are going. Can the minister, then, confirm that the government is not going to scoop the unredeemed deposits?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's up to the board.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much for your answers on this subject. I do live in the hope that we will be kept informed on a timely basis.

C. Clark: I don't intend to pursue any of the issues on container deposits that my colleague raised. I think he's canvassed the issue very thoroughly, and I'll leave it at that.

I noticed one question that I meant to ask about the greenhouse gas action plan, which was. . . . Phase 3 of the report is supposed to be coming out. I understand that was 

[ Page 5762 ]

part of the original plan for the greenhouse gas action plan. I wonder when it's coming out -- and if it's not, when the ministry might be able to. . . . Why is it not coming out?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid we don't understand your question. Perhaps you could frame it in a different way.

C. Clark: Of course. It was my understanding that there were three phases to the greenhouse gas action plan. Phase 1 was announced in November '95, phase 2 in April '96, and I assume there will be a phase 3 as part of the plan. These were announcements that were made by government to support the plan after it was released; obviously it was released in 1995. I just wonder when we might be moving on to phase 3 or when the ministry might be announcing that we're going to be getting into that phase of implementation.

Hon. C. McGregor: The plan is in place. But we're not aware of any phases to the plan, so we just don't know what the member is making reference to.

C. Clark: Okay, that's something I can pursue in correspondence with the minister. It's not urgent that we get an answer on that today.

I would like to make a pit stop, very briefly, on some wildlife issues. The member from Peace River canvassed that very thoroughly, and I don't intend to go over any of that ground again. But I did have a couple of questions about wildlife which I think are fairly general in nature.

The first one relates to the NAFTA side deal on environmental protection. I know that's not just a wildlife issue; it's a broader issue. But I wonder if the minister has any plans to make B.C. a signatory to that side agreement.

Hon. C. McGregor: No, we are not planning to be a signatory to that agreement. The concern is that it will cause us to lower our environmental standards.

C. Clark: I would certainly share the minister's concern if I thought that were true. But given the fact that it appears that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has only been able to seek resolution of its complaints about Canada not living up to its environmental obligations with regard to fish through the side agreement on NAFTA, I wonder. Doesn't the minister think that action would contradict her statements that it would represent a lowering of our standards?

It appears to me that the B.C. Wildlife Federation, for example. . . . I'm not assigning any kind of judgment to their decision to do that. It's entirely their own decision. They're a group outside of government. Whether it's right or wrong, the fact is that they decided. . . . They didn't decide. They went to it after they were not able to get any relief or any court decisions addressing difficulties that they claim: that the federal government is not doing its job on fish. The only way they could try and find redress for their complaints is through the environmental side agreement on NAFTA.

In other words, every other jurisdiction, including the Ministry of Environment, has failed to address their concerns. So I have some difficulty understanding how the minister can come to the conclusion that signing onto the environmental side agreement would result in a diminishment of our environmental standards, when in fact this group appears to have proven that the exact opposite is true.

Hon. C. McGregor: My answer remains the same as it was a short while ago. The answer is no. We don't want our standards to be lowered to any common denominator.

C. Clark: I think what the minister is really saying is that despite all the facts, despite the reality, despite what's really going on out there, the minister is going to stick to the lines. No matter what the truth is, she'll stick to her original plan to answer the question -- whatever it says on the paper in front of her. So I won't pursue that any further. I was just curious about whether that was in the future for the ministry.

Hunting fees. Could the minister give us a quick breakdown of how many fees the ministry expects to collect this year? What kinds of fees are represented in the total number?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're just hunting for that information; we'll provide it shortly. The calculation is. . . . In total, there's $9.2 million collected, although that is net of -- what do they call it? -- vendor commissions paid.

C. Clark: I'd like to touch just for a second on some issues with regard to biodiversity in British Columbia, and I don't intend to stay on this issue very long. I'm interested, though. . . . We know that previous ministers -- actually, the government -- have promised an endangered species act and that previous ministers have reneged on that promise. I wonder if this minister intends to make good on that promise, or if she intends to do what her predecessors have done and also renege on that promise.

Hon. C. McGregor: Obviously we are committed to the protection of endangered species. We have a variety of mechanisms through which we address those. But we have no plans of having stand-alone endangered species legislation.

C. Clark: There has been some discussion about this issue in the media, so I won't belabour the point. I simply want to remind the minister that the promise was made, and it's another one that isn't being kept. I won't ask the minister to go through a song and dance about why they're not doing it.

We know why they're not doing it. We have the correspondence which proves why they're not doing it. It's because big labour put its foot down, and the government danced the tune. So we know that's the answer. We have the correspondence from the former minister for everything to show us that.

Could the minister, though, tell us specifically, on endangered species. . . ? One of the commitments that the government made was that they would require identification and protection of critical habitat for designated endangered species. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the progress is with that, because I assume that it might be one of the ways that the ministry is intending to make up for the fact that it is not bringing a stand-alone endangered species act in.

[3:45]

C. Clark: Do the guidebooks include provision for the protection of the habitat for the identified endangered species, as well?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

[ Page 5763 ]

C. Clark: Are the guidebooks -- and I hope the minister will forgive my questions, because I haven't seen the guidebooks -- fairly specific about the ways in which that habitat must be protected?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, they are quite specific, and they provide a lot of very good advice to those people working in the field as to how to protect a variety of different species and their habitat.

C. Clark: I note, too, that the government has made a commitment to designate more species as endangered through the wildlife branch. I wonder if the minister can update us on the progress, now that we're into year 2 of the government.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're constantly working on our red, blue and yellow lists of endangered species and wildlife. There's monitoring that goes on all the time, and new strategies are put into place as a result of that ongoing work. I'm not sure, really, what question the member is asking. Maybe she could be a bit more specific.

C. Clark: I will be more specific. Could the minister first give us an update on if there has been a change over the last year in the number of species that are listed by the wildlife branch as endangered and threatened? Maybe that's a good place to start, with that question.

Hon. C. McGregor: On the basis of the designation -- because we have red-, blue- and yellow-listed species -- numbers can change. They can be uplisted or downgraded as the case may be, so there are changes. I don't know if you have a copy of a current list or an old list. We could certainly provide you with a copy of the new list, and then you could compare it with any other documentation that you might have.

C. Clark: On a similar topic, does the minister's approach to protecting habitat for endangered and threatened aquatic species include a plan to put in place minimum stream flows in British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: That will be through the Fish Protection Act, and there will be an opportunity to debate the specific provisions of the act once the legislation is tabled in the House.

C. Clark: Yes, I know we will be discussing related issues, but I will take that answer to mean, though, that there are no other plans underway in the ministry to put in place minimum stream flows outside of Bill 25. Based on the minister's response, that would be a fair assumption to make.

Before I hand the floor over to my colleague from Matsqui, who has a few questions, I wanted to briefly ask some questions that have been forwarded to me that I hope the minister doesn't think are too arcane. An individual has contacted me, and he's very anxious about the minister's plans to ban venomous snakes in British Columbia -- or that the ministry is planning a prohibition of all venomous animals, not just snakes. I wonder if the minister could update us on the progress of that planning, if indeed my constituent is correct in his assumption.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any ongoing work to ban venomous species in British Columbia, but we are certainly looking at management of exotic species. I don't know if the member will recall, but there was a story in, I believe, the Vancouver Sun a short while ago about the importation of turtles and some of the ecological and environmental concerns related to that. I've asked staff to review our policy related to that.

C. Clark: I should have been a little more specific. When I was talking about keeping venomous snakes, I was talking about the people who keep them in their homes and breed them, I suppose, or keep them as recreational pets. I wasn't talking about going out and travelling around shooting every snake that you find in the desert.

This constituent is quite concerned that there are plans to limit the number of venomous snakes, in particular, that people will be allowed to import and keep as pets in British Columbia. He has had some correspondence with the ministry that indicates that some plans are underway. I wonder if the minister could give us a quick outline of what might be going on there.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're actually not aware of this issue. Maybe the member could provide us with a copy of the correspondence, and that might help us. As far as we're aware, it would be a municipal -- or it might be a Ministry of Health -- issue.

C. Clark: I'll be sure to forward the correspondence to the minister, and I will look forward to her response.

With that, I'll pass the floor to my colleague from Matsqui for a moment.

M. de Jong: I'll signal to the minister right off the bat that I wanted to ask her a couple of questions about the recently released Aboriginal Affairs Committee report. The minister, I know, finds herself in a bit of a unique circumstance insofar as I am going to endeavour to ask her about government responses to recommendations that she would have been a part of formulating. I understand that, in some cases, there may be a difference between the two positions. I also understand, by way of prefacing my remarks, that the minister finds herself in that unique circumstance by virtue of her appointment midway through the committee process.

Nonetheless, I have undertaken this exercise with several of the other ministries. By the time the report was tabled, the Aboriginal Affairs estimates were completed. It is a legitimate function, once a standing committee has filed a report -- and now a couple of weeks have passed -- to query ministers responsible for areas that are addressed in that report about what the governmental response to those recommendations is.

Let me begin simply by asking whether the ministry has a process in place now by which it is reviewing the recommendations that have come to it and that impact on wildlife management, which is the area we are canvassing at the moment in these estimates.

Hon. C. McGregor: Staff has begun the process of evaluating the recommendations, but there haven't been any recommendations from that process that have come up to the executive level as yet.

M. de Jong: Maybe I can do this. I understand that because of the uniqueness of the circumstance where a member of the executive council was a member of the committee, 

[ Page 5764 ]

there might be some difficulty for the minister. I guess I can only summarize my response to that by saying: well, that's her problem; fortunately, it's not mine.

There were some recommendations that were made. I will simply go through them insofar as they appear in the main body of the report. The committee recommended that there should be a wildlife component included in most future treaties, and I think it is fair to say that the word "most" appears there purposely insofar as there will be some treaties in which wildlife management in the more urban areas isn't really an issue.

Is the minister in a position to say whether or not she agrees with that recommendation? The further recommendation is part of that item -- that there be an increased role for first nations in the management of wildlife.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member knows that in my capacity as a member of the committee, I had my opportunity to express my support for and/or disagreement with recommendations that went forward. But that reflects the majority view of the committee members.

As I've indicated to the member, staff is reviewing the implications of those recommendations for our ministry. Until such time as I've had an opportunity to review those recommendations as a result of that review, I don't feel that I can comment on the member's question.

M. de Jong: It's not my purpose to try and entrap the minister. She certainly was a member of the committee, and I don't think it's proper to, nor do I intend to, rehash the deliberations we had as a committee.

I think it is, however, as I said earlier, legitimate for me to press the government -- and she now occupies that seat and is wearing that hat -- as to what the government's response to the recommendations are. There is a lingering suspicion that I'm having difficulty quelling that this may yet become another report that finds its way to the shelves in the archives without having been acted upon.

The Minister of Environment has enough on her own plate. I won't ask her to answer for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but we've heard nothing, and the report has been available now for some time. We've not even heard what process the government or the Aboriginal Affairs minister intends to follow with respect to examining and moving on some of the recommendations that exist in the main body of the report and the minority report. It's a process that cost almost half a million dollars -- and I think that's unfortunate -- and really, there's no guarantee that that will change.

Maybe I could ask the minister this: my own observations over the past year have been that in negotiating as part of the treaty process wildlife management agreements, it doesn't make a lot of sense to conduct those negotiations on the basis of government-to-government considerations, insofar as wildlife are unaware and don't respect those artificial human-based distinctions. It makes a lot more sense to be negotiating those types of issues on a regional or geographical basis.

Can the minister explain what her ministry's policy is presently with respect to those sorts of negotiations, and whether. . . ? Let's start there: what is the policy presently?

[4:00]

I think the questions are really straying, hon. Chair, towards questions that are more properly asked of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. It's not that I'm not interested in this topic, but it falls outside of the mandate of this ministry.

M. de Jong: Well, insofar as the report makes recommendations that would purport to alter the powers of the Minister of Environment, I think it's very relevant to these deliberations, hon. Chair.

I'm a bit unclear on the process that the minister intends to follow with respect to the recommendations that appear in the report, some of which do purport to alter the present management committee structure and purport to alter slightly the involvement of the minister and the ministry in wildlife management issues. Help me so that I can have some assurance that these recommendations, particularly those that pertain directly to the ministry, are going to be acted upon. Explain that process to me. Ultimately I'm going to ask the minister by what date we will have a response from her, either accepting or rejecting the recommendations that appear in the report.

Hon. C. McGregor: This question was previously canvassed. I believe I've given my answer.

M. de Jong: Once again, hon. Chair, I have clumsily asked a question in a way that I understand the hon. minister has misunderstood. There are, in this report, six recommendations. What is clear to me is that the minister has said she's not in a position to respond today to those recommendations. I am asking her when she will be in a position to respond to those recommendations.

Hon. C. McGregor: I can't give the member an answer to that question. I don't know the answer to that question.

M. de Jong: Will the minister be responding to each of the six individual recommendations?

Hon. C. McGregor: Our response will be coordinated through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

M. de Jong: Well, that minister will be thrilled to hear that. Do I understand, then, that there is an individual or a liaison that exists between the two ministries that is in place now to funnel this ministry's position on some of these things?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are a variety of mechanisms within government through which we communicate with one another. One of them is that we have a deputy ministers' committee on aboriginal affairs, of which we are a member.

M. de Jong: The minister was a member of the committee. I think she implicitly has supported -- and supports -- these six recommendations dealing with wildlife management as a member of the committee.

It occurs to me that it's one of those rare cases where a minister is actually in a better position -- better informed, has heard all the evidence -- than all of the support staff that she has around her. Has the minister received any information from her staff to this point indicating concern with any of the recommendations that appear in the report?

[ Page 5765 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated earlier, I have yet to receive a report from staff on the recommendations.

M. de Jong: As it stands -- just so I can be clear -- on this date, July 15, the minister is in possession of no information that would give her concerns about implementing the recommendations as they presently appear.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I said earlier, I have not received any information from the staff regarding these recommendations.

M. de Jong: During the course of our deliberations, one of the issues that caused some confusion, for me at least, was the regime that is presently in place for ascertaining the impact of negotiations and wildlife allocations in a certain area. Can the minister provide some description of how that works now, with respect to the tables that are in place, or how the Nisga'a model would purport to operate?

I guess that's the fairer question: how would the Nisga'a model operate to ensure that the notion of conservation remains paramount and that it is protected?

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally our regional staff would be involved in providing advice and information to treaty negotiations tables.

M. de Jong: The minister will know that we received a lot of representations from third-party groups -- the B.C. Wildlife Federation being one of them -- advocating more active participation in the process of wildlife allocation and management. To what extent does that exist now? Can I ask the minister this: without committing to implementing the recommendations, how would it change, in her view, if the recommendations were implemented -- if it would at all?

Hon. C. McGregor: I won't engage in hypothetical discussions about "What if we decide to implement this?" or "What if we decide to implement that?" But I certainly can provide to the member the fact that in terms of making decisions around wildlife management harvesting, there are a variety of mechanisms that are used. We have a number of wildlife management specialists -- biologists and others -- who provide advice on the number of animals in an area, and certain percentages are applied as a result of managing conservatively for the resource.

There are often consultation mechanisms with different regions of the province. There are committees that provide advice -- mostly they are hunters and guiders in the area, who have been in the field and who provide advice to us on their experience. We also collect information as a result of animals and animal parts that are brought into our office, and that's used as a part of the analysis, as well.

I don't know if that's really the question the member asked, but if he has a more detailed question he'd like to follow up with, I'd be happy to answer it.

M. de Jong: I don't want to spin my wheels here. The minister has made clear that she doesn't intend to respond directly to the question of the recommendations -- either in the majority or the minority report. Maybe I can ask this: how will her ministry's response to the recommendations that impact upon her ministry be delivered to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs?

Hon. C. McGregor: Perhaps the member could be more specific as to what he means by a method of delivery.

M. de Jong: I am obviously interested in knowing the ministry's response to these recommendations. I've been told that I will not receive that information from the Ministry of Environment -- that it will come from the Aboriginal Affairs ministry. Presumably they will be guided by the submissions they receive from the Minister of Environment.

Will that be an oral submission? Will that be a written submission? I'm unfamiliar with the method of communication that will exist between the two ministries.

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't know that I can determine at this time what form those recommendations might take. Obviously the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is the lead ministry responsible for treaty negotiations, and that ministry will be taking the lead.

M. de Jong: Look, I didn't come here to be difficult. The minister has said she's developing a response -- fair enough. I'm not going to press that point. It's been two weeks. All I'm asking is to see her response. I want to see the Ministry of Environment's response to recommendations that impact directly on the Ministry of Environment. She's either going to sit down and have a beer with the minister and tell him what she thinks, or she's going to get a paper from her staff, which presumably she will sign off on, and it will go to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. How does this work? Ultimately is it going to be made public? It's that simple.

Hon. C. McGregor: We will provide our advice to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and Aboriginal Affairs will make the public response on behalf of our government.

M. de Jong: Do I take it, then, that when a report of this sort is tabled in the Legislature, recommending specific changes to a ministerial operation, there is -- in this case, at least -- no assurance offered by the minister responsible -- in this case the Minister of Environment -- that they will ever be responded to specifically or otherwise?

Hon. C. McGregor: I believe I've answered the member's question.

R. Neufeld: I almost got caught not paying attention. Just a couple of questions dealing with wildlife. The first one surrounds the bison herd around Pink Mountain at mile 147 and some movement of those animals and some hunting of those animals. Could the minister maybe just bring me up to date on where we're at with that herd, please?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're trying to clarify the area that the member is asking the question about. Are you talking about the limited-entry hunt in the region?

R. Neufeld: With bison.

Hon. C. McGregor: I have the list of the numbers that are available, and the class of animal and the season dates in management unit 7-57. Maybe if you want a specific number, you could ask the question and I'll provide it for you. Otherwise we could simply provide you with a copy of this limited-entry hunting synopsis.

[4:15]

[ Page 5766 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally I can give a couple of responses to the member's inquiry, but we can get a detailed copy of the management plan for that area to provide to the member.

I'm told that it is a growing population. The feeding this winter was done to draw them away from the road, because they tend to go towards the road, where it's easier to get at feed with not as much snow. Of course, that causes accidents with vehicles on the road, as well. We have had some problems with containment -- keeping them within their area. I can't be more specific than that. But we can agree to provide you with a copy of the management plan.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. Actually, I'll ask one more question around that, so it's possible that you may be able to give me that information along with the management plan. You have said in your last annual report that wood bison were transplanted "to restore populations in traditional ranges." That's verbatim out of the manual. Can you tell me: were they transplanted to somewhere else in the province? Or what does that sentence mean?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm given to understand that the species at Pink Mountain is not a wood bison but a plains bison, which -- these are the things one learns in estimates -- is not indigenous to the area. It was introduced by a game farmer. There was some escapement, and that's how the herd developed.

The introduction of wood bison has actually been in a more northerly region than the Pink Mountain area. We're trying to keep them geographically apart, as a result of them being different species. But again, the assistant deputy minister will get you a copy of the management plan. It makes reference to where the wood bison are being managed.

R. Neufeld: I apologize. In fact, I made that mistake earlier -- now that you correct me. In one of my questions I referred to them as wood bison when I shouldn't have. But I appreciate that. I'll find out where they were transplanted to.

One other issue is the fencing of landfill sites. I don't know whether the minister touched on that at all, but I think we're all painfully aware of what took place in Mackenzie when the Ministry of Environment required the region of Mackenzie to fence their landfill and of what happened with the bear population.

I'm just wondering: has the ministry requested any other areas -- in the north, specifically, where there is a high population of bears -- to fence their landfills? If so, have we experienced much the same problem that we experienced in Mackenzie?

Hon. C. McGregor: Bear fencing is a component of our solid waste management planning process. There are many regions in the province that have a requirement to put in bear fencing. It's part of our strategy to not have bears habituated to garbage. While it does lead, unfortunately, to the killing of bears that have become habituated to garbage, over the longer term it will stop that kind of improper feeding of bears.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister is saying. I don't think we can fence every dump in northern British Columbia and expect the bears not to go after garbage. I mean, that's going to happen. That's obviously what happened in Mackenzie. I mean, all they did was come to town. They didn't go to the dump anymore; they just came to town. Then they had to be shot. As far as I know, there were quite a number of them.

I guess the second part of my question, which the minister maybe didn't hear, was: have we experienced in any other part of northern British Columbia that same issue that happened in Mackenzie after the dump was fenced? Were there other areas where we had to destroy quite a few bears?

Hon. C. McGregor: The example that we're aware of is in the Kitimat area, where I guess there were some problems -- perhaps not as extensive as there were in the Mackenzie area. The difficulty with bears is that we are encroaching on their natural habitat.

Even in the neighbourhood in which I live, we've had a number of bear incidents. They are related to the way that we in our neighbourhood handle our garbage. Putting our garbage out the night before, for instance, we had a conservation officer out knocking on our doors, saying: "Don't do this, because it's attracting bears."

So there's a lot of education related to bears that we need to do around management of our garbage. The initiative related to fencing is one part of it. But programs like the Be Bear Aware program that was launched by my colleague from Prince George when he was Minister of Environment are examples of programs that we need to continue to do, especially on the education front.

R. Neufeld: I guess the issue surrounding bears and dumps is going to be with us for a long time. It's certainly not going to go away. It's not an easy issue to deal with. It is because of our encroachment on their natural habitat. I guess that goes right to Vancouver, where they infiltrate into the urban centres around Vancouver. So I don't suggest for a minute that it's easy to deal with. But I just want to know if we are continuing to experience that same kind of volume of having to shoot bears, as we did in Mackenzie.

The Chair: Members, a division has been called in the main House, so we will recess until completing our business in the main House.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:36 p.m.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: I have one other question, and it relates a bit to Lands and bit to wildlife. I have some people who farm in my constituency just north of Fort St. John. It's an area called North Pine. They farm approximately three sections of land. There's an out-of-country owner of approximately 2,000 acres that borders this person's land who has apparently made an application to the Ministry of Environment to permit commercial game hunting on the private land.

[ Page 5767 ]

I'm not familiar with what the regulations or the rules would be surrounding that kind of application. Maybe the minister, if she doesn't have the information here, could provide to me how you would deal with an issue such as that. This is not rural bush land; this is a heavily farmed part of the province. It's not the only farm that's around there. There's an awful lot of arable land that surrounds where this person wants to do the commercial hunting; it's not all straight farming. They all have domestic animals of all kinds, and some raise cattle. So there are some concerns surrounding it, and I'm not sure where to start -- whether it's with the ALR or whether it's with the Ministry of Environment -- on how we deal with this issue.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm going to try to answer the member's question from a couple of perspectives. It could be that the individuals applied for a guide outfitter's licence, and that's covered under the Wildlife Act. Or it may be that this individual has decided he wants to try and charge people for coming onto his private property. That is allowed, but only if it's in an area where hunting is already designated as open. If it's a closed hunting area, then that wouldn't be permitted.

R. Neufeld: I'll make available to the minister a copy of the letter that I've received and the names of the people. I'm a bit interested in what the minister said. If they applied for a guide's licence and if ownership is from out of the country -- and I guess that applies to quite a few of the guiding areas -- how would that apply in an agricultural area?

Secondly, the minister says that anyone can charge people to hunt on their land. Would I be right to assume, then, that any farmer that has land around the Fort St. John area would be able to charge anyone whatever they deemed as proper, I guess, to be able to hunt on their land? Would that be correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, they could charge, and what they're charging for is access to their private property. But again, I would reiterate that it would be subject to whatever hunting regulation is in effect in that area.

R. Neufeld: That concludes my questions to do with wildlife. I'll make available to the minister a copy of the letter so we can follow it up a little bit more.

K. Krueger: I've been lobbied somewhat by the big-game guiding industry, particularly with regard to the issue of what they term the "packing" industry. They tell me -- and I believe they've also told the minister -- that a great deal of illegal quasi-guiding activity takes place, which frequently infringes upon their guiding territories, by individuals who neither ought to be there nor are properly licensed to conduct those activities. I wonder if the minister could just give us her view on that issue.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member raises an issue related to packers and guiders, and this is in fact a matter of some ongoing dispute. There are different opinions, I guess, depending on which side of the fence you're sitting on. We've found ourselves in the midst of differing opinions between the guide-outfitters themselves and the B.C. Wildlife Federation. We are continuing to work with both organizations to try and resolve those outstanding issues. As the member can appreciate, they are fairly complex and not easily solved.

On the issue of illegal guiding, we would ask that if the member is aware of any circumstance where illegal guiding has been reported, we want to investigate that and subsequently, if they are guiding illegally, lay charges.

K. Krueger: Are any of the packers licensed to pack?

Hon. C. McGregor: There's currently no requirement for a licence for packers.

K. Krueger: Is the minister aware of people who conduct what is known as packing but actually, as packers, do the same thing that big-game guides do?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, the member has outlined what the problem and the dispute is.

K. Krueger: I take that for a yes, that the minister is aware of this. Certainly the big-game guides and outfitters who had a convention in Victoria during this session poured out their hearts about this problem and about the fact that they invest hundreds of thousands of dollars -- some of them say well over a million dollars -- in complying with government regulation and licensing, looking after their territories and so on, only to find other people doing their business on their territory.

They said that the Hell's Angels were involved in this activity and were making lots of money at it. Is the minister aware of the Hell's Angels being involved in the packing industry?

Hon. C. McGregor: The guide-outfitters did raise that allegation to the deputy minister.

K. Krueger: Is the minister aware of whether there's any truth to that allegation?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

[4:45]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not aware that there's any truth to the allegations.

K. Krueger: There was also an allegation that there were freezer trucks moving up and down the Alaska Highway to transport the meat of wild animals taken through these operations of the so-called packing industry. Is that accurate?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not specifically aware of that activity, but I'm told that it is not uncommon for groups of hunters to hire a refrigerated vehicle so that they can store their game.

K. Krueger: At the convention that I referred to earlier, attended by MLAs from both sides of this House, the guides spoke very convincingly of the difficulties they have with this whole issue. At one point there was a panel of senior civil servants there from the ministry to do a Q-and-A session, essentially, and this issue was dealt with at length.

[ Page 5768 ]

The senior civil servants present appeared to agree that it was a very real issue, that there were very real conflicts. At one point one of them, in answer to a frustrated guide who said, "Well, what should we do about it, then, when we're paying for all these licences, we're trying to conduct our business, and other people are conducting our business on our territories with the full knowledge of the government, and nothing's being done about it. . . ?" One of the civil servants said: "Sue us" -- meaning sue the government. How does the minister feel about that?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I described earlier, this is a matter of some contention between groups -- those that are packing and those that are guiding -- and it continues to be a matter of high anxiety for individuals.

The member points out, quite rightly, that there were a great many concerns raised at the guide-outfitters' convention. I would express the opinion that if you were with the proponents of the packing industry, you would have heard just as vigorously debated their right to be able to engage in a business.

So what we are doing is trying to resolve the outstanding issues between the two groups. We want to provide opportunities for a variety of businesses, and we're trying to achieve some resolve.

K. Krueger: Certainly I'm not professing to have the wisdom of Solomon on this issue, nor is the best outcome likely to be to split the wildlife in half. But I was really concerned that senior employees of this ministry and this government would be telling an industry and a group of people that pay for the privileges they enjoy that they ought to sue the government over the anomalies they were discussing. I'd like the minister's view on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it was a very unfortunate remark and should not have been made.

K. Krueger: Does the minister have any advice for these people who feel so aggrieved, other than litigation and the fact that she has said some consultation is ongoing? Does the minister have any more concrete advice to these people or any more concrete plans as to how the whole issue is going to be resolved in fairness to all concerned?

Hon. C. McGregor: I indicated to the member the approach we were using.

K. Krueger: One of the points made repeatedly to me is that there are simply not enough conservation officers to ensure that the laws of British Columbia are properly enforced, particularly with regard to big-game guiding and hunting issues in general. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: This topic was fully canvassed earlier in estimates, and I would invite the member to check Hansard.

K. Krueger: Certainly I will consult Hansard. I've been in the Bill 31 and Bill 32 debates up until now, so I've missed that. If the minister tells me that she thinks she's been perfectly clear on the issue, I'll accept that. But for the sake of the people I've been talking about in particular, at this time I'd like her to be on record for them. Does she have sufficient conservation officers in the field to properly address this issue of whether or not big-game guiding is being illegally done?

Hon. C. McGregor: I have responded to the member's inquiry.

K. Krueger: My understanding from the Environment critic is that the minister earlier said yes. So I certainly will look to proper enforcement of the laws of British Columbia.

I'm going to go on to what I think would be classified as a Lands issue, with the permission of the critic and with the indulgence of the minister. I assume the correct people are in the room. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly wait.

Getting the nod from the minister, I want to raise some issues on behalf of the fishing resort owners and operators of British Columbia, many of them family businesses, many of which have been handed down from generation to generation -- people who, from their point of view, started small businesses on land that was often considered at the time to be of marginal value to the government and have poured their energy, work, resources and finances into those businesses for years, and sometimes, as I say, for generations.

They report to me -- and I know that they've also raised these issues with the minister -- that during the last six years of NDP government they've seen a tremendous escalation in all the costs of doing business that relate to government. They've seen huge increases in the assessed value of the property they lease from the Crown. They've seen huge increases -- gigantic increases -- in the amount of tax that they are assessed.

They feel they are obliged more and more to comply with onerous regulation to act as the Crown's tax collector -- that they sell fishing licences and do all kinds of things for the Crown, that they generate economic activity and salaries that are heavily taxed by the Crown, and that their financial viability is threatened by all of these charges and the way they've accumulated over the last six years, as well as by the huge burden of regulation that they struggle with.

They are substantial contributors to the economy. They perform many services for the government beyond those I've mentioned already -- the collection of fees, the selling of licences, the collection of taxes: the fact that they provide rentals and all kinds of services that people purchase and on which taxes are paid; and the fact that they do a lot of observing, recording and reporting to assist this ministry in the enforcement of fisheries and hunting regulations.

They make the point that if they give up and go out of business -- and many of them say they are at the point of having to do that, because of the accumulation of all of these problems they've been dealing with -- there will be a tremendous loss to the province and to the public in terms of access, in that many of their resorts would willingly be snapped up by people who would turn them into essentially private resorts for themselves, their friends and their families. So public access would be lost to many of these lakes and fishing locations, which I think would be a concern to anyone who enjoys fishing or who thinks they might one day in British Columbia, and that should be of concern to the government, as well.

So, given all of those problems as outlined, I'd like to ask the minister what relief this government anticipates for the owners and operators of fishing resorts in British Columbia.

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate that the member brings up the importance of fish camps to our provincial economy. 

[ Page 5769 ]

No one would want to suggest otherwise. Obviously, they do provide a substantial benefit to those who wish to have that kind of a wilderness experience and access to what are absolutely plentiful resources in British Columbia -- in the fish lakes in particular, I would mention, in the region which both the member opposite and I are from.

Nonetheless, there is a cost to doing business, just as there is a cost to any entrepreneurial enterprise in our province. One of the costs in the fish camp business is leases. Leases are based on the assessed market value. The assessed market value is, in the case of these leases, a percentage of the assessed land value. The industry standard is to charge 7 to 10 percent of that. In fact, for fish camps we charge 3.5 percent. I believe that's an accommodation to that sector because of the particular and unique needs it has.

K. Krueger: I appreciate the minister's answer. I'd like a little bit more of a complete answer.

I notice that the minister is wearing a fish on her lapel. I didn't check earlier whether she was wearing a moose or a caribou, but I congratulate her on the appropriateness of her motif.

I'd like her to talk globally about the issues that I talked about -- the fact that, yes, certainly the government has increased the assessments. These people make the point that the government does the leasing, the assessing, the taxing and the regulating. It's done all of those, in spades, over the last six years. The burden on them is tremendous; they can't live with it. The minister did talk about the 3.5 percent policy. But I'm asking if -- globally, all things considered -- the ministry and the minister contemplate any relief for these people?

Hon. C. McGregor: The assessments are done by the B.C. Assessment Authority. The member is going to have to ask a more direct question if he thinks I haven't answered it. I haven't heard one yet.

K. Krueger: All right, we'll start this way. Can the minister quantify the revenue that accrues to British Columbia as a result of the operations of fishing resorts?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have that information here, but we can provide it for the member.

K. Krueger: I appreciate that. When that information is provided, could we also be provided, please, with the change in revenue collected through this source over the last six years, broken down incrementally if possible, but at least what it was in 1991 and what it is now in 1997?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we can include that.

K. Krueger: Might we, then, have the minister's commitment that as that is done, she also undertakes some sort of consultative process with these people through one of the experts in her ministry -- considering their cost of doing business, the revenue that flows to the government, whether or not it's an accurate statement that they are unable to make profit under the current constraints and with the increases in costs that we've been talking about, and considering providing them relief if that is true?

Hon. C. McGregor: Certainly, I'm quite happy to offer a meeting with individuals. They've had meetings with previous ministers; but if the member believes that such a meeting would be productive, I'd be prepared to have it.

K. Krueger: Just so I make myself clear, what I had in mind was, when these numbers are provided, an expert from the ministry -- perhaps the minister herself -- actually working through these numbers with this organization and these people, determining whether indeed the changes that have occurred over the last six years have whittled down their opportunity to make a profit to the point that they're viability is threatened, and if so, trying to come up with a plan to provide them relief, so they can continue to conduct these businesses which we've agreed are so beneficial to British Columbia and the economy.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm certainly prepared to listen to the concerns.

[5:00]

R. Neufeld: I'm sorry -- you've got to be quick every once in awhile to get up and. . . . I don't want to take the time away from the hon. member, but I do want to go back to the issue surrounding the big-game guide-outfitters and the packers.

That is an issue that we have dealt with in all the years I've been here, and I guess I've kind of given up on it. Predecessors before you have all promised -- maybe not promised; that's not the word -- or have indicated that they would like to work out something where there are some regulations surrounding the packing industry, so that there is a little bit more of a working relationship between both. They operate in the same territories; there are lots of legitimate packers, just as there are legitimate big-game guide-outfitters. It's the intricacy of trying to come up with some kind of regulations that everyone's going to accept. . . . Here's a person who stands up and tells the minister we have too many regulations, encouraging more. . . . So be it. It's an issue that is festering. I would like the minister to comment on: are we still working towards trying to resolve the issue -- and I know you'll never resolve it totally, but at least resolve it to some extent -- so that those two groups can hunt the same territory a little bit better?

The other comment I'd like to make is on more officers. I know that the minister said we canvassed that before, and I appreciate that. We did. But there is a need. In my constituency we have two in Fort Nelson -- I'm not sure how many there are in Fort St. John, just off the top of my head. If we go to the Fort Nelson area and just take in the Muskwa-Kechika, which is the size of Nova Scotia in land mass. . . . Some of the biggest big-game guide-outfitting going on in the province of British Columbia takes place in that area, in the Rocky Mountain Trench -- and we have two officers.

Most of the country is only accessible by air or by horseback. It's very difficult for two officers on a restricted budget to try and look after an area that size. Just my constituency is the size of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island. We probably have, at max, four conservation officers. This is in the part of the province where we have what they call the Serengeti of the North, and I can't stress too much to the minister that that is one way we can control it.

[ Page 5770 ]

The roads are very simple. . . . The member talked earlier about freezer trucks and those kinds of things. There is that type of equipment on the Alaska Highway, and the Alaska Highway is the only major highway that goes through that area. When they go up there, they have to come back just about on the same road, unless they go around by Highway 37. It's a little bit easier to control -- I shouldn't say easy to control, but there is a way that it can be controlled.

But I think, seriously, having more conservation officers -- at least one or two more to look after an area that size, even if it's just while the hunting season is full-fledged -- would be a wise move for the minister to make, and may alleviate some of the problems that we've had between the packers and the guide-outfitters.

Hon. C. McGregor: In terms of the conflicts between packers and guide-outfitters, we are continuing to work on it. We're really using the tool of our review of the commercial back-country recreation policy as a means through which we'll come up with some sort of solution, I hope, to this longstanding. . . . I appreciate what the member said. There have been commitments in the past to try and resolve this, but as he rightly points out, it is very complex and there are a variety of very strongly held opinions on the matter. But obviously, we do need to resolve it and I am committed to trying to do that.

In terms of the Muskwa in particular, we are in the midst of a land use planning process -- near completion, as the member knows. One of the outstanding issues that's still at play is the management of the Muskwa. As the member points out, it is necessary to have appropriate management for an area that size, and I certainly hope that we'll be able to adequately address the particular needs of that area for ongoing monitoring and the work that conservation officers do.

I can't make a commitment to suggest that conservation officers will be increased in the short term. But I can certainly give the member my commitment that when more funds become available to this ministry, it will be an area we will look at very seriously.

J. Wilson: I have a question in the same area for the minister. At present, if someone out of province is guilty of breaching the laws relating to game in this province, does the ministry have any power to go outside British Columbia to prosecute individuals who have committed an offence within British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we are able to charge other residents of Canada, and I'm also told that we have an agreement with the U.S. under the Lacey Act to also enable them to charge under U.S. law for breach of British Columbia law.

J. Wilson: When the minister says we have the ability to charge other residents of Canada, does it mean that we have that ability, even though they are not in the province at the time the charges would be laid?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

J. Wilson: I would like to thank the minister for that.

I have an issue dealing with Lands that I would like to bring up with the minister. It's with regard to an option by Lands to an individual to purchase a lakeshore lot. I would like to read a letter from the individual. His name is F.R. Mahood; he is from Williams Lake, but he actually resides at Tyee Lake, which is in my riding.

"In early 1990, my twin brother" -- this is part of his letter -- "who lives in Vancouver, informed me he had been diagnosed with cancer and was to undergo treatment. As he lives alone, I went to Vancouver to be with him. Over the next one and a half years, I spent a considerable amount of time with him, generally a week or ten days at a time, returning home for fair periods of time. In early October, 1991, I made my last trip to Vancouver, remaining until June 1992, with one trip home at Easter time.

"It was during this early period the government, on November 8, 1991, issued a letter of offer, allowing purchase of the lease for the sum of $13,000, with a 60-day deadline. In the latter part of January 1992, I instructed my daughter to forward the annual lease fee statement when it came in. This was forwarded a number of days later. It was then I became aware of the letter of offer, some three weeks past the deadline. The government policy since that time is that a leaseholder may purchase at a price based on a new market appraisal value, separate from the assessment for taxation. This value is considerably higher than the tax assessment, with appreciable yearly increases. The annual lease fee, which originally was $400, has been substantially increased in two stages since 1993, and for 1995 came in at $938, with every indication of it escalating each year. I have to admit further increases will place it beyond my capacity to handle. I have observed the normal assessed yearly tax assessment on this property is much lower than other full lot owners on the lake. The rationale of this, I believe, is to devaluate so that the government in its discretion can take over, if desired, the land and improvements on expiry of the lease at the lowest assessed value. My lease expires on January 1998. I have great reservation the government will not, as in former times, extend the lease, but take it over and sell the land and improvements at a much higher market value."

"It was learned October last that the Lands department has a new policy. The leased land annual fees for 1997 will be 3 percent of the market sale price."

This gentlemen is a World War II veteran. He has no money. When he originally moved up there, he sold his property at the coast and he ended up with $46,000 back in 1988. He went up, took this lease over, did some building on it and made some improvements. His money is gone. He sits there. . . . He's an old age pensioner, a World War II veteran. The fact that he missed the option by three weeks to purchase his lease back in 1991 must be revisited by the Lands ministry.

If we allow policy to step in here and run this thing, this gentleman will be out of house and home. The government, of course, will sell the property and take the proceeds, but it will put this gentleman on the welfare roll, no doubt. He'll have to be housed and fed for the rest of his life, when he has a home he can live in and when he wants to remain there. So I would ask that the minister take a second look at this and try and do something -- if I could get a commitment that she would pick this case up and work with her people to try and resolve the dilemma that this gentleman finds himself in.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I'd like to offer to the member that we set up a meeting between himself and staff to discuss the particulars of this case in point.

[5:15]

[ Page 5771 ]

appropriate place to discuss that. The government suggested last year that it was studying the decision of Commissioner Flaherty to improve access for non-governmental organizations to the digital maps that the government produces, which are extremely expensive by any standard. I know it's expensive to produce them, but nonetheless, the commissioner pointed out -- quite rightly, I think -- that an inequity exists when those maps are available to some groups that can afford it but not available to other groups that can't afford it. So I wonder if the minister could just update us on the outcome and the progress of the studies.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're currently examining options to find ways to make the maps more accessible.

C. Clark: Could the minister outline for us some of those options that the ministry is considering?

Hon. C. McGregor: The chief concern related to access is price, and so it is pricing options that are being considered at this time.

C. Clark: When does the ministry intend to conclude its discussions on this matter and announce a change in policy to meet the recommendations that Commissioner Flaherty put forward several years ago?

Hon. C. McGregor: We hope to have that work completed by fall.

C. Clark: I'll look forward to that work being completed and that inequity being addressed by the government.

The second maps issue that I want to raise is something that I have raised in the past with the minister through correspondence. I want to refer to it very briefly here, if I could. That's the changes and the reorganization at Maps B.C., which will certainly have an impact on private map dealers in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could, first, just give us an outline of what consultations her ministry undertook to ensure that they could minimize the impacts on private map dealers as a result of the reorganization.

Hon. C. McGregor: There was very limited consultation with those that were actually in the map sector, in the business of selling maps. We took a strategic decision as a government to make some reductions in the services that we were prepared to offer through our mapping branch. It's consistent with our strategic business plan, and while some users expressed disappointment with our decision, they understood the need to make a good business decision.

C. Clark: Yes, I understand that the ministry made a strategic decision to reorganize its maps department. My question was more related to whether consultations had been undertaken as to how that reorganization might occur, inasmuch as the ministry, I'm sure, would want to minimize the impacts on private map dealers and people in the maps community, if you will. I wonder if the minister can reply to that but also tell us the nature of the very limited consultations she referred to.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated to the member, our decisions on how to reorganize were addressed in our strategic business plan. Those decisions were taken by government; we didn't consult with stakeholders about how we would do those changes.

C. Clark: Sorry, then what did the minister mean. . . ? If she says she didn't consult, what did she mean when she referred to "very limited consultations with the community"?

Hon. C. McGregor: As a result of taking the decision to reduce in the maps area, we shared that information with stakeholders that were involved in it. And as I expressed to the member earlier, they expressed some degree of disappointment, but they understood the fiscal demands that we were under and the need to make good business decisions for our branch.

C. Clark: Am I correct in assuming, then, that the consultations consisted of sending out the information to users and people in the maps community? Is that a fair characterization of the full extent of consultations that went on?

Hon. C. McGregor: There were some face-to-face consultations as part of the development of the strategic business plan, and there were likely also telephone conversations and face-to-face meetings. We don't actually track each and every meeting we have and sort of put it in a lump called consultation. There were letters sent, as well.

C. Clark: It does look to me like a fairly haphazard way to go about collecting information, and I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as consultation. Consultation seems to me to be an organized process of going out and seeking input, as opposed to a haphazard process of receiving complaints or an organized process of sending out information when decisions have already been made. I wouldn't characterize either of those as consultation. Does the ministry have any estimate of the impact on jobs in the private sector that will result from the reorganization of Maps B.C.?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are 91 map and air photo dealers around the province, but we not anticipate any impact on their businesses.

C. Clark: I'm pleased that the ministry doesn't anticipate any impact. The information that I've received from concerned map dealers indicates that they are very concerned about the Maps B.C. reorganization. And I'm not trying to ambush the minister on any of this at all; I'm just simply interested in getting some answers for these constituents who have expressed a genuine fear that their livelihoods are going to be put at risk. It may be that there's just been a lack of communication between the ministry and some of those dealers. I'd be happy to help, if I can clarify some of the issues for them. Can the minister tell us if she's adjusted the reorganization of Maps B.C. to meet the concerns that were expressed? And is that why you don't anticipate any impacts on private map dealers as a result of the reorganization?

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally, the reason we're not anticipating a great deal of concern from map dealers is that it's very much a. . . . Usually the sellers of maps are in another kind of business, so this is a very small sideline of what they do. They are not just in the business of selling maps. As you can appreciate, it would probably be very difficult to keep a map store an efficient business if that was their only product. So these are mostly in outdoor store settings where selling maps is a small part of the actual business that they do.

I asked staff to give me a number of briefings on the work we're doing in this branch. I think that what's being envisioned is actually very exciting, because there's an oppor-

[ Page 5772 ]

tunity to really increase access to maps for consumers. Rather than going through another jobber or retailer, maps will eventually be accessed directly via the Internet. I think that's going to provide a wonderful opportunity for people who really need to access that information -- to be able to access it in electronic form, to access ordering in an electronic form, and so on. I think that will make the consumers -- the people who are the beneficiaries of the mapping work we do -- really feel that they are getting good service for their dollar.

C. Clark: I agree with the minister that some aspects of the reorganization will certainly present new opportunities, and as a Liberal -- not just as an opposition Liberal, but as a liberal -- I always support more freedom and fewer restrictions on the information that government has in its possession and public access to it.

I would like to leave the minister with some comments as we finish off this portion of the discussion. One dealer that I have been talking to, for example, has put $30,000 into startup, promotion and overhead costs in the last 15 months of his business, and he is very concerned that the reorganization might put at risk his investment and the employment that he creates as a result of that. I would just ask the minister, through the Ministry of Environment, to be sensitive as much as possible to the needs of these private sector people, who have really shown an entrepreneurial spirit to go out there on their own and start their own business and take some risks. It would be a shame, through the stroke of a pen, to cost them their livelihoods and their investment, which in many cases is very substantial. So I will leave the maps issue at that. I know the minister and I will continue to exchange correspondence about that.

On other Lands issues, though, I notice that in the estimates, the sale of Crown lands. . . . Let me get the exact numbers for the minister. The revenues collected from the sale of Crown lands is expected to go up substantially this year. By my calculations, it's a 43 percent increase. I wonder if the minister could give us a quick accounting of the reason for that increase.

Hon. C. McGregor: The Crown lands branch has a business plan through which they identify potential sales of properties, and accrue revenue through the lease of some Crown properties, as well. Over the last few years, we have set some fairly ambitious targets in terms of those sales. As the member can appreciate, sometimes we can make those targets and sometimes we can't, because a lot of the work we do in the sale of Crown lands is related to what the marketplace will bear and whether there are interested buyers. Again, I think the estimates point out that it is a target that we have.

C. Clark: I think that's why they call them estimates. I can appreciate that the sale of Crown lands is dependent on market factors, which are obviously unpredictable, but that figure of $65.87 million certainly must represent some actual predictions of what would be on the block. I wonder if the minister could give us a quick outline of some of the major sales that are predicted by the ministry over the next year to account for this very large increase.

Hon. C. McGregor: Through the Crown, we have an agency called the Whistler Land Co. that will do a great deal of the work related to the marketing of potential Crown properties. However, I am not prepared to share with the member the names of those properties. I hope she can understand that were we to publicly release the list of some of those properties, it might jeopardize negotiations. So it is something that we don't widely advertise.

[5:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: If the member wants the list of those that are currently advertised and on the market, that's not a problem to provide those. It's just that not every single property that potentially has some saleability is necessarily actively on the market at this time. But certainly we can provide that.

If you would like an example, we recently listed for sale what are called the Pine Centre properties in Prince George.

C. Clark: Yes, I can appreciate. . . . When the minister says that land isn't on the market yet, I think it's quite fair to ask what land is being included in this year's estimates, because if it's being included in the estimates, the minister must have decided that that land is going to go on the market. So whether she tells me today or tomorrow, I don't know what the difference is, except perhaps that the minister might like to get out of the estimates process without having to face the tough questions about where those numbers actually came from.

The minister may not think this is a fair assumption to make, but I do have some suspicion that those numbers may not be based on anything. They might not be based on any real land sales at all. The minister sees a difference between telling someone today or tomorrow, but these are already included in the estimates, so the ministry must know. They must intend to sell them. Otherwise, why would they put them in the estimates? Wouldn't it be misleading to the public to include them in the estimates without never having any intention of selling them over the next year? I mean, it's a fair question.

I wonder if the minister can tell us what policy it is that restricts her from telling the public what lands she's going to sell, even though she has already decided what lands she is going to sell and has actually calculated the price that she expects to get for those lands.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: I have indicated to the member that there is a business plan that the Crown lands branch has in place. It has a variety of properties in it. Not all of them are currently on the market. I have indicated to the member that we have put in place a target which we hope to achieve, but naturally it is dependent upon whether or not even the marketing of particular properties will necessarily achieve a sale.

I cannot guarantee, simply because in this case we put the Pine Centre properties up for sale in Prince George, that they 

[ Page 5773 ]

will sell. There is no way that I can predict, personally -- or anyone on the staff can predict -- which properties will sell and which ones won't. We make our best efforts to market those properties in accordance with the plan that we have put in place. I have offered to give the member the list of the properties that are currently on the market, and I hope that addresses her concern.

C. Clark: I see the problem. I think the minister has misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking about what lands will be sold; I'm asking what lands the ministry plans to sell in the next year, and what lands are listed on that list that makes up the number that's in the estimates -- the $65.87 million. I'm not asking the minister to guarantee that they'll be sold.

The way the estimates work, it's my understanding that that number represents an accounting of the lands that will be on the block over the next year. Granted it's an estimate, and granted those lands might not move -- the ministry might not be able to find a buyer. That's the way the market works. But clearly the ministry has made a decision to sell those lands, or to try to sell those lands, and I can't understand, for the life of me, what policy it is that restricts the minister from sharing this information with the public when those lands belong to the public, and this information -- at least the number -- is publicly available. Why not make public the lands that are attached to that number?

Hon. C. McGregor: We are attempting to protect the Crown's commercial interest in these properties. If it became widely known which properties we were considering selling, that could affect the market price. It might drive it up or down, and we do not give out that information, nor would any organization that was trying to capitalize on the real estate market. I'm sure the member is not suggesting that we put at risk the Crown's ability to generate revenue.

C. Clark: No, I'm not. And I'm not suggesting that the ministry go out there and put the lands that they've decided to sell on the market tomorrow. Anybody who owns a house might decide that they want to sell that house, and they might tell their friends and family and the people in their neighbourhood that they intend to sell that house over the next year. Whether and when they decide to put that house on the market is up to them. If they decide to put it on the market in July versus November over a period of a year, that's up to them. If they decide to not put it on the market at all, that's up to them.

Exactly the same situation exists with regard to Crown lands. The ministry has made a decision about which lands it intends to sell or that it hopes to sell or that it hopes to put on the market over the next year. All I'm asking is for the minister to share with the public that information, rather than keep it secret and out of the public's eye.

Hon. C. McGregor: I've answered the member's question.

C. Clark: Perhaps I could be more specific. Could the minister tell me if there are any plans in the next year to sell any portion of the University Endowment Lands that belong to Crown Lands?

Hon. C. McGregor: I've made it clear to the member that I cannot and I will not make public those properties that are under consideration to be sold.

C. Clark: I wanted to give the minister the opportunity -- if she is so very concerned about the impact on the market value of these lands -- to deny that rumour that's out there. It certainly is broadly out there that the ministry has included a sale of -- or a consideration to sell -- the University Endowment Lands or some portion of them in order to meet its budget considerations. I certainly wanted to give the minister the opportunity to deny that, if she wanted to.

I suspect that if it weren't up for sale or if there weren't any consideration of putting it up for sale, saying that she wasn't putting it up for sale wouldn't hurt its market value. It's market value wouldn't matter over the next year if it's not going to be on the block for sale. I can imagine there would be a great deal of public concern out there if it were widely known that the ministry is considering selling some portion of the University Endowment Lands, so I wanted to give the minister that opportunity. I'm sorry that she failed to take me up on the opportunity I've provided her. I think she may appreciate it sometime in the future.

I will move on, as well, to some other issues with regard to Crown lands. I'm interested in the land use planning process. Can the minister just give us an idea of which environmental groups -- and I'm thinking specifically about the central coast LRMP -- have decided to join in that process, if any?

Hon. C. McGregor: To begin with, I'd like to introduce Derek Thompson, who is the assistant deputy minister from the land use coordination office.

There are a number of local environmental groups involved at the table. The Sierra Club and the Marine Life Sanctuary Society attended the first meeting, but no large provincial environmental organizations have actually signed on to that table.

C. Clark: Is the ministry in communication with any of those that haven't yet signed on in the hope that they will be signing on sometime in the near future?

Hon. C. McGregor: We certainly made it clear that we invite their participation, and the invitation is open for them to participate.

C. Clark: I have to admit to a little bit of confusion about community resources boards. I have yet to understand how the community resources boards fit into the land use planning process and how they will be a part of the implementation of the land use plans at their conclusion. So I wonder if the minister could just clarify for me how the community resources boards fit into the process and whether that's going to be a consistent structure for them to have input into the process across the province.

Hon. C. McGregor: Community resources boards currently exist in two locations on Vancouver Island, and in the Cariboo there's a regional resource board. In all three cases, really, those are viewed to be pilots, and they aren't duplicated in other land use planning processes around the province.

C. Clark: Noting the time, I'd like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

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