2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 22
[ Page 17083 ]
The House met at 2:09 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted today, because in the gallery I have my first cousin, who stands in the place of my father for me. He's the one I joined in Britain when I first left India in 1964, and I lived with him for three and a half years in Britain. Accompanying him are members of my extended family Kuldip Dosanjh, Kulbir Dosanjh, Gurjit Dosanjh, Subegh Dosanjh, Uppkar Dosanjh and Uppnit Dosanjh, as well as my relatives from Britain, who are members of the extended family, Parvin Takhar, Harpreet Takhar, Navjeet Takhar, Hardev Atwal and Surinder Atwal.
[1410]
As well, there is a friend of mine visiting from Britain, Verinder Sharma, who was with me at college back in Phagwara in the state of Punjab, India. His father and my father were like brothers, and we are very, very good friends. He happens to be a counsellor in Ealing and was the mayor of Ealing for several years some years ago. Accompanying him is his younger brother Tijinder Sharma. Would the House please make all of them very welcome.
C. Clark: Christina Stewart, joining us today in the gallery, is someone I predict we'll be seeing a lot more of when her dad is elected as the next B.C. Liberal MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville. I hope the House will make her welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to say that in the gallery today is Chris Tollefson, a professor at the University of Victoria faculty of law and also executive director of the Environmental Law Centre at the university. Professor Tollefson is well known for the groundbreaking work he's done on SLAPP litigations -- strategic lawsuits against public participation. He has, in fact, drafted a legislative response to the SLAPP phenomenon. And not only that but, through his proposal, he gained support for anti-SLAPP legislation from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. He is with us today with his daughter Hannah. I'd like the House to join with me in making him and his daughter feel very welcome.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a number of people from my riding: Pam Alcorn, Debbie Ross, Jen Barker, John Smith, Sally and Gerry Bell, Verna Popejoy, Diane Dobbin, Lauren Miller, Caroline Caiger, Graham Donaldson, J.C. Gibson, and Councillor Allison Habkirk and her daughter Rose. These folks have been involved in a petition that has been delivered to members of the opposition as well as members of the government today and will be going on to the B.C. Ferries board. They've managed in two weeks to get more than 6,000 signatures on a petition to save the Brentwood Bay-Mill Bay ferry. If the House would please make them welcome.
R. Kasper: Joining us today is Anne Bomford. She is the regional director for the Mill Bay-Malahat area on the Cowichan Valley regional district board. She is joined by her husband, Jim. Also present is Marcia Stobbart. Marcia is the president of the South Cowichan Chamber of Commerce, and she is joined by her husband Robert. Will the House please make them welcome.
My second introduction is someone who has made friends with over 100,000 travellers plying the British Columbia waters, mainly between the Brentwood and Mill Bay areas. His name is Capt. Jack McTavish -- the captain of the Mill Bay-Brentwood Bay ferry. Could the House please make him welcome.
J. Reid: I'd like to introduce to the House today a resident of Victoria and a first-time visitor to question period, Sue Glossop. I'd ask that the House join me in making her welcome.
[1415]
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to welcome Sharon Mitchell to the House today. Sharon is a special education teacher at Chief Dan George Elementary School in Abbotsford. She's also here today checking up on her daughter Hazel Mitchell, who is a researcher with the B.C. Liberal caucus. I ask the House to please make her welcome.
P. Calendino: I have an introduction that I have to do in two languages today, because three of the members in the gallery do not speak English, so I'll do that in Italian. I'm pleased to introduce here three tourists from Italy, who come from the city of Venice and are related to Egle who works in our dining room. They are accompanied here by her husband Rino Debei. They are Serena Bonaldo and her husband Enzo and daughter Rachele. If you allow me now, we'll turn to Italian. I had to script it because I have to send it down to Hansard, and I usually forget what I say when I don't write it. So I will read it:
[It is with great pleasure that I take the opportunity to introduce to this splendid chamber three Italian tourists from the queen of Italian cities -- beautiful Venice. These three people are here to enjoy the beauty of Victoria, of Vancouver Island and of the rest of our magnificent British Columbia. I would like to ask all the members to give a lively and warm welcome to Mrs. Serena Bonaldo, her husband Enzo and their daughter Rachele. The Bonaldos are accompanied by their uncle Mr. Rino Debei, who happens to be the husband of our dear Egle in the legislative dining room.]
[Translation from the Italian provided by P. Calendino.]
Please give them a warm welcome.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. I would ask the member to provide Hansard with a script of the statement that he has made.
Hon. J. Sawicki: Well, I cannot compete with my colleague from Burnaby North, but I do have in the gallery today a constituent of mine from Burnaby-Willingdon, who is also very active in the constituency association. Wayne Peppard is what we on this side of the House call blue and green -- an active trade unionist who is also active in helping to protect the environment, and I think that's a great combination. Would the House please make him welcome.
B. Penner: It's my pleasure to introduce two people to the House today. The first person, Cal Purcell, is not a new-
[ Page 17084 ]
comer here. He's a government liaison manager for Sprott-Shaw Community College. With him is a woman named Beth Keifer from Washington, D.C. Over lunch we had an opportunity to talk about some mutual hiking experiences at Manning Park. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. C. Evans: I see in the galleries my friend Jane Burton from near Nelson. Jane is a person with eclectic skills: a gardener, a filmmaker and my constituency assistant. Will the House please make her welcome.
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION ACT
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled the Protection of Public Participation Act.
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I am very pleased to introduce Bill 29, the Protection of Public Participation Act. This is being introduced as an exposure bill at this time. The purpose of the bill is to promote public discussion and input on the best way to frame a legislative response to strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as SLAPPs.
SLAPPs are lawsuits that are launched against people or organizations simply for advocating positions of public interest. They are lawsuits that are typically not designed to succeed in court and are typically unsuccessful should they continue in court. They are brought simply to impose costs and inconvenience on individuals and to thereby impede individuals' capacity to participate in public debate. As a result, they impose a chill on public participation and debate with respect to matters of public interest. This government believes that it is a citizen's right to participate in public debate and express their views freely. For that reason, we have brought forward this legislation as an effort to find a mechanism to enable the courts to protect citizens from the use of SLAPP suits.
[1420]
This past May and June we consulted with the public on this issue. We received a great deal of valuable input. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the many citizens and organizations who responded, most of whom, I must say, responded both constructively and positively to the initiative. The feedback we received suggested that more detailed information in the form of a proposed piece of legislation would be helpful in facilitating ongoing dialogue and, hopefully, finalizing legislation to deal with this important issue. It's for this reason that I'm introducing this bill -- to provide that opportunity for further discussion and debate before we move forward with the enactment of anti-SLAPP legislation.
The draft bill seeks to strike a balance between the rights of plaintiffs to have access to the courts and the rights of defendants to engage in political speech without the fear of being sued. The bill enables people to apply to court for an early dismissal of SLAPP suits and to recover their legal costs, as well as to seek punitive damages where appropriate.
I ask that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Bowbrick presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electronic Transactions Act.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The Electronic Transactions Act is a significant legislative landmark. It is an act that will enshrine in legislation British Columbia's move into the global economy. This act will do three things. First, it will give electronic contracts, documents and signatures the same weight in law as contracts, documents and signatures printed on paper. Second, it will set up rules for conducting and correcting automated transactions. The third thing it will do is adopt national and international standards for e-commerce law. It will apply to both the public and private sectors, and government-to-business as well as business-to-business transactions.
By building a legal framework for e-commerce transactions, it will make it possible for British Columbians and business owners in all parts of the province to participate fully in the world of e-commerce. With the introduction of InfoSmart earlier this year, we made a commitment to put government services and programs on line. It's time now to recognize in legislation the legality of contracts, agreements and activities undertaken in a new medium of choice, the electronic medium, in all its various intangible but nonetheless bona fide forms.
This bill will not be debated in the Legislature this spring, allowing time for the public to consider the issues that gave rise to this bill and which may arise out of this bill before it proceeds further in this House.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 17085 ]
USE OF ALIAS E-MAIL ADDRESSES
BY MINISTERS AND SENIOR STAFF
G. Campbell: The Premier has now confirmed that several ministers and senior staff members have been using aliases to hide their real names in e-mails and other correspondence. No matter what spin the Premier may try and put on this, it is clearly an act aimed at circumventing the Freedom of Information Act. Can the Premier tell us how long these aliases have been used and which ministers and senior staff members have used them both on and off the precinct?
[1425]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I said the other day during estimates that I would provide information with respect to this matter. I understand that a canvass of ministers' offices has been done, and 18 of the ministers use aliases. The alias e-mail addresses were established for operational reasons to minimize unsolicited incoming mail, so that ministers can do the important work that they have to do and not have to engage in answering unnecessary mail sent directly to themselves.
This is like having an unlisted phone number. I understand that there has been one FOI request with respect to this matter, and the appropriate and relevant information was disclosed. This is not a device
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplemental question.
G. Campbell: You know, the fact is that the Premier is expecting us to trust him and the government with regard to that, and it's shown itself to be a government that cannot be trusted in the past. Will the Premier tell us which ministers and staff have been assigned aliases, who they are and what those aliases are?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, no, I cannot tell the hon. member which are the 18 cabinet ministers. I'd be happy to provide that information. I would also be happy to tell the opposition and the public which particular minister the FOI request was done with respect to.
No, I will not be disclosing the aliases, because the function of the aliases is to protect the work of the ministers and the opportunity for the ministers to be able to do the work without receiving unsolicited mail.
Interjections.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I said in the House, hon. Speaker, that this opposition becomes deaf at its own convenience. I said in the estimates, and I repeat again
Interjections.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The fact is that that information is FOIable, that any relevant information would be disclosed pursuant to an FOI. I think the opposition has to, at some point, get on with the regular business of the House and not ask questions that are unnecessary, unwarranted, and have been answered already.
G. Farrell-Collins: In estimates the other day, while the Minister of Finance sat right behind him and his deputy minister sat beside him
Well, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the comments the Premier just gave us, the official opposition FOI'd the e-mails to Mr. Schreck for over a three-week period last year. In three weeks the e-mail guru received no e-mail, nor did he send any e-mail -- not a single one, Mr. Speaker. Well, at the same time, Russ Pratt, who was working in the Premier's Office at the time -- who is not the computer guru, who does not have special skills and who is not necessarily a computer whiz, to my knowledge -- received over 60 pages of e-mails.
Can the Premier tell us why it is that one of the senior people in the Premier's Office received no e-mail over that three-week period -- not into his box, not out of his box -- when he's supposed to be the computer e-mail guru for government?
[1430]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would like the Opposition House Leader to tell me whether no e-mails were disclosed pursuant to FOI or no e-mails were received.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll read the FOI response for the Premier, because I know he's done a canvass, and maybe he didn't read this one: "Please be advised that the office of the Premier does not have any records that pertain to your request." Any and all e-mail -- not a single e-mail into Mr. Schreck's mailbox nor out of his mailbox.
Can the Premier tell us how many other staff in government use aliases in order to bypass the freedom-of-information requests like Mr. Schreck has done? And what is Mr. Schreck's alias, so we find out the e-mails that went in and out of his box in that three-week period?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I thought I was the only ESL kid in this House. Obviously the Opposition House Leader doesn't understand the English that he just read. What he just read indicates to me that there were no relevant records available
An Hon. Member: No e-mails.
Hon. U. Dosanjh:
[ Page 17086 ]
Leader just finished reading to me. The Premier doesn't personally sign off FOI requests. They're done by officials in the civil service. That's their job. If the opposition believes that there is some information that's relevant that they haven't received, there are appeal procedures available in that legislation.
The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader with a supplemental question.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've just sent over the document for the Premier, so he can review it. The Premier was asked last week, and he committed to this House that he would do a review and find out if ministers and senior staff were using aliases. He stood up today and talked about the ministers. He hasn't mentioned one single word about the senior staff.
Will the Premier tell us why it is that David Schreck has received no e-mail? How many other computer gurus in the government have received no e-mail under their real name, and what e-mail have they received under their aliases? Will he tell us how many times that's been done?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I just received a note from my office. I'm told that none of my staff have aliases or use aliases in e-mail. That's information that I guess the hon. Opposition House Leader wanted to know. That information is available.
This request with respect to FOI relates to some period in 1999. Now, if the hon. Opposition House Leader tells me that I'm responsible for what happened in that office back in September of 1999, that's a different standard of accountability. I say to the hon. opposition leader -- I say it to both the opposition leader and the Opposition House Leader -- that if they find any relevant information that has not been disclosed to them, there are procedures for appeal. The Premier doesn't make a political decision on releasing or not releasing FOI requests or information pursuant to those requests. Those decisions are made by the civil service, hon. Speaker. I guess it's now up to me to educate the opposition on how the system works.
M. de Jong: The Premier desperately wants people to believe that this network of aliases hasn't been used to circumvent or subvert FOI legislation. The problem is that no one believes him. No one believes him, Mr. Speaker.
It's getting pretty tough to keep up with the changing story. A week ago the Premier sat in the House and claimed he knew nothing about this network of aliases, with the Finance minister sitting right beside him. Yesterday he said that there were aliases, but they existed only for senior civil servants, and it was about protecting confidentiality -- conveniently forgetting the fact that FOI legislation already protects confidentiality. Then today he talks about aliases for cabinet ministers, and it's about volume and e-mail overload. The story keeps changing.
The Premier should stand up today and confirm that the real reason this network of aliases exists is to circumvent the right that people in this province have under the freedom of information legislation to know what this government is up to.
[1435]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'm actually saddened.
Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am saddened, and I am actually disappointed. I am extremely disappointed that the hon. opposition
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Leader of the Opposition said that he wants to reform this Legislature and the way it works. Firstly, hon. Speaker, they weren't honest about reforming the Legislature. They didn't come to an agreement to reform the Legislature, because for them, political interest was over and above the public interest.
Now, opposition members stand up day after day, day after day
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: The reform British Columbians would like to see in this House is a little honesty from the government benches.
The Premier's story is pretty astounding. Last week, if you believed him, he didn't even know about the existence of this secret alias network. Today he stands in the House and wants us to believe that the network he said last week he didn't even know existed was never used to subvert FOI legislation. What an astounding statement from a man who last week claimed he didn't even know it existed. The question remains, and the Premier should answer it. How many senior public officials have been assigned aliases, and what are those aliases?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have never changed my name in my entire life, nor do I ever intend to. It was Warren Betanko on the opposite side, not on this side of the House.
Interjections.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Talk about not being able to believe things. The hon. member has asked me the question about how many civil servants use aliases. There are 35,000 public servants in British Columbia. I'd be happy to find that information for the hon. member and provide that for them.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
[ Page 17087 ]
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I have the pleasure
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. C. Evans:
Hon. J. Sawicki: I beg leave to present the 1999-2000 annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure to table the annual report of the homeowner protection office for the year 1999-2000.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have the honour to table the annual reports for the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the years '98-99 and '99-2000, and also provide a bound copy of the performance plan for the ministry for 2000-01.
[1440]
L. Boone: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
L. Boone: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
L. Boone: I move that the report be adopted.
Motion approved.
M. Coell: I rise to present a petition from residents in my riding. The petition is signed by 2,447 people, and it is asking the government to maintain the Mill Bay to Brentwood ferry.
R. Kasper: I rise to table a petition. The petition states that the hon. Legislative Assembly hear petitioners and respectfully requests that the hon. House request that the cabinet of this government not permit the cancellation of the Brentwood to Mill Bay ferry service. It is signed by 2,447 signatures, bringing a grand total of 4,894 with the names that were presented by the member for Saanich North and the Islands.
G. Abbott: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 728 residents of the southern interior opposed to the imposition of user fees on Forest Service recreation campsites.
[1445]
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 28.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
BALANCED BUDGET ACT
(second reading continued)
Hon. C. Evans: This is a speech by a social democrat about balanced budget legislation. To paraphrase Shakespeare and Mark Antony, I come not to bury this law but to praise it. And I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that for starters, I didn't always think this way.
I ran for office, as some folks know, in 1986, in 1991, in 1996. In '86, I ran against Howard Dirks, who was a Socred, and I said that balanced-budget laws were silly. And in '91, I ran against Howard Dirks, who was still a Socred, and I said that: balanced-budget laws were silly. In '96, I ran against Howard Dirks, who was now a Liberal. I cleaned his clock, because it was way easier to beat him as a Liberal. At any rate, in '96 again I said that balanced-budget legislation was silly. I want to explain why.
I have a school board in my constituency called the Arrow Lakes school board, and they have a very wonderful idea about how to deal with the reduction in the number of students in their district and therefore the reduction in funding. It involves the province giving the Arrow Lakes school board a five-year or ten-year funding block, essentially assuring future years' budgets so that they could front-end-load investments. Yet we are unable to commit to the Arrow Lakes school board a five-year funding block or a ten-year funding block, because it is not possible for a government to commit the budgets of future governments. For that reason it seemed to me that if we are unable to make such a commitment with other levels of government in the province, how could we do it for the provincial government?
When this government introduced balanced-budget legislation, I went away and thought about my position hard -- thought for days about my position. I have come to the conclusion that the legislation is the right thing to do and the right thing to do now. I want to use some of this time to explain the thought processes that led me to that conclusion.
Firstly, there is a perception that the British Columbia people are heavily in debt. I think that we have to deal with that perception in order to understand where we are today and where we ought to go in the future. In the process of my deliberations I got some folks to help me and did some research, and I want to present the evidence of that research.
You might remember, hon. Speaker, that I ran for leader in 1996, and in order to address this question of the fiscal well-being of the people of British Columbia, I referred to the debt clock that hangs on a bank somewhere in Vancouver. I suggested that perhaps the people should have an equity clock in order to say what their debt equity ratio was and whether our citizens are rich or poor. It seems to me, at this moment in our history, that it would be a really good idea to answer that question.
Let me start by saying that the total debt of the province of British Columbia at the end of fiscal year 2000, including
[ Page 17088 ]
Crown corps is estimated to be $36.5 billion. That's all in, total, and everybody agrees to it -- opposition, auditor general, everybody. Now, unlike most American states and many Canadian provinces, the people of British Columbia have not privatized their land. So their land here constitutes an equity.
If you ignore the fact that that land might be beautiful and that it might be oceanfront or lakeshore, if you ignore the fact that it has trees on it or minerals underneath it, if you just take the bare value of the land, the people of British Columbia own, on the equity side of the ledger: 17.8 million hectares of productive forest land estimated, at the low end, to be worth $1,400 a hectare, 24.9 billion dollars' worth; inoperable productive forest land, 21 million hectares, a value of $14.7 billion; non-productive forest land, 12.6 million hectares valued at $3.8 billion; non-forest land, predominately alpine, 24.9 million hectares valued at $2.5 billion; tenured Crown land, 1.5 million hectares valued at $1,600 a hectare, $2.5 billion.
[1450]
The people of British Columbia, as we stand here today in the year 2000, when members opposite are trying to tell them that they're broke, have as bare dirt, because of the wisdom of the previous generations of people who worked in this place, $48.4 billion in land alone.
Members opposite are always saying we ought to run the government like a corporation. We ought to do our books like a corporation. We should run it like a business. So stating the debt-to-equity ratio like a business, let me read what the rest of your value is worth. Unlike other places where schools are private, the people of British Columbia own 1,777 public schools. They own six universities, five university colleges, 11 community colleges and six institutes, unlike other places, where higher education tends to be private. They own it here and they've paid for it.
They own, unlike other places where health facilities are private, 700 hospitals, acute care facilities and mental health facilities. The people of British Columbia own, fee simple, 3,600 buildings in 260 communities. They own 23,200 kilometres of paved government-owned highways, 18,000 kilometres of unpaved roads and 2,700 bridges.
The people of British Columbia -- especially the good people of Vancouver, who are quite lucky in this respect -- own their own rapid transit infrastructure and bus systems in 50 other communities. The people of British Columbia own 43 ferries -- actually, 44, tomorrow -- and 45 marine terminals. The total replacement cost of this infrastructure is $140 billion.
Of course, these numbers are so conservative as to be irrelevant, because if natural resources like water, which we know some people might decide in future to put a value on and sell, were put on the ledger, their worth would be in trillions. If trees were put onto the ledger, which somebody who worked in here might some day say is a private good and decide to sell, the value would be in trillions -- and so on with underground minerals and offshore oil and gas.
My point is that even if you ignore the fact that the people of British Columbia, in their wisdom, still own all their natural resources and only take the value of the hardware, their debt-to-equity ratio is three to one -- contrary to the notion that the people are poor, as we debate this bill. I want to submit, at the beginning of the things I have to say, that they might be the richest people on the planet with the exception of dictatorships defended by armies, like Kuwait amongst he democratic peoples of the world, the people of British Columbia might very well be the richest people on the planet. The people who want them to think they're poor -- why do you think that is? What is it that they have to gain? Could it be that the trillions of dollars of assets and dams and bridges and timber and oil and gas
Moving on from what are we worth to the question of how do we manage it, historically, social democrats have operated on the basis of what people call Keynesian economics. I think that book was written in 1936. From my father's generation, the guru would be the Galbraith economic view, post-World War II, that the function of a social democratic government is to borrow money, to invest that money in society -- ergo to employ people and grow the economy -- and then pay back the borrowing. Economic growth is considered to be -- has, all through history, been considered to be -- the engineer of jobs and wealth and the capacity of any government to pay back debt.
These ideas about economic growth predate our generation -- predate the times of anybody in this House. Capitalists and socialists and social democrats and even communists have used economic growth as the way to manage their economies and employ their people all through history. All systems in all governments in all countries believed that economic growth was, by virtue of its own worth, a social good.
[1455]
Then on December 21, 1968, an interesting thing happened. William Anders, Frank Borman and Jim Lovell Jr. in Apollo 8 took off from the Earth and went up and surrounded the earth and looked back down and took a picture -- a picture that I think most of us will remember from our youth. The people of the planet, for the very first time, saw that where we live is a finite resource -- and even a fragile resource. That visceral or spiritual experience which human beings had never had, governments had never had, political systems had never had and economists had never had before in history spawned a whole bunch of change.
For starters, the first Earth Day followed in 1970, and then a whole bunch of really smart people, scientists called the Club of Rome, began to do computer simulation of the idea of growth, the engine of our economy -- growth and resource depletion -- at MIT. It was published in 1972 as a book called Limits to Growth. It said essentially that growth is killing us. Their analysis was that unbridled growth, which all governments used to pay off debt and to manage societies and to employ their people, was in fact risking that finite and delicate globe that Apollo 8 had taken pictures of from the sky.
In 1983 the Secretary General of the United Nations created the World Commission on Environment and Development and appointed a social democrat, Gro Brundtland, the prime minister of Norway
[ Page 17089 ]
I want to submit, as we discuss the balanced budget legislation, that what we really ought to be talking about, and have been since 1987, is the notion of sustainability, which was invented at that time. Our generation -- I'm 52 years old -- didn't invent the economic systems under which we operate, or the political systems. I don't think we actually had an original idea not borrowed from our parents or our grandparents or political leaders until 1987, until the publishing of "Our Common Future." What Gro Brundtland and the United Nations said, hon. Speaker, is that poverty, inequity of wealth distribution and greed are killing the planet and that growth in and of itself is not a bad thing -- is a good thing, if it is managed for the well-being of the people. They define sustainability as the actions of a society taken to enhance the lives of that generation of people that do not foreclose the options of future generations. I want us to keep that in mind as we discuss the balanced budget law, because I think that's where we are headed.
[1500]
Once Gro Brundtland and the Brundtland commission had defined sustainability, it allowed New Democrats -- those who were concerned about the planet and those who were concerned about jobs -- to come together around this idea of managing a society's well-being in a way that did not foreclose options of future generations. Between that time -- 1987 -- and 1991 we met at the Tin-Wis conference on Vancouver Island and the Common Ground conference in Nelson and all over this province, with woods workers, trade unionists, environmentalists, community activists and feminists -- to come together and define and articulate a kind of governance that would aim for sustainability on the land and sustainability of the pocketbook of the people of British Columbia.
Mike Harcourt went around, in the election of 1991, defining his sustainability with a piggy bank that he held in his hand on television. For myself, in the Kootenays, I spent that election talking about the idea that the words "environment," "ecology" and "economics" were really all of the same thing, all from the same Greek root word -- environment meaning house, ecology meaning inhabitants and economy meaning household management -- and that we could become a government that could manage the house, the inhabitants and household management, and the books, in such a way as to run this society without foreclosing the options of future generations. Hon. Speaker, all of us in that election talked about aiming for protecting 12 percent of the land from industrial development, because the Brundtland commission had defined that target as the paradigm of their nature of sustainability.
Rushing through future years after we were elected the Minister of Finance appointed KPMG to look into the sustainability of our finances. The Minister of Forests of the time, sitting in front of me now, told the chief forester to engage in timber supply review to make sure that our biological accounts were sustainable, and cabinet proceeded to begin the land use plans and the protected areas strategy.
Then, on March 18, 1993 -- I was sitting at that end of this room -- we were gathered here for our second throne speech, and an amazing thing happened. There was -- as there is every day, every week and every month -- a demonstration on the lawn. The demonstration was about a thing I didn't know anything about, couldn't pronounce, certainly couldn't spell, and a place I had never been to, called Clayoquot. The demonstration wasn't about any decision that cabinet had made. It was about the rumour on the street that cabinet might make a decision about this piece of land. The demonstration turned into a riot, the people broke into the building, and as I sat at that end, the glass exploded, a guy got his leg broken -- and government came to a standstill. And I would argue, metaphorically speaking, that action and the arrests that followed defined our activities for the nine years following.
We became seized of the need in British Columbia to create sustainability on the land as a result of the social upheaval that the people of British Columbia were experiencing in the early 1990s. In this House, we focused on the issues of the environment and proceeded to use all of our energy to attempt to resolve those questions. On the question of the environment, throughout the nineties we
On the side of the inhabitants of the House and the social issues throughout the nineties, we moved to cut government in order to absorb the federal offload, to protect the people of British Columbia against their country abandoning them in the issues of health care and education and social services.
In the ministry I know best, in order to make up for the federal cuts to health care, we reduced the Ministry of Agriculture from $100 million to $60 million in nine years. We reduced the staff from 350 to 50 in nine years, even as we doubled the farm-gate output.
But let me give you an even more visceral picture of the investment of the government in the people in the last nine years. There was such a dearth of building of public infrastructure before we came to work here. Combined with the in-migration that we experienced from 1991 till 1999, the people on this side of the House built a new school -- and are still building a new school in British Columbia -- every 19 days for nine years.
[1505]
I still remember Mike Harcourt saying about the 12 percent target on the land: "We own the land here in British Columbia, and if we can't do it, what makes us think the people of any other province or country can." And we are almost there. As I give you this speech, we are within days, weeks or short months from reaching 12 percent. I think today, as I'm talking, we're at 11.73 percent. So can we say after nine years of dealing with the people's needs and with the needs of the land that we have achieved Brundtland's definition of sustainability -- a society that can meet its own needs without compromising those of future generations? I guess I would submit: not quite yet.
In my capacity as Minister of Agriculture, I had occasion to visit Mexico. I was invited to a NAFTA implementation panel meeting with ministers of agriculture of Canada, Mexico and the United States attempting to make the international agreement on trade work.
[ Page 17090 ]
Before I met with the ministers, in order to understand the country that I was visiting, I met with representatives of campesino groups, peasant farmers, Christian liberation theologists, women's groups, independent labour and human rights groups in Mexico. And every single group that I met with started by telling me the story of the Mexican revolution and how the campesinos had won independence for their country and had been rewarded by a constitution that gave them control of the land forever. Then they explained to me that while they were agreeing to the NAFTA, the bankers and the currency traders, the corporations, the World Bank -- the forces of globalism -- had required them to change the constitution and privatize the land that they had earned in 1911. They said to me: "We don't blame Canada, and we don't blame the United States, and we don't even blame the NAFTA. We blame debt and deficit and currency speculators for our troubles."
I learned in Mexico that even if you're the richest people in the world, you are at risk if there is the perception that your budget isn't balanced, if there is the perception that your fiscal house is not in order. I guess that brings me to the need -- if we actually wish to attain a society that we can define as sustainable -- to pass this law so that the richest people on the planet, with the most efficient workforce in Canada, can show to the world that not only do we have this wealth today, but we will pass it on to the next generation, the next generation and the sixth generation and on into the future.
I want to talk a little bit about the timing of this bill. I would argue that this is precisely the timing. We are about to complete -- and I hope celebrate and have the biggest street dance in the history of Canada -- the 12 percent protected areas that we set out nine years ago to pry loose. We are about to be able to proclaim the sustainability, the biodiversity of this province, and that moment, I think, is the correct moment to say: "And now for social democrats to be able to prove that they are what they say they are, we have to be able to do exactly the same thing with the bank account and the budget that we have just done with the land."
The right-wing members opposite sit over there, and they say: "Why now?" They attempt to imply that they don't believe that we actually mean it. I'd say, on the contrary. I can't think of a single reason why social democrats would put themselves through this process and this debate unless they meant every single word of it and meant it right now. Precisely because of our history, precisely because of our understanding of Keynesian economics and precisely because we are the people who attempt to achieve sustainability, I'd say they mean every word of it. They mean it right now, and this is the time in our history.
[1510]
That brings me back to finishing where I started with this idea, with our generation's only real original idea, the notion of sustainability that the UN gave us in 1983 -- and, I think, the idea which brought this party's many parts together to govern for this decade. For nine years we have been seized, as they say, with the environmental and social agendas, and it is excellent timing that we get on with the economic question.
I want to close by saying this. There is always a lot of talk, whenever medicare comes up, of Tommy Douglas's government. People like to talk about Tommy as the icon of medicare, and a lot of mythology gets built. It is worth remembering that Tommy Douglas ran for office in 1944, and he had one campaign issue that he took out amongst the people. That was medicare. He inherited a province with trauma, a province coming out of a right-wing administration and coming out of the Depression. Tommy Douglas governed and ran for office for 17 years before they actually put the building blocks in place by which they could then impose medicare -- to me, somewhat analogous to our own moment in history.
Having accomplished environmental sustainability with the 12 percent protection and having accomplished social sustainability with the rebuilding of the public infrastructure that the people need to live here in British Columbia, I suggest that we spend the next half of our 17 years proving we can do the same thing with the fiscal accounts.
I. Chong: Having listened to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries explain economics, I have to admit that it was a whole new perspective. I don't believe anyone watching can really appreciate what he had to say, because it was voodoo economics at its best.
I rise this afternoon to also respond to second reading of Bill 28, Balanced Budget Act, and I note the conspicuous timing of its introduction near the end of this government's mandate. Isn't it interesting and isn't it even strange that for the past nine years this government has not tried even once to bring in balanced-budget legislation? The NDP can't even use the excuse that it doesn't know what balanced-budget legislation is all about. After all, the Leader of the Official Opposition has consistently introduced balanced-budget legislation and debt-reduction legislation annually as a private member's bill. But what did the NDP do? They've never once considered it. They've never even allowed it to be debated.
Perhaps if we had debated it several years ago, we wouldn't be watching this piece of legislation coming forward now. In fact, what we've seen in the last nine years is the NDP scoffing at it, the NDP calling balanced-budget legislation shameful, disgraceful and even a crock. We've heard that. But suddenly we have a revelation. Suddenly someone flipped on the light switch. Suddenly this government realizes that the majority of British Columbians want the government to be fiscally responsible, and they want the government to manage taxpayers' dollars prudently. What we have now is a Premier who hastily announces that he supports balanced-budget legislation. I haven't heard that in the four years I was here. He hastily announces that balanced-budget legislation is important, that he supports it. He not only stuns his caucus; he also at the same time surprises his NDP provincial council at that one meeting. In addition to this, the Premier, knowing that several of his caucus members do not support balanced-budget legislation, ups the ante. The Premier then goes on to state that Bill 28 will proceed through all stages on the basis of it being a confidence vote.
[1515]
The real truth is this: Bill 28 is not legislation; Bill 28 is a statement. It is a statement that in essence is saying this: "If you support this bill, then you support this government." Bill 28 is also saying: "If you support this legislation, then you have confidence in this government."
Well, I want to be very clear, very unequivocal, about this. I do not support this government, nor do I have any confidence in this government. Given that this is what Bill 28 is truly about, then there's only one choice for any of us, and that is to vote against it.
You know, as the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." And with Bill 28, this
[ Page 17091 ]
Premier and his NDP caucus are trying to do just that. They are trying to fool all of us in hopes that all British Columbians aren't paying attention. But they are paying attention. They know that Bill 28 represents nothing more than a deathbed repentance that will fool no one. That is why the public is so outraged.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I can say that, hon. Speaker, because this past weekend, this Canada Day weekend, I've had the opportunity to be out at many events, and I've had the opportunity to speak to many constituents about Bill 28. And I want to be clear about this: I didn't bring up the subject. Oh no, quite the contrary; it was on the minds of many constituents when I went around to a number of these events.
When they saw me, they came up to me and asked me: "What the devil is going on out there?" They were referring to Bill 28. They said to me: "How could the NDP do such an about-face and expect people to buy into this?" In essence, not one person I spoke with believed that this NDP government would implement balanced-budget legislation.
I do want to say, though, for the record that I for one don't know who exactly will be returned to these chambers after the next election. I know it's not a foregone conclusion. I don't know what the results will be. I know the polls are very interesting, and it may be encouraging to some people. But you know, the only poll that matters is the poll held on election day.
I can assure you that I intend to seek re-election with respect for the electorate, with respect for them. I expect to go into re-election to be accountable for my actions, to be accountable for my representation on their behalf these past four years. When I do seek re-election, I will ask them to place their confidence in me, just as I challenge this Premier to do. If this Premier is so certain that this bill is so significant and so believable that British Columbians are prepared to place their confidence in him and his caucus, then he should have the courage to call an election. So why isn't he doing that?
I strongly and sincerely believe in the implementation of honest, reliable and sound balanced-budget legislation. You know what? That depends upon who introduces it and how it is finally introduced. Bill 28 was introduced by a government that has lost the confidence of the people of this province, and it was introduced at a time when the government is nearing the end of its mandate. That is exactly why Bill 28 is suspect in the minds of so many people.
Also, it is highly unlikely that this NDP government intends to follow through on balanced-budget legislation. Why would I say that? Well, it's because this government has already deliberately misled the people of this province before. It did this when introducing its so-called debt management strategy -- a strategy that was multi-year, as Bill 28 is intended to be. But what happened to that debt management strategy? Well, its goalposts kept moving. Even the name kept changing. What began in 1995 as the debt management plan became the financial management plan, which soon after became the modified financial plan and finally renamed the five-year fiscal planning framework. The goalposts kept moving; the name kept changing. Even though, years before, they said they were committed to a debt reduction strategy.
[1520]
Let's explore what happened there. Let's see how credible the NDP's debt management plan -- or the debt plan -- truly is, and then we'll see how credible its balanced-budget legislation is. The debt management plan, in 1995 called the debt management plan, promised to deliver budget surpluses in '95-96 and in '96-97. It also promised to pay down a debt of $10.2 billion. It said it would maintain B.C.'s credit rating as the highest in Canada, and it said it would reduce taxpayer-supported-debt-to-GDP ratio to 10.2 percent by the year 2015.
What happened in reality? The government has not balanced a single budget in nine years. In fact, the newest budget says we won't even see a balanced budget until the year 2004-05. And if this government had the chance to still be governing, they would be moving that goalpost, too, because it does so every year.
In 1997 -- the financial management plan. What did it promise? New name, new promises. Well, it promised that it would balance the budget in 1997-98. It also said that it would reduce taxpayer-supported-debt-to-GDP to 15 percent by the year 2015. That didn't happen either. In fact, taxpayer-supported debt has increased to a projected $27.9 billion for the year 2000-01.
Let's move on to the 1998 modified financial plan. Again, a new name, so we have to have new promises. Well now, these promises said it would balance the budget in '99-2000. It said it would limit the taxpayer-supported-debt-to-GDP ratio to a target range of 19 to 22 percent over three years. Gosh, in three short years, where we were supposed to have the taxpayer-supported-debt-to-GDP ratio at 10.2 percent, it climbed up to as much as 19 to 22 percent. That's a huge increase.
And finally, let's move into 1999. The five-year fiscal planning framework. New name and once again new promises -- this time, to balance the budget in the year 2002-03. And here we have again: "to limit the taxpayer-supported-debt-to-GDP ratio to a target range of 22 to 27 percent over five years." Well, I think it's quite clear that the NDP's debt plan wasn't credible, and neither are they. So I hope I outlined for all of those who are here listening, all of those who are here watching these debates and all of those who may be reading these Hansards at a later time why Bill 28 is so unsupportable. It's simply not believable. How can any of us vote in favour of a piece of legislation, knowing that this government has no intention of ensuring that balanced budgets will in fact happen? It shows through in their debt plan. They have made promises but ensured that they didn't stick to that plan. So why would they stick to balanced budgets?
I think the former Finance minister, the member for Saanich South, who's now the Attorney General, said it best in 1997. He said: "I don't expect you to believe me." And he said that just after he introduced that year's budget. He actually said it. Well, I think that, very quietly and silently, this is also what this new Finance minister is saying under his breath. He doesn't expect us to believe him. And so I won't. It's quite clear that this government is not believable, this government is not credible, this government is not accountable. This is a bad government with a bad record that is not only appalling but is downright disgraceful. I've heard from many of my constituents, and that is the only -- the only -- definition that I ever hear back.
[ Page 17092 ]
Furthermore, I don't believe for one minute that this NDP government has the ability to manage the financial affairs of this province. I think that's been quite clear. It doesn't have the ability to put our financial house in order. So how can it possibly bring in balanced budgets?
Why on earth would this NDP government, this Premier, expect any of us to offer any kind of endorsement to his government, when I know they don't believe in and would not adhere to the spirit of balanced budgets? They've shown that to us already.
[1525]
Once again we have those historical facts to substantiate the various statements that the members on this side of the House have been making. Actions do speak louder than words. So, very quickly, let's have a look at what those actions were.
Back in 1991 the NDP opposition voted unanimously in favour of the Taxpayer Protection Act. It was an act with three primary objectives: one of freezing taxes, another of balancing budgets and the third one -- lo and behold -- of debt reduction.
However, immediately after the 1991 election, what action did this NDP take? Well, the NDP government abolished the Taxpayer Protection Act. They didn't amend it; they abolished it by introducing an act to repeal it. Actions do speak louder than words, and this kind of action is all we need to be reminded of when we see this government attempting to bring in balanced-budget legislation.
Following 1991 the action of this government has proven that they've brought in nine consecutive deficit budgets. They even lied about two of them being balanced, which is now still being hotly debated in the courts. But we also saw that the NDP didn't freeze taxes; it in fact raised them. The NDP didn't reduce debt; it doubled the debt from about $17 billion to over $36 billion. What kind of debt reduction plan is that?
Those are the facts, hon. Speaker; those are the real facts and nothing but the facts, as the Premier said in his throne speech. The most worrisome part of all of this is that history has a way of repeating itself. On March 21, 1991, the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kinsgway, stated: "British Columbians no longer trust this Social Credit government."
Well, it's nine years later, and we are hearing from British Columbians who say that they don't trust this NDP government. Also, back in March of 1991 the NDP supported this balanced-budget legislation that it later repealed. So if history does repeat itself, we know that we'll see the NDP supporting balanced-budget legislation and hoping that after the next election, they get a chance to repeal it.
As I indicated earlier, I don't know who is going to return to these chambers after the next election. But I know one thing for certain: I don't intend to allow this NDP government to continue to fool taxpayers this time around. What we do see with this NDP government is that they're scrambling around to say and do almost anything to get re-elected. They say that they'll do this or they'll do that, and all the while they have their fingers crossed behind their backs -- behind their backs, hon. Speaker -- laughing at all of us, just waiting to say: "Aha -- gotcha!"
Why don't they show us those fingers? Well, this government hasn't changed its ways. We can all can see it on this side of the House, and I think British Columbians can see it too. All this government has done, as we already noted in previous debates, is reposition the players and pretend that it's some new government. This government is not new. It still has no idea of how to stimulate the economy. This government hasn't got a clue on how to restore investor confidence or how to restore consumer confidence. This government has no new fiscal agenda. This is only the most shameless attempt at trying to pull the wool over taxpayers' eyes, and we intend to expose that.
[1530]
This government continues to foist its mis-truths on all of us, and it continues to mislead British Columbians by introducing legislation that we all know they have no intention of keeping. Bill 28 is designed to win re-election; it is not designed for implementation.
Hon. Speaker, I've been here for four years, and I've seen three Premiers. The NDP caucus members in 1996 were exactly the same people as they are now. This is not a new government. It is one that has lost all credibility, and the only way that British Columbians will in fact see a new government with a new vision, with new hope and with new opportunity is after they call an election.
G. Campbell: Unfortunately, hon. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill 28, I am forced to tell you at the outset that I will not be supporting it. I will not be supporting it, because the Premier has made it extremely clear that this is a question of confidence in this government. This is a government which no British Columbian has confidence in, and they are right in that assessment.
This is a government that has taken our economy from the best economy in the country to the worst economy in the country, the government that has taken our economy to a position where there is the lowest level of private sector investment of any jurisdiction in the country. This is a government that has been so profligate in its spending, so irresponsible in its spending, that nothing they can do today and nothing they can do with a piece of paper will make any difference.
The bill sets out a number of targets for the government to meet, and as my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head has just pointed out, this is a government that has not met one financial target that has been set for the last nine years -- not one. And every year before an election, regardless, this government claims to be for balanced budgets. In 1991 they stood and voted in favour of the Taxpayer Protection Act, which called for balanced budgets, which called for control of taxes, which called in fact for financial responsibility. It called for debt reduction. This government voted in favour of that. Many, many members of this House voted in favour -- almost a dozen.
And yet right after an election, the third piece of legislation this government introduced repealed that act. Just think how different British Columbia would be today if the government had been true to its word in 1991. Just think how different British Columbia would be today if the Premier of the day had been true to his word -- that he wanted a government that was as honest and hardworking as the people who paid for it. Think of how much better off we would be, how much better off the people of this province would be, if that had been the case.
Freeze taxes. This government repealed the act and immediately added $2 billion in taxes and fees to the backs of
[ Page 17093 ]
taxpayers in the province. And what's the net result of that? It's that people across this province today are saying they are working harder, and they're not getting any further ahead. It's the average person who's taking his paycheque home, and every paycheque he looks at
The first act -- literally the first substantive act -- was the repeal of the balanced budget act which this government supported. And then they went and borrowed and spent, and they taxed and taxed some more, and they borrowed some more and spent some more. They got themselves into a situation where everyone in the public started to understand that it was debt that was the silent killer of our essential health, education, child protection services across this province. It's one of the largest areas of government expenditure -- $2.6 billion a year to service the debt. That's just the interest costs.
In 1995 and 1996, rather than tell people the truth, this government claimed to have balanced the budget in 1995. Every single person on that side of the House knew that was false. Every single one of them received a special briefing to their caucus in September of 1995 and were told that the budget wasn't balanced for '95 and that the budget wasn't going to balance for 1996 -- every one of them. Yet they went out in an election and said that not only had they balanced one budget; they had balanced two. They claimed that they cared about balanced budgets in '95 and '96, but they knew they were running up massive deficits.
[1535]
What has this decade of deficits done to British Columbia? It has led to a decade of despair, a decade of destruction and a decade of decline because this government did not tell people the truth. So do I have confidence in this government? I want to be clear: absolutely not.
The Finance minister stands up and says: "It's a new day. It's a bright new day. I'm here." I'm not sure if it was an alias he was using, but he said, "It's a new day" -- supposedly a new direction. Imagine standing and saying that it's a new direction as you deliver the first budget of what the Premier called the new premiership. Here's the first budget of the new premiership, the first Dosanjh budget, the first Ramsey budget. Here it comes -- $1.3 billion in deficit, an additional $3 billion in debt. And now they claim they've discovered the importance of balanced budgets. I have no confidence in that government.
They tell us that this is a balanced-budget act. The Premier stood yesterday, and said: "I am so committed to this balanced budget. It's a law."
G. Plant: They'll never break the law.
G. Campbell: Let's just look at this government's experience with the law. This is a government that consistently went out and, to use the quote of one of the government's own ministers, "did whatever they wanted to." Did the law get in their way? No, it didn't get in their way.
When the former Attorney General, the now Premier, had a responsibility to carry out the Election Act in British Columbia, did the law get in his way? Did he think of carrying out the law? Did he read the law? Did he worry about the law? No. In fact, he broke the law. The only way that he could repair that breakage was to retroactively amend the law so he looked like he was living up to the law.
G. Plant: Well, he was, in a way.
An Hon. Member: He rewrote his own law.
G. Campbell: It's amazing how rewriting laws can work for a government that doesn't really care about the law.
So how do I feel when the Premier says to me: "No, this is different"? Well, I kind of feel like when the Finance minister stood up and said: "This time I'm really, really, really telling you the truth. I'm not like the Finance minister in '95 or '96, who was sort of telling the truth. I'm not like the Finance minister in '97 or '98, who was kind of telling the truth. I'm really telling the truth this time, and I'm going to put it in legislation." I'm not sure whether his fingers were crossed when he said that or not.
But I don't have any more confidence in this Finance minister or this Premier because this is on a piece of paper. We've seen these pieces of paper before. It kind of reminds me of Neville Chamberlain: "I have in my hand a piece of paper. It will guarantee peace in our time." We didn't have peace. Having a piece of paper in your hand does not guarantee balanced budgets under New Democrats. In fact, having a piece of paper in your hand does not guarantee balanced budgets under New Democrats. In fact, it guarantees that the New Democrats will carry on doing exactly what they've done -- borrow and borrow and spend and spend.
Now, why do I say that? I want to believe that everyone in this House cares about fiscal prudence and fiscal responsibility. But what's our experience? What have we seen from this group of 40 individuals who claim to care today about balanced budgets?
[1540]
Well, first we had the debt management plan. The debt management plan was announced with great fanfare. The NDP had finally come to their senses. They understood the importance of debt management. They recognized that the increase of debt by about $10 billion was too much. So they introduced a debt management plan. We were all supposed to think: "Good, they've got it. At last they're going to get debt under control." What's happened, really, is that since that time
The second year they decided that the debt management plan wasn't quite as good an idea, because they had missed all those targets, and they invented the revised debt management plan. Then all of those targets were missed. So they had the financial management plan. They missed all the targets in the financial management plan. So then they had the modified financial management plan.
When they missed all the targets in the modified financial plan, they came up with the new five-year fiscal framework. They missed the targets in that as well: a $1.3 billion Dosanjh deficit, a $1.3 billion Ramsey deficit, a $1.3 billion New Democrat deficit in the year 2000 -- $3 billion additional in debt on the backs of the young people and the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. I have no confidence in this government.
The Premier has told us that this is a matter of trust. Do we trust this government? Can we trust this government? Let
[ Page 17094 ]
me ask you, hon. Speaker: should Charlie Brown trust Lucy when she's holding the football? Should Linus really wait for the Great Pumpkin? The fact is that we can't trust this government.
This government has shown, by their actions far more than by their words, what they truly believe and the respect with which they hold the taxpayers of this province. This government has shown far more by their actions how they really feel about the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities to citizens.
The Premier tells us that his commitment is now enshrined in the law. Well, I remember when we had ministers of this government standing and telling us that not one cent of Forest Renewal would be used for the normal general purposes of government, and it was in the law. They would never have a chance to do that.
What's happened? Those dollars have been taken by the tens of millions away from resource workers and resource communities across this province to pay for this government's incompetence, to pay for this government's mismanagement and to pay for this government's broken word. I have no confidence in this government to do anything different with this act.
The Premier says that it's in the law. Yet this is the same Premier who was Attorney General while the government and a government minister tried to interfere with the courts in the Skeena Cellulose case. And we heard nothing.
The rights of the small business owners and the small people in that case were basically wiped aside as the government pushed and pursued its agenda. If it required undermining the traditions of the law, that was fine. This government, in fact, has shown itself not to put the primacy of the law at the top of its agenda. Citizen after citizen has had to go to court to protect themselves from a government who has broken the law. Citizen after citizen, individual after individual, community after community has had to take this government to court, because this government broke the law on a regular basis. As a pattern of action this government breaks the law. So why would I have any confidence that this government would pay attention to this law? I have no confidence that this law will contain this government as it pursues whatever agenda they decide upon.
[1545]
The Premier has told us that we should trust him. I'd like to be able to trust him. Just as I'm sure members of the New Democrat Party would have liked to have been able to trust him when he sat on their board of directors and was responsible for making sure that their principles and their policies were pursued within the law. The problem was that when the Premier knew that something might be wrong, he turned his back on that responsibility. He deliberately avoided that responsibility, so that there would be no responsibility under the law for the Premier. And that's not appropriate. Do I have confidence in this government? Not for a minute.
This balanced-budget law is indeed a deathbed repentance. It's a deathbed repentance that will not bring back a lost decade in British Columbia; a decade of lost opportunity and eroded hope; a decade which saw the highest level of youth unemployment of any jurisdiction west of Quebec -- persistent, continuing, ongoing; a decade that watched as over half of the workers in the mining industry lost their jobs; a decade that saw people in the forest industry lose their jobs and their homes and in some cases their families, because of what's happened with regard to this government's economic policy; a decade in which it's been clear that indeed the Taxpayer Protection Act of 1991 was just that. It would have protected people in this province from many of the excesses of a New Democrat government, who thought it could do anything it wanted to. Do people in this province have confidence in this government? I don't think so.
It's time to actually try and restore the public trust. It's time to try and mend the broken promises and the breaches of trust that this government has imposed on the people of the province of British Columbia. The way to do that is not to bring in, at the end of its mandate, an act that claims to be for balanced budgets. The way to do that is to call an election.
I've been saddened to watch this government in a state of flux, not knowing where they're going, not knowing what they're doing and seemingly not caring about the impact of their inability to act on the people of this province -- whether it's in health care or education, whether it's in creating new jobs and new hopes and new opportunities across this province. This government has got to know that its mismanagement and incompetence have cost everyone across the province, in thousands of little ways, their quality of life.
Financial prudence and financial discipline is essential and important. But it was important a decade ago. It's not important just as a matter of political expedience. There is nothing that has been learned by this government, except that they continue to fall in the polls. And what they should have learned a long time ago was what citizen after citizen told them. They can't take it anymore. They can't take a government that adds deficit after deficit and debt after debt and tax after tax. They want to look forward to a new day in British Columbia.
We can do that, and the government can help do that -- not by passing a piece of legislation at the end of their term, which no one believes and which no one has any confidence in. They can do it by calling an election to give people the opportunity to say what they want to do, the direction they want to go in and to say which group they trust to carry on with the future of the province of British Columbia.
This is a bill about confidence. This is a bill about confidence in this government. I can tell you that no one on this side of the House has any confidence in that government, and I believe there are very few British Columbians left that have any confidence in this government.
It was sad to see the introduction of this bill and to see the activity that was taking place on the other side. It was sad to look across and see all the sad faces in the government benches, because I know that people on that side of the House fundamentally disagree with this approach.
[1550]
I happen to agree with balanced budgets. I agree with fiscal prudence. It's something that I think is an important part of public policy. But I think it's fine if people don't. Why don't we have an open, honest public debate about that? I can't tell you the answer to that. This government always claims to be for balanced budgets just before an election and throws them out the window just after an election.
There's one way for the government and all the new converts to be sure that we have balanced budgets in British Columbia. There is one way for all of the new converts on the
[ Page 17095 ]
government side of the House, all of the New Democrats, to be sure that there will be fiscal prudence in the province of British Columbia. That's to call an election and let the people decide.
The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations to close debate.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I am pleased to rise today to close debate on second reading of Bill 28, the Balanced Budget Act. I must say that the debate has been perhaps not as long as I thought it would be. It surely had some interesting perspectives. But I've got to say that
So I just wanted to outline what those principles are, because frankly, they haven't been mentioned much by the people opposite -- not at all. They say that, in theory at least, they support balanced-budget legislation. Yet for some bizarre reason they say that regrettably, they're going to have to vote against a bill introduced in this Legislature that says that we should indeed have balanced budgets by law.
Here are the principles that are actually contained in the bill. First of all, it says that the government of the province of British Columbia should present, every year, a budget that meets a particular deficit target for the next few years and thereafter -- present a budget that is in balance at least each and every fiscal year. It says they should achieve that goal over time, and it says they should continue it on into the future.
This is different from what other provinces have chosen to do in their legislation. Other provinces have chosen to say "balance over the business cycle." I think New Brunswick said that under, if memory serves, a Liberal government. I believe Saskatchewan did a similar thing under an NDP government. So there are options here. This bill chose the option of saying that it has to be balanced every year, and it has to be in balance after three more years.
Now, I must say that when I actually read the words of the opposition, I'm not sure they disagree with that principle. But I haven't heard it in the chamber. I heard them say they support balanced budget. I have heard -- I believe I've heard -- the Leader of the Official Opposition say that he expects to be able to balance the budget three years after he takes office -- three years. If I do the math here, that looks very much like the exact schedule that's outlined in this bill exactly the same time.
Assuming we have a budget that's tabled in 2001 by this government and have an election in 2001, the third year after that would be 2004. It looks to me as if they have no disagreement with the principle of getting to balance over that period -- none at all. Yet member after member has stood up and said various reasons why they can't support the principle of this bill. Well, one thing out there, one thing in here -- two different things.
The second principle of balanced-budget legislation is that there should be consequences for failing to meet the targets set out in the bill. This bill has those consequences; this bill has teeth. It says that those who are responsible collectively for setting budgets and administering them -- the executive council, the cabinet of the province of British Columbia -- should be held individually and collectively responsible if they fail to meet the targets set out in this act. It says that they should lose, for a period of a year, 20 percent of their pay as cabinet ministers. That's a penalty. It's right in the bill.
[1555]
Now, the interesting thing is that I've been looking through the bill that has been tabled by the Leader of the Official Opposition, which talks about their penalties. And guess what; it's not all of cabinet. It's a particular minister who might have missed his target in his particular portfolio. Well, at least we do tend to agree that there should be penalties. But this is a bizarre provision that essentially says that cabinet and government don't act as a whole and shouldn't collectively bear the responsibility for it. It's vastly different from what occurs in Manitoba, which has a provision similar to the one we are going to have in this province and vastly different than what other provinces have proposed.
Finally, the third principle of this bill is that there are indeed extraordinary circumstances in which the government of British Columbia would not be required to meet the deficit target outlined in the bill. We've actually put into law two provisions. One says that if revenue drops by more than half a billion dollars due to a major recession or the like, they should adjust that target. The second one -- for extraordinary circumstances, as I read to the chamber during second reading -- is actually language almost identical to that which is contained in the Leader of the Opposition's bill -- almost identical. It says that there are indeed extraordinary circumstances -- emergency or unexpected circumstances -- that might be detrimental to the health or safety of persons in British Columbia, which would require you to amass debts. And yet they stand up and say they oppose the principles of this bill, when it reflects the very words in the private member's bill that was presented by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Isn't that bizarre? It is strange -- extraordinary, one might say.
Now, there are some other provisions. When I look at the general principles of this bill -- balanced budgets; do it over time; adhere to it over time; penalties for failure to meet it; extraordinary circumstances -- frankly, they are on the record in a variety of forms, saying: "These are good principles; we think they're wonderful." They even propose a bill that contains many of them. It includes a few weird things, as well, but it does at least contain those three principles.
An Hon. Member: Leap year -- the leap year exception.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My colleague says there's the leap year exception in the Liberal bill. No, it's stranger than that. Here's what it says. You actually have any particular ministry
An Hon. Member: Inaccurate in your forecasting abilities.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yeah.
So let's just get this straight. If you have a particular ministry where you spend less than the estimates, here's what happens to that underexpenditure. Twenty-five percent of it
[ Page 17096 ]
goes to compensation for public officials in the ministry. Now, I want to understand this. What you have here is a proposal that says: "Hold on; if you're responsible -- say, in the Ministry for Children and Families -- for protecting children and somehow you manage to save a few dollars, then you personally and individually get a salary increase." If you happen to be responsible in the Ministry of Education for ensuring that all children have access to a broad public education and somehow you spend less, you personally get a salary increase of up to 10 percent, it says here. It is remarkable.
Let's just figure out how this works. Say we had 1,000 students less than we thought show up in public school one year. It can happen -- $6 million less expenditures in public schools. As I understand it, the 200 officials in the Ministry of Education would have $1.5 million to split among themselves, because children didn't show up at school. This is bizarre legislation -- absolutely bizarre.
[1600]
The other thing that I must point out about this bill is the contrast in how the bill is framed -- what the purposes of the overall bill are. As I said in second reading, as the bill clearly outlines, we are putting forward this bill not because we think that the goal of all government should be the keeping of books
And it is regrettable when I hear what's going on with the Liberal opposition. It is regrettable that they have to be against everything, no matter whether the solution we're proposing meets exactly the principles that they have outlined. They are prepared to stand up and vote against it, even though they have said repeatedly that they support these principles. They would simply rather play politics than support a good solution, and this is a good solution.
Maybe the reason they're so negative is that they know that their own plans, their own promises on balancing the budget, simply don't add up. The Liberal math is simply a fraud. They say, "We're going to cut taxes; we're going to protect spending on health and education" -- apparently $6 billion for health isn't enough anymore -- "and we're going to change the way we account for capital. We're going to do all that and balance the budget immediately."
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Oh, three years. Three years? Well, hon. Speaker, I'm not sure they've really looked at the magnitude of the task they've set for themselves. So let's say they agree with our deficit target for next year: $950 million. In order to get there, here's what they're going to have to do: find another $1 billion of cuts to services to make up for their dramatic personal income tax reduction. They're going to have to find another $200 million in cuts to make up for their breaks to the corporate sector -- $1.26 billion in tax cuts that they've promised, overnight, immediately after the election -- as they somehow think that they're going to meet that target and protect health and education. It doesn't add up.
Who's going to benefit from these tax cuts? Well, we know. We've looked at it: 35 percent of their proposed income tax cuts will benefit the top 4 percent of income earners. They will get an average tax cut of $4,400 each. Just 5 percent of their cuts will go to that 50 percent of filers with an annual income under $20,000. So they know that their proposals simply don't add up.
We intend, with this bill, to get our fiscal house in order. The Premier has said clearly that this, added to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and our new Income Tax Act, sets the standard for a new way of doing finances in the province of British Columbia.
We don't seem to differ on the principles. I've heard them speak in favour of the principles contained in this legislation. And yet for some reason, they are more interested in playing politics than finding solutions that work for the people of British Columbia. We're focused on those solutions; we will make this work. I regret that for some reason, they will not be supporting this bill.
Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 28.
[1605]
Second reading of Bill 28 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 38 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Sihota | Cashore |
| Conroy | Smallwood | Miller |
| MacPhail | Dosanjh | Petter |
| Lovick | Priddy | Ramsey |
| G. Wilson | Farnworth | Waddell |
| Stevenson | Gillespie | Streifel |
| Walsh | Kasper | G. Clark |
| Goodacre | Janssen | |
| NAYS -- 35 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Dalton | McKinnon | Masi |
| Roddick | J. Wilson | Barisoff |
| van Dongen | Symons | Thorpe |
| Krueger | J. Reid | Stephens |
| Coleman | Hawkins | Hogg |
| Nebbeling | Weisbeck | |
[1610]
Bill 28, the Balanced Budget Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Lovick: I call second reading of Bill 25.
[ Page 17097 ]
SECURE CARE ACT
(second reading continued)
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
R. Coleman: I'm pleased to continue my discussion on the second reading debate of this bill. I reserved my position. It seems like a long time ago that we actually had some second reading debate on this, prior to the long weekend. I opened my last remarks by saying that I didn't take pleasure in speaking about this legislation, because it meant that there were children that were being abused on our streets and taken advantage of.
There are a few more comments I want to make, because I didn't get an opportunity to finish. Basically what it was is now with this legislation, we're going to take children off the streets for 72 hours. And that 72-hour period is a critical period during any intervention, particularly when you're dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. That intervention usually involves family, friends and loved ones in order to get someone refocused in their life to decide that they want to take some treatment. But when that intervention takes place, you need facilities for these people when they come off the streets in order to be able to have the intervention and have the continuing care, so that they can actually make these decisions and this stuff is there.
I don't see those facilities in order to implement this bill in British Columbia today. I also have a frustration about those facilities. I remember, before I was an MLA back in about 1992, the then Minister of
It is one of those pieces of property that since then has never been utilized at any level of use within the community of British Columbia. But we as a province have continued to pay the overhead and operating costs for that facility of about $6,000 to $7,000 a month. We have continued to pay the taxes on that facility, and we've continued to maintain that facility.
I think it's important that people realize what that facility has. That facility actually has beds and living accommodations for 14 youth. It actually has an indoor swimming pool, a gymnasium. It has a full workshop. It has a building that's a heritage house that has been converted, with a commercial kitchen and dining room and offices upstairs for people to be able to operate the facility. It has two classrooms that would have been used for an education program and all the equipment to actually operate a small farm. This is actually located on 80 acres in the riding.
[1615]
We are removing
I think it was the correct decision at the time, in 1992, to intervene by government and to make sure that that asset, which is located in the middle of the ALR and has an institutional zoning which is rather unique, was kept and made available for us to use in the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately, it hasn't been. Unfortunately, I see no vision relative to how we're going to handle these youth as far as having facilities and property utilizing our assets in order to be able to help these kids.
There are some concerns I have about this legislation, which I think will be dealt with more, probably, in committee debate than anything else. But the biggest concern is where this will all fall out relative to privacy issues, relative to the detainment of people for 30 days, 60 days and 90 days without some form of appeal or whatever -- the setting-up of another bureaucracy with a director. I mean, I've had the experience dealing with the director for Children and Families on some files. That has been a less than palatable experience for myself and for my constituents. I have a concern that this will become the same and therefore it will not be successful.
My biggest concern is that if we're going to be intervening and doing this, we have to have the facilities in place to deal with it. We also have to have the backup program and the trained people to handle the individuals in order to give them the direction that is going to be of assistance to them, and then move on from there.
A director of secure care may, without a warrant and by force if necessary, enter any premises in order to apprehend a child under this legislation. I think there are some issues for discussion in committee relative to that. I think the warrant to enter private premises by court order is a question that must be decided. The renewal of the secure care certificate and that renewal being allowed to go for 90 days
Last week we saw a horrible hit-and-run in Vancouver, where a person was killed by a vehicle that was racing down a street and that left the scene. The individuals turned themselves in and are now back on the streets already, quicker than a child we would bring into secure care. They're out there awaiting trial, out there with the opportunity to flee. Yet in this situation we actually have the ability to, for lack of a better description, jail somebody for 90 days.
I think that those issues of their rights have to be debated within the committee stage of this bill. The information and privacy commissioner warns that this act shields the ministry from public scrutiny and will result in erosion of fundamental rights. That is certainly a discussion that has to take place in committee. The commissioner went on to say that this act flies in the face of this government's promise of more accountable government. This is the information and privacy commissioner of the province of British Columbia who's making these statements relative to this act, and certainly when we debate this legislation, we'd best take that into account.
The issue around children, the issue around abuse -- having seen it and been there and knowing what it's like -- is disgusting. Whatever we can do to help our children is important. But don't just do it by a piece of paper, thinking that that's the solution. You need the structure, you need the backup and you need the things that work with this legislation to make it successful. If we can do that and we can save a child, then it's worth it.
[1620]
V. Anderson: The Secure Care Act is another important discussion for us to have within this Legislature about our concern for care for our children. I think it's appropriate that a former Minister of Social Services is here, because I want her
[ Page 17098 ]
to begin with comments about a report that was undertaken during her time of ministry which was called: "Making Changes -- A Place to Start." Also, the other report that was part of that was: "Liberating Our Children, Liberating Our Nations."
This was back in 1992 when this report was prepared and presented because of growing concerns about our children and youth in our province. I think it's important that we remind ourselves what was said in that report in 1992, some of which is relevant.
That situation was tragic enough in 1992, but the situation is even more tragic today, because over that period of time, the processes that have been put in place to try and meet the system have not done that job. Out of this report came the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which in itself was a good representation of the reports that were presented at that time."Families told us of being frightened and threatened by a child welfare structure they thought should have provided help and support. Families also told us that too often problems had to reach crisis proportions before help could be obtained. Young people said the experience of being moved from home into government care was like 'going from the frying pan into the fire.' Ministry staff, service providers and caregivers described to us the feelings of frustration and isolation. They said the system is focused on symptoms, not on the underlying causes of the problems facing family and children. Community representatives, especially those from ethnocultural groups, described current child protection structures and practices as being out of touch with their needs and often discriminatory."
But the process of the implementation of the Child, Family and Community Service Act has been faulty from start to end. As I've visited and as we, from this side of the House, visit members of the community -- whether it's youth, whether it's family members, whether it's service providers, whether it's the children themselves -- what you discover again and again is that policies and regulations which had been implemented by this government as a result of this children and families act do not fulfil the principles of that act. Therefore, we have not dealt with what the act struggled with and what we should deal with: the underlying symptoms and causes that our children and families are having in our province that cause significant numbers of our young people to end up in street life and in prostitution.
[1625]
The Secure Care Act talks about "secure" but not a great deal about care, and it's care that is most significant and most important. Also, about the time -- in fact after the time -- of this report, another report came out. That report came out as a report from a street person herself who had gone among other street persons and asked them what their concerns were, what the problem was and what the answer might be. A theme that went through that report by Cherry Kingsley was this: for whatever reason, young people had been separated from their families, from the secure care and love which comes from a united and loving family. From the point that that happened and things had not been in place to bring that family back together
As Cherry diagrammed it, she had the circle of a family, which is the need of every single one of us. As they were moved out of that circle, they were moved to another circle outside, and the relationships between that circle and the inside loving circle began to break down. As that circle broke down, they were moved to another circle and then another circle and another circle, so that the possibility of their being able to come back into a relationship with their family was almost totally taken away from them. Very few were able to make the process back. This had a lifelong impact on them.
The UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Children and Youth stresses the fact that the fundamental principle of every young person is that they should have that loving care relationship. In this government we have gone back from one side to the other. We've played with words. We've said that the family was the crucial part, as if the family was something separate from the child or the parents were something separate from the child. We put an emphasis on the child, as if the child were something separate from the parents -- without recognition that the parents are part of the child and the child is part of the parents. That is a reality which will be with them for all of their lives. The more separation there is, the more problems there may be with meeting their needs.
This realization of child and family needs not being met in our modern society was the first basic principle of that report. Over the years we have gone off on tangents and overlooked that basic principle. The report of the committee said that there was a common goal in what they were doing. Again I quote:
We have not really heard the results of that report being implemented by the activities that have come through our government processes. The guiding principles were there. There should be dignity and respect. There should be inclusiveness. There should be freedom from abuse. They should be involved -- the children, youth and parents -- in all processes that affect their lives. There should be continuity and stability in the plan, and there should be equity, and services should always be close to home."The members of the community panel have been united by one common theme and one common goal: to listen to the people and communities of this province and to provide a voice for people and communities to speak to government. The road for us has not always been easy. The issues under consideration strike at the very heart of the relationship among families, children and their governments. This report is about our attempt to capture the significant threads and common issues that communities told us needed immediate and long-term change."
[1630]
There is need for care for the people who are on the street, for whom all of these processes have failed, and they reflect that failure to us. But this bill, though it acknowledges -- and rightly so -- that there is a need to be met, does not provide within it the resources to meet that need. It does not acknowledge that it is in a context. And unless the supportive services are there to prevent abuse and the breakdown of families and the resources are there if that does happen, to enable them to have the resources to maintain and bring back their families, then the process becomes extremely difficult at this end.
I wanted to highlight from that report the section on youth itself, because there were certain principles that it gave in youth services -- principles which, over this period of time, have not been adhered to. Youth have a right to have their basic needs met in an environment that is safe, healthy and nurturing. These youth have not had that opportunity -- the majority of them. Youth have the right to continuity and stability in their relationships with their families, caregivers and communities. That continuity has not been there and is not even actually referred to in the Secure Care Act.
[ Page 17099 ]
Youth must be included and involved in all decisions that have an effect on their lives. There's some acknowledgment of this within this act, but there's also the room within the act for exceptions, which probably will become the rule rather than the reality. Youth and families are entitled to a broad spectrum of services. These services must be delivered when needed and in the manner in which they are needed.
Hon. Speaker, I went down and had the privilege to be in the audience of the play that was presented by the street people about the circumstances of their lives. Key in that play was this young girl who came -- because of frustration, because of breakdown, because of fear, because of loneliness -- down into the centre of the street. And what she discovered is that when she got there, there was no way to make contact with anyone that cared, except to make contact with others who had gone through the process previous to her, who understood her and expressed their concern but simply drew her into inadequate resources and treatment facilities that were not able to meet her needs. The heritage, religious and cultural ties of youth must be respected. Having worked in a multifaith action movement for years, I'm very much aware that heritage, religious and cultural ties are being neglected right across the board.
Here within this report are some very significant phrases that we need to take in mind, which are not recognized within this Secure Care Act as it now stands. And I also understand that the act, like so many other acts, will be either weakened or strengthened by the kind of policies and regulations that are applied to it. So though we will support the act because it is perhaps a step in the right direction, we must stress that the policies and principles and the regulations are the key. The act is only a legal framework that may provide a sense of security, but it also can be a framework that provides a jail and not care. That's a major concern. So I'll highlight the youth services report part of this report on making change as a place to start.
[1635]
The young people we met were clear about their needs. They need money, housing, educational opportunity, counselling and adults who are respectful and caring in their lives. They were angry that the system does not allow them a voice in decisions made about them. They often said that the system tried to make them fit the service, rather than alternating the service to their needs. That's the great danger of this act, because what we have discovered in the whole child care protection service is that when a child is apprehended by the ministry for whatever reason, good or bad, they are taken into a legal system and legal laws begin to apply -- laws that are rigid and unbending for the needs of particular children and families.
You have, coming before a court again and again, a band of lawyers representing the government. And over against that band of lawyers and their presentation there are children with no representation from independent persons outside of that system and parents -- who know them most -- with no representation and foster parents who have cared for them for most of their lives, who are also forbidden to make representation on their behalf. So the decisions that are made are made with inadequate, inappropriate information again and again.
There's a phrase in here which is very appropriate as we look to this issue: "The current system focuses on youth as the problem, rather than the problems at work in families and even the whole community. We need a focus on families as well as youth."
I would stress that youth are not a problem, but youth have problems; that parents are not problems, but parents have problems. And what they have said as the recommendation in this section states: "Therefore, we recommend that the Ministry of Social Services must commit sufficient resources to respond to and assess the needs of young people and their families. The Ministry of Social Service must expand and enhance the range of services available to all youth and their families, regardless of whether the youth are in care or not. These services range from family counselling and mediation services to safe houses and crisis services for youth."
As we move ahead, I ask us to go back and look at the report on making changes, as a place to start, and to look at liberating our children, which was the companion piece done by the aboriginal committee that worked together as part of this total process. We asked the community, the children and the families what we could do. They responded: "We hurt." But we have not acted upon what they said and what we heard. We have been unfaithful to them. The Secure Care Act highlights our unfaithfulness. Perhaps it will be a reminder for us to go back and once again be faithful to the children and the youth and the families of this province.
[1640]
D. Jarvis: My friend from Vancouver-Langara eloquently explained the reasons for this bill. Sensibly, Bill 25, the Secure Care Act, is a vehicle to protect exploited youth in this province. I support this bill; however, it's somewhat reluctantly -- not because of its intent but because of its content and how the secure care program will be invoked and implemented.
The main premise of this bill is intended to protect those children who are being exploited, primarily in the 12-to16-year-old age group. The question is: are we prepared to offer this protection and provide the services that will be necessary to do so? This is a question that we will discuss further. At this time I cannot see where this protection and these services will come from. As of today this government is, in my opinion, wholly unprepared to give secure care to the number of children that require it in this province and give that care in an environment that is truly safe. The number one barrier in this bill is safe housing and not in a jail-like atmosphere, which I understand they intend to partially use.
The ministry says they are now going to provide custody care in a section of the Maples, for example -- a building at the Maples. If you've ever been out in that area, you'll know that it is not a true safe place for those children that have problems. This is a well-known location and is used for both youth detention and substance abuse programs.
So how do we secure the kids that are separate at the Maples? Do we lock them up in a jail atmosphere? This certainly appears that it's going to lead into a situation where we do have to lock them up to make sure they're secure, if they're in that environment out there. And how is that going to be helpful to those children? The reason behind this is to connect and make a plan to keep children safe in this community. However, if you talk to the youth on the streets, the workers on the streets or the youth care workers, the Maples is a jail as far as they're concerned. Some of it is secure; some if it is not. Drugs are prevalent here and there, if necessary. It's an old school that was converted some 40 years ago. Is this where we intend to put these children? That is questionable.
The premise of this bill is basically good, as I said -- secure care for children that need protection in a safe locale,
[ Page 17100 ]
where he or she can be assessed by a board or tribunal to be released through controlled parental care or to a facility like the Maples, as I said, for up to 90 days. I hope it's not like that, in regards to the Maples aspect. They should be put where we can give them more opportunity and more choices. However, there is always the question: does the child want care? Who knows why they did hit the streets anyway? What if it was originally a situation of an abused child that progressed to drugs, and they are too afraid to talk about it? Do we send them back to the parents, into the same environment they came from? Does a child really care at this stage of their life? Do we just shove them in care or in jail or detox them, where we'll probably shoot them full of meds? Does this treatment that follows
Do they go on to the harm reduction program afterwards? What we're going to do, from what I understand from other locales and talking to workers, is that we are ostensibly going to send them underground. The kids will literally go underground and come up at night and in other various locales, where the streetworkers will lose them, or they'll go down to the States, as they've been doing in other provinces.
[1645]
This is not an easy piece of legislation, and I can appreciate that. It's full of potential problems. The premise is good, but I doubt that this government, on the basis of their past record in this ministry, will make it go.
It was only one and a half months ago that the minister told the social workers in this province that we won't adopt Alberta's plan to protect teens, that it is too controversial. Now here we are, some 50 days later, and she is presenting this bill to the House. It does not give me a comfortable feeling. Why does this legislation suddenly appear, when it was not on to begin with less than two months ago? Is it due to the pressures the ministry is receiving from independent reports?
The press has been yelling for the minister to make some kind of changes in her ministry because the system they have going now is not working. The Kaiser report just came out stating that drug prevention and treatment service cannot be delivered under the current broken system. That it is a signal or a poor indictment of this ministry is without question. In the paper the other day, Save the Children Canada is "disappointed with the B.C. government, as it has decided to go ahead with the Alberta-style lockup for commercially sexually exploited children. We feel that it's an expensive and ineffective way to deal with a complex and disturbing issue."
The other aspect in this article that I noted was that the government said that it had consulted with organizations before proposing this legislation. Yet the Save the Children Canada says: "We have not ever been consulted, even though we have developed a national program that has been recognized across the country." Other agencies that work directly with children in the sex trade have also told us that they have not been consulted. We have not heard about any community meetings concerning this issue, and it makes one wonder who was consulted.
Even the government employees union is telling the government that the system is in trouble. The Gove report recommended secure care for the additional children when this bill is passed -- and when they are already unable to cope with it. We in the official opposition are not against the concept of this bill, as we have said. However, we doubt why the bill was suddenly thrust on us, when the minister already said she was afraid to put it forward, as I said, about five weeks ago and when we now know that the ministry is wholly inadequate to produce the quality of care needed. We've already seen what is going on in the Terrace drug treatment centre, for example. We have six beds up there; only two are occupied. They have a full staff running 24 hours a day and no people inside.
Some of the problems out there are that the programs of this government have never been backed up with dollars, resources or staff. A perfect case is the Draayers case -- two kids that have been traumatized probably for the rest of their lives. The question I'll have to ask the minister later is: will it run as a provincial organization or regional? Are they going to move to the regionalization of the people in the
Well, Mr. Speaker, time is waning, and I've been asked to make my comments short until we get into the next section of this bill. I do want to say that the last question I have is on section 49 of this bill. That's in regards to the ministry having the power to basically imprison, with very few exceptions, and assess a child at risk, and really no one has the right to know about it. That's basically what it is as to the Freedom of Information Act. Effectively, it's a secrecy move. They can keep a child hidden from any agency and any worker.
I can appreciate the question that you don't want the pimp to get after them or the gang to find out where they are. But there are a lot of questions to this bill. Ostensibly, as I said, it's probably going to be necessary, because we have problems in this province, and I hope we are successful with it. But when we hear from the Kaiser Foundation and Save the Children and the Government Employees Union that they are upset with the way this government operates -- street care and the workers
[1650]
K. Krueger: I too rise to express support for Bill 25. I think it's a tremendously important move that the government's attempting to make. I believe that we're in a battle in our society -- right around the world, really. The battle is for the protection of childhood innocence. There is no higher responsibility that we have as a government. We owe it to children to protect them from the evil forces in this world that would abuse them, that would take advantage of them, that would lead them into a life of bondage to addiction, that would use them horribly in the sex trade. I'm glad that this act has been brought forward.
We do have concerns. The official opposition has some deep concerns that have already been well spelled out by my colleagues. We have repeatedly in this House, with a very sincere heart, offered to help this government in any way at all to deal with the pressing problem facing children in British Columbia. If additional budget allocations are needed, our leader has stood up and said: "We're going to vote for those. We will ensure that the resources are there to provide for the safety of teenagers and of little ones in British Columbia." And we mean it, because there is no greater responsibility than the responsibility we have to children.
[ Page 17101 ]
So we've wondered -- and we're dismayed over the years, hon. Speaker -- at the lack of progress in organizing the Ministry for Children and Families and in dealing with these issues. Jesus said that where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also. It's the same with governments. If we really care about something, then that's where we're going to put our resources. That's where we're going to allocate everything we can to make sure that we deliver on those responsibilities. We think that applies right from early childhood development considerations through to dealing with troubled teens and teens whose lives have come off the rails.
I've been attending a whole series of graduation ceremonies in Kamloops and in the surrounding region. It struck me that these young people who are graduating -- the flower of our society, beautiful, strong, vibrant, full of hope and desiring opportunity -- have had an NDP government since they were in grade 3. Now they're graduating from grade 12. I'm sure it's a disappointment to the members opposite that the troubles that children face in this province are still as profound and unresolved as they are, because this government has had nine years to deal with these issues.
I believe that every member opposite would consider children as a very high priority if they were asked to give a list of priorities. Yet somehow the government has failed to deliver the programs and the services that are needed. So we seem to find ourselves in a never-ending crisis in this matter of dealing with children who need help in British Columbia. Rather, the administration of Children and Families seems to have been the ongoing focus ever since the ministry was created. We had high hopes when this ministry was created that, on the recommendations of Mr. Justice Thomas Gove, situations like the terrible one that befell little Matthew Vaudreuil would never be repeated in this province. But we've heard all too many of them since. We think that this government -- all of us, including the official opposition -- has to get its act together on these pressing matters. And this indeed is a pressing matter.
Now, I've had concerns expressed to me by various people. One of the first concerns is: why would you vote to give government this right to take away the civil rights of young people and essentially to put them in jail? "It's a violation of their civil liberties," people say. "Why would you do that?"
Well, it seems to me that a child that is caught in addictions or in the clutches of a pimp is already in something far worse than jail. Addiction is bondage; addiction is chains. Pimps -- I think the two issues go together -- use drugs to wrap those chains around young people and to keep them in bondage and to make their lives not worth living. I know it begins to feel that way to them very early.
[1655]
So 90 days of suspending a person's civil rights is a serious matter. But if their lives can be turned around, if their eyes can be opened to the opportunities in this province and in this country so that they have 90 years to enjoy life, then it was worth it on balance, I submit -- as long as that can happen, as long as they are genuinely treated like a priority.
But I've been shocked to hear that there are no facilities to send these young people to. The government is going to scoop them off the street -- which I agree with -- but then they're going to end up in jail. And that's wrong; that just can't happen. They must not end up in jails or anything like jails.
This province controls vast tracts of some of the most beautiful real estate in the world -- pristine wilderness. There are lodges in faraway places where these young people could be taken, where they could awaken from the drug-induced trauma and fog that their lives have fallen into, and breathe clean air and be cared for by clean people far away from those who've betrayed them in the past. That is the sort of facility that I hope the government will create. I think it could be done using existing resources in fairly short order.
Places -- safe places, genuinely safe places -- to take these young people, where they will not be treated as if they're in jail or held in jail
We disagree with the creation of a new directorate and a new board -- a new bureaucracy -- to deal with these matters, when we have the family courts. They're good at what they do. It's the courts that should be involved in making these decisions, not some new bureaucracy.
And we certainly disagree with the so-called privacy provisions. The office of the information and privacy commissioner has expressed grave concerns that this act shields the ministry from public scrutiny and will result in the erosion of fundamental rights. The act, in the commission's words, "flies in the face of this government's promise of more accountable government."
The ministry has not established a track record that justifies the public or the opposition or indeed the government putting that kind of trust in the ministry. That is something that we can't support. There has been a very troubled track record in the Ministry for Children and Families. We have little confidence that we can assume that these things will be done well, and we aren't going to assume that.
Only six weeks ago the minister did say that this subject was too controversial to bring on. We're grateful that the legislation has been brought on, but we're not confident that the government's really ready to do things well, and we don't accept any cloak of secrecy, because of the bad track record. And the bad track record isn't even just this government's. We continue to see court judgments, horrific revelations of the way young people -- troubled young people taken into care -- were treated in the past by people who sexually abused them.
Even right now in Kamloops there's this horrible wrong-headed woman going through an appeal process. She feels hard done by that the court imposed a two-year suspended sentence on her for having sexually violated a young woman in her care as a foster child -- a 16-year-old girl that she now presumes to have a relationship with. The girl was only in her home because she was supposed to be a foster daughter. She was supposed to be in that family's care on behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia.
Those sick things continue, and they are absolutely wrong. And this ministry has no right to expect any cloak of secrecy around how it's conducting itself, because previous governments -- and certainly this government -- have a terrible track record of poor results.
[ Page 17102 ]
[1700]
So yes, hon. Speaker, I'm going to vote in favour of this bill. But I hope the government is listening closely to the concerns being expressed by my colleagues and particularly by the critic. Those are serious concerns, and we will not back off from them.
Deputy Speaker: Just to let the House know that in the precinct this afternoon is Leonard H. Teitelbaum. He is a Senator from the state of Maryland, and he's here with his wife. I met with them this afternoon for 15 minutes, and now they're in the gallery. So would all members make them welcome.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I've given quite a bit of thought about the opportunity of speaking to this legislation. I have to say that since having the privilege of being the Minister of Social Services many years ago, I haven't often spoken in this House around child protection issues in particular or about the ministry's work. So the opportunity that this bill presents is one, in some sense, that I'm really -- in a sad way -- looking forward to. I think being a minister responsible for this area is a privilege that very few people have. It gives you a certain amount of insight into the work that the ministry does, which most people in this province don't have the opportunity to take advantage of.
So I want to speak a little bit about that opportunity. Most people who know me know that in referring to it as government's best-kept secret
In dealing with this particular legislation, I am going to focus a little bit on the horrors that the children of the streets experience in this province and in other provinces -- and in North America I think the condition is somewhat similar. I want to start off by saying thank goodness, they are the minority.
I want to talk a little bit about a conference that I attended in the very first years of our government. It happened up in 108 Mile. It was organized by a number of young people. The member for Vancouver-Langara spoke of Cherry Kingsley and her work. Cherry Kingsley was one of the organizers of the youth-in-care network not only here in this province but subsequently across Canada. There are now international youth-in-care networks.
This conference was brought together by a group of young people that were wards of the state. There were well over a hundred young people there, as well as social workers and, sadly, only about three or four foster parents. The young people were given the opportunity of inviting their foster parents if they felt comfortable doing that. Only three or four were invited.
This conference had young people speaking about their experiences with the ministry, about their experiences with their families before they came into care and about their future hopes. When I first walked into the conference, there was a social worker standing at the front of the room. I swear he must have been about 6 foot 6. As the young people were speaking, for the full time that I was there, there were tears running down his face. The young people would walk up and give him a Kleenex.
[1705]
Often there were young people in the room that bolted from the room in tears. There were social workers that went and followed them out and then brought them back in. There were young people there that had a history of being street-entrenched. They spoke of their experiences on the street. They talked about losing their friends. They talked about seeing the funky chicken. I don't know if anybody here knows what that means. I didn't. What the funky chicken is, is when a young person goes off the roof of a building and dies.
They talked about the community that they sought on the street, because everything else had broken down in their lives. They spoke of their friends that were their community and were their family. They spoke about the dangers on the streets. They talked about the predators that were there. They spoke about the drug scene that was on the street. Now, keep in mind that this is almost ten years ago now -- my experience with that particular conference. It's become that much more dangerous on the streets with organized crime, with drugs. We're hearing now in Vancouver of a combination of cocaine and heroin where the bacteria that is present in this particular drug is causing young people
We hear about the sex-trade circuit moving young people from Alberta to Vancouver to Victoria and then down the coast, each move moving those young people away from their support network, whether it's their friends or their families or often young people that have grown up in care, so they had very tenuous connections with their communities in the first place.
When we're dealing with this legislation and the opportunity to speak to it, I speak to it with some sadness that a society should come to a situation where we would have to take an action that would deny some rights to a child, to a human being, by taking a human being into secure care for their own safety.
I want to stress something else that I learned also from the work that Cherry Kingsley did. I don't want to suggest that the Youth In Care Network or that Cherry and the people that she works with support the legislation. I have no idea of their opinion. But the work that they have done and the report that the member referred to
In some way, as I think about this particular piece of legislation, it is just that. It is a message that when all else fails, when nothing else works, we as society value them as human beings, and we are not going to turn our backs. We will not ignore their existence or walk by them when they are panhandling. We will, like many of those social workers that care so
[ Page 17103 ]
deeply about the work they do -- in spite of all of the negative press, all of the sensationalism, all of the criticism that has happened
[1710]
Very early on when I had the opportunity to be the Minister of Social Services, I remember an exchange where the then deputy, a gentleman who I have a great deal of respect for, was telling me of an instance in Vancouver where a social worker was laying down the law with an ultimatum to a young person: "This is your last chance; if you don't clean up your act this time, you're cut off."
Having heard that, the deputy said to this particular social worker: "That's not the way it works. Nobody gets cut off here. You keep on, and you find another way to work with this child, and you find another way to connect with this person. And if that one doesn't work, then you find another way after that."
That is the way that I think is at the core of what this legislation is. I want to say that anybody who's looking for a panacea, whether it's this legislation or any other legislation
But what it does do is send a strong message that as a society, we're not backing away. It says that for those that don't have loving parents to be strong advocates
One of the things that happens on the street and one of the ways that street workers and social workers alike connect with some of those kids that are so disaffected, so cut off, so marginalized, is that they have pizza nights. They offer pizza for the kids to come and have something to eat. It's a way of letting the kids know that there are people out there that they can talk to and some way to win back the trust that's necessary.
We have to keep in mind that this particular piece of legislation will be dealing with children that haven't been able to be reached by all of those other mechanisms. Some of those kids have been preyed upon because of their need or want to belong, because of their need or want to be loved by people that are trying to simply make a buck off of a life.
[1715]
Some of the stories that you hear in working with a ministry like this are stories that you can't imagine happening in a civilized society -- young children that are held captive so they can be sold for sex or for pornography, young children that, once they are found, spend the rest of their lives receiving medical attention and in diapers, because of the abuse they have had at the hands of adults.
I want to read into the record the dedication that Cherry Kingsley wrote in her report, the report that simply sent the message that young people are looking for a place to belong. Cherry says:
She says:"This paper is dedicated to the memory of Frankie, Wiz, Richard, Tony, Rob, Chantel, Jody, Maui, Gerome, David, Rob, Rachel and Denny."
I think it's really important that we understand the magnitude of what we're doing. I think it's important that we continue to be vigilant and assure the rights of the children that will be brought into secure care. I think it is crucial that we all fight to ensure that the resources are there for those young people and that the workers that work with them are supported. My experience with the people that work in this ministry, as I said, is that while there are examples of things going desperately wrong and, like in any ministry, there are people that should not work with children, the majority of the people that work in this ministry are dedicated people. I know as a fact that many of us could not sustain the kind of work that these people do."Your voices were silenced long before death claimed you, but I hear you. Your voices haunt me sometimes. I promise to try and change the system and the straight world to get them to understand the value of life, all life. I promise to try and live to be good to myself, break the cycles that have chained us. I have walked through the fires of hell and walked away. I acknowledge my good fortune, relatively speaking, and I will work hard to honour your memories and experiences. This report is also for Cameron and Tony and Tim, my only remaining family. I believe in you. I have listened to what you say."
So I would hope, for the sake of the children that do not have loved ones that will fight for them, that we in this House not only support the legislation but take the next steps to ensure that these children's voices are heard, that the examples that have been set by people like Cherry Kingsley, who continue to work against child sexual exploitation now on the international stage, are supported and that we as a Legislature are part of giving voice to those children and often bring these invisible young lives in out of the shadows.
L. Stephens: I am very pleased to rise today and speak briefly to Bill 25, the Secure Care Act. First of all, I do want to say that I do support this legislation as well, certainly the principle and the purpose of the bill.
I'd like to commend the minister for having changed her mind on presenting this bill during this session. When the secure care working group submitted their report, the minister at that time said that it was too controversial and that she wasn't interested in proceeding with legislation. So I'm happy to see that she's changed her mind. And that's not to say that everything in this bill is something that I think is the right way to go. It certainly isn't, and other members have expressed those reservations as well. But having said that, I do applaud the government for attempting to find some solutions to these youth at very high risk. It's a very serious issue, and there are no easy answers.
[ Page 17104 ]
I think we all recognize that young people need to be protected from themselves at some times; I think this bill is designed to do that. Of course, for the parents who are constantly stressed, they certainly feel helpless and hopeless, at the moment, to try and provide or get some services for their children. I think the family support services section of the Ministry for Children and Families could go a long way to helping parents become better parents, because a lot of parents want to give what is best for their children, and many of them don't know how. Many of them don't have the kinds of abilities to access service, if indeed any of that service is there. So that's another way, I think, that the ministry could look to improving themselves. Of course, for the kids on the street this is an opportunity for them to turn their lives around.
[1720]
Members have talked about the bill, what it does, the fact that it's going to concentrate on the 12-to-16-year-olds at the beginning and the fact that the kids are going to be able to be held for 30 days against their will, and a further 30 days -- for a total of a 90-day commitment to keeping them secure. People I've spoken to that have intimate knowledge about this particular bill say that the purpose is to keep children safe. It isn't about treatment; it's about keeping children safe. And I think that is important certainly from the point of view that many of these kids have been exposed to physical abuse and sexual abuse, and suffer drug and alcohol addictions and mental health issues as well. To be able to keep the children from individuals who are not acting in their best interests is important. But again, we do have some very serious reservations about this amount of time that kids are going to be held against their will.
Two areas in particular are important to me. One of those areas is that this legislation does not allow for the freedom-of-information legislation to work, and I think that's a mistake. I think that if this government is really committed to having open and accountable government, that's one of the amendments they will consider; that's certainly one of the issues that they will think more concentratedly about.
I think it really goes without saying that responsible, caring adults desire that all the children grow up in a safe and understanding environment. It really is an extremely important and responsible goal of the government to work with parents, children and service providers to do just that. But the question about this bill is whether or not it will accomplish those goals. Well, probably it will, and it will be able to keep children off the street for a particular period of time and, with any luck, provide the kinds of services that they require to go on to build better lives.
The concern I have is that I believe that this bill will add more bureaucracy and red tape. I think a large part of the money that will be used to implement this particular program will be consumed by administration services instead of providing the kind of services to the kids that are required, and that's counselling and treatment programs. And, as I said, the process isn't open and accountable.
I think it gives the Ministry for Children and Families and this new board that is going to be set up the ability to provide jobs and work for friends and insiders. At this point we don't know who those individuals will be, what their qualifications will be and whether or not they will be able to bring to the decisions they will have to make the objectivity that is required, as opposed to perhaps the courts being involved and the court system being the people who are making the decisions on the children who are going to be taken into secure care.
[1725]
The other area where there's a very poor track record by this government, and particularly the Ministry for Children and Families is in services to children and youth. So it really means that in those areas I have very little confidence in the ministry to deliver any meaningful programs for street-involved youth, or for the long-term services either.
Now, the reality of the children on the street
The reality is that there are 300 to 500 street youth in the province today, primarily in the downtown east side. Many of them gravitate to the downtown east side because whatever services there have been in the province have been concentrated there. So those kids leave their communities around the other parts of the province and gravitate to the downtown east side.
There's also the reality that there are not enough detox and treatment or safe housing or employment options for street-involved youth looking for services. That's an issue that has been raised time after time in virtually every report that has been done. The reality is also that there are very limited resources for agencies to provide those services and no resources for agencies to respond to any of the emerging issues. A lot of those emerging issues are health issues around HIV and hep C and all of those other kinds of things.
Now, it's also true that youth are resistant to a lot of these services. When you look at what has been there for them and how they have been shunted from one place to another and have fallen between the cracks, it is no wonder that many of them are resistant to services. If they go through once, they're very reluctant to do it again, because they know that there is no safe or affordable housing for them. They know that if they do go through detox, if they do go through treatment, then they're back on the street with no employment and no safe housing, and they end up right back into the cycle again.
That's a critical key issue that I haven't heard the minister talk about, and that's what really needs to be looked at: the long-term treatment beds, again. You know, we talk about taking the kids off the street. But then what are you going to do with them after that? Once you've detoxed them, once you've stabilized them, there has to be a way to provide long-term treatment services. We just simply don't have anything in this province longer than 52 days, and that isn't long enough. Anyone in this particular field will tell you that it isn't long enough. There are no appropriate mental health services as well, particularly for the youth, particularly for kids. And there's nonexistent aftercare to help them build their happy and productive lives.
This is a good start, but I think the ministry has to really look at the long-term care for kids. They have to really look at
[ Page 17105 ]
what the realities are, what the children need and what the ministry has been able to deliver so far, and what this particular bill will do to advance that.
I want to make one comment about the sexually exploited youth. This particular group is quite adamant that this bill is not something that is going to do anything for that group at all. There are things here that the government can do as well. There is one issue that they bring up time and time again, and that is section 212(4) of the Criminal Code.
It was changed by the federal government so that now, in order to prove a case of child prostitution, the police just have to show that there was a communicating for the intent. But you know, there aren't any charges -- very, very few charges, very few convictions. And so the street-involved youth, particularly the sexually exploited youth that are on the streets, look at this and say: "Who cares? Nobody cares about us, because if they did, if the government was really serious about providing the kinds of services for us that we require, why aren't they charging the johns? Why aren't they doing that? Why am I being put away? Why am I being held against my will when these people are out there free in the community?"
[1730]
They have a very good point. So the question for the minister is: why aren't we doing more? Why aren't we enforcing these laws? Is it because the kids don't have the power? Is it because the kids aren't as vocal and aren't as aggressive in advocating for themselves? That's a question the minister has to answer. I think it's incumbent upon the Attorney General and the Minister for Children and Families to address that particular issue much more vigorously than they have in the past.
There is a report here that I want to recommend to everyone in this House. It's called "You Have Heard This Before: Street-Involved Youth and the Service Gaps." This one was done in 1997. It's another one of those reports that seems to get shelved and never see the light of day again. It does talk about housing. It talks about employment, it talks about health care, it talks about prevention and it talks about government and what government needs to do. It talks about the reformation of laws and social justice policies. It gives some very specific direction to governments, service providers and the community at large on how we can in fact bring the kind of programs and services to street-involved youth that would make a difference in their lives.
With that, I will just simply say that really, my suggestion to the minister is that she develop -- with whatever groups or organizations she wishes to
So with that, I will say again that I support the intent and purpose of this bill and would like to make sure that what the legislation says will happen is in fact going to happen. I want the minister to know, too, that we will be watching very closely as the implementation of this particular bill moves forward to make sure that we are in fact doing everything we possibly can to protect these street-involved children.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Seeing no further speakers, I'm delighted to take this moment to wrap up second reading debate and to thank all those who participated in the debate. We certainly heard some interesting remarks. We heard some thoughtful remarks. We heard some slightly over-the-top remarks -- I have to say, in my humble opinion -- about what is in this bill and maybe what is not in fact in this bill. Occasionally, I have to say, that does concern me a little, because it sets and leaves some bad impressions in the community and results in issues being more complicated to sort out than I think they need to be.
Having said that, I appreciate what I'm hearing, and that is that we will be getting support from the opposition for this bill and for the principles in the bill. I appreciate the points that have been made around that -- that in fact there are a number of concerns. Some of them were addressed in my earlier remarks and will be again as we approach the committee stage of this bill.
There are a couple of things I did want to say. I wanted to emphasize several things. One is that when the act comes into force -- which won't be immediately, because we need to put in place the range of programs that are needed to strengthen and enhance the continuum of services that are now in place
[1735]
I have heard, and we are continuing to work with, the privacy commissioner on the concerns that he has raised. I've talked about the continuum of care and the need to restate that in fact over the past year, a significant investment of new money has been put into the area of substance abuse services. But I must agree with the need to focus on the continuum and to underscore that there are young people out there now who need help. And we know that if we take no action, we risk losing more of those kids.
It's clear that the legislation has a pretty big task to perform, and that is to balance those competing interests that are very strong and that we all hold very dear -- that is, a child's right to be protected, a child's right to be nurtured, a child's right to be in a safe place -- along with the interest that sometimes a child needs to be protected for his or her own good. But making sure that there are enough procedural safeguards in place to allow the amount of time required, and only that amount of time required, for that child to be safe for awhile, to have the proper assessments done and then a plan of action developed for that child
First, they will be notified of their rights, and they will be notified when a hearing is required. They are entitled to legal counsel and the right to express their views. If the child is not present at the time, then their input is sought later. For all youth under this legislation, when a plan has been developed, copies of these will be filed with the children's commissioner. The child, youth and family advocate will be notified of each and every secure care hearing.
In addition to these precautions are the ones that already exist in legislation, and they have to do with basic care, being fed and clothed and sheltered, free from corporal punishment; to be informed about intervention plans; to be able to have discussions in privacy with family, lawyers, the child advocate
[ Page 17106 ]
and the children's commissioner; to be able to participate in religious activities; to receive guidance and encouragement to maintain their cultural heritage; to receive guidance about the risk that led to their detainment. Those are just some of the safeguards that are there.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The final piece that I want to reiterate just briefly has to do with what happens when a request is made for a certificate. What is it that the board has to answer about these young people? First, the board needs to ensure that the child or youth did in fact face a high risk of harm from their behaviour. That's what we're talking about; we're talking about high risk of harm to themselves.
The second issue that they must confirm for themselves is if the young person is unwilling or unable to take steps to reduce that harm voluntarily. That's a very important part of this. It's also very important that they have confidence that the board knows that no other less intrusive measure was available or adequate to reduce that risk and, finally, that the period of secure care would be in that child's best interest. That says a lot, and I think it goes a long way to dealing with the issue. However, we also are very conscious that this is not an easy thing to do.
When the bill was introduced first, there were a number of guests in the gallery, and I had a chance to have a conversation with them later in my office. I have to say I was very, very moved by their response to the legislation. Diane Sowden was there with her daughter; Megan was there with her daughter Melony; and there was another mom there. And it was very hard for them not to want to say things like "Thank goodness" -- and they did say that. But they also found that tears came, that it was a very emotional moment for them. As Diane said: "My daughter survived. But the trouble is that too many don't, and it took too long for it to happen. If this bill had been in place, she and we would not have gone through all of those terrible times that we went through during that time."
So while this is hard and there are lots of concerns, I just want to close by saying that we recognize that this is a hard kind of legislation to do and a hard kind of intervention to have to do. But it's my observation that the alternative is worse, Mr. Chairman.
With that, I move second reading.
[1740]
Motion approved.
Bill 25, Secure Care Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Lovick: I call committee on Bill 21.
DEFINITION OF SPOUSE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 1.
G. Plant: Bill 21 amends the definition of spouse in a number of different statutes. I want to explore what the significance is of that amendment in the context of at least some of those statutes.
The first one is the amendment of the definition of spouse in the Adult Guardianship Act. I believe this is what might be described as a standardization amendment, in that the definition of spouse in the Adult Guardianship Act already encompasses same-sex partners.
What's happening -- as I understand it from the briefing that I received, and also from my review of the legislation -- is that changes are being made to the language of the definition of spouse in this act to achieve or at least take steps towards achieving consistency in the definition across the statute books. Could the minister correct my understanding if I'm wrong and also indicate how the expanded definition of spouse works in the context of the Adult Guardianship Act? That is, what are the rights or obligations or responsibilities or benefits that are at work here, which are engaged by the expanded definition of spouse?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I think the member is correct. This is a standardization amendment that seeks to bring the definition of spouse in the Adult Guardianship Act into conformity with the definition that's found in other acts under this bill.
G. Plant: Can the minister outline briefly the context in which the expanded definition operates? That is, what are the rights and responsibilities that spouses have under that act that will apply to partners in same-sex relationships?
[1745]
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, under section 2, the section will add the adult spouse to the list of people who may assist a person to understand their support and assistance plan. The current list includes only friends and relatives, so it will add the concept of spouse.
G. Plant: That's helpful.
It's not the first time we've had the opportunity to debate, in committee stage, a bill in which the government revises the definition of spouse to accomplish the public policy objectives of ensuring that our laws don't discriminate and that they treat people equally -- particularly people in relationships -- regardless of their sexual orientation.
On previous occasions you will recall that we in the opposition have introduced an amendment intending to offer an alternative approach to the issue by ensuring that the law does in fact achieve substantive equality without changing the definition of spouse. The technique that we've used to attempt to achieve that end is introducing a term, and the term is "domestic partner." I've spoken about that term before and said that it's probably not the most elegant term, but it's intended to be functional. We think that it is functional and effective to ensure that the goal of substantive equality is achieved.
I won't speak at greater length on the subject. We have had the debate before, and I think it's been a useful debate on some occasions. The issue is raised again, for the purposes of this act, by an amendment which is standing in my name in the Orders of the Day. The amendment essentially repeals the proposed definition of spouse and replaces it with a definition
[ Page 17107 ]
that applies to people who are married or living in a common-law relationship that would not be a same-sex relationship. It introduces the definition of the new term "domestic partner," which would -- if it were accepted by the government -- then require consequential amendments to the legislation to ensure that wherever the term "spouse" appeared -- for example, the Adult Guardianship Act -- there would have to be the additional reference to domestic partner, in order to ensure that that term was introduced to achieve the goal of equality in each of the cases in the Adult Guardianship Act where there are rights or obligations or benefits or responsibilities conferred upon spouses. Accordingly, I move the amendment to section 1 of Bill 21 standing in my name on the order papers.
[SECTION 1, (Section 1 of the Adult Guardianship Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 6,) by repealing the definition of "spouse" and substituting the following:
"spouse" means a person who is
(a) married to another person, and is not living separate and apart, within the meaning of the Divorce Act (Canada), from the other person, or
(b) living and cohabiting with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
and by adding the following definition:On the amendment."domestic partner" means a person who is living with another person in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence.]
Hon. A. Petter: Like the member opposite
The government's position is that we do not support this amendment. Far from giving effect to substantive equality, we think it's an attempt to avoid substantive equality. If in fact the law recognizes, as a matter of civil rights and responsibilities, the significance of spousal relationships, then the failure to acknowledge that such relationships can exist in respect of same-sex couples is in fact an attempt to deny substantive equality by creating a new and very different kind of relationship -- as the member himself conceded in second reading. Domestic partnership may well be a useful concept, but it's quite a different concept -- one that is entered into, presumably, voluntarily whereas the term spouse here is one that can attach in certain legislation based upon the operation of law. It's also an attempt, in my view, to deny the very special nature of the spousal marriage-like relationship, to deny the existence and recognition of that in law and the rights and responsibilities that flow from that in law to people who are of the same sex.
[1750]
So our position, very simply, is that this is a clever but ill-conceived way of trying to avoid substantive equality -- the very opposite goal that the member claims it is designed to achieve. For that reason we cannot support the amendment.
G. Plant: I listened with interest to the minister's explanation of the reasons why the proposed amendment does not achieve substantive equality, and I won't respond to his use of terminology like "ill-conceived." I do, however -- given what the minister has said -- want to read the definition. It reads as follows: "Domestic partner means a person who is living with another person in a close personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence."
The point that I think needs to be made is that the minister, as I heard his remarks, is apparently of the view that the relationship of domestic partnership, as it has been given expression here in this amendment, would only arise voluntarily. That is not so. The relationship would arise involuntarily if the conditions that give rise to it exist. That is no more or less different than the definition of spouse that is proposed by the government. In each case, there are certain facts that presumably can be objectively verified. If they exist, there is a spousal relationship or a domestic partnership; if they do not exist, there is not. That is certainly the intention of this amendment. The intention of the amendment is not to create any greater right to opt out of the rights and responsibilities that flow from these relationships than there would be in respect of the government's proposed approach.
So on that one point -- that is, the point of voluntariness -- I think it is important that I argue that, on the one hand, I don't think that is the effect of the language used, but perhaps more importantly, it is certainly not the intent of the language used. But as I say, I'll leave aside the minister's other characterizations of the amendment, because that might require a more extensive debate than I think is probably called for, although the minister may nonetheless wish to invite that debate by whatever his response is to what I've just said.
Hon. A. Petter: I apologize to the member. The term domestic partnership has certainly been advanced by the Law Institute as a voluntary type of relationship. In fact, voluntariness was the essence. If his amendment didn't envisage that, then -- I hate to say it, but I'd be bound to -- it's even more ill-conceived than I had thought. What this would do is create an involuntary relationship of unknown bounds that would impose all sorts of rights and obligations on people in society who, I think, would be very surprised to find that they are suddenly subject involuntarily to all sorts of requirements that they had no notice of or understanding that they were going to pertain to them.
For that reason, if in fact the member has rejected the Law Institute's view of domestic partnership being one that's primarily grounded in a voluntary association, then I would say that this is even more problematic, in part for the reasons that the member himself stated in second reading debate -- which is why I'm surprised that he would have fastened onto this approach -- where he stated that one of the features of the definition of spouse and common-law relationship that he thought was problematic or at least raised concerns was that it imposed obligations on people by virtue of definition rather than by a voluntary association. Of course, domestic partnership does that in a much less well defined and less well known way, which people in society would be very surprised is being imposed upon them without their knowledge.
[1755]
G. Plant: As is precisely the case with government's definition -- sadly. The minister's point appears to me to be an argument that I am unable to follow. On the one hand, he proposes an amendment which has exactly the same effect that I've said. The circumstances will arise on the basis of circumstances that exist out there, and it will either apply or not apply by operation of law.
[ Page 17108 ]
The definition is, of course, untested in the courts. The minister is, I think, unable to point to judicial decisions that will conclusively determine, on the basis of the language used by this government in past cases, that his definition is any more or any less uncertain than the definition for domestic partnership proposed -- which, I must say, includes language taken from judicial decisions in which this very issue has been discussed. Just as the minister's legislative counsel have borrowed language from judicial decisions, so too does this amendment.
It may be a case where we will not achieve agreement, even on the basis of respecting that what is happening is an attempt to simply get to the same place by a different route. The minister is clearly unwilling to even make that concession -- and fair enough; that's politics. I'm going to suggest that in fact it is the intent of this amendment to get to the same place by a different route. There's a legitimate debate around whether the route chosen has other aspects to it which ought to be considered by people.
I concede, for example, the force of the minister's earlier argument that for many people it is important to characterize and describe the relationship itself as spousal. That clearly is a part of the government's approach here, because they've heard the argument that I've made before, and they've continued to take the course that they're taking. I don't doubt that the reason they're doing so is because among their objectives, in addition to the substantive equality in terms of rights or responsibilities, is also an objective to give recognition to these relationships as spousal in nature. That's a point on which I respectfully suggest that reasonable people, reasonably well intentioned, in a diverse society might reasonably disagree. But it is certainly the intent of this amendment to achieve something pretty darn close to the same result in terms of substantive rights, obligations and responsibilities, by a different road.
In each case, however, the road -- both the government's road and our road -- is essentially to describe a set of circumstances and then to attribute to those circumstances, based on the definition, certain rights and responsibilities. In each case the definition is, in its precise language -- at least so far as I'm aware -- untested in its application. We could argue about whether the government's words are more precise than the words chosen by us in this amendment; that may well be so. Again, that's not intentional.
I certainly don't apologize for the fact that the minister has access to legislative counsel; I do not. The minister and the government have access to enormously larger resources in terms of drafting legislation than we in the opposition do. I've certainly experienced the difficulties associated with that on a number of occasions over the last four years. That's not a complaint. I certainly can't foresee any reason why I would change that if I were in the government's position.
The main point behind the amendment is not to have the argument about the details of the words, but rather to talk about the principles. As I say, there are some issues on which I think there is legitimate disagreement and other issues where I think it may be that the better course is to acknowledge that there is here, at least, an attempt to move down that road -- the same road -- albeit by a different path.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I don't think we are going to end up agreeing, hon. Chair, and that's hardly surprising. I feel for the member's difficulty here. On the one hand, clearly the notion of a spousal relationship and cohabitation is one that I think the member, in a candid moment, would have to concede is far better known and far more familiar to the courts. On the other hand, for that very reason, he has members in his own caucus who don't want to embrace it for fear that it will confer an equivalence of status that they're not comfortable with. He's caught between a rock and a hard place, and he's trying as best he can, I think, to navigate between that rock and that hard place.
Rather than extend his difficulty, I'd simply say that I empathize with that situation. But our position is that we believe in the equivalence here, based on a far more ascertainable and well-known concept that the courts are familiar with around cohabitation, which has been subject to significant interpretative work by the courts, and spousal relationships, which are well known to the courts. I'll leave it at that.
[1800]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 33 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Penner | Weisgerber | Weisbeck |
| Nebbeling | Hogg | Hawkins |
| Coleman | Stephens | J. Reid |
| Krueger | Thorpe | Symons |
| van Dongen | Barisoff | J. Wilson |
| Roddick | Masi | McKinnon |
| NAYS -- 36 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Sihota | Cashore |
| Conroy | Smallwood | Miller |
| MacPhail | Dosanjh | Petter |
| Lovick | Priddy | Ramsey |
| G. Wilson | Farnworth | Waddell |
| Gillespie | Streifel | Walsh |
| Kasper | Goodacre | G. Clark |
[1805]
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
T. Stevenson: The committee rises, reports progress and asks leave to sit again.
The Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?
Hon. D. Lovick: Later, Mr. Speaker, and with that I would call private members' statements.
[ Page 17109 ]
HELPING LEAKY CONDO OWNERS
F. Randall: Today I would like to talk about the leaky-condo issue in British Columbia. As I am sure all members of this House are aware, the residential condominium industry in B.C. has been plagued by problems ranging from shoddy workmanship to insufficient regulation to warranties that simply are not worth the paper they're written on. And surely all members of this House are also aware of the steps that the B.C. government has taken.
We have empowered the Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia, chaired by former Premier Dave Barrett to investigate and make recommendations on what to do, first, to ensure that such a consumer crisis never happens again in our construction industry and, second, to assist the victims of the leaky-condo issue -- the thousands of ordinary hard-working British Columbians who in good faith bought condominium developments only to discover that their buildings leaked and that the developers who built them would not accept responsibility for them.
The first report of the Barrett commission, released in June 1998, contained 82 recommendations targeted to all levels of government and the residential construction industry. The B.C. government has acted on over 60 of these recommendations. Those that remain involve third parties such as the federal government.
The reports of the Barrett commission have been very useful in determining the government's response to the problems of leaky-condo owners. The homeowner protection office, no-interest reconstruction loans, the PST relief grant, the builder-licensing and third-party warranties for new home construction were all key Barrett commission recommendations.
The B.C. government's response to the first Barrett report include passing the Homeowner Protection Act and establishing the homeowner protection office, enacting regulations to establish mandatory third-party warranties for all new home construction, mandatory licensing for residential builders, committing $100 million for the homeowner reconstruction loan program and the PST relief grant program, conducting research and producing reports to educate and inform consumers and the housing industry and establishing the Provincial Advisory Council on Homeowner Protection to provide advice on the Homeowner Protection Act and on emerging issues in residential construction.
[1810]
As of May 31 the homeowner protection office had approved over $60 million in loans under the homeowner reconstruction loan program and over $1 million in PST relief grants. The homeowner protection office has educated hundreds of homeowners on their repair process and informed them on the loan application process.
In volumes 1 and 2 of the second report of the commission, Dave Barrett made 20 recommendations. The B.C. government is beginning to take action and is seeking ways to follow through on the intent of commissioner Barrett's recommendations to close the gap between those who created the problem and those who have been victimized by it.
In June we announced a new warranty logo along with a mandatory warranty disclosure form. This follows through on Barrett's recommendations to increase consumer protection during the transition period to third-party warranties. This new logo provides new homebuyers with the confidence that their purchase will be protected by the best warranty system in Canada.
Furthermore, based on the findings of the second Barrett report, we now know that (1) there was a serious conflict of interest in that the warranty program was owned by the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., (2) the company depleted its own assets through a totally inappropriate allocation of funds to the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., and (3) there was pressure from the New Home Warranty board to misrepresent and falsify financial reporting. These conclusions are very, very serious, and they warrant a thorough and detailed investigation, the kind of investigation that can only be achieved with a forensic audit.
Justice must be done, and it must be seen to be done. There have been calls from some quarters, including a recent editorial in the Vancouver Sun newspaper, for a forensic audit into the New Home Warranty scandal. I agree with them. Today I wish to add my voice to those who insist that we need a forensic audit to get to the bottom of this mess. For all of those people who have been forced to take enormous debts and who have lost their life savings, it's time that justice be done.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. And to respond, the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
R. Coleman: I thank the member for his remarks this evening with regards to the leaky-condo issue.
I think there's the aspect of going forward, which the member talks about, as far as the homeowner protection office, new regulations and building standards in order to hopefully ensure that this will never happen in the future. At the same time there are thousands of people out there today that are affected by having a leaky condo and the economic cost of having that leaky condo and the cost of repairing it.
There has been some progress, as the member said, with regards to the reconstruction fund for some people that do have leaky condos -- including co-ops, I might add; and some of them are actually well over 20 years old, and in one case almost 30 years old -- relative to them getting some money for repairs.
But if you live in a leaky condo, you are looking for the rest of the story. In estimates this year, we canvassed the entire Barrett commission report, so I don't think it's necessary for us to discuss it this evening. I think what has to be done is we have to go out and look for the choices. There are certain choices that are available to governments, and all the options should be on the table. When those options are on the table, we should sit down and decide what is the best way to come to a solution economically for the people that are suffering so much difficulty financially relative to the leaky-condo issue.
[1815]
There are things on the table relative to GST. The member mentioned the PST which is being forgiven here in the province of British Columbia. There should be some discussions around tax deductibility on repairs. There should be discussion relative to how we can handle the reconstruction fund in the future.
The member is right: there has to be discipline brought into the market for all the players relative to this particular
[ Page 17110 ]
issue. There are no innocent players in the leaky-condo issue. Everybody is culpable. Everybody has had a hand in it. The government of British Columbia shut down the building standards branch, which was one of the standards that tested a product and would go in and deal with building code issues relative to construction in British Columbia. Since that time, we haven't had that ability to measure some new applications.
There are so many things that affected this issue, but the fact of the matter is that no matter how much we talk about the homeowner protection office, no matter how much we talk about the future, no matter how much we talk about new standards of construction, new wall designs, new this and new that, the bottom line is that there's a $900 million problem out there. That's basically the conservative estimate in some people's opinion. That $900 million problem is affecting lives -- the lives of people who are finding themselves in a position to go bankrupt, people that are losing their savings or their pension money, people that are losing their homes because they cannot even stay in them for health reasons. All of those issues have got to get on the table.
When we discussed this in the estimates debates in this House, the offer was made to sit down and do this. I still believe today that the members of this Legislature have a responsibility to work together to come up with a cooperative solution that we can bring to the people with leaky condos in this province. I think it's very important that we do that. So although we had the process, we had the report, and we have all of that, what we now need to do is move forward to viable solutions -- put all the options on the table, discuss the options and see what we can come up with that may in some way, some small or maybe large way, mitigate some of the pressures that are on these people in our communities today. That is the issue, hon. Speaker. It's the long-term cost, the social cost, the cost to families, the cost to the economy, the cost to confidence within the marketplace. Those are the issues that we haven't debated.
It has been very clear from government that they have no intention of dealing with the financial compensation side of this in the debates in the Legislature. I think, you know, what we should do is we should start setting some of this stuff aside for the benefit of the people that are being affected. They're looking to us. They're looking to us for some leadership. I don't know how we're going to get to the point where we can provide that. The steps we've made to fix the future are fine. We also have to take the steps now to address the past.
F. Randall: I would like to reply to the comments just made by the hon. member and just say that certainly the issue of leaky condos is one which concerns members of this side greatly.
It's certainly interesting to note, at least from my perspective, that the opposition has not been very vocal with regards to this particular issue, and it certainly affects a lot of people in British Columbia. I understand that even during estimates, there were questions about what kind of solution the Liberals had, and certainly they did not indicate any kind of solution. I understand that at a recent meeting in Coquitlam the Liberal representative there sided with the developers to try and blame the Building Code. I think the member has indicated that there's lots of different problems -- I don't have the time to go into them all -- with architects and everything else. But there's a whole host of
Also, I should say that I raised these issues several years ago in articles in the newspaper about the concerns and what was happening. This was maybe three or four years ago. Certainly there was absolutely no support. I was actually attacked personally in the paper in articles from the Home Builders Association, which attacked me and said I didn't know what I was talking about. The ICBA, Phil Hochstein, attacked me, said that I didn't know what I was talking about and that there was no problem with leaky condos in British Columbia. All those articles are available, because they were all in the newspaper.
[1820]
It's sort of strange. I've been involved in this so long, and it's just in the last few years that it seems to have got completely out of hand. The problems that have beset our condominium industry were foreseen by many knowledgeable people in the industry. Even after the stories in the press, etc., and the two Barrett reports, there are still leaky condos being built as we speak, and there are still developers trying to sell buildings which will leak. There's one right next to the Harbour Towers down here as you walk down the street, a brand new one leaking like a sieve. A lot of these people got building permits before July 1 last year, and they're still building without any proper warranty on them, or warranties that fold up. As soon as the development is sold, the company is dissolved.
I could go on at length about this, but I'm really, really upset about it. I support the editorial in the Vancouver Sun that in effect is saying
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
F. Randall: Here is what
The Speaker: Time has expired, member.
F. Randall: Thank you for listening.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock for the second private member's statement.
A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN
G. Hogg: South Surrey-White Rock resident and author W.P. Kinsella's book Shoeless Joe was made into a box office hit movie, Field of Dreams. It starred Kevin Costner and made forever famous the phrase: "If you build it, they will come." The premise of the movie was that in building a ballpark with love and with attention and that by fervently believing in something, in this case, famous baseball stars of bygone eras would return to earth to perform on that field of dreams. The premise was that by dreaming about and believing in something, you can make it a reality.
A not too terribly dissimilar story was played out in South Surrey-White Rock over the past decade. Glen Todd fervently believed that if a world-class softball facility was
[ Page 17111 ]
built, world-class teams and players would come to play. And come they have. The community is now hosting the seventh annual Canada Cup -- a world-class women's fast-pitch tournament, featuring Olympic teams from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Chinese Taipei and Canada, as well as championship teams from the Czech Republic, Texas, Phoenix, Decatur, California, Burnaby and of course the host team, the White Rock Renegades.
This tournament is made possible by the work of chairperson Todd and his 30-member host committee. The committee is supported by over 300 community volunteers who selflessly contribute to make Canada Cup the most celebrated international women's fast-pitch tournament outside of the Olympic games and the world championships. The volunteers support every aspect of the Canada Cup, from security, parking, groundkeeping and scorekeeping to chauffeuring and announcing. The community truly gets behind this event. Businesses support it through sponsorships, donations and their precious time, and in return, many enjoy their busiest weeks of the year during the excitement of this tournament.
All of these efforts are supported by over 100,000 excited and appreciative fans who attend the nine-day event. They come from various countries, from over 12 American states, many provinces and over 56 communities around British Columbia. The facility that hosts this event is widely recognized as one of the premier softball facilities in Canada, if not in the world. Softball City has earned its stellar reputation for a number of reasons -- its picturesque setting, its great facilities and especially its attentive staff. Built, owned and operated by Softball B.C., a non-profit organization, it was constructed as a showcase facility for B.C. and for Canada. Now it is once again hosting the world's very best women's fast-pitch teams.
[1825]
These teams have set an example for many of the young women in B.C. who play fastball. Their performances foster excellence in our youth, and many of them have been able to earn scholarships to further their education. This reward is as a result of their dedication, their commitment and their performance on the field of play -- play often modelled after the international stars they have had a chance to watch, to meet and to emulate.
The Canada Cup is a unique phenomenon which has infected the world of women's fast pitch and the community of Surrey-White Rock. That infection and the hospitality of the people of B.C. has ensured that the event is an annual success story. It has been shown that a community with commitment, confidence and a "field of dreams" can host the world's very best. They can create a league of their own.
My congratulations, thanks and best wishes to Glen Todd, to the host committee, to the volunteers, sponsors and fans for showing the world the beauty of British Columbia, the friendliness of its people and the joy of world-class performances.
Hon. S. Hammell: I thank the member for Surrey-White Rock for his comments on women's softball in Surrey.
As a person who has chosen to make Surrey her home, I watched as Glen Todd's leadership, along with others and the city of Surrey in partnership, built Softball City. I think you said that it has been going now for seven years, but it has been the dream for a long, long time. This facility is actually more than a softball field; it actually is a host of many activities year-round, including a winter lights festival.
While I was at home on Monday, I watched on cable a few of the games of the women's championship. It did bring back memories of a time when I was out on the diamond playing either shortstop or second base. It truly is a wonderful game and one I certainly enjoyed playing for many years.
But more than that -- as the member opposite has said -- when a community actually focuses on a game or a set of skills and puts energy into that, the people who are lucky enough to receive the benefit of that focus do excel. I think that in Surrey and South Surrey our young women and women who have moved on in this sport have certainly benefited from Glen Todd's vision and his commitment not only to the game of fastball but also to the players within it. I consider that we in Surrey are very lucky as a consequence of that.
We on this side of the House also support British Columbians in their athletic pursuits, whether for competition or recreation. In fact, in the great tradition of beer leagues, many of our own caucus and our staff have been known to challenge members of the press gallery to the odd game of softball, and I would never tell you the results -- whether we won or lost -- nor would I mention the wear and tear on some of us who ventured back onto that field.
But on a more serious note, it is encouraging to know that thousands of women and men in B.C. participate in a wide variety of sporting events every year, in the spirit of fun and competition, through community leagues, youth associations, workplace teams and so on. As a believer myself in the fact that to stay healthy is to stay young, this is probably one of the best ways of keeping yourself fit -- by actually participating in a sport. This involvement is greatly supported through the B.C. Games, which ensure that women, seniors, youth and people with disabilities all have equal opportunities to compete. The B.C. Games family includes the Northern B.C. Winter Games, the B.C. Winter Games, the B.C. Summer Games, the B.C. Seniors Games and the B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability.
The B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability were recently promoted by a member in a statement about golfers with disabilities. The government of British Columbia is pleased to support all the B.C. games and the thousands of athletes who compete each year, many of whom become involved in B.C. sporting events through their participation in rec leagues such as the one the member for Surrey-White Rock described.
[1830]
In February of this year, Premier Dosanjh was pleased to open the 2000 B.C. Winter Games held in Quesnel. Nearly 2,500 athletes participated in 23 different sporting events. The B.C. Seniors Games, expecting 2,700 participants this year in Kelowna, features a wide range of activities, from softball and tennis to bridge and chess. We hope that the participation will be even greater in 2001 in Surrey and in 2002 in Prince George.
Of course, there are many different levels of athletic participation and competition in B.C. Our commitment in British Columbia to recreation and athletics has not only led to a vibrant community of participants in local recreation leagues and the B.C. Games but in exciting opportunities for participation in the Olympic Games.
[ Page 17112 ]
Again, I would join the member opposite. Glen Todd took a dream and made it come real with his work and that of many others in South Surrey. As a consequence, we have an outstanding women's softball league in Surrey.
The Speaker: To reply, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.
G. Hogg: Hon. Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I'm delighted that she was able to catch some of the games on TV and perhaps reminisce upon her days as a performer at shortstop.
The Canada Cup and its world-class women's fastball players have truly captured the imagination and the minds of the community. But the hearts of the community have been captured by the seven Special Olympics teams from the United States and Canada, who show sports fans their softball and athletic abilities as they take to the diamonds for the Revy-Canada Cup Special Olympics Friendship Division, which coincides and plays alongside of the championship fast pitch. This division helps raise awareness and promotes greater understanding of the capabilities of mentally disabled athletes. With thousands of fans attracted to the park each day, Canada Cup generates invaluable exposure for the athletes and for the Special Olympics cause. The crowds witnessed the athletes quality of play, sportsmanship, enthusiasm and joy. They see firsthand the value of the Special Olympics. This year the Kelowna Grizzlies, having won the gold metal at the 1999 World Games in Raleigh, North Carolina, will be heavily favoured to win. But they can expect to be challenged by Team New Brunswick, Calgary, Saskatoon, BCSO, Issaquah and Richmond.
Canada Cup has something to offer everyone, whether a player, coach, aficionado of the game, volunteer or fan. The tournament will capture your imagination, and the players will capture your heart. Just give them the chance. It's a showcase for world-class athletes, for world-class facilities, for world-class hosts and especially for a world-class province.
The Speaker: The third private member's statement will be from the hon. member for Rossland-Trail.
MOVING AROUND
E. Conroy: This evening I want to talk about our transportation network, mainly from the south into British Columbia, and how it impacts the interior of the province where I happen to live.
First, maybe let me give you a little bit of background as to what we have to deal with in the part of the world that I live in. On the west coast, we have the I-5 corridor, which is the main corridor in and out of British Columbia for a lot of goods that come here, that go south and north. That's the highway that connects Portland to Seattle to Vancouver. It's our major trade artery, one might say, with the U.S.
To the east, the Albertans are developing the CANAMEX corridor, which is a corridor that will flow through Alberta and, as the name infers, head all the way down to hopefully tie in to Mexico. In between those two corridors, we've got about 1,400 kilometres in the interior part of this province, I guess from Vancouver into Alberta, that could play a major role in the transportation of the province. I guess one of the things that concerns me is that if we don't develop those arteries in the interior, the centre of gravity is definitely going to shift away from the interior. In the case of the part of the world that I represent, it could shift over into Alberta and the CANAMEX corridor, thus causing some major economic disturbances in the interior of the province. Similarly I-5 will continue to be the main corridor for those to the west, namely in the Okanagan.
So there are three corridors in the interior that I think British Columbians have to have a good hard look at and think about developing, because we need those connections from the south into the heartland of British Columbia and -- who knows? -- right on up to Alaska probably would be a good thing. I know the Albertans certainly, with the CANAMEX, want to be the ones to attract the American tourists going to Alaska. I firmly believe that we have to offer them another alternative, and the development of the corridors in the interior is certainly an alternative.
The first one is Highway 97, which, as we know, runs through the Okanagan. It comes way up from California through Oregon and into Washington. In Oregon, Highway 97 is the main highway through that state, but it tends to peter out as it gets into northern Oregon and also as it gets into Washington. But it's a major highway for us here in British Columbia. Right now we have a committee in the Okanagan made up of the economic development officers of the different regions in the Okanagan. They are working with like-minded people on the U.S. side to try and develop a strategy so that we in British Columbia can do some work on Highway 97 through the Okanagan. The Americans, similarly, will do some work on Highway 97 to the south. The main reason, I guess, for the work to be done on that highway is
[1835]
The other interior highway is Highway 395, which comes from Spokane north into the area that I represent. That's more industrial traffic, and that highway needs to be upgraded. The U.S. has a program called TEA-21. TEA-21 is an acronym for transportation into the twenty-first century. In that program, over a six-year period, they're spending $220 billion on transportation, part of which is going to go into some of these north-south connectors. Highway 395 is one of the highways that does qualify for some TEA-21 money, so some of that $220 billion will flow into 395 to develop 395 in Washington State. Now our government has to look at what we can do to reciprocate to improve the highway connections north when you get into British Columbia.
It might be fair to say, when I'm talking about the Americans and the TEA-21 program and the $220 billion, that here in British Columbia, if you consider the federal tax on gasoline plus the 7 percent tax that comes off gasoline, the federal government took about $1.5 billion out of British Columbia last year in gas-related tax. I wouldn't mind a little of that back. I think that we've got a number of issues here in British Columbia. When I said I was talking about north-south connectors
I would just like to digress for a second -- not necessarily digress, but talk to the federal government about the Trans-Canada Highway, which in many parts of the province of British Columbia is a goat trail. It really does need an infusion of capital from the federal government in order to bring that up to standards that we can all be proud of. At the same time
[ Page 17113 ]
as a lot of people are working on the north-south connectors in order to facilitate trade between the two countries, we still live in a country that I recognize as Canada, and we're having difficulty getting back and forth across our own country because of the state of repair of the Trans-Canada Highway, for example.
I would strongly suggest that governments do all they can to talk to the federal government about the possibility of putting some of this $1.5 billion that they take out of British Columbia back into some of the road infrastructure here in the province. They put zero in last year, and the year before they put in $6 million. So we're not getting a heck of a lot back, and it would be nice if we did.
The other corridor is Highway 95, which comes out of Alberta through Cranbrook and crosses the border at Yahk. I'm sure that every member of this Legislature knows where Yahk is. Yahk is the largest border crossing outside of the lower mainland in British Columbia, in terms of dollar volume. The main reason is because a lot of grain trucks and cattle trucks come out of Alberta and cross the border at Yahk.
Calgary, for example, is the major depot for produce for Safeway. So the produce we buy in Safeway in Vancouver comes from Calgary, but originally it comes from California. Those trucks take Highway 95 up through Idaho, through Yahk and into Calgary to deliver the produce. So it's a fairly valuable arterial highway, and it needs work done on it as well, so that they can maintain their volume and maintain the economic security that that brings to people in the East Kootenay.
So we've got the three interior corridors that all need a little bit of work done on them. I suggest that doing work on these corridors would be in the best interests of the province, because we simply have to develop the interior in order to make this province flourish. The development of the interior is critical, and these highways are critical to all of it.
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
E. Conroy: Am I late? Okay. I've talked too long. I'll wait until later.
The Speaker: And to respond, the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson.
K. Krueger: I thank the member for his private member's statement, with which I find no reason to disagree. I'd like to tell him, on the record, that I've been to Yahk and back and to the little store in Yahk that has T-shirts that say just that. In fact, I've travelled the province very extensively on its highways. The highways are the lifeblood of communities throughout the interior and all up and down the Island. It's a whole different life in rural B.C. than it is in the big urban centres. But of course most of British Columbia is rural B.C., and the member and I have similar responsibilities to constituents from far-flung rural ridings.
[1840]
We know that the highways are essential to our communities for the delivery of our goods, exports and so on, and also for the delivery of the commodities that our constituents rely on for the day-to-day needs of their lives, and certainly for personal mobility and freedom. I think that that is something that is really essential to British Columbians, something that we really prize.
And absolutely, we agree with the member on the need to keep our highway infrastructure in good shape, and more than that, to modernize it. The United States and the prairie provinces are substantially ahead of us. Because of the difficulties that we have with our highways, much traffic is tending now to turn south. There are tremendous links being developed between the prairie provinces and the American transportation system. That's a real concern for the Canadian economy and our strength as a nation and as provinces, and the strength of our economy, certainly.
There is, regrettably, something of a deficit that has built up in maintaining, rehabilitating and developing our infrastructure in British Columbia, and it's something I'm glad the member focuses on. I think all members on both sides of this House must be keenly aware of that. There are so many pressing priorities for governments that it's easy to put something like this on the back burner. And yet for years I've heard the opposition critics talk about the fact that a highway deteriorates very rapidly beyond a certain point. If you let the maintenance go a little too long, then you can find yourself having to rebuild the entire infrastructure from the bottom up -- a much more expensive process than maintaining it all along, similar to a homeowner who is foolish enough to allow his roof to decay and ends up seeing his whole building destroyed.
So certainly it's good to hear the government member focusing on these concerns. I agree, and I think everybody in the opposition agrees, that it's time that the federal government seriously applied itself to returning those fuel taxes to transportation needs in the provinces. It has been an ongoing loss for British Columbia that we're taxed on fuel and the money doesn't come back. So more power to the member.
[1845]
And more power to those who are involved in the various interprovincial and international efforts to upgrade our transportation corridors. The Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference which was recently held focused on that. Our member for Surrey-White Rock was an attendee. It's really essential that we all continue to focus on this priority. We can't have the Trans-Canada a goat trail, as the member referred to it. But I agree with him. And there are bottlenecks such as the Kicking Horse Canyon and Three Valley Gap which are very dangerous and simply have to be addressed.
So I look forward to the member's closing comments, and I thank him for focusing on this issue, which is very important to my constituents and constituents throughout British Columbia and particularly in the rural areas of B.C.
E. Conroy: I want to begin by thanking the member for Kamloops-North Thompson for recognizing that the federal government has to come back into the game. I think that in a province like British Columbia, we're doing what we can with our highways. And as a former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I know the effort that's being put in to try and deal with the situation. But truly, I think this is an issue where the federal government has to get back in the game. I'm not suggesting that they have to spend the $1.5 billion every year in British Columbia that they take out, but I am suggesting that likely they should
[ Page 17114 ]
A lot of the things that we need to do in order to build up our infrastructure for the future are going to require good, solid transportation routes. And sincerely, I am talking about roads. That's not such a sexy conversation these days, when one talks about roads, but I don't presume that the automobile is going to go away. I certainly hope the way we power it does, but I think we're going to be stuck with the automobile for a time yet. So we have to have the infrastructure in place in order to deal with the transportation that we have here in the province, particularly our truck transportation. There's a saying out there that if you're buying it in the store, it has probably come by truck, and that's probably true.
So we've got to get our infrastructure into place, and we need the federal government to step up to the table and ante up a few bucks so that we can do some of the critical things we need to do -- that's upgrading the Trans-Canada Highway and looking at some of the things that we can do on these interior corridors in order to make them viable -- so that the interior can have a bright and prosperous future.
FLYING INTO HARM'S WAY
B. Penner: Last weekend I took an evening off, and I travelled to Mission, actually to the new theatre there, to take in a movie entitled The Perfect Storm. This is a popular movie, and I recommend it to people who enjoy that form of entertainment. I thought it was fairly well done.
In that movie, which gives a Hollywood version of a true story that took place in 1991 about the convergence of three storms off the east coast of North America, the role and importance of search and rescue crews is highlighted. In that movie we get to see work done by a crew of the U.S. Navy flying a ship-borne helicopter in very difficult conditions, attempting to save people who otherwise would perish.
Well, in British Columbia and in Canada our conditions are in many ways no different. Most people will know that Canada has the longest coastline and the second-largest landmass in the world. Geographical features such as the Rocky Mountains, the Canadian Shield and the arctic include some of the most remote and hostile terrain on the entire planet. The Great Lakes and Hudson Bay could be described as inland seas. We have climatic extremes in weather conditions at certain times of the year which can be brutally harsh. Fog, rain or storms often prevail in our coastal regions -- as we know all too well -- while high winds and low temperatures can make flying in our mountainous areas particularly hazardous.
[1850]
Many Canadians and foreign visitors constantly venture into our wilderness areas for both economic and recreational reasons. Mining, hydroelectricity, shipping, fishing, civil aviation and oil and gas exploration continue to be important economic activities in many remote areas of the country. Also, the adoption of healthier lifestyles, improved technology and better access have allowed more people to pursue activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, rock climbing, canoeing and camping. This shift represents a major added demand on search and rescue services in Canada.
A high search and rescue capability is thus viewed, quite properly, as a national priority. In British Columbia I'm told that we have the busiest search and rescue zone in the entire country. That's again because we have a mostly moderate climate on the coast, and because we have a population base that is geared towards the outdoors. In a given year in British Columbia, I'm told that there are 440 incidents and rescues involving approximately 200 people relying on search and rescue helicopters.
To perform this work by search and rescue helicopter crews in Canada, we currently have, I believe, 12 Labrador helicopters. We originally had 18, which were acquired in 1962 and 1963. Five or six of those aircraft have crashed, and in some cases with tragic results. There are also other helicopters that assist, and those are Sea King helicopters assigned to the Canadian navy, mostly based on various ships in the navy. Originally we acquired, I believe, 43 Sea King helicopters in the 1960s, and through attrition -- again, mostly crashes -- we're now down to 29 such aircraft.
The Sea King helicopter, although it is attached to the navy and operates on military vessels, doesn't just perform a military function. Its duties include coastal and fishery patrols, environmental monitoring, drug interdiction, international peacekeeping, search and rescue and even humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, including such events as the 1998 Manitoba floods.
However, because of the increasing age of the helicopter, its ability to protect Canadians is in doubt. In fact, the situation is getting so bad that I hear many people telling me that it has become a source of national embarrassment. This is no reflection on the high calibre of our crews and the dedicated personnel who commit their lives to keeping us safe. Rather, it's a reflection on the sagging force and aging equipment, which, I agree, has become a national embarrassment, and in many cases, it has tragic results.
A number of people have tried to warn the federal government about the situation. This is not new. Early this year three retired senior military officers took the very unusual step of holding a news conference in Ottawa, where they warned that we could not just carry on the way things are. Here's a quote from one of the gentlemen: "We now believe the elastic band has been stretched as far as it can go." He goes on to warn that if that elastic band snaps, it will do so with catastrophic results.
At the end, when they were being asked by reporters about taking this unusual step of publicly criticizing the federal government -- which is not something military people usually do -- here's what the officer had to say: "We just felt we owed it to the young fellas and gals on the flight line who are flying these machines." He said: "Somebody had to stand up and say something. The guys in uniform can't do it."
That's why I'm here doing this today, hon. Speaker. This issue has bothered me for some time, and my concern increased earlier this year when I was in Comox and talked with a number of people assigned to the air rescue wing there at the Canadian Forces Base. They're not in a position where they can speak out without being disciplined, but we are. And there's been far too much silence on this issue.
Just going back a few years, in 1994 there was a tragic headline in the Victoria Times Colonist with pictures of two people from Victoria who were killed in a Sea King crash. Major Bob Henderson, aged 47, and a Sidney resident, Major Wally Sweetman, aged 40, died in the crash of a Sea King helicopter. That, unfortunately, was not the last tragic or difficult situation. Within months of that crash, there was a photograph again in the Times Colonist of cranes having to lift the helicopters off of ships here at Esquimalt because the helicopters could not fly. What use are aircraft if they can't fly?
[ Page 17115 ]
I have a collection of articles here that I have put together just today, with the assistance of the good staff at the Legislative Library, all detailing a whole range of breakdowns and mechanical problems with these helicopters -- most of which are much older than the dedicated crews that fly them. Let me just relate one story here that appeared in the National Post on January 10 of this year: "In one case the 29-year-old engineer aboard HMCS Fredericton suffered an apparent stroke, and neither the helicopter on board nor the one on the HMCS Ville de Québec was capable of carrying him to shore."
I see the red light is on; I'll wait to hear the comments from the member for Mission-Kent, and then I'll conclude.
[1855]
The Speaker: Thank you, member. To respond, the member for Mission-Kent.
D. Streifel: I thank the member for his thoughtful presentation this evening. The issue of citizens in jeopardy is one that British Columbians take for granted -- that if there's a problem, somebody will be there. As the member pointed out, geographically British Columbia is just about the most dangerous place in North America to live.
I just want to start off my statement tonight, hon. Speaker, with a little story from the past, the history of my wife's family. My wife comes from the east coast of Canada, and her grandfather was Captain John Mahoney. He was a skipper of a four-masted schooner, the Estonia. The Estonia was wrecked off of Turks Island in 1936, when she was caught in a hurricane. The crew of the Estonia, my wife's grandfather Captain Mahoney and his oldest son John Mahoney Jr. were rescued by the salvage-and-rescue tug, Foundation Franklin, out of Halifax. That's a little bit of a context. When that schooner was in trouble, there was the opportunity for Canadians to come to their rescue and provide backup and support for their citizens.
In British Columbia as it is now, being a coastal province with a lot of marine activity around -- whether it's commercial fishing or tugboat or commercial shipping off the coast or just recreational activity, with the ability that British Columbia has to provide a natural wilderness experience for residents and persons who just want to go out and enjoy our wonderful province -- always in the background we know that if something goes wrong, there'll be somebody there to help.
But that's not always the case now, with the circumstances around the Sea Kings and the Labradors. The folks that fly these machines put their own lives in jeopardy every time they go out.
I know I'm going to run out of time long before I get into what I really wanted to say here. Really, what's happened with the federal government
I just want to read down a little list. In April 2000 a Sea King made an emergency landing caused by a faulty gearbox. In May '99 a Sea King made a forced landing due to brake and hydraulic system. In March '99 a Sea King had an emergency landing due to failure in the electrical system. In March '99 a Labrador went adrift on a lake due to losing both engines. In February '99 a Sea King was in trouble due to a bad main rotor. In October '98 a Labrador crashed and killed six people. In January '97 a Labrador crashed in Georgia Strait. In August '96 three Sea Kings were grounded due to cracks in the tail section.
Hon. Speaker, I regret my time is up on this topic. I think it's a timely one, and it's one that I'm glad the hon. member for Chilliwack brought to this chamber. Perhaps working together, we can bring some pressure on the federal government to supply the resources that will keep our citizens safe.
The Speaker: To reply, the hon. member for Chilliwack.
B. Penner: I hope we can work together to put some pressure on the federal government, because as I said, British Columbia, more than any other province in Canada, is dependent upon adequate and reliable search and rescue services to protect our public. Unfortunately, I found in searching Hansard that back in 1993, I think, there was a government motion put forward, motion 59 of that session, condemning the federal government of the day for proposing to buy new military helicopters which would have replaced the Labrador helicopters as well as the Sea Kings. All government members at that time voted in favour of the motion to ask the federal government not to go ahead with that replacement. That was EH-101, at the time it was proposed. Since then the federal government has cancelled that contract at the cost of $500 million and nothing to show for it.
[1900]
Just to bring us a little more up to date. I think it was while I was watching that movie in Mission that a group of people ran into trouble, in serious distress, north of Quebec, and a Labrador helicopter was dispatched to perform a rescue. It broke down en route to perform the rescue. This was not the first time that has happened. Just one week before, here in British Columbia, a private helicopter carrying a film crew crashed in northern B.C. in very mountainous terrain. A Labrador helicopter was dispatched from CFB Comox. It broke down en route and had to make an emergency landing along the way. A second Labrador helicopter was called for from CFB Comox. It couldn't get off the ground due to mechanical problems. No search and rescue helicopter, from Canadian resources anyway, ever made it to the scene. Eventually a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter had to perform the recovery of what turned out to be, tragically, the deceased persons from that accident.
In terms of the Sea King, it was just over a week ago that there was another article in the Victoria Times Colonist entitled "Victoria Crew Rescued after Sea King Emergency." Five souls narrowly escaped with their lives off Hawaii, when participating in a military exercise. A Canadian helicopter overheated, and the crew were able to ditch and escape from the helicopter before it exploded. And with the good graces of forces from Australia, they were rescued. But unfortunately, our personnel will be left with these antiquated helicopters for far too long. Finally, replacements have been ordered now for the Labrador. They will start coming into service sometime next year and then be phased in over the following two years, until 2003.
But no decision has been made yet to replace the Sea King helicopter, despite the fact that they are falling out of the skies with tragic results. I ask that we send a united message to
[ Page 17116 ]
Ottawa, and that is: "Don't ignore British Columbia. Don't ignore people who are at risk. And don't ignore the dedicated personnel, who we ask to go out and defend our country and protect us. Don't leave them in the situation where they don't have proper equipment to do the job."
The House recessed from 7:03 p.m. to 7:06 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. A. Petter: I call committee on Bill 21.
DEFINITION OF SPOUSE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
(continued)
On section 1 (continued).
G. Plant: Just, I suppose, for the benefit of those who might only be picking up the debate for the first time at this point; we had a debate earlier about a proposal to amend section 1 by introducing a new term, "domestic partner." There was a vote taken on that amendment, and we now have the section in its unamended form back before us.
Perhaps I could ask the minister this question, which applies in other cases. Sometimes the definition of spouse includes a requirement that the relationship endure for at least two years. In one or two occasions in this act, it looks to me as though there is a requirement that the relationship endure for a continuous period of six months. In this particular case, in section 1, there is no specific time requirement included in the definition at all. Can the minister explain why sometimes there is a time requirement and sometimes there isn't, and why there isn't in the case of the Adult Guardianship Act definition of spouse which is before us?
[1910]
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me say that in respect of many of these provisions, including the one the member refers to here, there has been no change in the previous definition of spouse with respect to the question of duration. In other words, there was no two-year provision previously, and there is no two-year provision now. In other cases there was a two-year provision, and that provision has been maintained.
But there has been an attempt to rationalize the use of the two-year provision where there is some policy rationale for a demonstration of permanency in respect of entitlement to benefits or the like or, in other cases, the removal where it may retain a relationship that could raise an appearance of inside dealing or conflict. And to create consistency across that range of concerns, there has, I think, in one case been a variation where the two-year definition was removed.
By and large, though, that hasn't been the preoccupation of these changes. The preoccupation of these changes has been to generalize the definition of spouse to remove the impediment for same-sex couples. There has been some refinement to try to produce consistency based on that policy rationale, where some degree of permanence is called for and, on the other hand, where some degree of permanence was not warranted based on analogous provisions.
G. Plant: I do want to make sure I understand how it works. The inclusion of a time requirement in the definition then becomes one of the requirements that needs to be satisfied in order to obtain the benefit or to bear the burden or the responsibility at issue. So the time requirement, the duration requirement, is in fact an element of the definition of spouse. If there is a time requirement and you don't meet it, then you're not a spouse within the meaning of act.
Alternatively, in the case before us, it seems to me that there's no time requirement -- at least no expressed time requirement -- and so that's not an issue in terms of whether or not you become a spouse for the purposes of the Adult Guardianship Act.
It does seem to me that in some cases you don't get to be a spouse for the purpose of the legislation unless there's some compliance with an expressed time requirement. In other cases it's not necessary to comply with any time requirement. But in either case, the time requirement or its absence is in fact a part of the definition -- isn't it?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I would agree with the member. But I would really highlight the words that he used: for the purpose of the statutes. So in a particular statute, you're defining spouse not to create some general set of rights that attach to that individual in respect of a relationship that he or she has -- or they have -- but for the particular purpose of whether or not they're entitled to a particular benefit or whether a certain obligation flows.
The drafting choice here was made to include the added component of duration where it was deemed to be relevant within the definition. It could, I suppose, have been done differently. You could have said, "A spouse who has been a spouse for two years," and not affected the definition of spouse. But the choice here, where that added element is required, has been to incorporate in the definition of spouse, "for the purpose of the statute," and those are the key words that the member himself, I think, correctly referenced.
[1915]
G. Plant: I think it's implied in those particular words that the purposes may differ from statute to statute, and that is why, from the government's perspective, in some cases the time requirement is there and in some cases it's not. Can the minister explain why there is no time requirement in respect of the Adult Guardianship Act?
Hon. A. Petter: I think I'll build on the answer I tried to give earlier. The two-year duration rule is added where there is some additional requirement for a policy rationale of permanence, such as to demonstrate a degree of permanence that would entitle a person to claim benefits under certain legislation. In this case, the existing definition didn't include a two-year rule. The existing definition relates to the ability of spouses to act on behalf of each other, and it seems that that benefit is one that operates well, based upon a definition of spouse absent the two-year rule right now. It is functioning well, and the decision was made, therefore, that there was no rationale to alter that. Indeed, in most of the cases in this act, there has not been alteration. I think that in one there has, but in most cases there's not been an alteration to the duration component of the definition.
G. Plant: A small question arising. The minister says that in the case of the Adult Guardianship Act, it's been deemed
[ Page 17117 ]
that the current arrangement not requiring a time requirement has been working well. I just want to confirm the length of the government's experience in making this observation. My understanding is that this legislation came into force at the end of February of this year.
Hon. A. Petter: The member is correct in respect of this legislation. But as I understand, this legislation codifies previous practice where medical practitioners had to satisfy themselves with respect to the consent of spouses. The codification does not fundamentally alter the policy which it contained and which it was felt worked well.
I guess I'd simply go back to the member's point. The fact that this issue was thought about and presumably addressed in this codification fairly recently confirms the view that this was a policy choice that has been fairly currently thought through and confirmed. There was no reason to make a further change, therefore, in the broadening of the definition.
G. Plant: I don't want to give the government credit for more than it deserves to be given credit for. In fact, the act sat on the books for six or seven years waiting to be proclaimed, and it was only proclaimed at the end of February. So insofar as we're dealing with statute law, which is in fact what we're dealing with, it's been around for two or three months or so. And it may be working well. If it is, that's excellent. But I sure wouldn't want someone to think that there have been decades of experience with this particular issue in the context of adult guardianship.
[1920]
Let me see if I can extract, though, the more important issue, which hopefully will avoid having to revisit it in each of the occasions where it arises. It does seem to me to be possible to make the observation that if there is any consistency in the use of the two-year time requirement, it lies in the observation that it appears most often in the context of situations where the attribution of the relationship gives rise to a right to make a claim upon some other person -- whether it be an individual, an organization or the government -- for support or benefits.
In cases where the issue really is trying to describe a category of persons who, for example, ought to be consulted in respect of a particular decision, I don't see the use of a time requirement. It does seem to me that the time requirement raises itself -- particularly, if not exclusively -- in cases where there is going to be a claim for benefits or the statute confers a right to seek benefits, either in the form of family support obligations or a chance to share in the estate of somebody or to participate in a government benefit program. Is that a fair summary or a fair attempt at discerning a principle around the use of the time requirement?
Hon. A. Petter: I think that's, in general terms, a fair description, as I understand it, and I certainly haven't reviewed all the statutes. I should reference the two staff who are assisting me here: Ruth Rogers, senior policy analyst, and Neil Reimer, who is a junior policy analyst for the ministry. I think the member's description corresponds with what I'm advised is the situation -- and certainly the situation to the best of my knowledge.
[1925]
Section 1 of Bill 21 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 59 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Sihota | Cashore |
| Conroy | Smallwood | Miller |
| MacPhail | Dosanjh | Petter |
| Lovick | Priddy | Ramsey |
| G. Wilson | Farnworth | Waddell |
| Gillespie | Streifel | Walsh |
| Kasper | G. Clark | Goodacre |
| Weisgerber | Jarvis | Sanders |
| Chong | Coell | Neufeld |
| L. Reid | Abbott | Plant |
| de Jong | Farrell-Collins | Campbell |
| C. Clark | Hansen | Whittred |
| Weisbeck | Nebbeling | Hogg |
| Hawkins | Stephens | Symons |
| Roddick | McKinnon | |
| NAYS -- 10 | ||
| Penner | Anderson | Masi |
| J. Wilson | Barisoff | van Dongen |
| Thorpe | Krueger | J. Reid |
| Coleman | ||
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
The Speaker: We'll just wait a moment till the members who need to get about other business do so. Those members who want to continue conversations, if you could do so in the halls.
[1930]
G. Plant: In section 4 we are now dealing with the Company Act. The provision here amends the definition of spouse. I have a question for the minister, and that is: what will this do in the context of the Company Act? What will this change in the definition of spouse achieve for the Company Act? I believe this may just be another case of standardization, but we're dealing with a statute that was rewritten last year and has not yet been proclaimed, so I think the question is still pertinent.
Hon. A. Petter: The provision relates to the use of confidential information and is designed to guard against the misuse of confidential information in respect to related persons. What this does is extend the definition of such persons to the more inclusive definition of spouse, which incorporates same-sex spousal relationships. This is also the one provision -- I think the only provision -- in which the two-year rule had existed.
That two-year rule was dropped because, as the member correctly referenced, the use of the two-year rule had not been used typically in this kind of situation. When it was compared with other acts that had similar kinds of affiliation provisions, it was found that the two-year rule had not been used, and it was felt that there was no policy rationale for it being used here. So in this particular case, the decision was made to, in a
[ Page 17118 ]
sense, bring this rule into conformity with other affiliation rules which did not include a two-year duration provision. So it has that added impact of extending the affiliations covered here to those that are less than two years.
G. Plant: The impact, as I understand it, is in some cases to expand the class of persons who are subject to certain restrictions in their ability to use confidential information.
Hon. A. Petter: That is correct in the two respects we talked about, both duration and the enlargement of the definition of spouse to include same-sex spousal relationships.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
G. Plant: I gather that the intention of the amendment to the definition of spouse in the Credit Union Incorporation Act is to allow membership in a credit union as a family member by the expanded class of persons who will become spouses -- namely, spouses in same-sex relationships.
Hon. A. Petter: That is correct.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
G. Plant: Section 8 is the first of a number of sections which revisit the Definition of Spouse Amendment Act from last summer. One of the things that happens here, I guess, is just drafting. Last summer I think the technique chosen was to change the definition of spouse in the Estate Administration Act, and then in each of the other four statutes that deal with death issues, the definition of spouse was made cross-referential to the Estate Administration Act. As I think this works now, each of the four or five death statutes -- the Coroners Act, the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, the Estate Administration Act, the Family Compensation Act and the Wills Variation Act -- will have their own definition of spouse now. So just in terms of the drafting part of this, have I got that right?
Hon. A. Petter: That is correct.
[1935]
G. Plant: The one thing that I have not yet been able to sort out -- and the minister may be able to help me -- is this: one of the changes made last year was not simply a change made to achieve equality for same-sex couples. The Estate Administration Act, which deals with the demolition of estates upon intestacy, has, I believe, traditionally made a distinction between married couples and common-law couples in terms of the rights and obligations that might arise upon an intestacy. I think that the changes made last summer had an impact on that distinction, and they probably equalized the playing field among all types of spouses. We added to the idea of common-law spouse the possibility of a same-sex common-law relationship. And then we ensured that common-law spouses had the same rights under the Estate Administration Act as married couples. Now, the question that flows from that
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's essentially correct, maybe entirely correct. But let me just clarify my understanding of it, so we can make sure that we agree.
Previously these acts provided benefits to married couples that were not provided, in the same way at least, to common-law couples. What was done in order to provide equality
G. Plant: If that goal has been achieved, why is it necessary to continue the term "common-law spouse" in the context of the Estate Administration Act, which I think is dealt with in section 11, a few sections down? I'm dealing with this package as a package at this point.
Hon. A. Petter: I don't exactly know the answer to the member's question. Based on what I'm told by staff, it appears -- I'd be happy to check for the member with the legislative drafters -- that what happened here was that where the term "common law" was previously used in the statute in some way, it was retained and broadened. Where it had not previously been used, it was not then introduced. But that's just a guess on my part. I think it relates to whether the term was present in the legislation previously, in which case it was broadened, or it wasn't, in which case it wasn't thought necessary to introduce it. But I'm guessing on that.
[1940]
G. Plant: For me, part of the confusion here started last summer. I think the government chose to expand the definition of common-law spouse and then make some changes to the rights that arise under the Estate Administration Act, and then borrowed the common-law spouse definition in the other four statutes, where it actually wasn't necessary. If that is so, then the minister's answer may be helpful, in that -- at least in respect of the other four statutes -- we will have done away with the confusion of a reference to common-law spouses, which apparently serves no purpose in the context of the other four statutes.
But we are left, in the context of the Estate Administration Act, with the use of the term common-law spouse that survives perhaps because, as the minister says, there was economy of drafting or something like that. If the minister has any better explanation than that, having had the chance to consult with his staff a bit further, then I would be interested. It seems to me odd, given that part of the government's political objective here is to achieve equality of understanding of relationships, that we would continue to use this idea of common-law spouse in the context of one statute where I don't think it serves any substantive purpose.
Hon. A. Petter: I can't add a lot except to say, based on what staff tells me, that I think
[ Page 17119 ]
Whenever one's trying to deal with a particular objective, as one is here, of trying to equalize a situation, one always comes up with related issues about language and usage. One can, of course, go ad infinitum trying to solve all of these problems and trying to eradicate certain redundant words or concepts. Some has been done here to try to rationalize. We've already talked about the two-year rule, and we've talked about some other issues.
I think, based on what staff tell me, that in an effort to minimize the amount of change and attendant work required to track through that change, and because the term common-law spouse was introduced and known within the Estate Administration Act, the decision was made to simply build on that existing definition rather than open it up and get into a larger issue of writing it out.
Again, I'm working a little bit in the dark here. If the member would like a fuller explanation, I'd be happy to try to track it down and give it to him in some written form at a later stage.
G. Plant: Well, we're probably not going to do anything about it. But I want the minister to at least be sensitive to one sense in which I take his answer, which is this. We actually went to the trouble last summer of repealing part 8, the Estate Administration Act. That, I believe, was the part of the Estate Administration Act that made separate provision for the position of common-law spouses and that had done so, I believe, for quite some period of time. So having gone to that trouble last year, it seems a bit confusing to me that we're going to create this impression that the definition of common-law spouse in the Estate Administration Act is in some way distinctive. But it probably won't amount to much.
[1945]
The other question I did want to ask in the context of these changes made last summer is that the changes that were made in the Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 1999, have never been proclaimed. They're being changed here again. Is there a proclamation schedule for these particular provisions?
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to these particular provisions, which, as the member pointed out, have their antecedents in last year's bill, it is my intention to seek to have them proclaimed shortly after we enact this bill, but to do so in a way that gives three or four months' notice to parties that in fact they will be coming into effect, so that there will not be any reason for people to be taken by surprise. My hope would be, assuming the act gets passed and is proclaimed, that we would proclaim these sections through order shortly thereafter and then have them come into force three or four months hence.
Sections 8 to 15 inclusive approved.
On section 16.
G. Plant: Now we're looking at the Employee Investment Act. The change here, again, is to amend by repealing the definition of spouse and substituting new language. Could the minister explain what this will do? How will this operate in the context of the Employee Investment Act?
Hon. A. Petter: Under the act, as I understand it, the term "spouse" is a component of the word "associate." And under the act, associates are prohibited from making certain kinds of investments in a company. These investments include investments for the purpose of certain employee venture capital corporations. There are further provisions that an employee venture capital corporation is prohibited in investing in a business owned by an associate. So what this will do is visit those same restrictions upon spouses who are of the same sex as is currently visited upon spouses who are of the opposite sex.
Sections 16 and 17 approved.
On section 18.
G. Plant: Section 18 deals with the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. My question here has to do with the interaction between the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act and the Family Relations Act. There is no change going to be made to the Family Relations Act definition of spouse here.
My recollection is that the Family Relations Act definition of spouse includes the two-year duration requirement. That's the change that was made in the Legislature in 1997. Now, the minister knows that one of the reasons why the changes were made to the Family Relations Act was to ensure that in certain circumstances there would be support obligations that would arise in the context of a breakdown of a relationship. As the minister also knows, if you are someone who has a support order, then you're entitled to register it under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. Then the family maintenance enforcement program steps in to enforce the order on behalf of the recipient.
[1950]
It would be confusing if it would be possible to register for enforcement an order that depended upon a definition of spouse in one act that was different in the other. I have to admit I haven't done the analysis. It may be that the obligation to pay, when and if it arises, is triggered by the FRA. Once it's triggered, then there is an automatic entitlement to registration, so that the definition in the context of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act isn't that significant.
If that's not the explanation, then I believe the question with the minister is how those two acts are going to work together, given that in one act there's a requirement that the relationship be for a period of at least two years, but in the case of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, in section 18 in front of us, there isn't a similar requirement.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's point. However, in trying to come up with a standardized definition, the effort was made to try to visit that upon both the acts being changed here and some other related acts. The Family Relations Act is a fairly substantive act and one that had already been subject to considerable amendment previously. That was not undertaken, in the knowledge that under section 37 of the Interpretation Act it is stated that no implication can be drawn from the fact that an amendment is made in the context of some legislation.
There's not the intention here of creating a new and different substantive definition of a spousal relationship, beyond the addition of same-sex. Inevitably, when one moves towards a new standardized definition and one doesn't do it across the entire statute book, there will be some that are in
[ Page 17120 ]
and some that are out. There are some that are out; I admit that. As we move forward, hopefully they'll be brought in.
But the Interpretation Act comes to the rescue and says that no implication should be drawn from the fact that some are amended ahead of others. It should not be construed to be a declaration that the previous state of the law, the declaration of the law, is different under the new enactment.
If I can assist in that process by what I say in the Legislature for the record, I would say that there is no intention here, in coming forward with a standardized definition, to alter substantively the definition of spouse or to come up with a different substantive definition than the one in the Family Relations Act. What we're trying to do, in the face of a legislative regime that has had varying definitions, is to try to fix on a standardized one and work it through in stages. This bill represents one of those stages but not all of those stages.
G. Plant: I take it the minister will be sincere when he expresses what the substantive intent is. I am not persuaded that he has offered a reason why the Family Relations Act should not be amended to be consistent with all of the other legislation, in particular the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.
In that regard, I do have to indicate this. The minister said that we had undergone a very extensive revision of the Family Relations Act in 1997. I think his intention was to suggest that it might not be timely to revisit the Family Relations Act of 1997. Of course, we have just revisited, very extensively, a bill passed last summer, the Definition of Spouse Act.
But perhaps more importantly, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act was also significantly amended in 1997. In fact, the issue of the same-sex spouse definition in 1997 arose in the context of both the FRA and the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, which I have in front of me. Looking at it, I see that that amendment made in 1997 included amendments to the definition of spouse, and that's what we're revisiting here today.
I listened to the minister say why it is that we're not amending the Family Relations Act, and I wonder if he has a better reason than the one he's offering, because I would hate to, even inadvertently, create the situation where there might be an argument about incompatibility between these two statutes that have to work together.
[1955]
Hon. A. Petter: I want to be very frank with the member and say I don't really have a better explanation. I think in an ideal world, frankly, the definitions in the Family Relations Act and some other statutes would have been brought into conformity. There are other issues that might have been brought up in relation to the Family Relations Act which require further policy work and consideration and, I felt, were not ready to proceed. For that reason the decision was made not to proceed with Family Relations Act changes generally.
Maybe we should have decided to proceed with just the definitional changes, and if the member believes that would have been a better course of action, I can't really say I disagree with him. Actually, I probably agree with him. I think the best thing I can say, however, is that this is an ongoing process. The Family Relations Act is one with, perhaps, some other acts that need consideration to bring them into line.
But the intention here -- let me just reinforce that -- is not to create a different substantive test of a spousal relationship beyond the extension to same-sex couples; it's to try to standardize what was a rather disparate set of tests. The Interpretation Act does provide some comfort that the courts will not infer from this effort of standardization that there is an implication of difference that might otherwise be drawn.
Section 18 approved.
On section 19.
G. Plant: One of the changes made here is a change to the definition of spouse in the Financial Institutions Act. Could the minister explain how that will work?
Hon. A. Petter: This is quite detailed. Without getting into a lot of the detail, it relates to a variety of provisions under the act which govern the conduct of individuals with respect to associations they have through spousal relationships. In this case, the act already referred to common-law and same-sex couples. But this was an effort at standardization.
However -- and here I have to correct what I said earlier, because I wasn't aware of this -- here again I think there was a two-year duration test, and that test was removed. So this is another instance where the two-year duration test was dropped in the process of reviewing the provisions. Earlier I said that I was only aware of it occurring in one, but it's now been drawn to my attention that it occurred in this instance as well.
[2000]
G. Plant: Would it be fair to generalize that in respect of these changes to the definition of spouse in the Financial Institutions Act, they are analogous to the changes made in the context of the Company Act and the Employee Investment Act, in that they are concerned with certain restrictions that currently apply to spouses and that ought to apply to people who are in same-sex relationships?
Hon. A. Petter: I think that would be a very fair description.
Sections 19 to 23 inclusive approved.
On section 24.
G. Plant: Section 24 repeals the Homestead Act. Why? This may be the last time that the Homestead Act ever gets referred to in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and we should do it the honour of giving it a decent burial.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I think the member knows the answer to this, because he referred to it in second reading. But I'm sure he wants me to say it for the record.
In reviewing acts that included reference to the definition of spouse -- this act does include a reference to spouse -- it then arose as to whether we should broaden that definition to include same-sex couples. The decision was made not to do that, because the act is obsolete and has no useful force or effect. It would have created a very false impression had we gone through and amended it to generalize it, given that it is effectively an obsolete act. So in order to deal with that issue, the decision was made to repeal the act, recognizing that it is in fact obsolete.
[ Page 17121 ]
Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.
On section 27.
G. Plant: Hon. Chair, you will recall that recently there was a report submitted by a select standing committee of the Legislative Assembly examining the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, and that act becomes relevant in this context. I was thinking about the way this bill worked and observing that the way the bill works is that it proceeds alphabetically through the statutes of British Columbia, beginning with A for Adult Guardianship and picking its stops along the way. We have passed the Medicare Protection Act, which is in section 26, and we are about to get to section 27, the Notaries Act. As I was thinking about this just recently, I think it would be wrong to pass over the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.
The committee that reviewed the Members' Conflict of Interest Act actually looked at the fact that there are disclosure obligations in that act that apply to spouses. But the definition of spouse in the Members' Conflict of Interest Act does not apply to common-law spouses of the same sex; it doesn't extend to same-sex relationships. I think it would not be unfair to characterize the way in which the definition of spouse, or the idea of spouse, works in the Members' Conflict of Interest Act as being somewhat analogous to the way in which spousal relationships are relevant in the context of the Company Act, the Employee Investment Act and the Financial Institutions Act.
It seemed to me that if we in the Legislature were going to impose certain obligations on people out there in the community who happen to be in relationships with shareholders and companies, or directors or participants in employee venture capital corporations and the like, then we ought to be prepared to assume those same obligations for the members of this assembly. From my perspective, the way to deal with that would be to amend the bill. And as good a point as any to amend it is here, because we're dealing with it in alphabetical order. Were I to amend it, I would be introducing the amendment that would add the definition of domestic partner and then seek to make consequential amendments to the balance of the act.
We have already had a debate about our respective views on the utility of the domestic partner definition, and whatever side of that debate is right, the fact is that in the law as we are enacting it -- one section at a time, if you will -- the Company Act, the Employee Investment Act and the Financial Institutions Act are all going to have that word "spouse" with the new definition. They're not going to have this idea of domestic partnership. The minister may have a proposal to make in that regard, and I certainly would be interested in hearing it.
[2005]
Hon. A. Petter: In reviewing legislation and deciding what to include in this package, it became clear that there were some conflict provisions of the kind that are here, in which there was a substantive requirement upon people to avoid certain situations or, if they chose to put themselves in those situations, then -- and only then -- to disclose those situations. So the choice was left to those individuals as to whether they would have to disclose the nature of their relationship.
In the case of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act -- and I think the same is true of the School Act -- the conflict provisions require disclosure of the relationship. Therefore, there was a concern about: how does one balance the privacy interests of individuals who are in such relationships against the need to avoid conflict? I felt that we should have some further discussion on that point -- and I'd actually invite the member to participate in that discussion -- as to whether there is a way to balance that interest.
In all of these acts, I was satisfied that people were not required to disclose the nature of their relationship if they chose to not engage in certain activities that brought them into some area of regulatory oversight under these acts. But in the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and the School Act, the disclosure of the relationship itself is entailed. I felt that further consideration -- more time than I had available to me -- should be given as to how we balance the interests of privacy of people who want to run for public office or for school board office, for example, against the need to assure the public that, in fact, relationships that could give rise to a conflict or an appearance of conflict were guarded against.
So I have asked staff to engage in a consultation with the conflict commissioner, with those who are affected and ultimately with the public -- to advise me on that. I would indeed invite the members opposite to give their views on it. I just didn't feel comfortable that I knew how to balance that, and given the difference -- what I felt was a substantial and substantive difference in the way those provisions worked -- I felt that they should be included in the next round.
But it's certainly my intention and the government's intention that we would amend those provisions to ensure that there was equality in respect of those requirements as well. But I want to make sure that equality doesn't come at a price of invasion of privacy that is too high. That's a question that I think needs to be debated and answered, and that's certainly a debate we will have to have.
G. Plant: One aspect, I suppose, of my concern with the minister's response is that he may undersell the privacy implications in the context of the statutes where he is making this change. They would include the Company Act, the Employee Investment Act, the Financial Institutions Act and, I think, perhaps most importantly of all, the Securities Act. The minister is moving ahead on that front, but yet is apparently reluctant to move ahead on another front. It seems to me that
[2010]
Interjection.
G. Plant: Oh. Because I am really
Interjection.
G. Plant: Yeah, it's the School Act.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
G. Plant: In the context of the School Act, the issue, I assume -- and the minister has confirmed my assumption -- has to do with the obligations that would be placed upon school trustees. So on the one hand, the government is prepared to make one set of rules for the people who happen to be shareholders or participants in companies or publicly listed
[ Page 17122 ]
companies. But the government, the minister, is unwilling at this stage, for the reasons that he explains, to impose the same obligations on elected officials. At least those are the two examples he gives.
I would be very troubled if someone were to draw the inference that I've just suggested. The minister is going to have to work a little harder for my benefit in explaining why we could say to a shareholder of a publicly listed corporation, "A certain set of rules will apply to you," but say to the members of this assembly: "Those rules don't need to apply to you, because after all, insider trading records are public documents."
Hon. A. Petter: There's a fundamental difference at work here. In all the provisions -- whether they be on the benefit side or on the restriction side -- that we have amended, the choice is left with the partners to the spousal relationship as to whether or not they disclose that relationship for the purpose of applying for a benefit that they might be entitled to as a spouse. In the case of these conflict provisions, they only require disclosure of the relationship if the people choose to place themselves in a particular situation that requires disclosure.
In other words, if they choose to do some form of insider or close transaction, then they are required
We could have remedied that situation -- and maybe we should remedy that situation -- by changing the substantive provisions of those acts so that the disclosure is triggered when a member places himself or herself in a particular relationship of conflict. But that is not the way it works right now. I was not comfortable in saying that in that situation -- where in every other case we have not imposed that disclosure requirement, except where people put themselves of their own free will in a situation -- we would impose that.
My commitment and determination is that we have to equalize those statutes and some others. We have to equalize those statutes as well, but there's a challenge there that is unique. The disclosure in those two situations is of the relationship itself, not of a particular transaction in the context of that relationship. So the choice, if we were to extend those, would not be available. Members would have to disclose their relationship.
I feel that's a fairly substantive and significant difference that we need to wrestle with. If we do it, fine, but we need to know what we're doing. We're requiring officials who put themselves in the position of running for office to disclose those relationships, even though there is no conflict or appearance of conflict whatsoever. The disclosure here only takes place when the individual has placed themselves in a situation where there is an appearance of some problem or difficulty that would not be solved by that disclosure. That is the difference, and that is why this is not a special exemption at all. It's an attempt to try to figure out how we move to the next stage and now, beyond that to the next round, which will include the two acts that I've referred to, if this government has the opportunity -- but in a way that we have to balance interests that are unique because of the difference between those acts and these.
G. Plant: I want to pursue the issue for a moment, though, of how it will work in, say, the context of the Securities Act. If you happen to be in a same-sex relationship with someone who is a major shareholder of a publicly listed corporation and you have also been a major shareholder of that same corporation
[2015]
Hon. A. Petter: I hope I get credit for these answers when we get to the security
There is also a provision in here -- section 40, which we will eventually get to, hopefully -- which is a transitional provision designed to deal exactly with that situation for precisely the reason the member states. We need to have transitional provisions that grandparent in some way or that recognize that we're not going to impose obligations on people because of their pre-existing relations that now necessitate the kind of disclosure the member's talking about. It is tricky. But we have in this act, in section 40, a transitional provision which allows us, through regulation, to recognize the very difficulty the member has talked about and to grandparent certain relationships, at least for periods of time, in a way that tries to deal with that very concern.
The intention here and the policy concern here
G. Plant: So why not use the transition provisions in the context of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act; delay their implementation; allow those who choose to run for office in the next election to make the decision that the minister is talking about; and ensure that in the fullness of time the obligation to disclose is implemented in a way which respects the privacy concerns -- for example, of existing members -- but ensures that the new regime applies equitably to incoming members?
I understand the distinction that the minister is trying to draw. I understand it; I'm not sure the public will. I have to say that for our part, on this side of the House, I think that the transition provisions, the ability to stage implementation and the ability to draft regulations to ensure that disclosure is made in a way that, to the fullest extent possible, respects the privacy interests go a long way. Then the question for the public is whether they'll see the distinction between a rule that applies to restrict insider trading, which doesn't apply to elected officials, and a bunch of rules that the politicians say they don't have to make for themselves.
[ Page 17123 ]
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, it's my hope that we can get legislation to deal with those other sections before the next election, so there won't be this distinction to see at all. But having said that, the member's suggestion about the use of the transitional provision does not solve the fundamental problem, because it doesn't deal with a fundamental difference here.
[2020]
The difference is that in these provisions, disclosure only becomes necessary if one undertakes certain actions to place oneself within the realm of an associated relationship. One is not required to do that. The transitional provisions take account of the fact that people may have done that previously without knowing that that would entail certain consequences, and it allows us to deal with that problem.
But the difference is fundamental in these other two acts. In those other two acts, you don't disclose if you're in a position of conflict or if you're in a position that might entail apparent conflict, even in the eyes of the commissioner. You just disclose the relationship. The only choice that would then be left is that anyone who ran for office, other than as a school trustee or in the provincial Legislature, would necessarily have to disclose a relationship, if they had one, without doing anything that brought them within the realm of conflict.
Now, maybe that's the right decision. But if we're going to make that decision -- which is fundamentally different than the decision being made here, that's being asked here -- I think we have to face those consequences. There's an alternative possibility, but it's one that I think needs to germinate. That is that we change the School Act and the Members' Conflict of Interest Act so that, for example, the relationship is shared with the commissioner. When certain actions are taken that raise the possibility of a conflict, then it becomes disclosable; but if not, not so. But right now the relationship is disclosed to the public through conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. That is what creates this difference.
I frankly think it would do us well to take a bit of time. When this issue came to my attention, I must say that I didn't have a lot of time to deal with it. I felt it was appropriate to take a bit of time to talk to the conflict-of-interest commissioner, to talk to members, to talk to the public to see how we ensure that the integrity of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act is maintained and, at the same time, that we do it in a way that doesn't unnecessarily invade the privacy of individuals.
It seemed to me that there was a possibility of a slightly different approach that could do essentially what these acts do. That's to disclose once you have taken action that raises a problem, but you don't have to disclose if you haven't taken action that raises a problem. That would require a substantive change to the current practices under those acts.
Frankly, we didn't have the time -- or I didn't have the time -- to contemplate those changes or talk to the conflict commissioners or talk to members opposite about whether they would be agreeable to those kinds of changes. So I felt the most appropriate thing to do was, as I asked my deputy minister to do since we contemplated this, undertake a process to give me the options and then discuss how we might bring them forward quickly -- hopefully before the next election -- so that we can have the answer to that and there will be a level playing field.
G. Plant: There are two points that I want to make in the context of what the minister has just said. The first is to repeat myself. I think, with respect, the minister undersells or underestimates the implications that this regime will have in the context of families who are shareholders in corporations.
The minister says that the issue is whether or not those people will choose to enter into transactions. He may be right. One of the implications is that individuals in certain relationships won't acquire shares in companies at all, because that's how they'll be forced to adjust their behaviour around this issue. To underestimate the significance of that by suggesting that it is somehow less difficult or problematic than the situation that will face elected officials is, I think, a mistake.
I have to say, frankly, that my view is that the minister will find that the issue of transition is so problematic that there is very little prospect of these provisions being given force, being proclaimed, prior to the expiry of this government -- that is, the life of this parliament.
Among other things, I have some evidence for that, in that we are here, after all, amending the Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, which we passed last summer and which has never been proclaimed. These things come to the floor of the Legislature. There is some public statement made around the importance of an achievement that the government seeks to draw attention to and seeks credit for. But without in any way being partisan, the fact is that the Definition of Spouse Amendment Act we enacted last summer was never proclaimed.
[2025]
The Adult Guardianship Act really only just came into force. Now the minister is admitting that with respect to the Company Act, the Securities Act, the Employee Investment Act and the Financial Institutions Act, there are transition issues that are going to be dealt with, if they need to be dealt with, by regulations. I suspect that the result is that they're just not going to be dealt with.
And that, I guess, leads me to the second point. I'm still having a hard time seeing how it is that a legislative initiative which is founded on the principle of the recognition of equality rights now reaches a stage where there is not equality. The result of this provision, of this bill, is that some rules and restrictions will apply to people who are, for example, shareholders in companies. But we in this assembly won't have to live by the same restrictions.
The minister says that it's his intention to move forward with a consultation process and that he's committed to coming back with a resolution, should he get that opportunity. And I don't doubt the sincerity of his commitment. The minister has had lots of opportunity, as did his predecessor over the three years that we've been doing this, to look at this issue. I suppose the public will be in a position to determine the adequacy of the minister's stated intention to come back and deal with this issue.
I just don't get it. I want to give the minister one more opportunity to say why it is that
An Hon. Member: Whether there's a conflict or not.
[ Page 17124 ]
G. Plant:
An Hon. Member: Or awkward or not.
G. Plant:
Hon. A. Petter: Well, you know, the march to equality rights is one -- I think we discussed this at second reading -- that is a difficult march. When one is going to fundamentally change the legislative regime to recognize social equality, one takes it one step at a time, and each step involves unique concerns and difficulties.
I'm sure the member didn't mean to be insensitive in his last comments, but he clearly understands, or must understand, that within society the existence of same-sex relationships is still something upon which people base discriminatory behaviour against those who are in such relationships. Therefore there are particular and peculiar privacy rights that attach. Indeed, there are also privacy rights attached to common-law relationships, I would say. In a marriage relationship you have made a choice, again -- a voluntary choice -- to declare that.
[2030]
At the end of the day, every one of the enactments -- at least that I've been responsible for, and I believe this is true of others
Along this particular path thus far, we've been able to do it in a way that did not necessitate the involuntary disclosure of same-sex, non-marital -- because of course we don't have a marital provision for same-sex couples yet in this country -- relationships. Neither do these; these only require disclosure where individuals choose to put themselves in a particular circumstance that requires disclosure by virtue of the affiliation being one that would otherwise be problematic without disclosure.
The question then becomes, when you get to an act that currently just requires disclosure of the relationship itself
You know my favourite saying, because I've used it in this House before: "The best is so often the enemy of the good." You take one good step at a time, knowing that you're on the road to achieving the best you can. It would be as unacceptable in my view, to take that next step unthinkingly as it would be not to move and change that legislation the member has referred to as a next step. I think we need to change it. But I think we need to think whether the balance that would result is the right balance. It's a fundamentally different kind of provision than the ones that are being dealt with here.
It's tough making these tough choices collectively about how we do this. In this case, though, it affects a group in society, and I wasn't prepared to take that upon myself without some further knowledge and discussion and options. And for that reason, it isn't in this bill. I'm very hopeful it'll be in the next bill, and I'm very hopeful the next bill will be passed before the next election.
G. Plant: I've listened to the minister's explanation. He's going to have to sell it to the public, I suppose -- is the question. I can assure the minister that I've had correspondence from people who have felt that as a result of some of the legislative changes made in this area since 1997, they have been surprised into circumstances that they would hardly characterize as voluntary. They have resulted in the imposition of significant responsibilities and obligations. I can tell the minister that for the most part, I usually say to those people: "Well, welcome to the age of equality. You've made the decision to have that relationship. This is what flows from it."
I suppose the test of the minister's commitment will be the speed with which he makes public the discussion paper that places on public record the solution that he finds. I'm happy to help him find that solution. But if the months go by and we haven't seen that public discussion paper, then I suspect there are going to be some members of the public who will question whether or not this government is committed to achieve that goal or whether, frankly, it's happy to impose those obligations on people who happen to be shareholders in private companies.
If that's strong encouragement to the minister, then he probably needs it, because I think it's an issue that urgently demands addressing, particularly since we are making the changes that this bill makes in a variety of contexts, frankly, that we've only touched on here. There are other changes in other bills that we've not touched on, which I think are almost as relevant as the particular bills that I've looked at.
The minister has a strong defence for his position. I've heard it. I look forward to his attempt to sell it to the public. But even more, I look forward to the early production of the discussion paper that identifies a resolution to the issue that he thinks is present here.
[2035]
Sections 27 to 39 inclusive approved.
On section 40.
G. Plant: This is the transitional provision -- or rather, this is a regulation-making provision that provides for transition. One of the issues that arises in the context of statutes like the Estate Administration Act or the Wills Variation Act is that when you expand a category of persons who will be entitled
[ Page 17125 ]
to make claims upon, for example, the estates of other individuals, you may be doing so at the expense of the existing rights of people who have those claims.
When I first saw a transitional provision here, I thought that perhaps that was what this provision was about. But I gather that from the minister's perspective, the purpose of this provision -- and it may be the only purpose -- is to provide for the transition that he has talked about in terms of issues like the Securities Act and the Company Act. So in the case of, say, the rights that accrue on an intestacy before and after the definition of spouse is expanded -- if it ever is, dare I say, if this bill is ever proclaimed -- the issue of what happens to people's entitlement is not going to be affected by any regulations that the government intends to make under this section.
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is that we would not be using this section to deal with such an issue, an inheritance issue.
Sections 40 and 41 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 21, Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
[2040]
Hon. A. Petter: With trepidation, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada