(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 6, Number 23
Part 2
[ Page 5775 ]
The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call for Committee A the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and, for this House, continuation of committee stage on Bill 31.
FAMILY RELATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(continued)
On section 1 (continued).
G. Wilson: Let me just say that during the dinner break there was some considerable pressure brought to bear to collapse comment on this, to try to wrap it up quickly. I just want to say that I think this is the most profoundly important piece of legislation
I'm certainly not implying that of the Attorney General. But I do want to go on the record now to say that I intend to thoroughly canvass this document. I don't do it for any reason except to try to get full and complete understanding of its meaning. There's certainly no filibuster intended. I hope the members in this assembly can support that.
Before we broke, I had addressed a question to the Attorney General with respect to section 1 on the matter of definition with respect to "child of the marriage," which is a term that is governed under the Divorce Act but is applied to children who enter into a marriage at the
The Chair: Hon. member, perhaps you can show me where it is in section 1. I don't see it there. I think we are governed here by the definitions. The debate is to be centred on and confined to the definitions that are there now in section 1.
G. Wilson: You know, the debate in this committee has been wide-ranging to this point. I certainly will bring relevance to this section, if that will help the Chair in understanding why it's an important and relevant question. This act, Bill 31, weds -- marries -- sections of Bill C-41, a federal statute. There are issues that are relevant in the definitions.
The Chair: Hon. member, my understanding is that it does not do that in this section. So I encourage the member to confine his remarks to section 1.
G. Wilson: I don't want to become argumentative with the Chair, but we've just spent three and a half hours on subsection (a), under regulations under section 129 that speak specifically to that.
So my question is, then, to the Attorney General with respect to the provisions of step-parent and the discussion around the question of step-parent, recognizing that we are now entering into a new classification of relationship which is "a marriage-like relationship" under the definition that is carried in section 1(2), which talks about a marriage-like relationship in the definition of what a step-parent is.
Given that either the Family Relations Act or the Divorce Act can apply, or that both may in fact have application with respect to a proceeding, I'm curious to know whether the Attorney General recognizes that a child who is considered in a divorce action, a child of the marriage, will fit under the current definition, or the proposed definition if changed, and whether the Attorney General has an opinion as to whether the right of a step-parent over a child deemed a child of the marriage is greater than or equal to -- or non-existent -- the right of a step-parent who enters into a marriage after a divorce.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Since I was busy looking at the definition of child in the Family Relations Act, I didn't catch the question. However, let me assist, if I may, by simply advising the hon. member that the definition of child that's applicable in the family relations legislation is the definition of child contained in the family relations legislation. It means a person who is under the age of 19 years.
G. Wilson: I'm not asking about the definition of a child. I'm asking about the rights of step-parents as defined under this act. In a relationship in which a child who is under the age of ten months has entered into either a marriage-like relationship or a marriage, in the Divorce Act the federal legislation governs that a child of the marriage. Therefore there are parental rights that are assigned under the definition of parent, which are inconsistent with what is in this legislation.
My question is: does the Attorney General believe that the step-parent has defined
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The definition of child of marriage as it is in the Divorce Act has no relevance whatsoever to what happens under the family relations legislation. It is absolutely true. If you're seeking custody, access or maintenance, the definition in the Family Relations Act applies. If you're seeking some of those issues pursuant to the Divorce Act, that applies.
What you're asking me is what the interrelationship is, how the working together of the different definitions has evolved over time. I'm not able to give you that answer. That would require me to do a whole thesis on how it has developed.
We are in fact changing the definition of child in section 87 of the Family Relations Act further down in section 16 of this amendment, where I think we're bringing it in line with rulings under the Divorce Act with respect to support obligations on the parents. So if a child is
[6:45]
So we are in fact expanding the definition for certain purposes in these amendments to make sure that we are not at[ Page 5776 ]
odds with the general law under the Divorce Act. But I don't believe the specific definition of "child of the marriage" has any relevance to what happens under this legislation.
G. Wilson: I beg to differ. Let me try and explain why I think that's not the case. It's because, under this law as it currently has been drafted, step-parents have lots of obligations and absolutely no rights. They have no rights to the child. Unless they are assigned guardianship rights, they don't have rights. So they have all kinds of obligations to pay, unless they are at the time of divorce and the divorce happens through the Divorce Act
The reason I raise this question is because it speaks to the very issue of bringing a child into a relationship where the biological parents' rights may be subjugated to the right of the step-parent on the basis of that ruling. It's a critical issue, because you are now changing this act to allow that to occur among same-sex couples.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Allow what to occur?
G. Wilson: Allow the notion of step-parent and the right of a step-parent in the interests of trying to establish equality. The reason I raise that is that if a biological child enters into a relationship by virtue of the fact that the father or mother brings them into that relationship under the age of ten months old, I believe it is, the Divorce Act will treat that child as a child of the marriage. The Family Relations Act does not.
If the proceedings happen under the Divorce Act and then subsequent action is taken with respect to custody or support and maintenance, the rights of that step-parent are treated as though they are a parent as opposed to a step-parent, which is defined in this act. Inherently, there is a jurisdiction, then, that by virtue of one piece of legislation has provided rights to that parent that otherwise would not be applied.
The reason that is important here is because you are now changing the definition and distinction with respect to spouse -- removing father, mother, husband, wife. That becomes an important consideration -- not for the parents, but for the rights of the child -- in determining where their appropriate parentage is, because they have rights.
My question is salient to this bill -- whether the Attorney General, in drafting this, has acknowledged the distinction and difference that is made with respect to the right of a step-parent if the child is deemed the child of the marriage.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the parties are not married, no matter how old the child is, the child wouldn't be deemed to be a child of the marriage. We're dealing only with people who are married in the example that the hon. member gives. If the step-parent is married, the obligation and the definitions that apply to anyone under the Divorce Act would apply to that individual. If there is no divorce and there has been no marriage -- and if we're dealing with same-sex couples or common-law couples -- then the requirements under this legislation apply to seeking custody, access and maintenance.
To say that step-parents have no rights, just because we're making the language gender-neutral, is to not speak the truth in this particular case. The step-parents with respect to any child they have supported for a year have the right to custody, have the right to access and have the obligation to pay maintenance, if they have lived with the other parent for at least two years.
I am actually totally confused -- and I must confess that -- because I don't understand the thrust of the hon. member's remarks. Maybe if he went slowly and took me along where he wants to go, I may be able to answer the question. I am absolutely confused, and I've never actually ever admitted to that. I'm perfectly happy to admit that right now.
The Chair: Hon. members, the Chair would also like to make a confession, and that is that the debate seems to be far afield of section 1. As the Chair, I would very much encourage the hon. member to deal with issues of definitions around "parent," around "spouse" and around "child support guidelines." Those are the definitions we're dealing with here, and that's what we should be dealing with -- definitions only. We're not dealing with rights and obligations or any of those kinds of things. We're dealing with the definitions. With that, hon. member
G. Wilson: I understand that there are some people who would like to just ram this through the House and have little or no debate. I understand that, and that's rather unfortunate. I would hope that members of the Liberal opposition, who I know stood in opposition, will stand up and speak their minds.
The attempt to muzzle debate on this and to try to ram it through without debate is going to simply infuriate the public, who sat for weeks listening to droning drivel on the matters of estimates. Finally they get a bill of substance that has a tremendous effect on the people of British Columbia, and it is going to infuriate them to hear that there's an attempt to ram it through without any kind of debate. I hope that that's not the case, because what I intend to do is thoroughly canvass this issue.
The question I'm asking is absolutely germane to the definition of step-parent. The Attorney General says that a step-parent has a right to custody. Does that right to custody supersede the right of a biological parent, if the biological parent was out of the picture before the child was ten months old, the mother and/or father married and the child under the Divorce Act was considered a child of the marriage? If the mother or father dies, does the right of the step-parent supersede the right of the biological mother or father? That's what I'm asking.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, no matter how old the child might be, the issue that is to be determined under the Family Relations Act is whether you have lived with the other parent for two years and whether you have supported the child for at least one year and, within one year of the date of ceasing to support that child, the other parent has made the application for maintenance.
With respect to custody and access, there is no time limitation. You can separate, but if you supported the child for a year and you've lived with the other party for two years, you can at any time in future apply for custody and access. Whether your rights are superior to that of any biological parent for the same issues, such as custody and access, would then be determined by the competent court before whom the application is made.
The court may decide that a common-law parent or a same-sex-couple parent has a much closer affinity, connection
[ Page 5777 ]
and emotional bond with that child and will look after the child much better at that point than a biological parent, who may have had no connection with the child for some time. Those are issues of detail.
In general terms, the child-of-marriage definition is found in the Divorce Act because you have to be found to be a child of marriage for anyone to grant any of those custody, access and support rights and obligations under the Divorce Act. Under this legislation, we don't have to make such determinations.
G. Wilson: Let me come back to an issue with respect to contributing to support and maintenance of the child. Nowhere in here does it reference the fact that the child has to be resident with the -- well, whatever you call them now -- spouses. I'm assuming that if a step-parent is a step-parent in a situation where access and custody have already been determined, this bill then applies with respect to maintenance and provisions of custody should one of the two parties
In a situation where a husband and wife have divorced, one of the two gets custody of the children. The non-custodial parent remarries. There are visitation rights, and there are possibly joint-custody questions in the situation. In the remarriage of the woman to her new partner, that person becomes, by this legislation, a step-parent. No? I'm hearing now that that's not true. Maybe we can find out why that isn't true.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, if a non-custodial parent marries someone and you have a biological or adopted child of the non-custodial parent, obviously the other person marrying the non-custodial parent steps into the shoes, legally, as their parent. But there might not be any obligation to support that child if the child is not living with the non-custodial parents. Courts in the past have looked at the income of the couple once the non-custodial parent has married -- the non-custodial parent and the spouse -- to determine what they can afford to provide as support for that child. That may or may not happen. I haven't sort of thought about that, but lawyers would deal with those issues as they come across them.
G. Wilson: That's what frightens us -- that this is going to be a field day for lawyers, and it's going to put legal costs up, not down.
The situation under the definitions that are here
If that individual, in the year that they have the child, lives with that person, acts as though that person is essentially their stepfather or stepmother, as the case may be, then presumably they have now an obligation on support. That's what this bill says they have, anyway. If they have an obligation on support, my question is: where under this definition does it also suggest that they have some level of right protected as that step-parent? Or is it only used in their obligation to provide financial support?
In a joint-custody situation, you may very well have somebody who lives with a non-custodial parent -- in the sense that the children are coming on a regular access visit, whatever that may be -- who acts in the capacity of step-parent to those children during the time that those children are with the father or with the mother, depending on who we're talking about.
So now you've got people in this classification who presumably are supporting the children and certainly who, under Bill C-41, are going to be obliged to pay. If one of the two proves that they don't have the money, this bill allows for the joint income to be garnisheed to be able to pay. So my question is: what are the rights of that step-parent as defined under this section? It's an important consideration. It seems to me that if we're going to get into tinkering with all of this language and if we're going to try to move ourselves to a position where we eliminate, as a matter of course, the convention, we'd better understand
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The rights of the child are very clear in my mind. The rights of the child are contingent upon the two parties having lived together for two years and one or both of them having supported the child at least for one year. The application has to be made within one year of that support ceasing. As you know, the time never runs against the child. That time simply runs against the individual who's seeking support. The time doesn't run against the child, usually.
I have never looked at this section in terms of the time limitations, but that's an interesting issue -- whether or not, if someone didn't apply on your behalf for maintenance, you could apply after a year, if you grow up and find out that you're not being paid maintenance. That's a novel question. I don't think that's ever been dealt with. I'm just sort of thinking of it as I'm standing up here. I've never come across that issue. I'll leave that to scholars.
[7:00]
However, the issue that you raised is that the rights of the child are not unclear. The party who has the custody of the child has the right. The party with whom the child is living has the right to go after the other spouse within one year of that support ceasing and make an application to have maintenance paid. The other partySo I don't know what the hon. member's confusion is. The rights and obligations are quite clearly indicated in this legislation. I don't understand what the hon. member's concern is. Maybe he can be a little simpler.
G. Wilson: Clearly the Attorney General doesn't understand, and that is surprising to me. I can tell you, from working with constituents who are step-parents to children, who would try to access custody as step-parents, that they have had virtually no opportunities within the courts of the province of British Columbia.
For the Attorney General to look astounded at that
[ Page 5778 ]
each of them, but I'll tell you that the Attorney General is really, really out of touch on this question -- big-time out of touch -- if he finds that to be an amazing statement with respect to step-parents' rights in British Columbia and how those step-parents' rights are protected with respect to access to children, many of whom have become parent figures to the children.
It becomes even more complicated if, in that parent relationship, the child is aboriginal. We won't even get into that set of issues here, because that becomes even more complicated. It's thanks to the legislation that was brought into this House by this government, which has complicated it, and we're further doing it under here.
Let's move on to the issue of spouse. This, as we have already discussed, has been a controversial issue. I understand that the notion of trying to establish this as a gender-neutral issue is important. However, I am curious to hear the rationale with respect to the removal of "wife" and "husband" as two defining classifications within the existing act, which establishes that " 'parent' includes
I am curious to know that as we are moving any reference to wife, we are removing any reference to husband, we are talking step-parent only, removing any relationship under the definition to "mother" or "father" with respect to definition
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We had a full debate pursuant to the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston on why we're doing what we're doing. We're making the language gender-neutral to make it easier to accommodate same-sex and common-law couples as well as heterosexuals who are legally married to each other. That's why we're removing terms such as wife and husband and dealing with the issue in terms of spouses. There is no other reason for it.
G. Wilson: I understand what we're doing. I was here for the debate and participated in it. But that was on an amendment, and this is now on the bill. Let's focus on the language of the bill. In looking at the language of the bill, we have to start to look at the consequence of what we're attempting to accomplish here.
The current definition of parent, under the section that we're amending -- because we're essentially deleting this, and we're substituting what is written in the bill before us right now -- is one of the things we are deleting under section 1, paragraph (b). Let me just read it so that those trying to follow this debate know what it is that I'm talking about. A parent includes: "
What this has done is remove all reference to mother and father with respect to the matter in definition of "spouse." What is interesting to me is that if you look at the definition of spouse -- which is amended here and which originally talks about wife or husband -- in the original act, it refers back to wife or husband, which is the mother or father. All of that has been removed. My question is: how does the removal of that advance the right of a child and protection of a child with respect to the establishment of maintenance? I fail to see it.
We talked about this earlier on, and the minister said that there is absolutely no reason in the definition section to take concern that what we're attempting to do here is anything other than protect the interest and right of a child to support. Yet you would remove within the definition section the cross-reference that would link the spouse to a mother and a father. It's gone.
The Attorney General doesn't seem to think that's a problem. Yet I would suggest that for many people that is a very large problem for the reasons that I've talked about before -- that is, the biological relationship with respect to the child, not from the parents' point of view but because the child has a right in this relationship with respect to knowledge of or access to their biological parent. What the minister is saying is that it's okay for us now to so alter, to so change, the act as to no longer make reference to that with respect to the matters of support. If it were only there, we could say: "Well, it seems like an awfully complicated way to simply establish that each individual or individuals have a right to support from somebody who has been previously providing financial support."
If that's what the bill wants to do, why don't you just say that in the dissolution of that contractual arrangement, an individual who has provided support to a child for a period of one year or longer is continually required to provide support. But it doesn't do that. It doesn't speak to individual right to access, which goes to the very heart of the proposition of mother/father, husband/wife. That's a huge problem for a lot of people. My guess is that it's going to amount to an enormous number of cases that will be coming forward for further clarification and for people wanting to know exactly where their rights are, where they're not. It will further complicate what is already a very expensive and complicated issue.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't see it that way.
G. Wilson: Well, I'm really curious -- as the minister says he doesn't see it that way -- if the minister will at least acknowledge, with respect to the Family Relations Act and the provision of children that are brought into a relationship, that the children have rights with respect to access to and knowledge of the biological mother and father. Have we at least got that far?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, and they should continue to have that knowledge as they had before.
G. Wilson: Will the minister acknowledge that under a relationship which is husband/wife, father/mother, generally speaking, within the marriage, the marriage is related
[ Page 5779 ]
the biological mother or father and therefore to the state through the relationship, because it is a dependent relationship -- at least for a large number of years. In my family, goodness knows when they won't be dependent. You'd think that when they go to university, that would be the end of it. Nevertheless, it's a dependent relationship. Will the Attorney General at least acknowledge that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This legislation provides that if you, in essence, have lived together for two years -- same-sex couples, common-law couples, legally married couples -- and if you have supported the child for one year, you are then considered to have been in loco parentis for the purposes of providing maintenance for that child. You are also considered to be in loco parentis in seeking custody of and access to that child.
I disagree with my hon. friend that there's going to be any confusion on the part of anyone. Children are going to continue to live in the relationship that they live in. In fact, there will be more certainty for those children that are currently living with parents that are in same-sex relationships. It would provide them with the security and assurance that at the end of the day, if one parent steps away and is no longer supporting the other person and the children, there is some hope under this legislation for someone to go and get some maintenance on their behalf -- and that they have the right of access to the other person, as well, and vice versa.
G. Wilson: If what is intended in the bill is simply a question of financial maintenance, as the Attorney General has just explained, then that could be easily accomplished without any change in the language surrounding either parent or spouse in the current act -- quite easily accomplished. All we would need to do is establish -- with respect to the Family Relations Act and then through the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act -- the fact that there is an obligation on an individual who has had either custodial rights of or has supported children. The state places an obligation on that support.
[7:15]
Later in this act we're going to get to a point on division of assets and those sorts of things, and we'll deal with that section there. It seems to me that what the government has done is make enormously complex and extremely divisive in its language what could have simply been done with respect to the provision of financial maintenance requirements of individuals who have had a financial obligation to a child who is either within their residence or for whom they have had financial obligations established through the courts. Does the Attorney General not agree with that?Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, I don't.
G. Wilson: Can the Attorney General tell us why, then, he thinks
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I had assumed that the hon. member understood that we are making these changes in these definitions in section 1 to make sure that rights around custody, access and maintenance are available on a gender-neutral basis to heterosexual, legally married couples as well as common-law and same-sex couples. As well, within parts 5 and 6 of this legislation, there are certain rights that would accrue to these couples once they have entered into an agreement, particularly common-law and same-sex couples, whereas heterosexual couples are automatically governed by parts 5 and 6. So there are many reasons why we have to make these definitions uniform across the legislation to make sure that we bring them within the purview of certain sections. To suggest that it could have been done otherwise, I disagree.
G. Wilson: The definition, then, in the act
Let me put it this way, in more simple terms. What this bill does is what the Attorney General quite correctly pointed out could not be done with respect to an amendment to the Marriage Act -- that is, to turn around and say: "Who can marry is federal, but the act that regulates marriage in terms of its enactment is provincial." The Attorney General said quite clearly earlier that even if the province wanted to change the law as to who could get married, it couldn't do it because the federal government has to do it. What this act does is effectively change all of the provisions that relate to couples who live together, so that they in fact will be treated as though they are married. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, I am extremely proud to say that we are making it possible for same-sex couples to have the same rights that common-law couples had until now. And for both common-law couples and same-sex couples, we are extending the opportunity of bringing into play parts 5 and 6 of the legislation with respect to property division. If two adults live in a marriage-like relationship, how does it diminish me if they have some rights -- provided they enter into an agreement about property -- about division of property pursuant to this legislation? In fact, if anything, I say now that we should have gone farther and given them equal rights under the Family Relations Act completely. We have in fact done the conservative thing to make sure that we have some degree of consensus as we move forward on this very difficult issue.
G. Wilson: I don't think I made any mention about diminishing anybody else's rights. I don't hold the point of view that my rights are diminished in any way, and I've made that point extremely clear. I'm simply trying to find out exactly what the full intent of the legislation is. In understanding, then, what the Attorney General has said, clearly there are going to be issues that will surround the matter of children that are going to be complicated, I believe, by the introduction and implementation of this act. The Attorney General disagrees, and we'll agree to disagree on that point.
But I'm telling you from my perspective that what the government has done here is it has looked fully at the rights of parents, but I think it has kind of turned a blind eye to a whole area of law that is absolutely central to and critical to this issue, which I'm not going to debate tonight. It's law that
[ Page 5780 ]
governs reproduction, it's law that governs the right of children to access to their parents, and it's law that talks about essentially the inheritance rights of children. I'm not talking about financial inheritance; I'm talking about inheritance with respect to who they are. This government has simply turned a blind eye to those areas in this debate. I'm telling you that they are going to come down, and this government better be prepared to deal with them, because they will be there.
With that, I would certainly yield to my other colleagues here who might want to discuss or to debate this most contentious issue around the definition of spouse.
Section 1 of Bill 31 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 54 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | McGregor | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Pullinger | Farnworth | Kwan | |
| Waddell | Calendino | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Giesbrecht | Walsh | |
| Kasper | Orcherton | Hartley | |
| Priddy | Petter | Miller | |
| G. Clark | Dosanjh | MacPhail | |
| Cashore | Ramsey | Sihota | |
| Randall | Sawicki | Lali | |
| Doyle | Gillespie | Robertson | |
| Smallwood | Janssen | Gingell | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Plant | |
| Sanders | Coell | Nebbeling | |
| Whittred | Neufeld | McKinnon | |
| Chong | Weisbeck | Abbott | |
| Hawkins | Symons | C. Clark | |
| Hansen | Reitsma | J. Wilson | |
| NAYS -- 13 | |||
| Dalton | Stephens | de Jong | |
| Anderson | van Dongen | Thorpe | |
| Penner | G. Wilson | Barisoff | |
| Krueger | Masi | Nettleton | |
| Jarvis | |||
On section 2.
[7:30]
G. Wilson: For the purpose of those who are following this debate, section 2 essentially repeals the existing section 3(5) of the Family Relations Act. It allows for the inclusion of disclosures of information that would generally be governed in accordance with section 35 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.Just for the purposes of debate, let's be clear that under the existing Family Relations Act, sections 3(3)(a) and (b), 3(4) and 3(5) do not include the opportunity for information to be provided to research bodies, statistical research companies or whatever is being proposed here. Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act says, "A public body may disclose personal information for a research purpose, including statistical research, only if
I guess my question to the minister is: if we've had the Family Relations Act in existence and working without the section that deals with disclosure of what would otherwise be very confidential personal information
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's always important, with the protections that are built into the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to be able to access the information for statistical and research purposes. If the hon. member remembers when we were talking about child support guidelines, we were saying that we're going to be monitoring those issues at the end of the day. We may need some statistical information to determine whether or not any changes ought to be made. Those are the kinds of issues. That's just the first thing that came to mind, because we were talking about it today.
I think we need to have this opportunity available to us. That's why it's being done. It's being done with other endeavours of government, as well. I think it's important that we do it in this regard, as well, obviously with the protections that are built into the privacy legislation.
G. Wilson: Without drifting too far into the hypothetical, which I know the minister will have a hard time answering, perhaps we might flush out in a little bit more detail what kind of information we're talking about here. With respect to the provisions of custody arrangements, much of that is available now and in the public record, so I don't know that it's going to be difficult to obtain. You certainly aren't going to need to go through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to get that. So what is it that would ordinarily be private and protected, which the Attorney General feels ought to be made available to research organizations, that research organizations can't get now?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This particular section, of course, deals with family court counsellor files and the information in those files. What would be available from those files would be decided upon by the head, based on the usual considerations that they make with respect to the release of such information. That information is not readily available for research. Family files are all confidential.
This doesn't apply to divorce files. But I can tell you that divorce files are not accessible to the public. They are perhaps not even accessible
Information in family files, generally speaking, is not accessible to many people. It's important that we make it accessible under appropriate conditions of confidentiality and the like. That's what we're doing.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the answer. We know about the kind of information. Are we talking about social research organizations? Are we talking about university professors? Are we talking about government research? Or are we talking about all of the above, if they so choose to dig into family relations files to be able to get information?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This section, if I can point this out to the hon. member, is a discretionary section. It's not mandatory, number one. "A public body may disclose personal information
Once it determines that it's appropriate to disclose, then of course it has to satisfy certain conditions. I don't know what
[ Page 5781 ]
information somebody is going to want to have. But at the end of the day, I think we should be open to allowing research to happen. If somebody is looking for confidential information about individuals, obviously that's not going to be available. If somebody is looking for the psychiatric history of a particular individual, with dates of birth and names available, it's not going to happen; I can tell you that. So there are going to be safeguards in place when these things happen.
G. Plant: I'd like to enter into the debate on the last particular point. I understand the general purpose of this provision, but the examples given by the Attorney General in the last answer seem to me to be virtually the only kinds of things that one would find in a family court counsellor's file. So I must admit that when I read this, I thought that the kind of information you're going to find in a family court counsellor's file is information about a particular matter, particular lives and particular problems. Now, I may be wrong. If I'm wrong, I'm sure the Attorney General will correct me. But I think there is an issue there, at least to the extent of wanting to hear the Attorney General give better examples than the examples he just gave.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is usually much more information in family court counsellors' files. Family court counsellors, of course, assist people in arriving at custody agreements, access agreements, maintenance agreements. They have all kinds of information gathered on a particular family or individual.
G. Plant: That's the point.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yeah. So all of that information may be accessible, pursuant to this, for research purposes.
If you take the names and dates and any information that can identify an individual
G. Wilson: You know, the protection of privacy is an enormously important aspect of what goes along
Who has the ultimate discretion on what is and what is not given out from a family counsellor's file? Who does the determination of what's deleted and what isn't deleted? I notice that there are certain specific guidelines within the act, but let's be clear: under the circumstances, what is covered in the act here -- even if they were adhered to, to the letter -- doesn't mean that a skilful researcher won't know exactly whose file they've got in their hands.
I think this is an important point that the Attorney General is going to need to respond to. Who has the ultimate discretion on what files are given out and on what is included and what is not included in what is provided to a researcher?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: For any particular ministry, the ultimate responsibility lies with the minister, and it's designated to the FOI people down the line to deal with. Ultimate responsibility rests with the minister. The minister is the head of that ministry, that public body.
G. Wilson: Just to finalize my questions on this section, what we're saying here is that in the past, we have held out of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act the access to family counsellors' files, in order to protect the individuals; we are now saying that those files and all their contents -- and I grant you that it is discretionary -- may be open for researchers to go in and get.
What is the role of the counsellor in determining what is and what is not accessible within that file? Does the counsellor have discretion? Or is it strictly going to be dealt with through the freedom-of-information request and then dealt with through government? Once the request has been made, does the counsellor have to hand over the file and say: "You guys sort out what he should and shouldn't have"? Or is the counsellor going to be able to say, "Look, I have a certain confidentiality here" -- almost like a patient-doctor relationship in some cases, if a psychologist or psychiatrist is involved -- "and therefore I'm not going to let any of this information out"? Who has that discretion?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I just indicated to the hon. member that the minister has the ultimate discretion.
G. Wilson: Well, the minister isn't going to sit down and monitor every single request from every research organization for every counsellor's file. You know, there are people who are concerned about this. The Attorney General doesn't seem to think that this is an issue for a lot of people. There are a lot of people who have gone through very difficult times, and this act affects them. They are looking at this and thinking: "I don't want my file accessed, thank you very much." Previously they had it protected, and now they may not have it protected. We've seen issues in this House where confidential information ends up in a farmer's field, so let's not make light of this issue. I want to know: to what extent does the family counsellor have discretion to say yes or no, that they may or may not have the file?
[7:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member should read the section.G. Wilson: You know, this isn't helpful. The hon. member has read the section and what the section says is that, under section 35, personal information for research purposes will now be available. That's what it says. If you read what may or may not come in, it says: "
There are some protections within the body of the act, but that's not what I'm interested in. What I'm interested in is the extent to which this act obliges a family counsellor to give up their file. It's an important issue for people who have gone to a family counsellor in confidence. They have given out that information in confidence on the understanding -- and the understandings have been undertaken; believe me they have -- that the information in those files is not open to the public. In the past it was not, and now it is.
Like the minister has just told me, when the law changes, that's tough. You go along with the new law, and whatever commitments were made prior to the law changing no longer apply. So my question is: does the family counsellor have the right to deny access to their file?
[ Page 5782 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
G. Wilson: That was the answer we were trying to get. Maybe we could now move on.
Section 2 of Bill 31 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 61 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | McGregor | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Pullinger | Farnworth | Kwan | |
| Waddell | Calendino | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Giesbrecht | Walsh | |
| Kasper | Orcherton | Priddy | |
| Petter | Miller | G. Clark | |
| Dosanjh | MacPhail | Cashore | |
| Ramsey | Sihota | Randall | |
| Sawicki | Lali | Doyle | |
| Gillespie | Robertson | Smallwood | |
| Janssen | Penner | Thorpe | |
| Whittred | Nebbeling | Anderson | |
| Coell | de Jong | Stephens | |
| Sanders | Plant | Farrell-Collins | |
| Campbell | Gingell | Dalton | |
| J. Wilson | Reitsma | C. Clark | |
| Symons | Hawkins | Abbott | |
| Weisbeck | Chong | Nettleton | |
| Masi | McKinnon | Krueger | |
| Neufeld | |||
| NAYS -- 2 | |||
| G. Wilson | Jarvis | ||
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
G. Wilson: I would like to have further explanation, other than what's provided in the explanation notes here, with respect to the inclusion of the place of employment in the amendment to section 39 of the act.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This amendment simply brings this provision into line with a similar provision in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, which was amended in 1994. It's nothing out of the ordinary.
G. Wilson: The way that the act reads, it talks about an enforcement officer designated under section 98 who may, for the purpose of assisting a person, bring an application with respect to custody, and so on. Then it says: "
Clearly this becomes a sensitive issue with respect to matters where family enforcement and issues around family enforcement occur, in terms of the manner in which an individual is identified at their place of employment with respect to alleged breaches of this act. Keep in mind that not everybody who is cited as being a "deadbeat dad" is one. In fact, often they're much more complicated than the provision
[8:00]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That information is already accessible, as I said, under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. To receive an application or have an application served at your place of employment is no worse than having some maintenance enforcement proceedings served on you with respect to maintenance. This has to do with custody of and access to children. The only reason that this kind of information is required is so an application can be served; the person has knowledge and notice of the fact that there is an application proceeding for custody and access.Otherwise, someone has to get a substituted service order -- I've forgotten all the terms now from five, six years ago -- an order for a substitutional service. That kind of service is not very effective, because most often the person at whom the service is directed gets no notice of the document that's required to be served.
I believe that this in fact is in the best interests of the individual whose child may be the subject of this application with respect to custody and access. You have to weigh those interests, and this should be done.
G. Wilson: Fair enough; that's a valid answer. I'm hoping that addresses the concerns that have been expressed to me. It's not an issue of great importance to me, but it seems to be to other people.
The second issue is with respect to subsection (3), which talks about a demand under subsection (1) being provided. Why the inclusion of a ten-day limit? Why have we put "within 10 days," as opposed to leaving it as it is?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That simply puts a time limit within which the public body must provide the information. Previously there was no time line, and someone could have taken longer. Obviously there is sometimes an urgent need for people to move on such applications, and that's why this is done.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
G. Wilson: I guess the issue here relates back to section 39 or 40 with respect to the disclosure of information to provide valid research information. I don't know if I can make my objection to it more direct than I already have. I'm not sure that it facilitates the debate for me to go back through that issue, but it is an issue that I feel strongly about. It's one that I'd like to go to division on. If we can just do that without me having to go back to the same arguments
[ Page 5783 ]
Section 6 of Bill 31 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 61 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | McGregor | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Pullinger | Farnworth | Kwan | |
| Waddell | Calendino | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Giesbrecht | Walsh | |
| Kasper | Orcherton | Priddy | |
| Petter | Miller | G. Clark | |
| Dosanjh | MacPhail | Cashore | |
| Ramsey | Sihota | Randall | |
| Sawicki | Lali | Doyle | |
| Gillespie | Robertson | Smallwood | |
| Janssen | Dalton | Gingell | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Plant | |
| Sanders | Stephens | de Jong | |
| Coell | Anderson | Nebbeling | |
| Whittred | Thorpe | Penner | |
| J. Wilson | Reitsma | C. Clark | |
| Symons | Hawkins | Abbott | |
| Weisbeck | Chong | Nettleton | |
| Masi | McKinnon | Krueger | |
| Neufeld | |||
| NAY -- 1 | |||
| G. Wilson | |||
On section 7.
G. Plant: Without dealing with the amendments that will affect part 6 of the Family Relations Act, part 6 of the act deals with the division of pension entitlement. I think there are some changes to this part of the act which are -- if I can say it this way -- pension-driven; that is, they're aspects of the law, pensions and pension benefits as they relate to family relations. I will have a few questions about those.
But there are also issues that arise in the context of part 6 of the act that flow from the definition of spouse in section 1 of the act and the provisions of what will become section 120.1 of the act, which is section 22 of the bill. I don't think those issues -- that is, the extension of the definition of spouse and the exception of that definition with respect to pension benefits -- arise in the context of section 7.
But I do have a couple of technical questions here. Why is there a need for an amendment to the definition of "extraprovincial plan"?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member may have this note. The note tells me that this is to clarify that supplemental pension plans and plans for specified individuals are to be treated in the same way as extraprovincial plans under section 77 for the purposes of pension division. The essence of paragraphs (a) and (b), in fact, is to clarify the meaning of a number of terms used in part 6, "Division of Pension Entitlement."
G. Plant: What was it that was unclear before that now needs to be clarified? I guess the reason for my question is that the word "clarify" is sometimes in itself not terribly clear. It could mask a whole lot of things, and I'm just not sure what it is that it's masking here. Was there some uncertainty before that now will become certain?
[8:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Previously in the legislation, supplemental pension plans or plans whose only members were specified individuals were not mentioned. They're now being dealt with in the legislation.G. Plant: Would it be more accurate to say "expand the scope of the act," rather than "clarify the meaning of a number of terms used in part 6" of the act?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the clarification of the meaning was restricted to section 7, paragraph (b), as I was indicating. Section 7, paragraph (a) is dealing with the inclusion of these two types of plans; section 7, paragraph (b) is dealing with the indication that certain terms have the same meaning as they have in section 1(1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. That's the clarification, and the previous is the inclusion.
G. Plant: I take it that with respect to the definition of extra provincial plans, the inclusion of the specific language will in effect expand the types of plans that are subject to the pension division regime in part 6. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Was the public policy purpose achieved by that expansion? What was lost that we're now gaining, or what was broken that we're now fixing, and why?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe under the previous legislation as it stands
G. Wilson: Picking up on the questions from the member for Richmond-Steveston, because I think it's addressed even further under the next section, which I don't want to jump into just yet
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The division of the extraprovincial plan is as it is in section 77 of the current legislation. This simply indicates what we mean by extraprovincial plan, and it specifies two different things that are included in extraprovincial plans. They will be dealt with as in section 77.
G. Wilson: I'm a little slow to catch on here. So the supplementary plan or specified individual plan
[ Page 5784 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
G. Plant: Well, now we wade a little more thickly into the issue of what is going to happen to part 6 as a result of the change in the definition of spouse.
I guess I should begin by hastening to join the club of non-pension experts -- or is it pension non-experts? What little I know is in large measure the result of lawyers talking to me and saying that they are having an awfully hard time understanding the impact that this act will have on what is already a very complicated regime around the division of pensions after the breakup of a marriage.
Let me start with this. In section 71(3) of the act, there is a section that says, in essence, that where a spouse and a member of a pension plan make an agreement, or where there's a court order that is silent on a pension entitlement that otherwise represents a full and final settlement of all other financial affairs, then there are consequences for pension entitlement and for the ability to revisit pension entitlement.
The first question, I guess, arises out of the phrase in the middle of subsection (3). The phrase is "the end of their marriage." The term "marriage" is not redefined anywhere in the act; at least, it's not redefined in the famous section 1 that we spent so much time talking about. Of course, we know that the definition of spouse, which extends the definition to same-sex and common-law heterosexual couples, does not apply to parts 5 and 6. That's where we start from when we start with the definition in section 1. The problem is that we then jump ahead to the property agreement section on page 8 of the bill, which says: "If spouses who are not married to each other make an agreement, Parts 5 and 6 apply (a) to the agreement, and (b) if covered by the agreement," they apply to a pension.
I am not sure what it means to have spouses in the expanded definition of spouses making an agreement. I'm not sure what the consequence of that is for section 71(3). I'm not sure, for example, what we do to a word "marriage" in that context, because clearly these are people who will not have had a marriage by any
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the intention of this section, the change with respect to allowing common-law and same-sex couples to opt into parts 5 and 6 of the legislation, is to allow them to access some of these rights with respect to division of property. Although there is no amendment proposed to this section -- and I would certainly look at this between now and tomorrow morning -- it would be my view that if you have such couples, the court would then be able to read in the fact that the parties have separated. They had a marriage-like relationship and they have now separated. They have made an agreement, and it's the end of their relationship if the parties say: "We're not living together anymore." With the exception of those few words, "in recognition of the end of their marriage," everything else would apply. I am certainly prepared to
G. Plant: I encourage the Attorney General to do that. And let me tell you that this issue arises in other contexts. I know it's not strictly before us now, so I'll be brief about it, but frankly, the whole question of how part 5 will apply to an agreement, as contemplated by the language of what will become section 120.1, is a mystery to me.
Is there a presumption of equality of entitlement to the so-called family assets? Where would that entitlement arise? Is there no entitlement? If there's no presumption of equality of entitlement, and that is the presumption, the basis, upon which courts then exercise the powers they have to reapportion assets in the case of marriage agreements and separation agreements, what are the principles upon which the court will exercise its jurisdiction to revisit those agreements on the basis of fairness? Sure, they can look at the criteria that are in what was section 51 of act and is now, I think, section 58 -- but we'll find it later. When courts look at that section now, they do so from the presumption of equality. Will that presumption exist here? On what basis will it exist?
I think I understand the spirit and the intent of what will become section 120.1, but in its working out through all the details of parts 5 and 6, I am afraid I find it very problematic. In that respect, I think there is some similarity between this analysis and some of the challenges that faced the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast when he was attempting to follow through all the implications of the changes in the definition of spouse and step-parent. With great respect to the author of the act, the author was considering what they were doing from one perspective only, and not seeing all its implications.
[8:30]
This is a fairly narrow place to begin this discussion, but I think it's an important discussion. Let me highlight the problem one more time by returning to the section we have before us. We have before us section 8 of the bill. Section 8 of the bill makes a very small textual change in this provision that speaks about what happens when two parties to a marriage have entered into a final settlement that is silent on their pension entitlement.The very small change that the author of this act wants to make to that subsection is to change the words "for the purposes of subsection 2(a)" to the words "for the purposes of this Part." This may be carrying the concern too far, but what is the relationship, then, between the language of this part and the fact that section 120.1 will be in another part of the act? I can certainly see someone trying to construct an argument that the end result of this particular amendment is a provision that doesn't make a lot of sense without a bit of improvement in the language. If the Attorney General has any comment on that
So far as the part 5 stuff goes, we will come back to that. I don't need to get into the property division issues now; I merely want to highlight them for the Attorney General's assistance. I am wanting to come back to pension division.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I take the point that the hon. member is making as to where this section 120.1 is being placed. However, section 120.1 is pretty clear. It is a substantive section in the sense that there are certain rights that flow to you if
[ Page 5785 ]
you enter into an agreement, and it's being placed under a procedural section. I don't think that anything ever could or would be read into this. This is simply a matter of convenience as to where it's being placed. I don't believe that that would have any negative consequences that would detract from the importance of this particular section and the placement of it in a particular place. This particular section does deal with procedure and agreements, and therefore this is being placed in part 9.
G. Plant: I'm grateful to the Attorney General for his assistance in attempting to rectify that aspect of the problem. I don't want to jump ahead unfairly, but when I just look quickly at sections 9 and 10 of the act, I see issues around the consequences of the amendment of the definition of spouse. Of course, when we jump into section 11, we will then see the phrase "marriage breakdown" right near the bottom of section (1) of the new section 75.1. It seems to me that all the problems that I began to talk about when we look at section 8 in terms of the interaction between the new definition of spouse and that special provision in section 120.1 are going rear their heads again here. I fear they're going to rear their heads repeatedly over the next few provisions of the act.
Frankly, I'm loath just to allow the matter to lie and to move forward approving these section one by one, simply on the basis of the Attorney General's assurance that he's going to have a look at it if he finds that there need to be amendments. I think the time to do that is now, before we give approval to these sections. I wonder if it would be an appropriate occasion to stand down some of these provisions, if not all of them, until the Attorney General has in fact looked at these issues. I certainly would be prepared to stand down all the way to section 93, at which point we would then get into the child support guideline issues, which I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is particularly concerned with. We can come back to the other sections later. That's just a suggestion.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sorry, I missed that.
The Chair: Hon. member, repeat the question, I guess.
G. Plant: Well, it was more of a suggestion than a question. I said that I think the problem we've identified will recur over the next few sections in this bill. I'm suggesting and inviting the Attorney General to stand down these sections, up to section 18 of the bill -- although actually we could do it down to section 16. I don't mind picking up at section 16 of the bill.
What I'd like to do is to get off the table for now the issue around the pension entitlement consequences of the change in the definition of spouse until the Attorney General has had the overnight look he's talking about. This is just a way to try and make that happen more expeditiously.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: What I'm given to understand by the drafters is that to put in a phrase such as "in the event of a breakdown of a marriage-like relationship" in addition to "in the event of a breakdown of a marriage
I believe that as a result, the court will be persuaded -- and I say successfully -- to read into those provisions the breakup of that marriage-like relationship for the parties who appear before the court and say: "This applies to us; parts 5 and 6 apply to us. If you, hon. judge, give it the interpretation that the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston is suggesting, then we can't access parts 5 and 6. The Legislature clearly intended that we have access to parts 5 and 6. Our relationship is at an end." The court would have to determine whether or not their relationship was at an end. The only reason they would go to court for division of assets would be if their relationship was at an end.
I think the courts are resourceful enough and seek guidance from general principles enough to deal with these situations, and if there are any issues that need to be dealt with, we would deal with them. I think we should proceed and pass these sections. I would give you an undertaking that I'll ask my staff to take an overnight look at them, and if improvements could be made without jeopardizing the entire legislation, they would be made.
G. Plant: Well, at one level, I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the notion that we should take the broadest possible view of these things and understand that, yes, the spirit and the intent of the act is to bring partners in common-law or same-gender relationships under the umbrella of the pension division entitlements in some circumstances. I suppose at that point we as legislators are supposed to back off and say: "Well, we kind of have a general understanding that this is what they want to do, and we'll let the courts figure it out." But it does seem to me that that's not a very helpful way to go about it. We have before us a moderately comprehensive bill that somebody seems to have taken an awful lot of time to write, yet it seems to me to contain some textual problems that are -- I don't want to overstate them -- moderately significant.
I think it's not in the public interest to pretend to do one thing on the strength of an undertaking that we might come back and fix it in a week or a day or a year. This is an Attorney General who, with great respect, can't get a Legal Profession Act onto the legislative calendar, notwithstanding the fact that it's been sitting there on the shelf in his office for two or three years. Why should we allow this section to sit there in a state where I think both the Attorney General and I, and perhaps other members, already know that there's a potential problem? I don't want to, again, overstate the problem, but this is a very curious interrelationship between provisions.
It seems to me that the intent of the bill is that if spouses who are not married to each other make an agreement, then part 6 will apply to the agreement and, if covered by the agreement, a pension. What does it mean to be covered by the agreement? Does that mean that it's mentioned in the agreement or not mentioned in the agreement? I think we could agree on that if we talked about it a little bit. Then we get back to the section that we're currently debating, and we find that in fact if there is an agreement between the parties that is silent on pension entitlement, then something is deemed to happen as a result of that silence. But nothing in that silence will affect a court's jurisdiction under part 5 to review that agreement. It may be that if I sat down and put my lawyer's cap on pretty firmly over my head, I could wend my way through all the shoals on that shore. But I think it's going to take a bit of thinking to figure out.
[ Page 5786 ]
If you were giving advice to a couple of people who were hoping to set up together in an important and serious relationship and who had decided that they would enter into the kind of agreement that would bring them under parts 5 and 6 of the Family Relations Act, what would you say to them about pension entitlement? I'm just not sure what you would say to them. You'd have to say, first of all, that they're not actually getting married, but that we'll hope the court will assume that in some context the term "marriage" will be read in a particular way. Then you'd have to say: "Well, gee, it's not clear. What is that you want to do with the pension entitlements that you both have?" Do you put them in the agreement or not? Do you put them in the agreement but say that they're not covered by the agreement?
I think those are
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I take the hon. member's comments in the spirit that they are made. I don't want to get into a debate on the Legal Profession Act, although I could. I would, in fact, just ignore that issue and simply deal with this.
The advice that I'm receiving from the drafters is that if you have the incorporation into the rights of common-law and same-sex couples the provisions of parts 5 and 6 expressly stated in this legislation, in the new section 120.1, the court will, of course, read, mutatis mutandis, all of the sections in parts 5 and 6. If in fact there is any amendment that the hon. member thinks that we should make, we should make it to section 120.1, so that it applies, upon the breakdown of a marriage-like relationship, mutatis mutandis, to parts 5 and 6. I'm prepared to accommodate the hon. member's concerns -- because I think those are legitimate concerns -- so that we can expressly take care of it.
[8:45]
G. Wilson: I want to pick up on the comments of the member for Richmond-Steveston because it's not only an area of concern in the sections that were identified but it becomes an area of concern again with respect to section 93, the order for support and maintenance -- and, in fact, will be an area of concern beyond that. It seems to me that we have this bill before us in committee. This committee is under no obligation or under any constraint to try to conclude this bill tonight. It seems to me that the committee has raised an issue which I think is of sufficient import that the Attorney General needs to take the time with his staff to find the appropriate clarification, so that the kinds of concerns that were raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston can be addressed. We've just spent a long time having the Attorney General assure us that in the defined definition, where we talk about a marriage-like relationship, that is not a marriage. We have had a lot of discussion on that.We're now coming back to where we're looking at this section, in particular with respect to section 8 that talks about the end of the marriage. Notwithstanding the reference the Attorney General has just made to section 120.1, with respect to an agreement in terms of parts 5 and 6, I don't think that addresses the concerns raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston, quite frankly. I think that what this is going to do is leave ambiguous at best and leave to the court a decision that there's going to have to be some kind of specific reference made to the language that is existing in the bill. Clearly the person who is drafting the bill had opportunity to draft this bill in a manner that made it specific and clear -- and didn't do it, for whatever reasons.
So it seems to me to be unreasonable, frankly, that the Attorney General would not accept the offer, which I think is a generous offer, from the member for Richmond-Steveston to stand down these sections until those sections are clarified. We'll get on with the business of trying to debate the sections that can be debated without impacting on this particular issue.
Failing that, it seems to me that the hour draws later. If the Attorney General needs to take the time to make the clarifications necessary, then he should take the time to do it. We shouldn't be subjected to pressure, in this evening's committee work, to accept language that is anything but clear. I would urge the Attorney General, at this point, to accept that offer in the spirit of this legislative debate, which has said that this is a sensitive issue and an issue upon which we must take care and must take time to make sure that the language is specific and clear. It isn't, quite frankly. I would hope that the Attorney General, rather than pushing this through on a promise that he'll look at it later, would accept the fact that members on this side -- certainly this member -- would feel better if the language would come back either clarified or amended before we move on.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: My intention is to press on. I've indicated that I would make the amendment to the proposed section 120.1. I have looked at the section. I have in fact tried to dictate an amendment to the person who is sitting next to me. I believe that if you have section 121 apply in the case of separation, end of marriage or end of a marriage-like relationship mutatis mutandis to parts 5 and 6 and whatever else follows, that more than adequately takes care of the legitimate concerns that are expressed by the hon. members for Richmond-Steveston and Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
Let's move on to section 120.1 and pass all the other sections, pass that as well, and leave section 121.1 as it is. We'll come back in the morning and deal with that section.
G. Wilson: I understand what the Attorney General is doing, but what he's asking us to do essentially is pass sections with language that's less than clear and then stand down 121 -- unless I misunderstood what he said. Are we going to move to an amendment to section 120.1 now? Are we going to deal with that amendment to therefore clarify the balance of the sections? Or are we supposed to, on faith, go ahead and pass sections that are anything but clear on the promise that somehow tomorrow we're going to deal with an amendment that makes it all okay?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I usually don't take offence. I in fact take offence to the remarks made by the hon. member. I believe I have said that I understand there is a legitimate concern. I disagree with that concern. I don't believe that concern needs to be had, but I am being more than fair by saying that I will take care of that concern dealing with section 120.1 by making the change to apply to parts 5 and 6 of the legislation mutatis mutandis, which means that all of the things that happen as a result of parts 5 and 6 would be governed for a marriage-like relationship by the wording in section 120.1. It says that certain things happen. If you enter into an agreement, then certain things apply.
All I'm saying is that we would be able to deal with that section if
[ Page 5787 ]
faith and do this." You are obliged to do nothing, hon. member. If the hon. member does not want to do anything, the hon. member is free not to do that thing that he so wishes not to do. It's important for me, however, for the comfort of the hon. members, that there is a concern. I don't necessarily agree with that concern; however, I'm willing to bend over backwards to more adequately clarify that issue by making changes to section 120.1 after talking to the drafters overnight.
I believe it can be done, and let me just tell you how it can be done. If you look at section 120.1(1), all you have to do -- and this is not the exact wording -- is say: "If spouses who are not married to each other make an agreement and separate, or their marriage-like relationship ends, parts 5 and 6 apply to
When hon. members stand here and talk about simply taking the Attorney General's word
G. Wilson: I certainly apologize to the Attorney General if there's something that I've said that made him take offence. I'm not suggesting that he isn't going to do it.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: That is not what I was saying. If the Attorney General would listen, I'm saying that we have to take it on faith that your interpretation is correct, when you confer with your drafters.
Now, what if we've passed all these bills and you're not correct? We've passed all these sections only to find that in a drafting of 120.1, there is an interpretation or an opinion which may be out there -- and I'm certainly not a lawyer or a legal drafter of legislation -- that indicates that in fact it is not correct. Meanwhile, we have, on faith that you are correct -- it's not that you're not going to do what you said you were going to do -- passed those sections.
Now, the cleanest and simplest, most appropriate thing to do at 8:55 tonight is to simply stand down this bill, go to your drafters, come back, and we'll settle it up tomorrow. That's the sensible thing to do, it seems to me.
I don't know why
It's hard to fathom why we don't try to do things more professionally in this institution. We've got a committee stage here where we have members in the House who have raised an issue of legitimate concern, an issue that says, under section 8 with respect to section 71, that it deals with a member in recognition at the end of their marriage "for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)" -- which is deleted. What's put in its place is "for the purposes of this part," and therefore it includes all of this part of the Family Relations Act.
We have been told repeatedly that this bill should not be interpreted that a marriage-like relationship has equivalency to being married. The act says that it applies to the end of a marriage. It strikes me that if the amendment, then, addresses that issue, what it does is deal with that issue in a more appropriate way.
The Attorney General is trying to tell us that that's going to be dealt with later tomorrow. I fail to understand why, and the Attorney General would recognize that as it is written right now, this act is going to create confusion -- at the very least. If not, it will essentially create an effect that is not desired or intended by the bill.
So it just seems to me that there is no haste in this process. We should err always on the side of caution. If we've got more hours to spend, let's deal with another bill and stand this down, get it clarified, and we'll move on.
G. Plant: There are two categories of concerns that spring out of the section we have before us. One is the fact that in some places within part 6, there is not a kind of continuity of drafting. Having taken the step of redefining spouse, there needs to be something done to look at the fact that the word "marriage" appears. The word appears, probably, in a context where the courts are going to be asked to say: "This is not a relationship; it is a marriage." Yet it is clearly intended that these provisions apply in some way. What do we do about it?
The Attorney General is suggesting that this kind of drafting problem, if I can put it that way, can be addressed in the context of section 120.1. We don't have that section before us right now. I share some of the reluctance of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in moving ahead to that section and then having to deal with it. But on the other hand, I think it's clear that the Attorney General understands the issue, and I look forward to a debate when we get to that section about the way in which it could be amended to accommodate this concern.
I want to talk for a moment about the second type of concern, and I'm just going to pause for a moment. I want to be sure I have the Attorney General's full attention on this point. We have a kind of drafting question that the Attorney General says could be looked at in the context of section 120.1. I'm personally prepared to wait until we get to section 120.1, because I know that we're going to have a vigorous debate about how we can fix the problem when we get there.
[9:00]
There is a second issue, though. The second issue is that what section 120.1 means when it says that part 6 will apply to these agreements is something very substantive. It is not as clear as I think it ought to be, and it's an issue that needs to be discussed in the context of that section. I think we will have a discussion about it in the context of that section.The unfortunate part of this is that we're now amending provisions here in part 6, which is the context in which that problem will arise. We're kind of forced by the numerical chronology of the bill to deal with some of these issues now as opposed to waiting till section 120.1, which is where the problem really arises.
Interjection.
G. Plant: I think it would be very useful if we could move to section 120.1, deal with the issues in that context and then come back to the other provisions. If the Attorney General is suggesting we do that, that's very helpful.
[ Page 5788 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move that sections 8 to 21 be stood down, and we'll move on to section 22.
Motion approved.
On section 22.
G. Plant: I'm going to deal first with the issues of part 6, the pension division issues, and then part 5, the property division issues.
Part 6 of the act contains a number of provisions that allow courts and others to rewrite pension plans, in effect, in the context of marital division and marital breakup. I think there are some important aspects of the law of pensions that need to be respected in this context, to be sure that when you change pensions, you don't create unnecessary tax consequences and don't end up making things worse.
There is an awful lot of technical law built into part 6 of the act. As I understand it, the intention of section 120.1 -- to begin with the highest level of generality -- is to allow common-law spouses, including same-gender couples who meet the tests for those definitions in the act, to in effect opt into part 6 of the act if the conditions in sections 120.1 are satisfied. Could we use that as a starting point? Could I ask the Attorney General if he agrees with that statement?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that's correct.
G. Plant: The next question would be this: is it the intention of the act that partners in common-law and same-gender relationships be allowed in effect to opt into part 6 in its entirety? That is, they would be allowed to take full advantage of all the processes and procedure that exist in that part of the act as if they were married to each other, subject to the points that arise in the context of subsection (1)(b), which I'll deal with in a minute. I don't want to go too far down the road. But going that far down the road, is that a fair statement?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: When we get to subsection (1)(b), we find that not only does there have to be an agreement between the partners to the relationship but that some things have to be covered by the agreement, which I understand means that they have to be dealt with in the agreement. They have to be in some way expressly referred to in this agreement, which is analogous to a marriage agreement. Would that be a fair statement of what the intention is?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Specific reference is made to three kinds of things: annuities, pensions or interests in pension plans and home-ownership savings plans. RRSPs are not referred to in that list, and having noticed the omission, I'm afraid I do not know the reason for it. There may be a reason for it, but obviously, if I were a partner in a common-law or same-gender relationship, I'd be interested in knowing why it is that RRSPs are outside the scope of this.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's what I was going to say -- that (1)(b)(iv) is sort of a catch-all clause.
G. Plant: Then perhaps the Attorney General could explain why the first three items are specifically enumerated. I need to know this from the point of view of whether there is some significance to it or whether it's just simply some device chosen by the drafter for no reason of public policy.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe, obviously, that some drafter decided that these three issues needed to be mentioned specifically -- maybe for purposes of clarity -- and other items did not need to be mentioned and could be caught with the catch-all subsection (4). I can't give you a better answer than that; I don't have it right now. I don't believe anything would hinge on whether or not anything is included in subsections (1), (2), (3) or (4). They are obviously treated the same way, whether they're part of the catch-all or they're specifically mentioned.
G. Plant: If you give the catch-all clause its fullest definition, then I suppose you could ignore the first three before it and say that what you really need in order to trigger the operation of part 6 -- and part 5, although we'll come to that later -- is an agreement which would be analogous to a marriage agreement or a separation agreement and specific reference in that agreement to some kind of property. Because it could be
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If one tries to read the intent of the drafters here, I believe one could make the argument that the hon. member is making. One could also say in the same vein that maybe for both parts 5 and 6 to apply
G. Plant: With that in mind as the springboard, I want to move to that part of this section that deals with part 5. I'm not sure that it is correct to say that all of part 5 will apply to an agreement under section 120.1, because I'm not sure that the parties to such an agreement would be able to take advantage of the automatic presumption or entitlement to equality that arises in the case of a marriage. So the first step in the question is: is the Attorney General of the view that where the parties to one of these agreements says so, the automatic presumption of equality applies? I'd be interested in hearing his reasoning for that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: My assumption would be that once you've made an agreement, you come within the purview of parts 5 and 6. That presumption of equality applies whether you're common-law couples, same-sex couples or legally married couples.
G. Plant: In practical terms, what you have is two individuals cohabiting, who will meet the definition of spouse, and what they do is sit down and say to each other: "We have decided that in respect of the property we each own, that property will be subject to the regime of equality of division, and in order to trigger all of the legal consequences that flow from that, what we need to do is document that fact in an agreement, and it would be an agreement that would have to meet the requirements for such agreements under section 120.1." Is that how the Attorney General sees it working?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a rather complex process described by my hon. colleague, but I believe the answer is yes.
[ Page 5789 ]
G. Plant: Well, I think the complexity is in part driven by what the Attorney General, I think, correctly referred to earlier as the conservative approach taken by the author of this bill on this issue. The fact is that as between spouses in common-law relationships, including same-gender relationships, the existence of the relationship does not trigger the equality of division of property. What you need to do is sit down and opt in expressly by making an agreement. I think that if it is the view of the government that yes, the triggering device is that you make the agreement, then what flows from that presumably is that all of the provisions with respect to judicial reapportionment on the basis of fairness would all apply and that the way they would be applied is within a context in which the court presumably said: "Yes, here there is an agreement, and the starting point is an equality entitlement."
[9:15]
Let me explain how that might work in one way or another. I don't pretend to even remotely be an expert on family law. But if two partners in a marriage sit down and make an agreement with respect to the division of their assets, they do so where the law already presumes equality to a great extent. If two partners in a spousal non-marriage relationship sit down to make an agreement with respect to their property, they don't sit down with that presumption. So they could sit down in a context where they could agree that essentially 80 percent of the property would belong to one partner and 20 percent would belong to another. I think it would matter at the end of the day, when the court had to scrutinize that agreement to determine if it was fair or not, whether the court started from a presumption that there was inequality but that was all right because the parties agreed to it, or whether the court started from a slightly different presumption, which is that from the outset there was an agreement that was perhaps a little bit less than fair.If that distinction means anything, if the example means anything, I'd be interested in the Attorney General's explanation of how he sees this working out. Frankly, I think this could have quite significant practical implications. At least, I think it is the intent of this bill that many, many common-law couples and same-gender couples will sit down and make these agreements and will decide to regulate their lives in accordance with this regime. I think that getting some clarity around that is probably a good thing.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I didn't catch the subtlety that the hon. member was trying to impart to me with his example. So I will just simply deal with the fact that what we intended to do here, if we've done it successfully, is that once you enter into an agreement, the courts will be able to look at that agreement in the same way as they would look at any agreement entered into by legally married couples and to start with all of the same assumptions and presumptions that they would start from with legally married couples. So when people who are same-sex couples or common-law couples sit down and try to enter into an arrangement, they should know that all of the assumptions and presumptions with respect to parts 5 and 6 would apply to them. The court would be able to vary the agreements if the court finds that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable and that it was entered into under duress, and all of those kinds of issues that lawyers are good at articulating would come into play. So if that helps the hon. member any, that's all I can say.
G. Plant: That is helpful. I don't see any way around the fact that the implication of these things is going to have to work itself out over time. But just one more specific example, and that is in section 60 of the act. Section 60 deals with the onus of proof. Under the act, as it applies to married couples now, the onus is on someone who is opposing a claim under section 56 to "prove that the property in question is not ordinarily used for a family purpose." Obviously a lot will depend on what kinds of provisions are found in the agreements that are going to be made as a result of these amendments. But again, perhaps there is an issue as to whether or not the starting point is a starting point of presumption of equality as opposed to a starting point which is a presumption that the parties entering into the agreement have been fair or will not be second-guessed in the apportionment of their assets. Again, it's a technical example, and it may not be a good example. But it seems to me that when we have the kind of basket-clause language we have in section 120.1, these kinds of questions are hard to avoid. Perhaps I'll leave that particular one with the Attorney General.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, that's true. Obviously courts will interpret these issues as time goes on, and we'll be enlightened. But I think we should start with the assumption that what we're trying to do here is give equality to common-law couples and same-sex couples and the same kinds of rights that married couples have with respect to property division in the event that they enter into an agreement. I believe that's all I should say at this point.
Let me just also tell the hon. members what I think will work with regard to parts 5 and 6 and the amendment that we might need to make to section 120.1. I want to be able to deal with it now. I know my drafters will get mad at me, but obviously this needs to be done. It's section 120.1(1), and we would add after the word "agreement" -- and I'm suggesting this -- "and subsequently separate or end the marriage-like relationship." So that's what we
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, I don't think we even need to say that. I think that with the words that I've given, if you include those
G. Plant: I need to ask a question that will reveal the depth of my ignorance about part 6. Part 6 deals with division of pension entitlement, and I'm not sure if it is limited in its application only to situations after separation. To put it another way, does part 6 ever have any application to marriages that are in good standing? That is, can a husband and wife make application for reallocation of pension benefits under part 6, or is it something that arises only upon marriage breakdown?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The latter.
G. Plant: One of the issues we identified was the fact that in some of the previous sections of the bill, the word "marriage" appears, and it appears in a context that will become problematic once we enact what will become section 120.1. We will then be asking the courts to interpret the word in a way that encompasses other relationships.
I'm standing here thinking about whether the words that the Attorney General is proposing will in fact address the
[ Page 5790 ]
situation. The words would be: "If spouses who are not married to each other make an agreement and subsequently separate or end the marriage-like relationship
G. Wilson: Not being a lawyer, I've listened to this discussion with a great deal of interest, trying to work through the bill and seeing if it satisfies some concerns I have. I appreciate that the Attorney General is attempting to find language that will work. In the advice that has been provided to me by those who advise me on matters relating to these kinds of bills, where I simply don't have the legal expertise, there is serious concern given by people who are family lawyers with respect to this section on the division of assets and how it will apply. They are saying that this is extremely complex and that we have to proceed with a great deal of care and caution on how this section will apply.
Quite frankly, notwithstanding the effort and attempt of the Attorney General and the best efforts of the member for Richmond-Steveston, who has himself suggested he's not a family lawyer by practice, and given the hour, I think that we have a proposed amendment that I would certainly like -- by way of a courtesy, at least -- to have the opportunity to take to those people who provide me with legal comment and advice as to the impact on this bill. It would be an opportunity for them to review and consider this. Hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[9:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 42.MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1997
On section 1.
G. Plant: Section 1 of Bill 42 expands the ambit of the operations of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act. I think it was the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove
Hon. G. Clark: I understand that the critic is on his way. But this is a very simple amendment, and I'll try and explain it because I was involved in a previous incarnation as the minister. B.C. Buildings Corporation has a very good reputation and, in fact, a well-deserved record of public construction. They build
Similarly, the government of Canada has actually asked BCBC to manage certain janitorial contracts and the like because, as well as building buildings, they manage contracts very effectively. So from time to time we've had these requests. They've accelerated in recent years, actually, I think really as a tribute to BCBC and the management and staff there and the work that they do.
So I just want to assure members that this is not an attempt to expand BCBC's jurisdiction, if you will, to go out and compete with the private sector or to do other things. This is simply allowing other public bodies and government agencies, broadly defined, including government of Canada agencies, school boards, universities and the like
So, again, I think this is good government. It's very modest indeed. It's simply permissive to allow agencies and
G. Plant: I thank the Premier for that answer. The one question that it seems to me arises in this context
Hon. D. Miller: Really, the answer is, in some degree, a bit of both. BCBC has established itself as an agency that I think
Just one example of where the kind of work that they've done has been taken by government as a whole is that they've done a very good job in standardizing tender documents. Last year we took that very good idea from BCBC and expanded that throughout all of the capital ministries of government. So there is a relationship there, obviously. It's a creature of government, as a Crown corporation. It really provides the opportunity, after consideration, for BCBC to play more of a centralized role, if we deem that to be desirable -- to provide services for school districts, for example. Without defining that in absolute terms, going back to my original answer, it's a bit of both. They have some expertise, and we want to use it.
G. Plant: Looking at the list of the types of public bodies that are going to be brought within the scope of what BCBC can do, the last item is the typical basket clause. In this case, it's expressed as any publicly funded body or agency designated by regulation. It would probably be putting it too high
[ Page 5791 ]
to say the sky is the limit. Clearly the corporation, from the perspective of government, will now be in a position to do what it does well across the entire spectrum of publicly funded bodies as and when it's appropriate or the need arises. Is that a fair statement?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is. The member is aware that we did go through a fairly intensive review of capital spending not just from the point of view of how much you spend but also what kind of efficiencies. We came up with a broad list of -- what? -- 200 recommendations in terms of how we might get more for the money. To the extent that BCBC is another tool that can be utilized in the pursuit of that, then that is something that's worthwhile.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
G. Plant: I want to pause for a moment to make the observation that there will be some changes here to the Court Rules Act that really are enabling provisions to allow the court rules committee to make rules that will expand the ways in which counsel and parties can participate in court proceedings to include appearances by telephone, teleconferencing and so on, and to remind the Attorney General of the comments that I made earlier about the fact that there are still important times and places for oral advocacy, advocacy in person. He and his ministry have a role to play -- indirectly, at least -- in respect of the court rules committee. I hope that he'll bear some of those considerations in mind when it comes time to draft the appropriate rules.
[9:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll keep the remarks of the hon. member in mind.Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
G. Abbott: As a number of us indicated in second reading of Bill 42, we do have some concerns with respect to section 9. Certainly what we need at this point is some clarification, if nothing else, from the responsible minister with respect to why the provisions contained in section 9 are included in this bill. Could I clarify first to the responsible minister, who I presume is going to be the Minister of Health in this case or perhaps the Attorney General
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it is only the authority to carry on business, if indeed it is required in the public interest. The regional hospital district is not appointed by the provincial government.
G. Abbott: One of the reasons why we're having some difficulty coming to grips with this section is
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is only a provision, in the very rare instance where parties cannot meet agreement to provide for capital funding as the member has arranged, and where the expenditure must continue, that a public administrator would carry forward that expenditure.
G. Abbott: Again I'm having some difficulty understanding a scenario under which this might happen. Again, to back up here a little bit, the regional hospital district board is not appointed by the minister, is not elected on a provincial basis and does not receive its authority through that route. Regional hospital district boards, like regional district boards and like municipal councils, are elected by local electors in local elections. Consequently, they are of course responsible to those electors for raising and expending funds for purposes which they are permitted to do under the authority provided to them in the Municipal Act and other statutes.
I'm having some difficulty understanding how a situation would arise where those bodies -- i.e., the regional hospital district boards -- if they have committed to a set of funding, would not follow through on it. They have the same obligation as the province has to follow through on agreements that they have committed to. They simply cannot renege on a long-term commitment to fund. They will borrow the funds just as the province will. The province will borrow their 60 percent through whatever appropriate borrowing agency they feel is appropriate. The regional hospital district will borrow, most probably through the MFA -- but through whatever vehicle -- their 40 percent. They will be committed to providing those funds and to meeting the debt repayment schedule that's part of the bylaw. I don't understand how they could possibly breach it. Even a board resolution would not permit them to breach it, as I understand it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's not the provision of reneging. It's where there has been a previous agreement where one party opts out of it. This public administrator is then allowed to publicly administer the provincial government's share of the money.
G. Abbott: The minister will have to explain to me more fully, again, what sort of agreement this might be. During my long tenure as chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional hospital district, we agreed on numerous occasions with the province of British Columbia to enter into borrowing for major capital projects -- i.e., long term care facilities -- and, in many instances, for minor capital expenditures, I think, of less than $100,000. But there were numerous agreements of that sort. The agreement was not in place until the province -- presumably through the Minister of Health, with the support of the provincial cabinet -- agreed on their side to do it and the regional hospital district board, on their side, by board motion, agreed to do it. Once those two parties had agreed that the agreement should be consummated and the funds expended for a purpose, I don't know of -- at least, I can't imagine -- a situation where one or other of the parties could withdraw from that, or why they would.
[ Page 5792 ]
I'm really having difficulty coming to grips with why, at some point here, the Minister of Health would step in and say: "No, you're not following through on your agreement." Presumably, if the board is reluctant to enter into that agreement, that does not constitute reasons for dismissal. This happens all the time. Regional hospital boards, I'm sure -- not constantly, but on relatively frequent occasions -- have a different view about the priority of a project, the timing of a project or the scale of a project. In many ways there will be differences of opinion, and that's just fine.
I'm sure, with both the ministry and the regional hospital district boards, that they disagree and things get shuffled around, and at some future point they agree and the project goes ahead. So I'm presuming that this statutory authority to appoint an administrator does not exist for that purpose -- that is, appointing an administrator when there's a difference of opinion. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the member is correct. It does not exist for that. That situation occurs, as he says, frequently. The situation here is that if there is the inability for a regional hospital district to deliver on what they have committed, a public administrator may be appointed to carry the project out in the public interest. There is no intent to usurp the legitimate role of the regional hospital district.
G. Abbott: Actually, I'm very much assured by that answer from the minister, because I had hoped that this provision did not exist for that purpose. I think that would be getting into the provincial government's interference in the realm of local decision-making, which I don't think the government would want to do. I thank the minister for that answer, and I am much assured by it.
However, to continue on from that point, if a regional hospital district, on behalf of its member electoral areas and municipalities, commits to borrowing three, four or five million -- whatever it happens to be -- as their 40 percent matching amount of a capital project, once that commitment has been made on the part of the regional district, there is no way that they can default on it, as I understand it.
I'm puzzled again about the necessity for a trustee. Like the provincial government, a regional hospital district can adjust its rates of taxation, its mill rates or whatever it is necessary to do in order to meet its financial commitments. But they cannot breach those commitments, because their agreement is with the lending agency. They can no more renege on their commitment after agreeing to borrow funds for a capital project than the province can or the federal government can. Hence, again, I remain puzzled why the necessity for an administrator would exist.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I very much value the member's great expert knowledge in this area, and I hope that he's not reading anything into this except that it is in order to prevent what may become a problem in carrying out the public interest.
This would only be used in such circumstances where, because of disputes amongst the members of the regional hospital district, the necessary borrowing bylaws that occur after the commitment has been made cannot be passed, and existing current hospital construction may be delayed. So the appointment of a public administrator would only allow the necessary work of that to continue until such disagreements may be settled. It's only in that context.
There have been a couple of examples of that, and we have worked it out. But it's been to the extent of delaying the construction, and in some cases a season has gone by. It's only a temporary public administrator to deal with ensuring that the process carries on in a timely way.
G. Abbott: Perhaps the minister can assist me here by offering one or two of those examples of where the system failed. Typically, in order to enter into an agreement with the province to borrow money for a capital project, there is a requirement that a fixed percentage of the board vote in favour.
Once that vote has been held, and it's in the affirmative and an agreement proceeds, I guess it's possible in theory that board members could ask to revisit it, but I presume that there is a point -- and I think that's well defined by Municipal Affairs -- at which the local government, in this case being the regional hospital district, cannot return. The board makes a resolution to borrow funds for a project, and the bylaw is drafted. It's given three readings and adopted, and it becomes the will of the regional hospital district to do that.
Once it's in place, board members may say, "Shucks, we did the wrong thing," or "Shucks, the board that was here before us made a bad decision," but I don't think it is possible for them to attempt to renege on a bylaw that has had three readings and has been adopted. Money has been borrowed, and there's an agreement in place with the Municipal Finance Authority. I don't think it is legally possible for the board to breach that.
Perhaps as a matter of reassuring me, the minister can provide me with the two examples she mentioned of where problems of this sort occurred, so I can understand at what point along the road the matter came off the rails.
[10:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can get those examples for you, but I hope the hon. member accepts that this is merely housekeeping to prevent what has occurred in these examples and that the period of time it has occurred for is in the drafting of the bylaws.G. Abbott: I guess the whole core of our argument revolves around the province taking on a statutory authority that it has never had in the past, through this bill, to replace a regional hospital district board with an administrator for a period of time.
While this is entitled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and in theory it is housekeeping types of things, I suspect that without the government giving a whole lot of thought to it, this bill moves the provincial government into an area where they have not been before. I suspect that it may have been done relatively harmlessly, but I think this is the kind of thing that, had it been
I don't know, but I would suspect that it has not, because under the terms and conditions set down for local government in the Municipal Act, the kind of scenario envisioned here that could give rise to this should not in fact happen. I guess we're into one of these situations where the government says: "This is necessary. Believe me, and go on with it." I'm not sure where we go. Perhaps some of my colleagues on this side have other questions, but that will be all for me at this point.
Section 9 approved on division.
[ Page 5793 ]
Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
G. Plant: I note that in these provisions that will amend the Offence Act, there will be opportunities to use electronic data records in circumstances where hard-copy paper records are now being used. The way that this is set out in what will become section 10.1 is that traditional requirements for the recording or presentation of information in writing will be deemed to be satisfied if they are recorded or presented in a way that allows them to be displayed or visible and so on. Am I right in assuming that this provision is intended to apply only to proceedings under the Offence Act of British Columbia, that this is as far as it goes?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
G. Plant: Here, if I may, I simply want to remind the Attorney General of some of the remarks I made during the second reading debate on these provisions. We're probably doing something that needs to be done in the interest of efficiency and cost savings, but it's important that the merging of these judicial districts and the merging of these counties not happen in a way that deprives the citizens of the communities within these counties of a sense that justice is happening for them in their communities.
While I know that it is not the business of the Attorney General to interfere in the scheduling of trials by the trial coordinator or by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- and frankly, it's not mine, either -- there is a public voice on this issue, a public voice that says that local justice is better justice, that local justice is more accountable justice, that justice in our communities is justice that advances the needs of our communities. I hope that this merger will not sacrifice, unnecessarily, any of those principles.
I would be interested in the Attorney General's comments on those issues.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This amendment is being made so that it's easier for the court to schedule trials, so that courtrooms and judges are more efficiently used in the circumstances. I took the remarks that the hon. member made earlier in second reading very seriously. I'm certain that the courts, as they attempt to do their job independently, will take into account some of the concerns that the hon. member has expressed, and those are legitimate concerns.
Section 17 approved.
On section 18.
G. Plant: Here, in this context, I want only to add one additional element to the equation, and that is to recognize that for better or for worse -- and I think it is unquestionably for better -- our system of justice is served well by the lawyers who appear in Her Majesty's courts. There is, again, a risk here that by having cases that are now being tried in Vancouver tried in New Westminster, and vice versa, that there will be an imposition on counsel. While, frankly, that is not the largest issue that will ever come across human society, it is something that again has the potential to create some unfairness or, even worse, to create unnecessary expense, in some cases, if counsel are required to go to New Westminster for a trial that would otherwise happen in Vancouver.
It's really just a variation of the same theme, and I hope that the Attorney General will take it as the last expression of sentiment was intended. Once again I would impose on the Attorney General, if I could, to have his views on that particular point.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has correctly expressed the sentiment, and I share those sentiments with him.
Sections 18 and 19 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
The committee met at 6:39 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
C. Clark: We talked about community resource boards before the break, and the minister indicated that there were two that would be operating in the province. Could the minister explain for me the roles and responsibilities of the community resource boards a little more fully? I am again interested in seeing how those are going to fit in with the larger process of land use planning.
Hon. C. McGregor: Their role is to provide advice on the implementation of regional land use strategies that have been developed.
[ Page 5794 ]
C. Clark: Are there any guidelines which restrict or define whether their advice is binding or
Hon. C. McGregor: Each of the committees has terms of reference, and if the member wants them, we can make them available to her. Generally they are to provide advice to the ministry. It is advice, but obviously we ignore such advice as little as we can, because we really respect the views of those who sit at that table and give us advice on how to best implement that plan.
C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's answer. I want to touch on, too, the policies around the provincial resource tenure compensation that the province has in place. I think LUCO is the appropriate place to be discussing that in the debates. If it's not, I'm sure the minister will tell me. Can the minister tell me whether indeed it's LUCO that manages the implementation of policies for resource tenure compensation, and maybe tell me a little bit about how it determines what tenures will be compensated and what won't?
Hon. C. McGregor: Policies for compensation for resources as a result of the land use process are supported by LUCO. In any situation, the compensation is the responsibility of the ministry responsible. So if it's a forest tenure issue, then it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests. If it's an agricultural lease, then it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
C. Clark: So, for example, if a piece of land that might have a mining interest attached to it is expropriated for a park, how would the price and the value of that land be determined?
Hon. C. McGregor: In a case that the member asks about, the ministry responsible -- Employment and Investment -- would be involved in this policy matter, as well as the Attorney General's office. LUCO would be a part of those discussions, as well.
[6:45]
C. Clark: Would the Ministry of Environment have any involvement in that process if it involves a park?Hon. C. McGregor: The Ministry of Parks would only become involved once it was designated a park under the Park Act.
Let me be clear. I'm not talking about tenure that they would be responsible for. The negotiations around the tenure remain the business of the ministry responsible, with assistance from LUCO and, in the case that we referred to earlier, the Attorney General's office. But once that is settled and it becomes a park, that's when Parks has some responsibility for the area -- it's not during the tenure of the negotiations process.
C. Clark: I'm just trying to get this clear in my mind. For example, the province acquired a few mining tenures in 1996, and there was a fairly hefty price tag attached to them. I take it that when the province acquires a tenure in order to create a park, that price is set by Employment and Investment if it's a mining tenure -- or by the ministry responsible for the tenure. Is that correct in terms of the price?
Hon. C. McGregor: I don't want to stray into a responsibility I don't have. I've tried to be clear that this is a responsibility of the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Attorney General. I don't want to give answers that aren't correct. So I would ask that the member perhaps address those specific kinds of questions to the ministry responsible.
C. Clark: I'd be happy to do that. I just want to be clear about who was setting the price. If it's not this ministry that does it when a park is created, but it's another ministry, I would be happy to address my questions to that ministry. I honestly just didn't know the answer to that question.
Once the price is set -- for example, when the province acquires a park and a price is set on the tenure, and that tenure is incorporated within the park -- does the cost of that come out of the Parks budget?
Hon. C. McGregor: In the past, those tenures have been paid out of three possible different accounts. There was the Crown land account, the Crown Proceedings Act and, when we had a land acquisition account in Parks, some were compensated through that mechanism.
C. Clark: The minister is talking in the past tense about the three accounts from which the compensation might be withdrawn. I wonder if she could tell us where it currently comes from or where it's expected to come from in the next fiscal year. Or is it perhaps that the ministry doesn't have a budget or doesn't intend to acquire any tenures? Is there no budget for tenures?
Hon. C. McGregor: Not in this ministry.
C. Clark: Not in this ministry. Okay, thank you.
So there's no budget in the Crown land account or in the land acquisition account. Does that mean that the ministry doesn't plan on acquiring any tenures, or does it simply mean that the ministry doesn't pay for any tenures that it might acquire in order to create a park or two?
Hon. C. McGregor: We don't currently have a budget for it. That doesn't mean, as a result of some negotiations that might occur, that there wouldn't be a way of finding money in some other ministry to acquire that tenure. But we don't have a budget line in this year's budget.
I do want to be clear, though. I said that this Crown land account did not have any acquisition funds. It does have a small amount for park acquisitions or habitat acquisitions: $620,000 and $350,000 respectively.
C. Clark: The last B.C. Lands issue I want to explore before we get into Parks is, very briefly, that the minister mentioned the Whistler Land Co. I wonder if she could outline for me the relationship between the Lands division of her ministry and the WLC.
Hon. C. McGregor: The original purpose of the Whistler Land Co. was the selling of Crown land at Whistler. But now we're engaged in negotiations for a contract to have them assist us in the marketing of Crown land.
[ Page 5795 ]
C. Clark: Will the board of the Whistler Land Co. be reporting to the Minister of Environment?
Hon. C. McGregor: No, they report to the Minister of Finance.
C. Clark: How will the transfer work? They won't actually take ownership of any Crown lands; they'll simply be marketing the Crown lands as they become available and delivering the money directly into general revenue. That's my understanding. Is that quite correct?
Hon. C. McGregor: That is certainly my understanding of how it would work.
C. Clark: Does the Ministry of Environment have any representatives on the board of the corporation or any formal involvement at the executive level?
Hon. C. McGregor: I want to correct an earlier statement I made -- the payment of funds would go into the Crown land account.
Government deputies sit on the Whistler board of directors, which includes the deputies from Finance, Forests, our ministry, Highways and the Crown corporations secretariat.
C. Clark: Okay. My colleague has a question before we close off the Lands session.
R. Neufeld: I have a couple of questions around the issue of Lands. Earlier the minister talked about the millions of dollars they anticipated getting from the sale of Crown lands. In my experience in the constituency I come from, with the ministry selling Crown lands, it's a bit of a painful approach, to be frank. I hope there's a different strategy in place, if the ministry is anticipating receiving millions of dollars from land sales, if we're going to do the sales through the Lands department as we do in the north with agriculture and those kind of issues.
I had a constituent who came to the office, who wished to purchase a section of surveyed land. It was in the agricultural land reserve, surveyed for the purposes of sale for agricultural purposes. There was nothing different. He wanted it to extend his bison farm, and he already owned some adjacent land. His first response was: "In about two to three years we'll look at it." Now, this is a person who comes to the office and wants to buy -- cash -- whatever the appraised value is, whatever the appraised value of the timber is. "I'll buy it. I'll write you a cheque." "Well, two years from now, we might help you." It's absolutely amazing how some of these things can happen. If we had to survey it, if we had to do a whole bunch of things like that -- put it in the agricultural land reserve -- I can understand that. But for the life of me, I can't fathom how it takes two years to sell a section of land. If we're talking about selling any amount of land across the province, I hope there's a different strategy in place than the way we do it now.
To take it a little further, this gentleman finally did get to purchase his land, but only because -- shall I say -- he was very pushy in what he wanted to get done. Not everybody is like that. He went out and acquired someone to cruise it, because that was one excuse: "We don't have anybody who can cruise." Then that person wasn't licensed to do it for the Ministry of Forests. He got that person approved for the Ministry of Forests -- on and on and on. Within six or eight months, he was finally able to write a cheque for a section of land. It's quite bizarre.
Maybe the minister would tell me: is there a different strategy in place? This is not a single issue all on its own. I have had to get involved in quite a few land issues in northeastern British Columbia to hurry them along or to put an end to a painful -- as I said earlier -- approach to selling land.
Hon. C. McGregor: I certainly take very seriously what the member is saying. I must admit for a minute that I thought he was going to tell me that we had a buyer and that he had a cheque in his hand. I was going to say: "Give me the number." I'm glad to hear that the individual was able to get that facilitated. I don't think that one can really excuse some of the things that have gone on, and I'm not trying to do that. We have developed more of a development and marketing strategy centrally, and it is a priority to be able to facilitate those kind of land sales. As the member noted, we have to do more,
[7:00]
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. To be fair, there are some land transactions that have gone fairly smoothly. I know agricultural leases are a standard two to three years, and that's usually the story that comes across the counter. If I wanted to go in and buy a piece of farmland from an individual and they said to me, "Well, in about two or three years I'll be ready to sell it to you, even though it's ready to go now, but I don't have time to do the paperwork," it would be a bit discouraging.Here's another one, and this is a dual one. It has to do with a licence for occupation and also a back-country recreation application. This is north of Fort Nelson, on the Liard River. We're not talking about a really heavily populated area; this is wilderness. A licence for occupation was put in on February 6, 1997, for 4.5 acres on the Liard River, mainly to have access to the river with a float plane and to be able to go from that point out to what they hoped to get in as a back-country recreation area. Five months ago, on February 6, the application was made.
I'm going to read to you out of the letter. This is a direct quote from the person who wrote me the letter but not from the person who said it. It came out of the Lands office in Fort St. John. I'll omit the names -- I would rather not get into that issue -- and give a sense of what this person was told when dealing with a licence of occupation. This is Duke's Air Service asking: "Where is my application? What's happened to it?"
"I cannot tell you the status of your application."This is after five to six months.
"We are very short-staffed, and there are about to be some major changes again within the ministry. Some projects or services currently under B.C. Lands may get moved to other ministries. You may get a letter saying your application is toast, and you may have to start all over again with another ministry.I'm not trying to pinpoint anyone. This is a terrible way, if that in fact is the way people are dealt with in that office"Phone back again at the end of July. I only recommend the application, and then it goes to administration, and they are more backed up than we are."
Maybe the minister could just comment on that part of it, and then I'll deal with the back-country recreation.
[ Page 5796 ]
Hon. C. McGregor: I've had a few of these concerns directed my way in terms of how Lands is handling applications that come in, and it is because we have made significant reductions in staff. That's a decision we took as a ministry, so we're living with the consequences of that decision. As a result, we are redefining the way we're doing our work.
While we're trying to streamline some of those application processes -- and I believe the member and I have had other discussions about ways that we're looking at streamlining those applications -- our priorities are those that are engaged directly in economic development and benefit, job creation as well as health and safety or environmental protection. Other applications that don't fit into that category are not getting dealt with on a priority basis, but we are attempting to clear the backlog as much as possible to deal with those as well.
In the meantime, I know it's going to mean some waits for people, and there's no denying that that's the case.
R. Neufeld: This is a person that is applying for two tenures that will provide employment and diversify the economy -- something that I think all of us want. This is a younger entrepreneurial couple, a man and wife that live at mile 543 on the Alaska Highway in an isolated area. They have lived there a good part of their lives, love the country, know the country, want to actually invest in a business and are trying to do that. Actually, what has happened now is that they've lost this year. But that seems to be the part that's going along not too badly.
We get to the commercial back-country recreation tenures. This was forwarded to the Lands branch in Fort St. John on October 31, 1996, for an application for a five-year tenure. This is to encourage tourism and all the types of things that go along with the back-country recreation policy and those types of things. I'm going to read verbatim out of Mr. Middleton's letter from Duke's Air Service and omit the names. I'm going to read to you what he's been told after eight months of waiting to start a business because we in government can't seem to get organized so that we can give out the areas as government said they would. In fact, if I remember correctly and if I read correctly, the back-country policy was implemented in February 1995, so we've obviously had a fair amount of time, a couple of years, to get things in place. And I would think that it wouldn't be an easy process, but that there must be a process that works better than what we have here.
I'm going to read this. This is, as I say, Mr. Middleton talking to the Fort St. John Lands office:
"Your application is here. However, it has not even begun to be processed."Eight months, and it hasn't even begun to be processed.
"There are 20 CBR applications ahead of you. We do not bump anyone. They are processed in the order they are received. We are short-staffed."The minister -- and I'm going deviate here a bit -- will remember that I brought to her earlier the issue that in the oil and gas industry we always see the "short-staffed" thing not as an excuse but as an issue about why we can't get things done. And I know it is, but somehow we have to get around that.
"I do not have any assistants. I can only devote one-tenth of my workday to CBR applications."If you work that out, that's about four to five minutes a day.
"We are meeting far more resistance to the CBR policy than was ever anticipated. Everyone is opposing it. I know there are people out there operating illegally; they are trespassing. However, we do not have the manpower to check or cite anyone. Your application will not be processed this summer. Perhaps next year. No guarantees."I'm sure the minister agrees with me that that is totally unacceptable. Here we have a person that wants to get into the business, lives there, loves the country and can provide a good service. I know the man and his wife quite well. All they want to do is to have the opportunity. They've been waiting for this many years because of the issue about the back country, and then to be told after eight months, "This year we're not even going to look at it, because we only get about four minutes a day to look at them in the office -- and maybe not even next year; there are no guarantees
Yet when it comes to asking for the money for the applications, boy, I tell you, that gets processed in a hurry. It seems as though we have a policy for getting that money in quickly, but we have a policy that doesn't get anything out the other end of the tube for years. Those kinds of things are issues that don't sit well with me or the constituents of Peace River North. This is not an outsider trying to come into an area and take anything over from anyone else. It's a person that lives there and wants to make a business. But somehow we have to be able to deal with these issues in a much better fashion that's more responsive to business as we do business in the 1990s. I would hope so.
Hon. C. McGregor: The commercial back-country recreation policy is fraught with difficulties, and I think the letter made some reference to that, as the constituent noted. So there are some conflicts in terms of
There's also a requirement to do first nations referrals. That does take time; there's no doubt about that. I know that people feel impatient about waiting, but nonetheless it does take time.
We could certainly do a much better job, I think, up front of telling people what some of the anticipated time lines might be for some of this work, so that applicants have some understanding of why it takes so long to have the thing pushed through. I think that generally people are under a mistaken impression that all it requires is someone to sit at a desk and read it over and put a rubber stamp on it. Obviously it's a lot more complicated than that. But we need to do a better job of explaining to people why it does take longer.
I know we've talked before about the need to standardize the way in which applications come forward into Crown Lands offices, and we are continuing to work on that. This may be an area where we can make some progress, although as I've pointed out to the member, the back-country recreation issues are extremely complex, and it may be that it'll be difficult to make progress in terms of a time line, or guaranteeing a time line, as to how long an application will take.
The last thing I would mention to the member is that we talked earlier about needing to have a priority for the oil and gas sector, and that is indeed how this office operates. The reason why 1,300 oil and gas applications went through in the last year is because they have been given a higher priority than other activities, and in this case this applicant did not receive the same level of priority as the oil and gas industry did.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's response. I guess I agree that there must be a better way to tell the people that are
[ Page 5797 ]
applying for CBR tenure that it is going to be a certain length of time. But I talked earlier about someone saying that it's going to take two years to process the sale of a piece of land. Somehow I think we have to deal with it in a better fashion, because as the minister stated, there is an aboriginal portion to this which usually takes quite a while. And if this specific application -- I'm referring to this one that I read into the record -- has been sitting there for eight months, and we haven't even started the process of getting into those kinds of things, I think they're probably right -- probably another couple of years, and maybe we'll have it completed.
I want to read again from the book about the interim commercial back-country recreation policy. It states it fairly clearly in the annual report: "The commercial back-country recreation policy was implemented in February 1995, following extensive consultation with stakeholder groups." I would take from that -- and I know it's a difficult issue; I'm certainly not going to make light of that -- that if we had extensive consultation with stakeholder groups, and it was two years ago that we finished that
So I think there are some serious issues that we have to look at in this part of dealing with the Lands branch also. Just to put it on the record, the minister talked about, I think she said, 1,300 referrals done through the Ministry of Environment office last year. The minister should know, if she doesn't, that part of the reason some of those applications went through fairly quickly is because most applications east of the Alaska Highway almost all the way to Fort Nelson are done through what was Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, unless they're in a very sensitive area. So they are mostly just rubber-stamped in the Ministry of Environment, and Petroleum Resources deals with many of those applications to the extent that they're not in sensitive areas. East of the Alaska Highway, most are not sensitive.
[7:15]
I'd like to just carry on with one other thing about parks, and that's commercial river-rafting. I've asked the question every year since the Tatshenshini Park was created by your government. I'd like to know what kind of revenue was generated out of rafting on the Tatshenshini River this past year.Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have that data here, but we will get it for the member.
R. Neufeld: I'll await that information. In her opening remarks, the minister stated that 74 parks were created. Could the minister clarify that a little bit for me? Is that 74 class A parks? Over what period of time?
Hon. C. McGregor: All the new parks being created are class A parks.
R. Neufeld: The 74, then, that the minister
Hon. C. McGregor: The last time the Park Act was amended was in 1995, so it's the parks that have been created since then.
J. Dalton: We'll move from the north to the south and Cypress Bowl. I have a series of questions, and I'll be putting them in two or three categories. The first will be summer operations -- as a title -- and then some questions come under that particular heading.
The minister will be familiar with the Williams report. I have it with me, but I'm certainly not going to refer specifically to very much of it. It's a very detailed report with, I think, about 75 recommendations in it, give or take. Recommendation 68, just for the information of the committee, deals with compatibility use. I will quote from part of recommendation 68: "
In 1996 -- last January to be exact -- Mel Turner wrote on the subject of summer operations. I'll just make reference to his letter. There's a series of letters that went back and forth at this time. He produced a list in January of 1996 dealing with what activities, summer-wise, would be acceptable and those which would not be acceptable. Some of those on the unacceptable list caught my eye. For example, I don't know what wild golf is; I have no idea -- I'm not going to ask the minister -- but it's there. Biathlons are outlawed. Bungee jumping is taboo; I can't think of where in Cypress Bowl you'd be able to bungee jump, anyways. So there are a few things that I think we would all agree are not acceptable as summer activities for a peacefully-to-be-enjoyed park.
The acceptable activities are where I think we have to gain some understanding, particularly in the context of the recent release that the minister put out. Some of the things that are on the acceptable list
On January 24 of last year, just to put this in its context, Mr. Turner sent a memo to Jake Masselink, who's the director of district operations, dealing with the four-seasons concept of the park. I'm just going to highlight two things that come out of Mr. Turner's memo. Commenting on the activities that he's put together, he indicates that "all of these may lead to debate," and certainly I think some of these naturally would lead to debate. He goes on to suggest to Mr. Masselink that he would encourage us to be more definitive: "Describe the activities as an addition/deletion to the existing schedule."
The point I'm making here, just to set the stage, is that I think we have to be very aware of some of the concerns of many people -- and not just on the North Shore. There are friends of Cypress Bowl all over the lower mainland and, I would suggest, in the rest of British Columbia, because as the minister knows, this is the most heavily visited class A park in British Columbia.
Well, I can cut it off there, because I think we have to go vote on section 1 of a bill.
The committee recessed from 7:24 p.m. to 7:35 p.m.
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
[ Page 5798 ]
J. Dalton: I was going to set the stage with some of my comments about activities that are either on the prohibited -- it's called unacceptable -- or the acceptable list. I just wanted to draw the minister's attention to two or three more on the acceptable list that are still alive and well. Perhaps she could comment as to whether she feels these activities either individually or collectively would fit in with Mr. Williams's recommendation No. 68, that anything done must be compatible with "the nature qualities of the park itself." I guess maybe it means natural, but it says "nature qualities." For example, mountain bike races -- I don't know that a lot of people, I being one of them, will go up to the park in the summer months; I was just up there recently -- as they wouldn't necessarily think that's compatible with peace and quiet
There's one item here on the acceptable list: a tea garden. I guess a tea garden would be quiet, but again, I don't know that a tea garden fits within the concept of a class A park. Horseback riding is still on the acceptable list. So could the minister assist us as to whether any or all of those activities may be brought into question because of Mr. Williams's recommendation?
Hon. C. McGregor: The tea garden would be held at either the existing food services area or at the restaurant -- it is yet to be built and is a part of the plan. The trail network is compatible with both mountain biking and horseback riding, and so those would also be approved activities.
J. Dalton: On this same theme of activities, I also have in my possession a memo from someone in the Parks branch, obviously, but the memo is undated and unsigned. However, it's certainly commenting on some of the uses in the park. Now, two things caught my eye. Talking about changes
Also, the same memo mentions the inclusion of snow-making. But I don't think snow-making is a contentious issue, other than that West Vancouver is concerned about the water supply, which I'll get to later. Of course, if you're going to make snow, you need a fair volume of water in order to produce the snow and, hopefully, the right temperatures, too.
Does the minister have any comment about this expansion of the permit area on Mount Strachan from two to three acres to an estimated 18 acres, and on whether the amount of old growth on Mount Strachan may be increased from whatever that is to 36 acres? Is this what is happening now?
Hon. C. McGregor: Consistent with the Williams report recommendations, the permit area was expanded to include the clearing at Mount Strachan. In terms of old growth, yes, some will come out as a result of the expansion of the ski facility, and 22 hectares is the amount which would convert to about 36 acres. It's a small fraction of what was originally proposed as a part of the original area in dispute, so to speak.
In terms of snow-making, there is Montizambert Creek.
J. Dalton: I grew up in West Van, so I guess I should know all these creeks, but that one was a little out of my childhood territory. I think we may be coming back to Montizambert and other creeks coming off the Hollyburn ridge when we get to certain bills that are on the order paper.
There's also another issue dealing with the peace and quiet aspect. I have already advised the minister and the committee that Wayne Booth just recently announced that he is not going to be pursuing concerts on the mountainside, I guess. Back in 1993, on June 4 to be exact, Kevin Pike, the director of parks and recreation for West Vancouver, wrote to Ray Peterson asking for permission to hold a concert at Cypress Bowl. It was for the Harmony Arts Festival which is held every August, and it is held now in Ambleside and Dundarave. They did put in a request through the recreation department as to whether that might be an acceptable activity at Cypress Bowl. The response came back from Mr. Peterson on June 21, 1993, advising that "many people visit our provincial parks seeking solitude, peace and quiet." That's a direct quote from the letter. Given the tone of that remark, Mr. Peterson turned down the request of West Van to hold the Harmony Arts Festival in 1993.
That's fair enough, and I don't think that kind of issue is really going to be a contentious one these days, given that Mr. Booth recognized that there is some public concern -- not about the Harmony Arts Festival; I'm a supporter of that, and I think everyone on the North Shore is -- when you possibly expand into rock concerts. I remember one time Jimmy Buffett held a concert up on top of Grouse. It was probably a great event, but I don't know that it's the sort of thing we want to invite into Cypress Bowl.
Now I want to move to more recent times, June 23 of this year to be exact. I had occasion to attend a very crowded West Vancouver council and public meeting at West Vancouver Secondary School. In fact, they filled the theatre with probably 500 to 600 people. Bob Dalziel of the ministry was in attendance at that meeting, and Wayne Booth was also there. They both made comments during the course of the evening. Before I left the meeting at 9:30, I recorded 26 people who individually got up and made comments and asked questions. At that point the council moved into other items of business, and I had other things to do. I had to move on, so I didn't stay for the rest of the meeting.
Some particular questions were raised at that June 23 meeting, and I think that those questions are still out there. In fact, I know they are. This is part of the reason why West Vancouver council at their meeting last night deferred any decision on the question of water and sewer hookup and the other issues that are still looming. One question was put to Mr. Dalziel by one of the councillors, Bill Soprovich, who asked whether the boundaries of the park might be legislated. As we now know, the boundaries of Cypress Provincial Park are order-in-council. One of the things that the minister indicated in her recent release of July 3, which I'm going to get to in a moment, is that there may be an expansion of the boundaries
The Chair: Excuse me, member. Could I just ask you to take your seat for a moment. I'd just like to ask for a short recess of this committee to allow the minister to leave.
The committee recessed from 7:45 p.m. to 7:58 p.m.
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
J. Dalton: I won't ask too many more questions, hon. Chair. Given the divisions and other issues that are going on, I
[ Page 5799 ]
appreciate that we all want to press on. I do have one question, however, that came out of this meeting of June 23. An issue was raised as to whether the Parks branch may in the future be contemplating whether they need to legislate the boundaries of Cypress Provincial Park, as opposed to the current arrangement whereby it's order-in-council.
Hon. C. McGregor: The master plan anticipates that we will make it a legislative boundary, so the next time an amendment goes forward, it will be included at that time.
J. Dalton: That's probably good news from at least some people's perspective -- in fact, I would think from everyone's perspective. Now, it may be that there will be some other questions that come to mind, but I'll just put those in the form of a letter to the minister.
The one other thing that I want to canvass quickly is the minister's release of July 3, which, of course, does deal with what you just referred to, the park master plan. Would I be correct in the way I read the release in the backgrounder, that, in essence, the Williams report and recommendations -- and the minister does make reference to the 77 recommendations which, she says, closely follow -- is basically intact, probably with some revisions that have to be taken into account, given current circumstances?
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. It is very compatible with the existing recommendations. There were some small modifications that had to be made, but they are very modest.
[8:00]
J. Dalton: Probably just two other questions. One -- which is also contained in her release of July 3 -- deals with the issue of the sewer and water infrastructure connection to West Vancouver. Of course, the minister and her officials will be very conversant with this ongoing discussion with West Vancouver. As I indicated earlier, West Van, at its council meeting last night, has put off any specific decision-making on that particular issue. It did come up at the June 23 meeting, because it was asked of Mr. Dalziel: what happens if West Vancouver refuses to hook up water and sewer? They do have a contingency plan. They believe that they have enough groundwater and water up on top the hill to take care of those issues. I'm not quite sure how the sewer hookup might work out. Certainly the general feeling at the June 23 meeting -- and of many of the people I've talked to over the months and years about this issue -- was that everyone recognizes that Cypress Park has to be improved from the point of view of the many, many people who visit it. So I don't think anyone is being obstructionist and saying let's return it all to green space. The reality is that that's a very important recreation area as well as a place to go and wander the park itself. That issue is still outstanding, and I think we'll be hearing from the West Van council in the future.One other question that I just want to get on the record -- and, as I say, I can certainly follow up later on with other things I may have
Hon. C. McGregor: The design of that facility is subject to approval by the park's management. But there's certainly an opportunity, I think, to do some consultation with West Van city council.
J. Dalton: There is just one other question I will ask now. In the highlights in the backgrounder, which is attached to the minister's release of July 3, the last item states: "Additional Crown provincial land straddling Deeks Creek will be added to the park." Would I be correct in assuming that the reason to add in the Deeks Creek area is for the possibility that if the park cannot hook into West Vancouver's water supply, this would possibly be a source of water for snow-making and other facilities that are needed?
Hon. C. McGregor: The Deeks Lake expansion is designed to increase access into that wilderness area and create a wider corridor for access. It isn't for the purposes of access to water. I believe we canvassed earlier the source of water that we're going to use if we can't hook into the water system.
The Chair: I presume that's another division. A short recess.
The committee recessed from 8:05 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
J. Weisbeck: To the minister, I'm so glad she stayed, because this letter was addressed to the minister. It's from the Okanagan Mission Residents Association; it was just sent. You probably, in these busy times, haven't had a chance to read it, but I want it to go on record as a concern. It goes back to 1973, when Kelowna was amalgamated, and there are a number of issues that have never been resolved. If I can just quote from this letter here, it will probably save some time.
"So the question is, I guess, why has this taken so long to be resolved, if it's a 1973 issue? I'll ask that of the minister as a first question.. . . another part of unfinished business includes an agreement on the turnover to the city of Kelowna [of] any provincial gravel pits which were previously located outside the old city limits but now [are] within the newly created extended boundaries. Of particular interest and concern in this regard for our organization in the Okanagan Mission is the provincial gravel pit, not used for many years, in the Okanagan Mission, located immediately adjacent to, and on the south side of, Bellevue Creek, consisting of 37.17 acres, as set out and described on the attached location information. A part of this property on the Bellevue Creek is relatively flat and would make an excellent park for our residents."
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll ask the deputy to respond.
C. Doyle: I'll answer this question on behalf of the minister, but, unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to provide you with much information. We're not familiar with the issues surrounding this park, at least not the staff that we have here this evening. It's not clear whether the debate was over a provincial park or a local or regional park. But we can get that information and provide it to you. And, of course, the correspondence will be coming through, so we'll respond through that.
[ Page 5800 ]
J. Weisbeck: I just want that to go on record. I realize you haven't had time to really deal with this. It brings up some other questions, though. What would be the normal procedure, then, for a park designation of this sort?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We don't know what sort of park you're referring to. That's one of the things that the deputy said: we don't know whether it's provincial, regional or municipal. When we get the information from correspondence, we'll respond.
J. Weisbeck: Is there any policy for the reclamation of gravel pits in urban areas?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I do remember part of this, at any rate. Licences for gravel pits are actually issued by the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Part of issuing that licence is a requirement for a reclamation plan, and it's secured with a bond.
J. Weisbeck: And the final question: is there any funding in place for such park acquisitions and renovations of gravel pits?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Once the gravel is extracted and the land has been reclaimed, it might be suitable for park use. Surely a municipality or regional district might wish to address that issue through mill rates and local taxation. There's no provincial funding available.
F. Gingell: B.C. Parks's stated mission is "to protect representative and special natural places within the province's protected-areas system for world-class conservation, outdoor recreation, education and scientific study." Within this mandate, Parks is responsible for creating and maintaining parks and ecological reserves. Relative to this broad mission statement and mandate, does the ministry have a system of measuring and assessing their performance?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll ask the deputy to respond.
C. Doyle: I'll just quote from B.C. Parks annual report, which lists our
F. Gingell: Page number?
C. Doyle: Page number 126; it's the B.C. Parks section in the ministry's annual report. You'll see the resource management indicators.
F. Gingell: Yes.
C. Doyle: Those are measurements of park area per B.C. resident, Parks expenditures per B.C. resident.
Then there are the visitor services indicators: visitors per staff person-years, the operation cost per visitor, visitor satisfaction with campground facility services, visitor satisfaction with day-use facilities and services.
Park security indicators are total warnings per 10,000 visits, disturbance evictions per 10,000, visitor sense of security in day-use areas, visitor sense of security in campgrounds.
The letters are collected through an annual survey of park users.
F. Gingell: Those statistics deal more with usage issues. The mandate that Parks speaks to is a mandate for protection, a mandate for ensuring that there's a wide range of different types, I guess, of geographies, geologies, wildlife, etc. Has the ministry defined a specific business plan that moves them forward to these articulated goals and set out some forms of measurement by which progress can be accounted?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is yes, there are such indicators. Clearly, as we've moved forward with the protected-areas strategy, we had to have a set of benchmarks that we're measuring our progress against. The 12 percent of land mass protected is part of that. But within that there are other measures. I'll ask the deputy to fill in some of the details for you.
C. Doyle: On the question of representation and natural resource stewardship, we in B.C. Parks have a number of indicators that are measured on a regular basis and that we measure our performance against. That's on the land base. It's the amount of land base protected, the ecosections adequately represented. The member would understand that there are a number of ecosections. We're striving to achieve a representation of each kind.
The special natural, cultural and recreation features and settings protected are measured each time an ecological reserve is added to the land base or a particular park. There are also natural, cultural and recreation values, which refers to particular species management, the land base inventory and then the satisfaction of B.C. residents and park visitors with the protection of natural and heritage resources. So I understand that whenever there is a new park or ecological reserve added to the B.C. parks system, there's quite an inventory done of everything in that park. Those are added into the database that B.C. Parks maintains.
F. Gingell: When this whole process started, you must have had an inventory made. What is there here? What should be preserved? What would be representative? How much different land and areas fit different categories? Was there some early planning that determined where it was you wanted to get to, against which you can now measure -- as you move along making more acquisitions -- how you are reaching those originally defined goals?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me take a crack at what I think you're after, hon. member. As we've moved through the protected-areas strategy, starting with the parks and wilderness work back in the early nineties, we have attempted to figure out what we have protected and how we move forward in protecting more. The main tool we're using, as you know, is LRMPs, which do the work of planning on a regional base.
Part of the preliminary work that this ministry and LUCO gives to an LRMP table is an analysis of what ecosystems are within that region, what is currently protected and what the gaps are. So that table has a clear sense of what their priorities should be. Those will vary from region to region, as you look at different gaps in protection in various regions. The LRMP table will have information on current protection, how it represents ecosystems and what the gaps are in various ecosystems within that region and, really, across the province. So they'll know if, within that region, there's something very special that doesn't occur elsewhere in the entire province.
F. Gingell: So recognizing that one of the important foundation stones of this process is consultation, it's the tables,
[ Page 5801 ]
the LRMPs, the land and resources management processes, that are the means by which you have your consultation and start to set your objectives. But each one of these is separate. The jigsaw has to be fit together for the whole of the province.
We hear a great deal about the issue of 12 percent, but it would seem to me that there are other issues more important than 12 percent. It would be more important to have the right 10 percent than the wrong 14 percent. So you must have some vision in your minds. I'm wondering whether it has been put down about where you're trying to get to in the end to ensure that each management plan, as it is produced, is the right size and shape and will fit into the jigsaw puzzle.
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is yes, there are.
First, let me back up. There is a broad provincial plan that sets out not only the 12 percent but what ecosystems we now have protected and to what extent, and what the gaps are and to what extent. So when we set up an LRMP that does the actual work of considering local issues, regional issues and recommending to government and to cabinet what additional areas should be protected, that team is also given targets in various ecosystems within that region.
[8:30]
I wish this line of questioning had come up earlier, because I do know that LUCO was here to answer questions during estimates, and they do have the detailed information about specific targets for specific LRMP regions, hon. member. Regrettably, they're not here tonight. We could get you that information if you're interested, either in a particular region or in a particular ecosystem and the protection of that kind of ecology.F. Gingell: Having had a brief exchange about what it is in the way of physical assets that we're trying to ensure are there for all of us and for those that come along in the future, do you, as you acquire more parkland, think about and set into a written plan the way you see the park being developed? I mean developed in the right sense: whether there is need for some selective logging to take place to open areas up, get some sun in, help in the protection of wildlife, create wildlife paths, allow public access into those areas in which you believe there should be public access, help tourism issues. Do you have all that defined for each area, and then you annually report as to how you are proceeding and getting along?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to ensure that there's not some misunderstanding here. The actual genesis of a new park, the actual recommendation on it, starts with the LRMP tables themselves. Okay? In other words, the LRMP table is given some objectives, and then they discuss what parts of the region they're working with that would meet those objectives. It's a jigsaw puzzle, and they are charged with fitting the pieces together and recommending the parks.
Once they've done that, once they've reached consensus, recommended it and cabinet has approved, then indeed, hon. member, every proposed park, every park that's then protected
Then the Parks branch has the responsibility of developing a management plan for each park. Part of that is zonation. In other words, they look at the park, the land base, and decide which should be used for intensive recreation; which should be used as a pretty much natural environment -- keep people out of it -- which is a special feature and many parks contain very special features; which is wilderness recreation; which is wilderness conservation. They develop, again through consultation with the people who are involved -- perhaps at the LRMP table, perhaps others -- a master plan for the park.
I must say, though, that one thing they would not be recommending on would be logging. We don't allow industrial logging in our parks.
F. Gingell: I didn't say industrial logging. I'm surprised -- well, I'm not surprised. It's typical of the mind-set of some ministers of the Crown who immediately jump to conclusions. There are occasions when we should take out a tooth because it hurts, not for the purpose of selling the ivory that happens to be in it.
Immediate challenges facing B.C. Parks include coping with a mismanaged parks system, the growing use of parks, providing adequate protection of park resources, upgrading aging and inadequate infrastructure, financial pressures and adequate park-management planning.
B.C. Parks prepares an annual operating plan. That immediately raises the question: is the plan just done on a one-year cycle, or is it a three-year rolling or a five-year rolling cycle, which that gives you some idea that they're trying to go somewhere, rather than just get through the next year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. member, I first just want to say that this is a sample of one master plan for park development, for a brand-new park, Ts'il?os, in the Cariboo. It indicates the sort of depth of work that needs to be done for developing how we're going to use one new park, what activities are going to permitted in it, and how and when. This is just a sample of the work that the Parks branch does.
You asked: does the Parks division have a one-year plan operating regularly for the development of parks and their usage across the province? I'm informed that they actually have a ten-year rolling horizon, so they have ten years' worth of work out there. Then they figure out what happens in year one, year two, and so on.
F. Gingell: I wonder if the minister could ask his officials -- because it's not the sort of information that he would necessarily have -- whether that operating plan has changed much. If you were to go back three years and look forward through what you'd planned on doing in '97 and '98 compared to what your '97-98 plan says you're going to do in this year, has that changed much, and in what manner it has changed?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the biggest difference, if you look back three years and look at current plans for '97-98, is because of some of the fiscal challenges that the ministry and the branch have faced. Probably more of the resources are being devoted to staff and ongoing operations, and less than would have been planned three years ago for long-term planning and infrastructure development.
F. Gingell: I guess your ministry, as much as any, recognizes that every time you make an acquisition of some more parkland, you have made a permanent increase through your annual operating budget. And that's one of the important things about ten-year rolling plans.
[ Page 5802 ]
So when you look back three years at what you hoped you would be doing now, and when you recognize the financial pressures that have come about, have those pressures been taken up by reducing capital expenditures -- the acquisition of new parklands, if that requires monetary purchases, if they're not in the Crown Lands bag? Or has it dealt more with the issues of slowing down on infrastructure development of the park? Has it caused greater pressures, or has the slack been picked up by the reduction of annual operating costs?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the real challenges facing the Parks branch is that the operating budget has not grown commensurate with the land base that they're asked to manage, and therefore if you look at where the funds are being spent, they are spent very largely -- around 60 percent -- on salaries for park operations, just to keep the ones going that we have now.
The real challenge that the branch faces and that government faces is doing the planning for park use, producing plans like the one I just showed you for each of the hundreds of new parks that we are creating. We are committed to both creating parks and then managing them in a systematic, thorough way -- not responding quickly but doing the planning in advance before development.
So there is a real challenge here, hon. member, and you put your finger on it. We now have 50 percent more parks than we did five years ago, and we have not kept up in the budget within this ministry. Therefore the ministry has a backlog of development of management plans and then building of infrastructure for park access and use. This is one of the challenges that the ministry and the minister are dealing with, because it's clear, I think, that a 50 percent increase simply from government sources is unlikely.
F. Gingell: Are any thoughts being given to what other sources there might be -- other than logging, obviously?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are going to be embarking on a review of how management takes place. We're focusing efforts on creating a broad vision of how we manage and develop our parks to ensure long-term stewardship, and we will be embarking on a very wide-ranging, very public review of that process.
So if the member has ideas, if the Liberal Party in opposition has ideas about how we preserve the incredibly valuable resources that we're setting aside in our public park system, if you have ideas about how we develop partnerships from non-profits and from other organizations to develop infrastructure in those parks, if you have ideas about any of those, we'd obviously be very interested in receiving them.
This is going to be a wide-ranging public discussion of how we preserve what I think is truly a treasure out here in British Columbia -- our parks system.
F. Gingell: So I take it from that that not only are you looking at how we can raise more revenues, which was my immediate response question, but you're also looking into the issue of how the costs can be borne and at whether or not they can be borne in a different manner somehow -- some magic wand. But you should have thought about the ongoing costs before you designated all these parks.
Anyway, when the Public Accounts Committee first got involved in the issues surrounding improved accountability, B.C. Parks was the example that was given to the committee. Your Parks people came and were most helpful in talking to the committee about outcome-based accountability projects.
In looking at the information that's within this report, I don't have a feeling that you've moved forward a great deal in that area. I know it's a subject that the minister has great interest in from his days at the College of New Caledonia. But for instance, in your dealings with park usage complaints, customer satisfaction and the number of people you've had to turf out, etc., there are no targets. It's no good just talking about outcomes; you've got to have some definitive
[8:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I just want to reinforce what the member said about the Parks branch and B.C. Parks' interest in cooperative arrangements with others. There are a wide range of small efforts going on now. For instance, one of the ones I was aware of, actually, was in Tweedsmuir Park -- fairly close to where I live -- where a Parks cabin had burned down. The branch simply didn't have the money to replace it. Fortunately, we had a couple of forest companies and others who were interested in contributing to the public use of the park, and they actually paid for the rebuild -- in a park, for public ownership.F. Gingell: Getting a little AAC out of the park?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Not one stick, hon. member.
I'll give you a couple of other examples, one in my hometown. The Prince George Citizen publishes an annual outdoor recreation guide. If they didn't, chances are B.C. Parks would be publishing such a guide. So they are actually contributing, and I think probably selling a little bit of advertising around the edges, and performing a service that I think really benefits outdoor recreation. So that's the sort of work on a small scale that the public process is going to look at more broadly.
You asked about accountability in some very specific details, and for that I think I'll ask the deputy to respond.
C. Doyle: I should start off by saying that B.C. Parks was complimented by the office of the auditor general back in '92-93 as having the most developed information system of any public sector organization.
F. Gingell: I was there. We haven't moved forward much.
Interjections.
C. Doyle: You would be familiar with the regular
The Chair: Order. I just want to remind committee members to address their comments through the Chair.
C. Doyle:
[ Page 5803 ]
service, to monitor their service quality across the individual parks in the system, and to do their planning for the next year on that basis.
In '93-94, B.C. Parks again worked with the office of the auditor general and comptroller general to develop a viable approach to the management representation models developed by the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. An effectiveness report was produced from that work.
There is a continued commitment within B.C. Parks to include their performance measures in the development of their annual operating plans. What they're picking up from their visitors, and their accountability, is used to maintain a service that is acceptable to the public visiting the parks system. That's included back into the annual operating plans. It's also used to communicate agency performance to key stakeholders in the park system -- for example, posting visitor satisfaction scores for park facilities and services in provincial parks for the information of all visitors to the park system. It's increasing program-specific evaluations aimed at improving performance -- most recently, for example, the evaluation of the telephone reservation system for B.C. parks.
F. Gingell: Well, it would seem that you're doing more than you're letting on about. I'm not sure if the CCAF effectiveness report -- well, it's obviously a public document -- has been published. If you could perhaps have someone make a note, I'd love to get a copy of that.
If through all these measures of customer satisfaction, you have some goals -- which I would presume you have -- I think that they would be helpful in this report. You talk about the results. We look at some of the results and see that, well, the number of complaints -- where you've had to throw people out of the park -- has been going up. Now, has that been going up because behaviour is getting worse or because there has been better and tighter regulation and policing?
There are always those questions. You know, I think parks are something that is very close to everybody's heart. We all see them all the time, and the more information you can put out in a fashion that does measure results against goals, the greater support you'll get from the citizens for the programs that are dear to your own hearts.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank you for those comments. I think we share a common interest in public accountability for resources and the use of resources as valuable as our parks.
P. Reitsma: I have three subjects, and a couple of questions: the B.C. parks system; the commercial back-country recreation policy review, the CBR; and the minister advised the other day that it would be the appropriate time to ask some questions about the environment youth team.
Before I start with those, a question that I had in informal conversation -- there's nothing secret about that -- with the minister earlier in the House had to do with the erosion of the Parksville beach. It's been going on for quite some time. I asked the minister -- and I would like it on the record in Hansard -- if, say, within two weeks, if that's an appropriate time, I could be advised, and I'll be advising the Parksville council
Hon. P. Ramsey: Since you are just putting it on the record for work that you've already done with the minister, if you want to follow up
Actually, staff advised me that it may take a bit longer than that. We are now at mid-July. It will be in your hands before Labour Day.
P. Reitsma: That's fine. I appreciate that. At least we have a target, I suppose, to shoot for.
The parks reservation system. I took all my family -- we've started, as a matter of fact -- to camp again, which is most enjoyable. We had hoped to do some camping in June and July. We had hoped to do some camping maybe in August, perhaps in September, maybe in October. I really don't know yet, but we'll see how that goes.
There were some problems with the reservation system last year. For a month in a row I phoned the number. It was always busy. I understand that there aren't enough personnel there. I wonder if that has been addressed.
Secondly, what are the goals and the targets for this particular endeavour? Thirdly, I must say that there has been some publicity on that. Certainly one constituent in my riding phoned the system. They were told they could only use plastic. I think that's the beginning of a two-tiered system. She does not have plastic. She has four children, but she does not have plastic. She was told that she could not make the reservation, which I think is discriminatory. In fact, it was in my riding, at Rathtrevor Beach provincial campground. She offered to go down and pay cash and was advised that that wasn't possible. Since then there has been somewhat of a report. I understand that my particular constituent was one of 25 people who complained to B.C. Parks about the credit card-only policy. I have difficulties with that. There are people in this world that do not have credit cards. I wonder if we could get some comments from the minister on that. What remedies could be applied in order to make it equal for all? I do realize that some people don't have plastic.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the reservation system has actually been, on most counts, a real success -- following up on the comments of your colleague from South Delta. In keeping with their accountability, B.C. Parks actually did a follow-up study to see how people liked the system and whether it was working: 91 percent of them said they would use the service again, 33 percent were like you. They had stopped camping, but they have now resumed. Now that the reservation service exists, 44 percent said they would camp again because they could make a reservation; 52 percent said that they would like to see more B.C. Parks campgrounds on this system. It doesn't mean it's problem-free. You've identified one of the problems, which was busy signals. Discover Camping operators have been added to take reservations. We had ten last year and have 18 this year. So there is definitely an attempt to improve service in that area because your experience is not unique.
The other issue that you raised was the use of credit cards, plastic, which is the only thing accepted right now. The system was set up this way originally after discussions with
[ Page 5804 ]
other park agencies that have done reservation systems. The minister has asked staff to review that to see if some changes should be made.
P. Reitsma: I'm not here to diminish the system. As I mentioned, last year -- every day, a couple of times a day -- I tried to phone in, and they were busy. I'm glad to hear that they've almost doubled the capacity, which is good.
I personally object to the government having one system, in terms of plastic. In the private sector people can send a cheque. They can go down and pay cash. The private entrepreneur is much more accommodating, and I would hope that a policy will be in place soon whereby people who don't have plastic are treated the same -- and not a two-tiered system -- as those that do have plastic.
My last comment on the reservation system. Again it's one of my constituents, one of the campgrounds, that sent me a letter. They were quite livid, actually. It was reported in the paper as well. There was one couple from Edson, Alberta, visiting Vancouver Island on holidays. They drove off the ferry in Swartz Bay and had so much trouble finding directions to campgrounds that he and his wife ended up driving right to the Legislature, marching in the front door to voice their disgust because they couldn't find the directions.
We've had some problems, which, in all fairness, are being attempted to be rectified, particularly in my area because of the Nanaimo Parkway. I know things do take time. On the other hand, being a small business man myself in the hospitality industry, ten weeks of the year is 35 to 40 percent of our income. The high season has started; in fact, it started last month.
Anyhow, they went to the front door of the Legislature. According to the owner of the campground in my riding, the person that he spoke to told him that the B.C. government wants to encourage people to use provincial campgrounds not private facilities. I would like the comfort and the reassurance of the minister that staff is not just promoting B.C. provincial campgrounds -- I'm referring to provincial -- but promotes campgrounds whether they are provincial or private. I would like that confirmed.
[9:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: These are the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The staff here can answer questions on management of public parks in this province. It seems to me, hon. member, that your question is more to do with tourism policy. I suggest you place it in the form of a letter to the Minister of Tourism.P. Reitsma: I must advise the minister, though, that when I was in the Tourism estimates many of the questions that are being posed now I was advised to ask of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I don't mind playing yo-yo, but I would like a string on the yo-yo, I suppose. I was advised to ask the questions here. That's what I'm doing.
Again, I would like some comfort in that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, when it comes to parks, there's no discrimination made in advising people that there are provincial parks and private parks -- that no distinction be made but that it all be promoted equally.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Au contraire, my friend. The branch, B.C. Parks, is responsible for maintenance and promotion of services available in the B.C. parks system. It is not responsible for promotion of private camping facilities and other private ventures. There are pamphlets and tourism guides that are put out -- not by this ministry -- that include listings both for public and private campgrounds and recreation facilities. B.C. Parks is responsible for publications that list, promote and advertise parks.
P. Reitsma: I will send the Hansard information to the campground owner and the couple from Edson, Alberta. I'm certain they're going to be happy with the response. I shall also send a copy to the Minister of Tourism. The ministry no doubt might send a copy of my letter to the Ministry of Environment, as well. But that's fine, as long as it's being worked on.
The commercial back-country recreation, the CBR
I wonder if there are some comments the minister can render, particularly since some of the concerns expressed are that the length of term for the CBR leases and licences of occupation was and remains a significant issue for many stakeholders involved in the development of the policy. I wonder if I could get some comments on that from the minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is accurate. There was a review initiated in 1996. I'll ask the deputy to provide an update.
C. Doyle: The policy review, as you stated, was initiated last year, in 1996. There remains a number of outstanding policy issues -- 17 issues, in fact -- which are under review, with an internal government group reviewing. As well, there's a group of key stakeholders who are working their way through those policy issues. As I mentioned, there's an interagency group. We're working on them with the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, the Ministry of Forests, and the parks and regional operations of our ministry. Our target for the completion of that is the end of the calendar year, 1997 -- this calendar year.
P. Reitsma: Quickly, might I ask you who the stakeholders are?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The deputy minister will provide that answer for you.
C. Doyle: The stakeholder group that we're working with includes the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C., the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Guide-Outfitters Association of B.C. and representatives of fish resorts and camps. Those are some of the key stakeholders. There might be others.
P. Reitsma: I have one or two more questions on this particular subject, and perhaps I could get the answers. That's fine, I'll just give them to you, and you can provide me with the answer at the appropriate time.
The concerns expressed by some of the stakeholders
[ Page 5805 ]
implementation of the CBR has meant very limited issuing of tenures. The third concern: each office deals with this in a different way with different priorities. So I guess that will have to be streamlined. Last but not least, there was some concern that there was a price increase to be effective February 6 of this year. In particular, on this last one: has the price increase taken place? The other three concerns can be done at the appropriate time.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The price increase that your correspondent refers to did not take place. It is one of the issues that is still outstanding and subject to consultation. The minister will be pleased to respond to the other three issues. I suggest that you provide them with a copy of your correspondence so that they can make sure they're responding to the issues that you're raising.
P. Reitsma: On the last subject, the environment youth team, could I ask the minister to give me just a couple of lines? When was the environment youth team established? How many are on the team? What are the prerequisites? Are those people loaned to various organizations? I've got some more questions after that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We're searching our collective memory on when the E-teams actually began. We believe it was 1993, although it has clearly expanded significantly in the last two fiscal years.
The E-teams are actually proposal-driven youth employment opportunities. Therefore it's not a question of loaning a team to somebody. Various proponents put forward an application, and they're adjudicated and funded. The targets for this year are to create some 1,400 positions using a budget of $10.4 million. Last year we created 1,461 positions in E-teams around the province. They provide practical environmental work experience. They're targeted at youth, obviously, between the ages of 16 and 24. They create a really wonderful set of environmental and recreational legacies across the province.
I don't know if the member has had the experience of seeing or talking to young people working on E-teams in his riding. I've surely had the pleasure in mine. The enthusiasm, the commitment to what they're doing and the results are remarkable. I think it's a very worthwhile program both for environmental objectives and to involve youth in something that's obviously very important to them.
P. Reitsma: Thank you to the minister for the answer.
Who would decide, in terms of if an organization applies? I would assume that they apply to the ministry for consideration. Who ultimately decides? Is it a board? Is it a panel? Secondly, what are the criteria for a successful application?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the decisions are made by Ministry of Environment staff. I was trying to reflect on whether I'd actually, in my time in this portfolio, ever seen or signed off on an E-team application. I think the answer is no. The ministry tries to receive and process applications through its regional offices. Clearly the ministry wants to have a broad geographic distribution of projects, so that there are E-teams or E-team proposals in a variety of areas of the province.
Within the envelope of E-teams, there is a variety of specific things we're looking at. Obviously we want efforts that improve the environment. That's one of the criteria; one would hope an E-team would work on improving the environment. We want some practical employment and training experiences for the young people involved. In other words, there's something here, a skill that's being acquired which will possibly serve in future employment. Third, we want to promote personal development for the young people that are being involved and create a recreational and environmental legacy for the people of British Columbia.
I've always believed the training component was key to it. Around 20 percent of participant time is dedicated to training. There are clear safety requirements. Sponsors are required to contribute 25 percent of the total financial contributions made by the province, so they are cost-shared ventures. So these are how the projects work.
There are really a variety of fairly intensive criteria that proponents have to meet. The ministry does some prioritizing in a programmatic way about what it sees across the province as the need for particular legacies. Obviously you want them distributed widely across the province both to provide employment opportunities for young people and to create a real network of environmental legacies.
P. Reitsma: I'll pose another point or two to wrap up my concerns. A specific one, the Nanoose Conversion Campaign -- the NCC -- is an organization, of course, that has been dedicated for many years to making sure that the Nanoose base ceases the current type of operation. They've had one wonderful helper in the form of Annwyn Hill, who is with us compliments of the environment youth team. Could I ask the minister how long that particular individual has been there, what the contract is and how long she is slated to be there?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm afraid that the information we have doesn't add much to what the member already has. It is an intern position working with the Nanoose Conversion Campaign. The work is largely education and discussion-stimulation around Nanoose Bay and issues arising from it. We don't have any information about the start date, the end date or the term. We'll be glad to provide that for you.
C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's answer. I must admit, though, that I'm quite surprised that he doesn't have more information about this particular contract. I must further admit that I'm quite shocked, actually, that the Ministry of Environment is funding workers for these advocacy groups and these agents of social change that are out there. I wonder if the minister can tell us if the ministry is also paying for putting any environment youth teams to go towards staff for, say, Greenpeace or the Western Canada Wilderness Committee or any groups of that nature.
[9:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, we do have a long list of people who have come to sponsor environment youth teams: the city of Colwood; the United Native Nations; the St�:l\mo nation; the Mennonite Central Committee of B.C.; the district of Chetwynd; the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Cooperative, promoting the subversive efforts of community forests; the Strathcona Wilderness Institute Society, wanting to develop an education program in the Comox Valley; the B.C. Conservation Foundation; the village of Gold River; Solstice Services; a park interpretation program -- and so on and so on.There's a large number of people and a large variety of institutions, both public and private. We have, really, three
[ Page 5806 ]
components to it. One is environmental internship, a more sophisticated, structured work environment with business, government, non-profit organizations, forest companies and the like; eco-education, looking at small initiatives that are delivered to youth; and green teams for waste reduction. I was very familiar with the team last year that worked on trying to promote people getting out of their cars and getting on bikes in the Vancouver area. Probably the most extensive one is that there are actual work crews doing a variety of environmental projects.
C. Clark: I'd ask the minister if he could provide that list for me, maybe tomorrow, seeing as it's handy -- the list of organizations that have received grants for the E-teams. I see the minister nodding. I appreciate that. The thing that's shocking to me is not the number of organizations that have received money. What's shocking to me is that the ministry doesn't even know if they're funding people to work for the groups that the minister declares war on. I mean, do they have somebody
The Premier has declared war on them; the Premier is declaring war on Greenpeace. Are they paying for someone to work for them? The Premier says that he doesn't support closing down Nanoose Bay because of the nuclear issues that are there, but the ministry is paying for people to work to shut that down. What surprises me is that the minister has so little day-to-day knowledge of what goes on in this ministry -- I have to be non-gender-specific, I know -- that he doesn't even know if they are paying through their environment youth teams for people to go work for organizations that are out there actively opposing the government.
The government may have a policy that they want to go out there and fund all the groups that oppose them, I don't know. Maybe they want to go pay for some interns for the Liberal Party or, more likely, for the PDA -- well, they've already done that -- or for the Reform Party. I mean, maybe they want to do that, as long as they're out there delivering government largesse to the people that are actively militating against the government's wishes.
That's the thing that surprises me -- that when the government delivers money to an organization like the Nanoose Conversion Campaign, it doesn't raise a single red flag for the ministry. The minister can't even tell me, off the top
I think it's a shock. It's a real surprise. I'd ask the minister if maybe he can respond to my comments, and, hopefully, he's had some time to determine whether in fact any funding has gone to these other organizations.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Gee, I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed these estimates. Much heat, little light there.
We'll be very pleased to provide the member with a list of sponsors and the types of sponsors, so you know just how extensive this program is: 717 sponsors from non-governmental organizations, non-profits; 230 sponsors from the private sector; 129 from first nations proposals; 62 from municipalities; 22 from Crown corporations; and 14 from the provincial government.
What I do find amazing
You know, what I really find strange is the assertion here that somehow the ministry, in its work to identify people who want to leave an environmental legacy, should have a partisan political screen in front of it. I find that a shocking assertion about how a ministry of government has to operate.
C. Clark: I'll tell the minister what I find shocking. I find shocking the fact that this ministry is funding an organization like the Nanoose Conversion Campaign committee and funding their work -- without knowing about it, first of all -- with money that it gets from the forest renewal fund. That's where the money comes from; half of the money for the environment youth teams in this budget comes directly from the forest renewal fund. And the minister will know that not only does the Forest Renewal money go to direct forest work
So the ministry, on the one hand, has raised money from the forestry industry that it has then diverted to a fisheries enhancement project to keep commercial fishers going, and then that money is being siphoned off again to pay for people to shut down the Nanoose base. And the minister can't even tell me if we can use that as evidence of whether they're also funding Greenpeace and the other organizations that are opposed to many of the principles for which FRBC was created.
I think that loggers and forest workers in this province -- forest communities and forest companies -- would be outraged to know the purposes for which their money is being put. That money came from those communities, and it's supposed to go back to those communities. Instead, the minister is sending it off to organizations like this and Lord knows what other organizations
The minister can't even tell me, I mean, if they have
Hon. P. Ramsey: We will provide you with a complete list of grants that have been given. You can ascertain for yourself who has received those grants. I don't think you'll find the name Greenpeace on that list. I just want to express to you that of the 1,174 positions that have been approved to date, out of the target of 1,400 for this year, 528 are doing work within parks on exactly the sort of trail and infrastructure development that FRBC is providing money for. FRBC is getting its money's worth out of E-teams.
[ Page 5807 ]
It's good to hear a Liberal member stand up and defend FRBC after voting against it. Maybe they are finally seeing the light.
C. Clark: The minister, if he checks his memory banks, will remember that I wasn't here when the vote on FRBC was taken. However, I will tell him that had I been here, I would have protested the fund on the exact grounds that my colleagues did, which was: it was too easy for the government to steal money from that fund, from the people that created it.
The Chair: Order. I just want to remind the committee members that we're here discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I caution that we continue doing that.
C. Clark: I certainly didn't want to leave any comments that might be misleading on the table, so I thought I would correct them. It's precisely for this reason that my colleagues opposed the creation of the forest renewal fund. When we see money going
The Chair: Order. The decision and ruling of the Chair to confine the discussion and debate on this particular issue to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is neither up for debate nor for discussion.
C. Clark: I would never debate or discuss the Chair's ruling. My simple point is that the Forest Renewal B.C. money, of course, goes to fund the E-teams. It's half of the budget of the E-teams. When the purposes of that fund are so skewed, when the ministry doesn't even know what's happening with the money, it really comes as a shock. I will really look forward to receiving the list from the minister.
The minister didn't yet tell me, though, whether the ministry has in place any guidelines which expressly preclude the use of that money to fund groups that are currently engaged on the side of the environmentalists in the war of the woods, particularly ones that are breaking the law. Are there any guidelines in place that would preclude
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, beneath the rhetoric, I guess there is a serious question. The ministry is unaware of any group currently engaged in civil disobedience that is being funded through E-team work. I would point out that there's no guarantee that a group that might be funded couldn't at some point have members that chose to engage in civil disobedience. It could well happen. The ministry is unaware of any projects that are currently funded to groups engaging in civil disobedience.
The Chair: Members, a division has been called in the big House. I suggest we recess until that deliberation is complete.
The committee recessed from 9:29 p.m. to 9:41 p.m.
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
P. Reitsma: I'm waiting for the critic to come. Going back to the Nanoose Conversion Campaign, I would appreciate it if I could get a breakdown of the cost associated with that particular person who is coming to us compliments of the environment youth teams, which are, of course, a subsidiary of, if you like, or are connected with the Ministry of Environment. I would like the cost associated with that complementary assignment, if you like, to the Nanoose Conversion Campaign. Also, how many have there been in the last couple of years? Furthermore, could the minister or staff advise if there's any other assistance given to the NCC, which is the Nanoose Conversion Campaign, either directly or indirectly -- by indirectly I mean office expenses, mailing expenses, faxes, or directly in terms of maybe any other grants?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll be glad to get you the specifics on this proposal and the costs associated with this youth training project. There's no other assistance given to the NCC.
C. Clark: I notice that the ministry is also funding two positions for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. I wonder if the ministry finds that its funding of those positions is at all at odds with the fact that that organization, which you know is not a huge organization -- and clearly every staff body counts for them -- is currently engaged in what I think is a potentially explosive confrontation with loggers in the Stoltmann wilderness. Here the ministry is funding them -- and not just funding them, but funding them with Forest Renewal B.C. dollars.
They're taking the money from forest-dependent communities, and they are delivering it to organizations like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, which are making it difficult for forest workers to go to work in the Stoltmann. Doesn't the minister see some contradiction in that? I mean, we're not talking about the ministry just funding it out of its base funding. We're talking about the ministry taking Forest Renewal funds and using them to fund an organization that is getting into an explosive confrontation with loggers in the Stoltmann, making it difficult for them to work up there. Potentially it's going to cost them jobs. Doesn't the minister see any contradiction in that?
[9:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The proposals put forward by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, which E-teams are funding, are in the Victoria area. An intern is recording the oral history of Ayum Creek in the Sooke Hills and is organizing and leading hikes in the wilderness area. I'm sure this is subversive.Given the tenor of the debate and noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:46 p.m.