Hansard -- Monday, April 15, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 7 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		2813

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2813
	Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) Hon. M. Coell Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) Hon. M. Coell Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21) Hon. S. Hagen Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32) Hon. J. Murray School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) Hon. C. Clark

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2816
	AIDS Vancouver Island S. Orr Women of Distinction Award recipients H. Bloy Vancouver Canucks and Chilliwack Chiefs hockey teams J. Les

Oral Questions		2817
	Health care facility closings J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Effectiveness of referendum on treaty negotiations J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark Powers of municipal governments J. Kwan Hon. T. Nebbeling Recruitment of foreign-trained nurses W. McMahon Hon. S. Hawkins Foster parent system in B.C. J. Bray Hon. G. Hogg 200th Street interchange project in Langley D. Hayer Hon. J. Reid Status of rockfish industry R. Visser Hon. J. van Dongen

Petitions		2820
	Hon. J. van Dongen P. Nettleton

Second Reading of Bills		2820
	Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31) Hon. J. Murray B. Bennett J. Kwan B. Lekstrom B. Penner R. Harris Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17) Hon. G. Hogg V. Anderson A. Hamilton T. Christensen J. Bray J. Kwan Community Care Facility Act (Bill 16) Hon. K. Whittred R. Hawes T. Christensen I. Chong Hon. L. Reid Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15) Hon. S. Bond J. Les R. Masi J. Kwan

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, visiting the Legislative Assembly today is Peggy Brooks, an editorial supervisor with Hansard Services at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Ms. Brooks is accompanied by her husband, Derek Fletcher, a former MPP who represented Guelph. Would you please welcome them.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd like to make two introductions today. Reggi Balabanov, who is the president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, is joining us, as is Brenda Turner, all the way from Castlegar, who is the second vice-president of BCCPAC. I hope the House will make them both very welcome.

In addition to that, I'd like to offer my congratulations to the 160 British Columbians who entered the Boston Marathon this morning. That included Victoria's own Marcia McNeil, who is married to press gallery president Scott Sutherland. Despite that fact, she has finished the marathon, and her time was four hours and 19 minutes. I hope the House will join me in congratulating her and every other British Columbian.

Hon. L. Stephens: Visiting in the Legislature today are some friends and supporters of mine from Langley. Both of these individuals work tirelessly for our community, which is one of the reasons why Langley is such a wonderful place to live. They're here to attend the annual general meeting of the Manufactured Housing Association of British Columbia tomorrow. Would the House please make welcome Mary and Dale Ball.

P. Bell: I hate to contradict the Minister of Energy and Mines, but I'd be happy to offer him leave if he'd like to run in a marathon.

We have a very special guest in the precincts today. This particular gentleman — speaking of Vimy Ridge last week — flew over 65 missions in France during World War II in a Spitfire and came back from all of those missions. On top of that, he was able to manage my campaign successfully in the last provincial election. Would the House please make Tom Michael very welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to take the opportunity to welcome back one of the members of the Legislature who has been away for some time. I want to send our warmest welcome and best wishes to the member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

D. MacKay: Today I'm pleased to introduce two visitors from the beautiful Bulkley Valley in the northwestern part of our province. Visiting in the gallery today I have Her Worship Mayor Sharon Hartwell from the village of Telkwa and His Worship Mayor Brian Northup from the town of Smithers. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

S. Orr: I have two very special people here today in the gallery. One is Miki Hansen. She is the executive director of AIDS Vancouver Island. The second is someone who is no stranger to this House, Mr. Bert Hick, who is a board member. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment and Assistance Act.

Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce Bill 26, Employment and Assistance Act. This act and a companion act for people with disabilities will help the Ministry of Human Resources carry out its mandate to redefine income assistance in British Columbia. This act is part of a fundamental shift towards a culture of personal responsibility, self-reliance and employment. The legislation will give the ministry the tools it needs to provide assistance, create opportunity and support independence.

This act will be the cornerstone of our new focus on employment first. It includes employment plans for income assistance clients who are expected to work. These plans will provide support and direction to clients as they carry out their job search and take part in job training. The act also addresses employment-related programs to help our clients compete for the hundreds of thousands of jobs that change hands every year in British Columbia.

We have already committed $300 million for job placement and job training over the next three years. This bill includes other measures that will encourage employment, such as a two-year independence test prior to eligibility for income assistance and time limits for employable people receiving income assistance. It establishes a new independent, single-level appeal system that will lead to faster appeal decisions. It is an important step towards a new era of self-reliance and prosperity in British Columbia. I am proud to introduce it for first reading.

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

Bill 26 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. M. Coell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.

Hon. M. Coell: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 27, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. This act is companion legislation to the Employment and Assistance Act. It is specifically for people with disabilities, people who share our universal desire to lead more independent and fuller lives.

By establishing a separate act for people with disabilities, we are recognizing the distinct needs of this community. We are recognizing that they face special challenges in daily living and barriers to employment, but we also recognize that many people with disabilities have a desire to work and have tremendous skills they can bring to the workplace. We want to support and encourage them to take their rightful place in the workforce. We will provide the tools to help them develop their skills and guide them towards employment so that they may be more financially independent and enjoy a more secure future.

At the same time, we will continue to provide assistance to those who are unable to work because of their disability. By maintaining this vital support while providing a full range of mainstream and specialized employment programs, we are embarking on a new era in the way government serves people with disabilities. The act will be an important tool as we move forward, and I'm proud to introduce this bill for first reading today.

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

Bill 27 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. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission Act.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. S. Hagen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Bill 21, Agricultural Land Commission Act, an important step in facilitating improved management of both our agricultural and private forest lands.

Our government believes the agricultural land reserve serves a compelling public interest. British Columbians expect government to affirm the historic role of the agricultural land reserve and to ensure the Land Reserve Commission reflects the values and aspirations of our communities. British Columbians also believe that the institutions of government should be continually improving, bringing government closer to the people and finding new ways to improve services.

This bill meets both of those goals. The commission will be more regionally responsive to community needs by bringing decision-makers closer to those affected. The bill also improves efficiencies by providing for more flexibility and new opportunities for local governments and authorities to assume limited decision-making powers under voluntary agreements. The bill also provides for a dispute resolution mechanism with local governments and stronger enforcement provisions. The commission's role in the forest land reserve will be phased out responsibly over the coming year.

With the implementation of the changes proposed in this bill, I believe our government will have successfully fulfilled our new-era commitment to make the commission more regionally responsive to community needs. I am pleased to present this bill in the House today.

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

Bill 21 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. J. Murray presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. J. Murray: This bill amends the legislation governing contaminated sites in order to accomplish three important goals. First and most importantly, it eliminates duplication and counterproductive provisions in the regulation of contaminated minesites in British Columbia. Second, it clarifies the prerequisites to recover the costs of remediation in court. Third, the bill clarifies the requirements needed to obtain authorization to conduct various activities on land that may have been contaminated.

These changes are an important step to ensure that the regulation of contaminated sites is efficient and effective for all parties involved.

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

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Clark presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. C. Clark: I am pleased to introduce Bill 34, the School Amendment Act, 2002. This act makes a number of changes to the School Act, which is administered by the Ministry of Education. The bill follows through on our commitments to improve student achievement by enhancing parental involvement in children's schools, by providing parents and students with more choice about what school they would like to attend, by lifting spending restrictions that have tied the hands of school boards and by giving school boards more autonomy in the management of their local affairs while making them more publicly accountable for student success.

It enables a new level of involvement for parents by establishing school planning councils on which parents must constitute the majority. It acknowledges the right of district parent advisory councils to advise school boards on educational issues, something that the BCCPAC has been asking for, for a long time. It provides students the right to attend any school in the province, subject to space availability, and it establishes catchment areas to ensure that students have the right to attend their neighbourhood school.

It provides school boards with greater local autonomy by enhancing their capacity to manage local decisions, decisions such as opening and closing schools. It permits boards to share in the proceeds from the sale of

capital assets. It enhances boards' ability to share administrative services with other school boards. It enables boards to create separate entities to engage in entrepreneurial activities such as offshore schools. It addresses a promise to school boards for more flexibility by fulfilling the government's commitment to develop a new funding allocation system.

It enables the implementation of generally accepted accounting principles for school boards. It requires school boards to complete accountability contracts. It permits the appointment of a special adviser to review the progress of boards where they are not meeting the goals of student achievement. It expands the power of the Lieutenant-Governor to replace a school board for more than just financial reasons. It changes the title of administrative officer back to the titles of principals and vice-principals so that we can recognize that principals and vice-principals are leaders in education in their schools.

It requires certified teachers to assess every enrolled student to ensure that all students are being treated equitably. It enhances the ability of the Francophone Education Authority to manage its finances by requiring that it have a chief financial officer.

Mr. Speaker, education is the cornerstone of our society, and this bill continues our commitment to make the system accountable at every level and indeed to put students first.

I move that the School Amendment Act, 2002, be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34 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.

S. Orr: I rise today to tell you about a wonderful organization in my community, called AIDS Vancouver Island. This organization now services about 30 clients per day, and, sadly, it has had a 25 percent increase in HIV-positive clients over the last year. Their volunteer program last year logged 19,000 hours of volunteer time. Since 1986 they have successfully operated a needle exchange in Victoria and the Cowichan Valley. This was the first needle exchange in Canada.

The Victoria facility has a kitchen that offers hot daily lunches. AIDS Vancouver Island works with not only people who are HIV-positive or have AIDS but also people with hepatitis C and other communicable diseases. Their outreach service covers the south and central Island, and they have facilities in Victoria, Duncan and Nanaimo. One exceptional service is their speakers bureau on health promotion and education and particularly their involvement with school districts, where they offer a program called AIDS 101.

The reason this so very important is because of the onslaught of drug company, television and print advertising coming up through the United States showing young people climbing, hiking, rock climbing and snowboarding, who are HIV-positive. This is a concern because the message it sends is that this disease is nothing to be worried about. All you need to do is take their drugs, and you will be able to live a life as shown on the television ads. Our young people see these ads and think the same. This is very dangerous, so AIDS Vancouver Island, through their program AIDS 101, are making sure our young people know the truth: yes, you can live a normal life but not as portrayed in this advertising. If you contract HIV, life changes drastically, and you must take precautions.

AIDS Vancouver Island, under the wonderful care of their executive director, Miki Hansen, makes our community more educated and understanding, and her organization offers support that is non-judgmental. Their clients have a sense of belonging where they feel safe. We can learn from them.

H. Bloy: I rise today to recognize the winners of this year's Tri-Cities Soroptimist International Women of Distinction awards. The following winners were honoured for their dedication and devotion within their communities this past Sunday, April 14.

First, Jacqueline Kassa is the founder and manager of Relay for a Friend. I will personally be participating with my wife on Ann's team this year. The second winner is Shawn Bayes, who is the executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society. Third is Janet Milne, who is the co-founder of Glory House. Janet is recognized for her devotion to help women make the transition to independent living. The fourth recipient is the Port Coquitlam Area Women's Centre. It is awarded for its efforts to advance the status of women by providing them with supportive counselling, information and referrals to appropriate services. The fifth recipient is Colleen Chapman, a registered nurse who is recognized for being a positive role model for young women entering the nursing profession.

In addition to honouring these five Women of Distinction recipients, the Tri-Cities Soroptimists presented two Women's Opportunity awards to Frieda Lalja and Noreen Prescott to continue their studies and improve their skills. Also, a young student, Lindsay Francis, received the Soroptimist Violet Richardson award for outstanding volunteerism in the community. I would like to congratulate all the winners.

J. Les: Hockey fans throughout British Columbia are excited today about the fact that the Vancouver Canucks have qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs. The Canucks this year have demonstrated that hard

work, determination and an absolute commitment to "never quit" pays off in the end. I'm sure all members of this House join me in wishing the Canucks every success in the upcoming playoffs. For starters, the Canucks' next assignment is to clip the Detroit Red Wings. Can they do it? You bet they can.

I'd like to turn, however, to another set of hockey playoffs: the junior A hockey championships in the British Columbia Hockey League. For many years the Chilliwack Chiefs have entertained Chilliwack hockey fans. This year was no exception. The Chiefs burned up the league with their regular season record of 46 wins, only ten losses and four ties — easily the best in the league. They continue their success in the playoffs. Firstly, the Chiefs derailed the Coquitlam Express, then went on to declaw the South Surrey Eagles. Next they scuttled the Nanaimo Clippers, and just this past weekend they defanged the Vipers from Vernon. As a result, the Chiefs have won the B.C. Hockey League junior A provincial championship and the Fred Page Cup.

Next, the Chilliwack Chiefs will be playing the Alberta Junior Hockey League champion Drayton Valley Thunder in a seven-game series starting tomorrow, April 16. The winner of this series will head for Halifax to compete for the Royal Bank Cup, Canada's national junior A hockey championship. I have no doubt that Chilliwack will prevail in these playoffs.

We are justly proud of our provincial champions. Coach Harvey Smeyl and his team have been a real credit to the city of Chilliwack. I know that they will be first-class ambassadors for the province in the upcoming series. We congratulate them on their magnificent season and look forward to seeing the Royal Bank Cup on display in Chilliwack and welcoming the team back as national champions. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to junior A hockey in British Columbia, the Chilliwack Chiefs rule.

J. MacPhail: This government's getting set to take the axe to patient care, breaking its single most important promise to British Columbians. They're taking very special care to make sure they get the spin right. Over the weekend the Liberal caucus met with the health region CEOs. They met in a secret caucus meeting to prepare their lines for the pending announcements of cuts to health care.

To the Minister of Health Services: can he tell British Columbians when the announcements will be made about what cuts in health care are coming to their communities?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's actually good news for British Columbians. We went into the election promising to maintain the health budget of $9.3 billion. We've, in fact, increased it to $10.4 billion. I don't call that a cut.

Clearly, for the first time, we actually have a caucus of 77 individuals who are interested in solving some of the challenges in health care. Not once in the ten years that the previous government was in place did they ever have a caucus meeting where they brought everybody in to help find solutions to the problems that patients are facing throughout British Columbia.

I'm proud of the work that's being done by this caucus. We're going to put in place a sustainable, integrated health care system that's actually going to meet the needs of British Columbians in every community throughout this province.

J. MacPhail: Let's take the minister at his word. Let's hear what he told his caucus during the weekend in the most open and accountable government. For months now, British Columbians have been told that hospitals in B.C. will close, but they haven't been told which hospitals are on the block. That was discussed this weekend.

The last time we asked this minister about which hospitals were going to close, the government took the question on notice. We all know that the announcement is coming within days. The special secret caucus meeting took place, so I know the minister now knows what's going on. To the Minister of Health Services: will he tell British Columbians if, as a part of his announcement within days, he will finally come clean and tell all British Columbians which hospitals are going to close?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting that the member has previously criticized our open cabinet meetings, which is the most transparent government we've ever had in the history of Canada, and now she wants us to have open caucus meetings as well.

Clearly, I think this is an exciting time for British Columbians. It is the first time that we've actually taken a comprehensive look at how health care services should be delivered in this province so that we get rid of this disjointed system we've had up to now that has not met the needs of patients throughout the province. We've put together integrated systems where one hospital complements the other hospital, which complements community care, where mental health programs are integrated into those systems. That's the kind of system we're putting in place so that we can actually have a sustainable health care system and move forward in this province so that the needs of patients can get met.

J. MacPhail: All I'm asking is for this minister to come clean with the rest of British Columbians about

what he told his caucus this weekend. All over the province people are in a state of high anxiety and worry about the future of their hospital. They've had no input into the decisions. Now the big shoe is about to drop on them.

In preparation for this announcement, what has this minister done? He's allowed the interior health authority to hire grief counsellors. Maybe it's the Liberal backbenchers that decided they needed grief counsellors for their smaller communities.

So let me again ask the minister: instead of preparing spin lines, instead of hiring grief counsellors, will the minister open up his secret caucus meeting to the rest of British Columbia and finally ask British Columbians for input on what they want to see for the future of their public health care system, rather than the cuts that he is going to impose on them?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have had one of the most transparent consultation programs that this province has ever had. The last time that the Health Committee of this Legislature met was in 1993, and the previous government should be ashamed of that track record.

Hon. C. Hansen: …member for Vancouver-Hastings was a member of that Health Committee. How many hearings did she actually attend throughout this province when we went out and consulted with communities and health workers? She did not take the time to attend one single hearing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: The Liberal government wouldn't know the word "consultation" if it hit them square in the face. Just ask the Attorney General.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the editor on the weekend, the Attorney General made yet another muddled attempt to clear up this government's position on the referendum. After saying for weeks that the government will only be bound by a yes vote, the Attorney General is now saying: "All votes count." But the question remains: count for what? According to the Attorney General, a no vote means that the government can advance a negotiating position that is not linked to any particular principle, and a yes vote does not prevent the government from negotiating an exception to the principle. So now we have confirmation that regardless of the vote, the government is going to do whatever it wants.

Will the Deputy Premier tell us: just why are we going through a $9 million exercise if neither a yes nor a no vote determines the government's position?

Hon. C. Clark: On behalf of the Attorney General, I'd be delighted to take that question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: Maybe at the caucus meetings you can share the letter to the editor from the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: …but the government is planning on taking control away from municipalities over land use decisions with respect to the ALR, the agricultural land reserve. The mayor of Delta is calling this a brutal attack on the powers of all local governments. On the one hand, the Premier's saying that first nations should have the delegated powers of municipalities, yet on the other hand, he's eliminating the powers of municipalities when it comes to land use.

Will the Minister of State for Community Charter just be straight with the first nations and tell them what municipal powers this government is trying to take away from them at the treaty table?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In the near future we'll deposit in the House a draft of the community charter. It will not include land use planning or land use policies, as that will be part of a further review.

W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. It has been reported that the B.C. Nurses Union has withdrawn from a federal program which facilitated the hiring of foreign nurses to work in British Columbia. As a result, I understand that the program has been suspended. Can the Minister of Health Planning tell us if this will result in foreign nurses no longer being recruited to work in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I want to say that our government values nurses. We want to make sure our working nurses are supported with the staff that they need at the bedside to do their job and make sure patients get the safe and quality care that they deserve.

I'm aware of this development, and I am disappointed, because I think we all know that we need specialty care nurses in specialized areas like cardiac and intensive care units. I am advised that the parties close to this issue are working very hard to resolve it.

The good news is that we are actively utilizing the provincial nominee program to recruit foreign-trained nurses, and this program allows us to speed up the landed immigration process. To date we've received over 100 applications in that program. Of them, 50 have been health care–related, and 45 of them have been approved for nursing, and that's good news for patients.

J. Bray: Recent media reports have suggested that financial assistance to foster parents is being reduced. Foster parents play an important role in our society, assuming responsibility for the upbringing of children whose own parents may not be able to care for them. Can the Minister of Children and Family Development tell us whether or not these reports are accurate?

Hon. G. Hogg: Clearly, foster parents are the core of the services we provide to children in this province. The reports have been that there has been a cut in the amount to be paid to those foster parents who are at level 2 and level 3. That is in fact not true. There was an agreement struck in 1992 with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations, and they set out the policies by which foster parents would be remunerated across this province. There was a 10 percent increase in that number, which was given approximately one year ago, and there has been an inequitable application of that policy.

About one-third of the 1,700 foster parents at level 2 and level 3 have been receiving payments at both the core level and the program level. There is an economy of scale which is generated and which was agreed upon. You get a certain amount for maintenance, and that reduces slightly with each subsequent child up to three children. That has not been applied across the province equitably. We've now asked that it is applied equitably across the province so that all foster parents who are providing similar services are compensated in a similar manner.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has a supplementary question.

J. Bray: I appreciate that clarity. Foster parents, as the minister knows, are chosen with great care, and particular attention is being paid to their ability to provide a stable home for children and children in need. These foster parents should be consulted in any changes government is considering. Will the Minister of Children and Family Development consult with foster parents if changes are contemplated to the foster care system, and can he outline for us the process by which they can get involved with his ministry to develop these community-based programs?

Hon. G. Hogg: The director of child protection has been meeting with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations since September, talking about the programs, talking about the processes. There have been some problems with respect to that organization and its ability to fully represent all of its members. I can assure you that we have been continuing to meet with them and will continue to meet with them to look at changes which will make our system even better.

The system in British Columbia today is seen as one of the very best in terms of recruitment, support and compensation for foster parents across Canada and is looked to as a model within that. As we move to our new governance models and are looking at five regions, we'll be looking at support systems which will exist and support foster parents within those regions, and we'll be consulting with them to make sure we have a system that supports them in the most effective method possible.

D. Hayer: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The province has provided….

D. Hayer: The province has been involved in negotiations with the city of Langley over the changes to the 200th Street interchange. Many of my constituents have been calling my office concerning the status of this project due to the high volume of traffic in this area. Can the Ministry of Transportation please tell my constituents what the status is of the 200th Street interchange?

Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this is an important project. Just two weeks ago a supplementary agreement

was signed with a contractor that allows this project to go ahead, and the design phase is once again underway.

D. Hayer: Like so many of their other promises, the previous government failed to deliver on the commitment to move forward on this project. My constituents are concerned and wondering when this project will be complete. Can the Minister of Transportation please tell my constituents when this project will begin and when it will be completed?

Hon. J. Reid: The project is underway now with the design phase. The contractor does have to get certain permits that are related to the work that has to be done. They apply for those permits and obtain them. As well, there are still discussions with the township of Langley that have to take place. We expect the project to be completed within the next two years.

R. Visser: British Columbians have always acknowledged the need to manage our fish stocks in a responsible manner. Over the last couple of months there have been numerous reports of a declining number of rockfish on B.C.'s coast, and the federal Department of Fisheries is now poised to close this fishery. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries tell us what his ministry has been doing to monitor this issue and what role they may be playing in this debate?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, we're concerned about the status of rockfish. This is a very long-lived fish, and it is caught in a lot of bycatch in a lot of fisheries. We are concerned that the conservation measures that the federal government is implementing be done in a phased-in manner. I've had some conversations with the federal Fisheries minister. He's certainly receptive to that idea. We are concerned that these conservation measures are done in a manner that does not very negatively and immediately impact the recreational fishery, the commercial fishery and the first nations fishery.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I have a petition to present. This petition is signed by 8,373 British Columbians. It is asking the government to proceed immediately with the construction of a new publicly financed and publicly owned hospital and health care centre in the Fraser Valley.

P. Nettleton: I have a petition from a number of Prince George landlords asking for a review of the Residential Tenancy Act.

This bill is an important step in ensuring that British Columbia's conservation officers are able to provide efficient and effective environmental enforcement services. British Columbians depend on the conservation officer service to protect and support the management of the province's environment and wildlife. In order to meet the expectations of British Columbians and in order to deliver services effectively, it's essential to have the best possible organization of the conservation officer service.

An important part of effective service delivery is an efficient administrative process. However, under the current legislation the enforcement powers of conservation officers are distributed among the Environment Management Act and 21 other provincial statutes.

These statutes are not consistent in terms of the enforcement powers they grant to conservation officers. This has led to a need for multiple administrative processes to support various enforcement activities. This bill consolidates and harmonizes the enforcement powers of conservation officers in a single statute, the Environment Management Act. It brings together, in a schedule to the act, a list of all the provincial statutes under which conservation officers have enforcement authorities and applies specified enforcement powers consistently to all of the listed statutes. These changes create a one-window reference point for the range and scope of conservation officer powers.

The bill also makes it possible for the schedule to be amended by regulation. This will enable more efficient and timely updating of the conservation officer authorities in response to changing needs and future changes to the legislation.

This bill also transfers the power to appoint conservation officers from the minister to the chief conservation officer. This change will eliminate appointment procedures that are unnecessarily high-level and bureaucratic. The chief conservation officer will have the primary operational responsibility for making appointments, although this authority will remain subject to my direction. This delegation of authority will allow the chief conservation officer to respond in a timely

In addition, the chief conservation officer will be given the authority to empower special classes of conservation officers. These auxiliary and special conservation officers will provide supplementary environmental enforcement services as needed. The powers of each of these classes of conservation officers will be determined by the chief conservation officer in accordance with their designated duties.

The working partnerships with other jurisdictions are an important part of enforcement services generally, and environmental enforcement is no exception. Flexible management and delivery of environmental protection and enforcement are needed to ensure the highest level of service delivery. This bill enables the creation of operational partnerships between the conservation officer service and other enforcement agencies.

The province's conservation officer service has benefited from enforcement authorities granted by other jurisdictions. However, our current legislation does not provide the conservation officer service with adequate statutory authority and flexibility to fully utilize those partnership opportunities. To do so, the conservation officer service needs to be able to reciprocate with grants of provincial enforcement powers to agency partners. This bill will correct that deficiency. Potential agency partners include bylaw enforcement departments in local governments in the province, enforcement agencies in other provinces such as Alberta's environmental enforcement service and federal agencies such as the enforcement arm of Environment Canada.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 31 is an important step in meeting the ministry's mandate. It supports this government's commitments to ensure a high state of environmental management of provincial land and resources and to ensure that all laws are applied and enforced consistently across British Columbia. In short, this bill will help us deliver improved and more cost-effective environmental enforcement services.

B. Bennett: I just had a few words I wanted to say today in response to the introduction of Bill 31. First of all, the purpose or advantage of the bill is to streamline administrative procedures within the conservation service by creating more efficient processes for appointing COs. That is, of course, consistent with our new-era direction of making government more responsive to the needs of British Columbians. It's also consistent with the laudable goal of simplifying and reducing regulations.

The bill also consolidates and harmonizes conservation officer empowerment, enforcement powers and immunities, which will make it easier for the ministry to provide enforcement services across B.C., especially in the vast rural areas of B.C. where the CO is often the only provincial government presence for hundreds of miles.

More importantly, those changes will make it easier for all British Columbians to understand the enforcement roles of conservation officers and to assist them in their conservation duties. In the riding that I come from in East Kootenay, the people who live there have very positive relationships with the local conservation officers, so this will be good news to them.

Thirdly and finally, this act enables more effective partnerships with environmental protection agencies in other jurisdictions and at other levels of government. I refer specifically to section 8.2 of the act, where it says: "…the chief conservation officer…may enter into agreements with other agencies of government, including those of the federal government and of provincial, municipal and first nations governments, respecting (a) law enforcement delivery related to environmental protection or natural resource use…."

That applies quite specifically in the East Kootenay, because we are obviously adjacent to Alberta, and a lot of the federal and provincial parks use the provincial boundary as the boundary for those parks. We do have a lot of situations where it's almost impossible for the Alberta government to access certain of their areas and impossible for our conservation officers to access some of our own areas, so we have a relationship developed there with Alberta.

Secondly, this act allows for activities that are normally carried out by conservation officers to be carried out by another delegated officer, particularly with respect to wildlife-human conflict response and management, which again is a problem that we have in the East Kootenay with grizzly bears, black bears and cougars. Once again, this ought to allow the ministry to provide a higher level of service to the people of rural B.C.

In general, I wanted to say that anything that simplifies the public's dealings with the provincial bureaucracy is a good thing, and anything that redirects money to the important work of conservation officers is also a good thing. I applaud the ministry for bringing forward this very positive bill.

Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 31, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: The main point of this bill, as we understand it, is to centralize the role and definition of the conservation officers under one act instead of the various different statutes. It removes the main definition from the Wildlife Act and replaces it with a new one in this present act introduced by the minister.

Essentially, there are no significant statutory changes to any of the bills consequentially amended. Rightfully, this is a bill that ought to fit under the miscellaneous bill that government generally puts together.

This act is meant to make the conservation service more efficient, the minister says. Of course, as the minister said, in my view this is an important step to meet

the ministry's mandate. One has to ask, though, what is going on within the ministry. Particularly, how is this minister going to meet her mandate?

You would think her central mandate would be to ensure there is protection of the air quality, the water quality, the environmental integrity and the ecosystem. However, what this minister is faced with…. I think the first and primary objective within the mandate of her ministry is, quite frankly, to meet the bottom line. With that, she has to look for ways to cut programs. Under the new-era approach, of course, that is all disguised as efficiency.

Let's just take a look at the budget for this area in '01-02. We see the budget starting at $17 million for '01-02. In '02-03 it does increase to $19 million, but then for '03-04 it reduces down to $15 million and then in '04-05 to $11 million.

The question then becomes: where are the enforcement officers going to be funded from, and how much of a cut will they be faced with? I think these are the big questions that need to be addressed by the minister when she says it is an important step to meet the ministry's mandate with respect to this bill.

In the estimates process we canvassed with the minister, and she advised that within the ministry there are about 120 enforcement officers and 35 compliance officers. I can only presume that under this act the enforcement officers and the compliance officers will be rolled into one. That brings us to 155 enforcement individuals in this area for conservation. The opposition will canvass with the minister, when we get into committee stage, under what definition the compliance officers are and whether they are included in this piece of legislation.

The bill also appears to grant the conservation officers powers to break the law in the performance of their duties, presumably for undercover work. The issue for committee debate will be to examine the powers granted to the conservation officers. The schedule under section 9 outlines the different officials that will have different powers. Some include peace officers, which presumably means that they will have similar powers to police officers. We will be canvassing this issue with the minister in committee stage to determine whether or not conservation officers will indeed be given the power to break laws in the performance of their duties, under what auspices they would be able to do that and what powers will be granted to them.

Really, the bill, as you look at it substantively, has no significant statutory changes. Essentially, it ought to be a bill that the government would introduce under the miscellaneous act.

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to support second reading of Bill 31. Looking after our environment and our wildlife is of utmost importance and of utmost significance not just to this government but, I would hope, to each and every British Columbian that values the tremendous province we live in.

This bill is going to allow flexibility, a flexibility that for a long time hasn't been there and what I consider to be one of the most important factors in this bill. It's going to allow our conservation officers to spend more time in the field. That's really what it's all about. The partnerships that are going to be gained through this piece of legislation, I think, are going to be immense. When we look at what the bill offers, it's going to allow our conservation officers to partner with many other individuals within the sector so that we can get out there and be in the field.

I represent Peace River South, a very vast riding. We have three conservation officers in the entire riding of Peace River South, an area that's very difficult to cover. I can tell you that with the flexibility that's allowed under this new piece of legislation and the partnerships that will be put forward, we're going to stand a much better chance of doing a greater job of looking after our environment and our wildlife sector. In doing so, we're going to do that for each and every one of us.

I want to speak briefly about what this means to the wildlife aspect. I'm going to touch on the hunting, something that is very important to the people not just of Peace River South and Peace River North but of the entire province. Hunting isn't just for the people that live in these areas. We have many people who come to our region to experience the great outdoors, experience the beauty and experience the true issue of getting out into the wilderness and hunting and fishing and carrying on.

What we need, though, is the ability to make sure that these are carried out in a manner which is sustainable, one that carries certain issues with it that we have to maintain. Some people don't always come well prepared, for instance, and there are violations that take place. We need the ability as a government, through our conservation officers, to address those and enforce what we need to enforce when the time arises.

That brings me back to the issue of having three conservation officers — and I'm going to reflect Peace River South in particular — being able to cover the entire area. Those three individuals, as hard as they work — and I know they work hard day in and day out, because the environment and the wildlife are in their hearts, and they want to make sure it's maintained — need the ability to partner. I can't stress that enough.

When you look at the issue of the red tape and what took place before, this eliminates all kinds of red tape, which is in line with our government's commitment to streamline the processes so that when we're looking after our environment or our wildlife or any other aspect of government in British Columbia and its functions, we're going to make it easy to do business with the government. That doesn't mean we're going to overlook the needs of the citizens of our province. What it does mean is that we're going to recognize those needs and service those needs in a way that's friendly and that works. Far too often we've seen times when something that would seem very simple to the average person, in order to approach government, has

I want to stand and reiterate my support for Bill 31 today. Not only does it enhance our ability to look after our environment and our wildlife, it is actually going to streamline a process and, at the end of the day, deliver a better service to British Columbians.

That's what providing good government is all about. It's not about putting a piece of legislation together so that we can bring it forward, if it has no meaning. I am going to have to differ. I think this is a very significant issue for the province of British Columbia and Bill 31. We're streamlining a process, and while we're streamlining that process, we're making the delivery of looking after our wildlife and our environment better for the people of British Columbia.

With that, I want to commend the minister for bringing this piece of legislation forward. I thank you.

B. Penner: I, too, rise in support of this bill. I think it's worthy of all of our support, notwithstanding the comments from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I'd first of all like to dispute her claim that this bill is insignificant. In fact, her own comments tend to refute her allegations, when she raises the spectre, in an attempt at fearmongering, that somehow the conservation officer service will engage in unlawful activities. I think it's a reprehensible comment from the member opposite. It reflects a lack of understanding and lack of knowledge about the individual members who work as conservation officers on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia.

This bill is important because it does pull together the various provisions in 22 separate laws of British Columbia that govern the activities, the mandate and the jurisdiction of conservation officers. That is a step forward in terms of openness and accountability, making it easier for the public to understand what truly are significant powers that have been bestowed upon conservation officers.

Yes, to reflect the comments of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, conservation officers in British Columbia do have significant legal authority. That is how it must be. We're taking a step forward, in terms of public accountability and accessibility to information, by bringing those 22 separate pieces of legislation that confer powers on conservation officers into one bill — this bill that we're debating here in the Legislature today. That is a step forward for accountability and making it easier for the public to understand the roles and powers of conservation officers.

I perhaps approach this bill a little differently than the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant because, unlike her, I have worked on the front lines of environmental protection prior to being elected here to the Legislature. In the late 1980s I worked as a park ranger for what was then the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I can attest to the fact that there are some people that frequent the wilderness areas of British Columbia who don't have much respect for the wilderness, the wildlife and the parks of our province. It is important that the people we hire to go out there and protect these public assets be given legal authority to uphold the integrity of our valued institutions such as parks, wildlife and other wilderness areas in the province.

It is not a pleasant task, I can tell you, to confront somebody late at night who may have had too much to drink, who is armed with a shotgun and who is taking issue with you when you're telling them that they shouldn't be setting fire to a park picnic table or cutting down trees in a provincial park. Similarly, I can assure you that conservation officers in remote locations take little pleasure in having to confront people who are armed, who are violating various statutes of British Columbia when it comes to hunting and fishing. Unfortunately, that does happen. That's not the majority of people who hunt or fish, but occasionally there are bad apples that need to be dealt with.

We have asked conservation officers to go into harm's way, and it's important that they have the support of the Legislative Assembly in terms of proper authority to lay charges, when necessary, and to uphold the law when we ask them to do that. Otherwise, we're simply being completely unfair to those good individuals who have devoted their lives to protecting assets and wilderness and wildlife in British Columbia.

Specifically, I'm interested in, I think, section 8.2(1)(a). That provision gives me some optimism, and I'll tell you why. In the late 1980s the former Ministry of Environment was merged with what was then a stand-alone Ministry of Parks under a previous Social Credit administration. You may remember something about this, Mr. Speaker. At the time there was great hope that by bringing the Ministry of Parks under the umbrella of the Ministry of Environment, certain efficiencies would be gained in terms of law enforcement between the conservation officers and the park ranger service in the province. Unfortunately, we didn't see a lot of on-the-ground coordination take place. I'm optimistic, however, that we can take a step forward in that goal because of section 8.2(1)(a), which permits the ministry or the chief conservation officer to designate auxiliary conservation officers with other levels of government or other agencies of the provincial government. I'm hopeful that the conservation officer service will take advantage of opportunities for partnering with trained and experienced park rangers who work, in many ways, in the same capacity but have a somewhat more limited legal jurisdiction in terms of enforcing provincial statutes in British Columbia.

The legal effect of being conferred auxiliary conservation officer status is that for the purposes of that designation, the person who may not normally be a conservation officer is given that legal mandate to go out and enforce those other statutes that conservation officers who are full time in that capacity are able to. That is important to make sure we maximize the resources in this time of difficulty facing the province, due to the

legacy of NDP mismanagement which the province has suffered from for the previous ten years.

We've been left with an incredible deficit, an incredible debt and an incredible amount of annual interest payments that we're struggling to pay. That means we have limited resources to hire additional people. That's why it's so fundamentally important that we take advantage of partnering opportunities to maximize the value of every single tax dollar that hard-working British Columbians send our way, so that we can maximize those resources to protect our wilderness, our park areas and the people that use those park areas. We want to protect that so we can help promote tourism and all the other good things British Columbians have come to count on over the years.

With that, I'm happy to say that I look forward to voting in support of this bill.

R. Harris: I also rise today to speak in support of this bill. I agree with my colleagues in the House who have said that this actually is a significant piece of legislation. A significant part for me is section 8.2(1)(c), where we talk about how it enables conservation officers to work more effectively in partnerships with other environmental protection agencies and other jurisdictions. This is a key aspect of this particular piece of legislation that I think goes a long way to enabling business to function in a more effective manner in this province.

As most of us know, the forest industry in this province has become very uncompetitive over the last ten years. We've moved from being the lowest fibre producer in the world in 1990 to a situation where we were the highest fibre producer in the world in 1999, and today it continues. A big part of that cost structure and the penalties the industry received was specifically related to the high regulatory environment but, more so, the web of regulations and requirements that flowed from that situation.

For business to be successful in this province, it has to be able to work in a very predictable framework. That doesn't mean that when we talk about…. I think the fear most people have is that every time legislation comes forward dealing with environment, we're talking about lowering standards. It isn't about lowering standards; it's about maintaining and actually raising standards by providing a manner where they themselves become manageable.

I remember, in my time in the logging industry, the difficulty we had in securing operating permits and cutting permits within the forestry sector. A big component of that process is that the Ministry of Forests along with proponents, along with the conservation officer, along with DFO and a number of other agencies may all have to come together and meet in order to do field inspections. If one agent or one particular agency was unable to make that trip, the meeting got postponed and then postponed again. If it did, you had one field trip, and then you came back, and then you had to take another field trip. The whole process created an environment that gave no security at all, no predictability. This isn't about standards; this is about process.

This particular section, 8.2, which allows conservation officers to get into arrangements with other environmental agencies to provide overlapping services, actually helps facilitate that kind of predictability in the industry not just for employers but also for their employees. The logging industry, as an example, has been significantly hard hit. It needs to be able to find those kinds of flexibilities.

I think this bill goes a long way to start to create that single-window agency we're looking for within this province to actually get us away from…. I know we've all heard those stories of going to events and seeing six or seven different vehicles all parked at the end of the road belonging to six or seven different agencies within this province or within the country.

This is a good start. I think it's a significant piece of legislation because it does do that. I think it's the kind of change in regulation or certainly the direction that the people of this province were looking for when they came to us to help them find efficiencies to get business back on track. I think that when we finally get these more cooperative relationships between our own agencies and the federal ones — and I'm certainly hoping that's the area where we see the greatest advancement — it'll actually help us to harmonize some of the regulations. I hope this will happen someday down the road, because I think that's another part of providing a very secure and sound regulatory environment.

The most important thing is that by having this kind of cooperative effort, it starts to bring some common sense to the whole aspect of field inspections. It allows for people to start to work together a little more cooperatively instead of, in many cases — certainly within agencies themselves…. I've been on a lot of field inspections where the agencies themselves develop interagency conflicts which, again, hold up the processes.

To me, this is a significant document. It's a start in the right direction of moving to a single agency. I think it starts that process. It creates a framework where we will engage in cooperative relationships with other environmental organizations and agencies. I think it's in fact just the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say also that I support the initiative here. I certainly support the bill, and I'd urge every member of this House to support it also.

Hon. J. Murray: I just want to thank the members for their reiteration of the importance to all of us, all British Columbians, of environmental and wildlife protection and also for the words in support of what I think is very important — that is, continually making improvements to our processes so they make sense given the challenges of today.

My ministry has the setting of environmental standards and ensuring that they're respected as a core part of how we can carry out our mandate to protect the environment. This bill, I'm very pleased to say, is one of several ways we will be improving the effectiveness of our compliance and enforcement service, which is a very important part of that standard setting and of ensuring that standards are being respected.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31, Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002, 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. G. Hogg: One of the central goals of the Ministry of Children and Family Development is to go out and develop the capacity of families and communities to care for and protect vulnerable children and youth. In order to better meet this goal, we are proposing changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which in British Columbia is our child welfare legislation.

It is a lengthy act which authorizes the provision of voluntary support services to parents and families and outlines government's obligation pertaining to children at risk of harm as a result of acts or omissions by their parents or guardians. The principles upon which the act is based are that the safety and well-being of children is of paramount concern, that children are entitled to be protected from abuse and neglect, that the family is the preferred environment for the care of children and that parents are responsible for protecting children from harm.

Since the act came into force into 1996, it has been used as the harbinger of child welfare legislation in Canada, and it's been used by other provinces as a useful precedent in amending or rewriting their child welfare laws. However, the act cannot remain static, as it addresses many social policy issues — issues which are ever-changing. Ongoing legislative maintenance of the act is necessary to keep the Child, Family and Community Service Act as up to date and efficient as possible to fulfil British Columbians' expectations of state involvement in child welfare matters.

As part of the fine-tuning of B.C.'s child welfare legislation, Bill 17 assists the Ministry of Children and Family Development to further build family community and capacity by providing for effective support to families, facilitate moving children back to their families and communities, eliminate unnecessary or ambiguous reports of children at risk and facilitate regionally based service delivery. These changes are all consistent with the government's commitment to focus on early intervention of children at risk and measures aimed at preventing crisis situations before they arise.

In this bill we have tried to balance the ministry's responsibility for fully protecting vulnerable children and youth at risk, while at the same time making more efficient use of child protection resources and available family and community resources. It also reflects the ministry's commitment to the ongoing review and improvement of child protection services in the province. Bill 17 contains the following package of amendments: three major amendments, two minor amendments and several housekeeping amendments.

The major amendments are, firstly, an amendment which clarifies what must be reported to child protection social workers for assessment and investigation. At present the act requires every person who believes a child has been or is likely to be harmed by the child's parent or another person to contact a child protection social worker. This obligation to report causes confusion and the expenditure of child protection resources where the director of child protection does not have a mandate to intervene. The proposed rewording of section 14 of the act would require a person to report abuse or neglect which arises from acts or omissions of the child's parent or guardian. This is consistent with child welfare legislation in every other jurisdiction in Canada and with the mandate of the ministry.

The second major amendment creates a new provision which will allow for the director of child protection to apply to the court to transfer the custody of a child in care to a person other than the child's parent. At present, children in the custody of the director under a continuing custody order generally remain in the care of the ministry until they reach the age of majority. The proposed amendment would allow children to return to their communities when it is deemed to be beneficial to them.

The third major amendment repeals the legislative requirements pertaining to the transfer of guardianship or supervision between directors of child protection. The ministry is currently developing a regional service delivery model. The current consent and notice requirements would be extremely onerous and overly bureaucratic when all 10,000 children in care are transferred from one director of child protection to five regional directors. This amendment would facilitate that transfer.

The two minor amendments to the bill make the following further improvements to our child welfare system. The first minor amendment allows the court to place a child in the interim custody of a person other than the child's parent following removal of the child.

This amendment is consistent with the guiding principle of the Child, Family and Community Service Act of encouraging and preserving the child's kinship ties. This amendment would assist the court and the director to explore extended family and community placement resources for the child before considering foster care.

The second minor amendment creates a new offence and a corresponding penalty for improperly disclosing information obtained under the act. This provision would allow the director to ensure that privacy rights of children and families receiving child welfare services are protected.

The remaining proposed changes to the act are all housekeeping amendments. These clarify the intentions of certain provisions and their interpretation and application. An example is an amendment which would require a person to give the director not only the access to a child but also to provide all information that may assist the director in locating the child. Another example is an amendment which would clarify when judges may dispense with a notice requirement when an application is made for a consent order.

The provisions of this bill will increase the use of family and community capabilities to create safe and caring places for vulnerable children and youth. The bill will allow the Ministry of Children and Family Development to better serve these children and youth at risk by maximizing family community resources, reducing the administrative burden and clarifying the parameters of the ministry's work.

Hon. Speaker, I look forward to further discussion with respect to this matter from members of the House.

J. MacPhail: We are joined today in the gallery by Carol Romanow from the Action Committee of People with Disabilities. She was here during the introduction of Bills 26 and 27, and as of today I hope the House will still make her feel welcome.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak to the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002. It was my privilege at the time when the original Child, Family and Community Service Act was introduced and accepted by this House to be involved as the critic on the opposition for a great deal of the discussion we had at that particular time. I think as a Legislature we were very pleased with the following result of the act that came forward at that particular time.

Over these years the act has been very well received by the community. They wanted it to be implemented and maintained, and I'm glad the minister has undertaken to do that. They also wanted certain amendments, and some of them are being brought forward today at this particular time. The concern the community has is that the act does not stand by itself. Rather, it's involved with other acts of the Legislature, and often in the interrelationship between those acts there comes confusion. So we also will need to look at it in the broader context, instead of just the context of the act itself.

The act brings forth the emphasis on the protection of children, but I'd like to elaborate a little on that. Protection needs more than just bringing people out of the position of harm. It also needs to provide support — support to the child that's involved, support to the family and support to the community. I'm delighted that in the emphasis of this ministry that holistic support is being considered and discussed so the act is seen not as something that just the ministry does or is involved in with its support systems. It's involving a new relationship with families and with community groups, agencies and persons so that all of the community and families can work together when circumstances, for whatever reason, make it difficult for a family or a child and when some abuse which leads to the need of protection comes about.

One of the realities we've had in the implementation of this act in past years that has caused a great deal of difficulty in the community was the regulations that went along with it. The regulations made it impossible in many cases for the front-line workers to really protect and give the children the support they needed. One of my concerns was that the act needed to be interpreted in a way that support went for the child — the regulations were to support the child rather than, as it appeared sometimes, that the child was there to support the regulations.

I'm glad to see the new direction the ministry is taking in defining in a clearer way how the ministry is working with families and communities. They're concerned that there be a flexibility and a freedom and an obligation, or a responsibility, of front-line workers to have the resources and the time in order to completely fulfil their duties in support of the child and of the families.

One of the other realities in the original act which made it difficult was that there was the opportunity for family conferences. Those conferences, in my experience with the cases that came to us in our office, had never really taken place, partly because of the lack of resources and time that was available.

Also, as I mentioned earlier in the estimates, in talking with the minister and raising questions, there was the reliance on the use of the courts in the system, again because of resources, time factors and regulations. I'm pleased to see the shift in the concern of the

ministry, where the place of the courts is pre-eminent and prominent for those things it can do best, but it will be supplied with the documentation from all aspects of the child's life so that they have a full and complete picture from which to make their decision.

I'm also pleased that the minister has indicated — and I think it's an important context for the implementation of the act at the present time — that the UN charter of the rights of the child is a background resource for the ministry and for those who work on behalf of the ministry and the community. When children are brought forth for protection, it does not mean that they then lose their heritage, their history and their family relationships. That has happened to many children in the past, and they have lost their real identity, which is a primary reality that no child should have to lose. It's important that we keep this act and the changes that are made in that kind of context.

I'm also pleased that there seems to be a new awareness of the place of foster families in relationship to the support of children. In a process not just where, once children were taken into protection, it was automatically concluded that they would lose their family…. The whole process is to bring them back to their family if it is at all possible, if the difficulties can be overcome. I think that's a very important process that we need to keep in mind all of the time.

The act and the changes brought forward have a focus that recognizes that there are a number of concerns here. There is a concern for the children, and if they are youths, there is a concern for their particular circumstances. There is a concern for the family and the community. These are interactive forces that work together in the activities to protect, support and follow up when children have to go into the terrible experience of protection. They then have to have the opportunity to renew and re-engage themselves in their families or in their community.

Always we've talked about the best interests of the child, but in the time that I have been in the Legislature we have gone back and forth. The child was pre-eminent, and therefore the family and the community should be kept out of the picture as much as possible. Then the family was pre-eminent, and therefore the interests of the child came second to that. As I understand it, now we've come to the balance where one is not more important than the other, but the best interests of the child depend upon the values of the community, the values of the family and our ability to work together.

I would like to commend the direction in which these amendments are moving. I would particularly like to refer to section 54.1 briefly for the principles involved there. This amendment allows the director of child protection to apply for an order to transfer the guardianship of a child in continuing care to a person other than the child's parent.

In the past the director or the court did not have this kind of freedom. A child, as I understood it, could be taken and put into the care of the ministry. Therefore, they might be in a foster home or a service as part of that process, but they were not allowed to go to the care of a family member or to a grandparent — a grandfather or grandmother. They were not allowed to go to another relative within the family, nor were they allowed to go to a community member, if that community had the resources and the desire for the well-being of that child.

Now, it's my understanding that if a child is given the privilege of going to one of these other sources, which may keep them in their own community — indeed, enable them to go to their own school without major breaks from family and supportive community members — these two persons would have to be examined and evaluated to make sure they were able to carry the responsibility for this particular child. It isn't that one would go automatically — and I think that's important to recognize — to a parent or a grandparent or another member of the family. They would have to apply. They would have to prove that they had the ability and the resources to care for them so that the child does not go from one difficult situation to another, but the opportunity is there for support for that kind of undertaking.

I think it's very important that if a child has been taken, the child has the opportunity — and it gives the opportunity in the writing of this particular act and that there is a better process for that child — of being able to be returned to their own home. It's my understanding that over the years protection has taken so long that the process itself goes on for months and sometimes years. Under the system here, which is more flexible, that process can be speeded up because those days or weeks, much less months and years, are very important in the life of a child.

The amendment extends the options available to courts and the ministry social workers. That's very important, because every child is different, and therefore there needs to be a variety of options offered for the variety of needs of the children. One amendment that's being proposed would mean that the guardianship of a child in continuing care could be transferred, as I mentioned, to a family member such as a grandparent. These opportunities are extremely important and will give a whole new complexion to the opportunity for these children.

Here is another reality that I think is addressed in this legislation, both in the total context and in some of the flexibility that's created here. In the past we have met many parents — either single parents or two-parent families — who were having difficulty, and they needed help for a time. They would need to go to the Ministry of Social Services for that help. They were very reluctant to go to them for the help they needed over a short period of time, because it was their fear — often well-founded, as it turned out — that if they went for help, there would automatically be a protection order. Instead of getting help for the family to come together, they were given assistance, if you like, to break themselves apart.

It gives opportunity in the new governance structure to enable the directorship under which a child has been placed to be divided among a number of five directors in the province. In the past there has been one child protection director, and all of the 10,000 children, if you like, that we had then in the province were the responsibility of that one person — an impossible task, particularly with all the variety of circumstances across the province.

It enables the ministry now to transfer that care to these directors throughout the province, which makes it far more relevant. It brings it closer to home and to the community where the child lives, and at the same time it means that the load of any one of those directors is reduced to 20 percent automatically so that they have a closer connection with the people who are serving the children. They have a closer connection to hear the particular needs of the children, and they have a closer connection to respond in good time and in good order.

I commend the ministry for the changes they have brought forth at this time, and I look forward to other changes that, as the years proceed, they will also bring forward. I commend them for what they have done and thank them for the excellent thought and consideration and planning that have gone into this legislation for the sake of the children, the parents and the community of which they are a part.

A. Hamilton: I rise today to speak in favour of the proposed amendments to section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

The mission of the Ministry of Children and Family Development is to promote and develop the capacity of families and children to care for and protect vulnerable children and youth. Section 14 as it is currently worded is at best ambiguous. At worst it has placed the ministry and its child protection workers in impossible positions and caused the diversion of valuable time and resources away from the original intent of the act.

Three principles underpinned the Child, Family and Community Service Act when it was passed in 1996. They are that the safety and well-being of children is paramount, that family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of a child, and that the responsibility for the protection of a child lies primarily with the parents.

The minister has brought forward an amendment that both strengthens and clarifies the intention of the act. This amendment clarifies the duty of all members of the public to report to the ministry when a child may be in need of protection.

In the past the wording of the act has been too broad. In fact, the public had a duty to report a wide range of circumstances to the ministry, no matter where or when. So for years the ministry has taken an average of 100 child protection calls every day, seven days a week. The ministry would investigate, and very often investigation would reveal that in many cases the ministry had no legal power to act upon them because the reported risks were happening outside the home.

The proposed amendment to section 14 would require that a person report child abuse or neglect which arises from acts or omissions of a child's parent or guardian. The amendment reinforces the third principle of the 1996 act: the responsibility for the protection of a child lies primarily with the parent.

A concerned member of the public should certainly report circumstances where a child is at risk or harmed. But unless that risk is due to acts or omissions by the child's parents or guardian, then the right place to report that risk is either the child's parents, extended family, the child's school or, in very extreme circumstances, the local police department.

The role of the ministry is quite specifically to investigate when the child's home is unsafe, when parents are abusive and neglectful. The duty report will no longer extend to harm caused by another person when there is a parent available to protect the child and provide care.

With passage of this amendment, the public's duty to report will be consistent with section 13 of this act, when there are concerns about acts and omissions of parents or guardians, and the B.C. language will be consistent with child welfare legislation in every other jurisdiction in Canada.

The amendment will maximize family and community resources that enhance the safety and well-being of children. It will reduce the tremendous administrative burden carried by social workers by clarifying the parameters of the work of the Ministry of Child and Family Development. This amendment is a step forward on behalf of children, families and communities in B.C., and I am very pleased to support its passage.

T. Christensen: I, too, rise today to speak in support of Bill 17, the proposed changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. I particularly want to address changes to section 102 of the act. Before doing that, I do want to just briefly comment on the general changes that are undertaken here by Bill 17.

I think all of us in the House can agree that this legislation in particular is some of the most important legislation that we deal with here in that it specifically addresses or tries to protect a group in our society that is absolutely the most vulnerable: children who may be in situations of neglect or abuse. Over the last number of years we've certainly seen the headlines and circumstances about the simply terrible situations that children sometimes find themselves in. I think most of us will remember in detail the Gove inquiry, which certainly had a particular impact on my constituency of Okanagan-Vernon given that Matthew Vaudreuil had resided with his mother in Vernon for a number of years. The child welfare workers in my community were involved in the Gove inquiry. That has had lasting impacts on how they do their jobs.

I must say that I am always incredibly impressed by the work that people involved in child protection do. I really can't think of a more difficult area to work in on a day-to-day basis in terms of the decisions that

need to be made, the circumstances you find yourself faced with and, really, the judgment calls that need to be made.

In my existence previous to this House I did have occasion in practising law to work under the previous legislation to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. There's no question that the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002, is a dramatic improvement over that previous act, which really limited options available to the courts and to dealing with matters of child protection. There's no question that the legislation that we're proposing to amend or that Bill 17 makes amendments to is very good legislation. It is a dramatic improvement over what was there before.

The Child, Family and Community Service Act was enacted in 1994, and certainly the provisions came into force over a period of time since 1994. There have been a number of amendments prior to these that are before us today. I think in general, though — and this is what's critical — the goals of the legislation remain the same: to protect children from abuse and, in doing so, to ensure that when we're looking at situations, in every case the best interests of the child remain paramount. What perhaps shifts from time to time is what we consider to be in the best interests of the child or the factors that come into play in determining the best interests of the child. There's no question that at any point in time, whether you're the social worker that is looking into a particular case or you're a judge that is faced with facts being presented to you and you have to make a decision, you are fundamentally guided by what is best for the child that you find before you.

I think, from my perspective, that a number of the amendments that are proposed in Bill 17 address some very practical needs that have arisen through experience with this legislation in the courts in particular. The member for Vancouver-Langara has commented on the addition of section 54.1 to the act, under section 17 of the bill, which acknowledges that need to be able to consider a range of alternatives for a child who is in need of protection. Perhaps it's not appropriate to return them to their parent, but there may be a range of other options that are available to that child which will retain a very strong link to family or to community but, to date, have not been readily available for either the director or the courts to consider.

I was certainly particularly pleased to see the amendment embodied by section 8 of the bill, which is an amendment to section 35(2) of the act. There it's the same principle as is embodied in the addition of section 54.1; that is, there are a range of options that a court should be able to consider. I think section 35 is critical because it deals with an interim order. That means it is, hopefully, relatively early on in the process of the ministry having seen a need to remove that child from his or her home.

It's critically important in those early days that both the director and the courts that may be involved early on do have a broad range of options they can consider to ensure they are able to meet the best interests of that child and, to the greatest extent possible, retain the connection of that child to his or her family, even though they may not be living at home with the parent. Certainly, in my view, those amendments that allow that broader representation of the community or those broader opportunities for placement of the child are long overdue.

As I indicated, I do want to focus in particular on section 102 of the act. It's easy when we're dealing with this legislation to talk about the general principles, because I think we all hold them so strongly, given the importance. Section 102 of the act is the section that deals with offences and penalties. It's sort of a one-liner in Bill 17, but I think it's an important amendment that's set out in section 29 of the bill — that is, that it makes it an offence to disclose information that's been obtained under the act.

What that typically is, certainly, is private and personal information about the children and the families that are served by the ministry in its capacity of child protection and family support. Under the amendment any person disclosing information obtained under the act would, in the future, be subject to a fine of up to $10,000, six months in jail or both. Hopefully, we won't see a great need to be using this provision, but certainly I think it's an important deterrent to those who might be tempted to go over the bounds in disclosing private information. Really, it allows the director of child protection to ensure the privacy rights of children and the families who are receiving child welfare services. There is certainly some need for this protection. It's not something that's simply brought in out of the blue.

Over the course of the last two years we've seen the pictures or images of approximately 40 children in care that have been printed or broadcast without the permission of the director of child protection. Obviously, that then has the potential to have a very significant impact on those children and their families. They have to face their friends at school; they have to somehow come to terms with their family histories and their family relationships. That disclosure has the potential — and I would suggest that in most cases it's the reality — to interfere significantly with the ability of that family — the child, the parents and perhaps the extended family — to heal the situation they face and to mature and to really reintegrate and, hopefully, see that family situation improve so that the child is safe staying with their own family.

There's no question that exposure of that information, particularly if it's in the media, can follow them for a very long time — particularly, I would suggest, in smaller communities around the province. I think it's clear to all of us that vulnerable children deserve better protection than that, and this amendment strengthens the government's ability to protect the privacy of a child who really has no other means of protection. It's also, I think, very necessary to provide confidence to families who may find themselves having a struggle dealing with their children, having a struggle dealing

with their parenting and needing the confidence that they can go to the ministry, seek some assistance, try and work with the ministry to ensure that their family situation stabilizes and improves, and be confident that the information that may be disclosed in the course of that discussion with the ministry isn't going to go any further.

Those who distribute identifying information about these children can now be subject to fines or jail terms. There are a number of other offences that can be legally penalized under the terms of this act. There's quite a broad range. Certainly, those include a failure to report the circumstances where a child needs protection, reporting to a child protection worker, or in fact knowingly making a false report that a child needs protection. Unfortunately, we do see circumstances where that happens. It's also an offence to contravene an order made under section 55 or 56 of the act with regards to access to a child. It's an offence to prevent a police officer from enforcing a custody order made under the act or to refuse to produce records when the records are necessary to determine if a child needs protection.

There are also provisions in the act that protect whistle-blowers. In particular, section 101.1 makes it an offence to discriminate against or to discipline another person who has requested a review of a decision made under the act. That whistle-blower section is perhaps particularly important in the context of making it an offence to disclose personal information, because it does still allow for some protection within the ministry itself where one worker may have a concern about how a particular matter is being handled. There are certainly safeguards there that go along with the addition of this offence.

It's also worth noting that the offence provisions in this legislation are certainly consistent with similar legislation in other provinces and are, in fact, necessary to support a quality child protection system. As well, they are consistent with the provisions of the Young Offenders Act.

Responsibility for enforcing offences under provincial law lies with the police and other law enforcement officials. It will not be a case of the ministry deciding whether or not a particular charge will be pursued in respect of an alleged offence. The independent local Crown counsel continues to be the one to determine whether or not to approve charges. They definitely do that based on the likelihood of conviction and whether a conviction would be in the public's interest.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development officials are not involved in the decision as to whether or not to charge a person, although they may certainly bring circumstances to the attention of local Crown counsel, who can then make a decision.

The minister, over the last number of weeks and months, has set out some of the strategic shifts that this ministry is undergoing. The first strategic shift of the ministry is a commitment to openness, transparency and accountability. That statement was right up front and featured in the ministry's three-year service plan that was set out back in February. I know from my own conversations with the minister that this is a commitment that staff right through the ministry take most seriously.

Having said that, while there is this very definite commitment to be open, transparent and accountable for the work they do, and while that translates right through to being transparent and accountable for the decisions they make on behalf of children before the courts throughout the province, that transparency does not mean that it is simply open season to look at whatever information you like or open season on the private lives, joys and sorrows of the people that are served by the ministry, people who find themselves in some very difficult circumstances. The details of individuals and families who have dealings with the ministry must be held in a very sacred trust to ensure that the ministry can do the very important work and maintain the confidence of the families who are dealing with them.

We need to honour the rights of these children to be resilient, to heal and to contribute their energies and talents to the communities of the future. One of the ways we do that is ensuring that the ministry is providing the support they need, providing the support to their families to ensure that to the greatest extent possible, we can maintain that family bond. I think a number of the amendments that are proposed in Bill 17, as well as the very strong amendments to ensure protection of privacy rights for people dealing with the ministry, go a long way to reaching those goals.

I'm very pleased to support the minister in these amendments set out in Bill 17. I appreciate the comments that others have made. I think we have a couple more people that may add to this.

I also rise to support Bill 17. I won't repeat some of the comments that my colleagues have made, because I think they've spoken very well to it.

Certainly, I'm coming at this from the perspective of a civil servant who's worked in the social service field for 13 years and has worked very closely in the field with social workers as well as financial assistance workers.

I want to start my comments by just noting that we're dealing with children in this bill and amendments to protections for children and supports for family. I've said before in this chamber that children are not political. So I would be rising to support this legislation, regardless of any other political circumstances. I think these amendments go a long way towards improving the services that we provide to children at risk as well as to the families and the community that is needed to support families, especially in times of crisis.

I feel that one of the strengths of this bill is that it recognizes that one of the great assets that we have in the community around the province is our front-line staff. It recognizes their professionalism. It recognizes the skills, education and commitment they bring to the

work they do every day. It provides for their assessments to be broader than A or B, yes or no, in or out. It allows them to do the kind of assessments for the supports that are in the community that can help a family in crisis and keep children as close to home as possible. It ensures that social workers are allowed to do better assessments and look at more options that may exist out in the community. I think that's a tremendous advantage. It's something that I know many in the field have been asking for, for many years.

It also recognizes there's a need for partnerships when we're dealing with children at risk and families in crisis. There needs to be partnerships between the family, the ministry front-line staff, the director, community agencies and also extended family members. This is something that has been talked about for many years, and I'm very pleased that it's finally to come to fruition. It recognizes the bond that children have with their families — not just the mother, not just the father, but with the family. Although they may not be able to stay in the direct parental home, their connection to their family is now a possibility if those supports are appropriate. I think that moves a long way to helping the healing process once a family is out of crisis and the return of children is going to be possible.

The extended family has often said: "We could provide the supports. We could provide the security for those children during a time of crisis, and we have been excluded from the process." Now they're going to be part of the process. They're going to be an option that's available, and I'm very pleased to see that.

This also is the first step in the ministry's strategic shift from a centralized, policy-driven model to a community-based delivery model that focuses on each community in and of itself and allows for each community to meet its own needs. The community service providers will know the extended family, the front-line ministry staff, the other supports that family has or needs and will work for a much more integrated model to ensure that children, if they do need to be removed, are not removed any further than necessary and can be returned as soon as possible.

I've had a great deal of positive support for the strategic plan the ministry has put forward. I've met with several service providers, and they are very encouraged by this. At this time, I must repeat some of the comments they have provided to me about their concerns with the strategic shift. They're happy with the shift. Their only concern is that as the ministry moves forward with this shift, some of the issues with respect to each individual family can get lost in the shift. As we go from centralized to community, from policy-driven to community reaction, in fact those most vulnerable might actually get missed in the shuffle and might fall through the cracks, if you will.

I encourage the ministry as they go through their strategic shift, as these amendments are implemented, that they pay particular attention to what's happening in the community, that they listen to extended family members, front-line workers, community agencies to ensure that those most vulnerable are getting greater protection, not less protection, and that children are receiving more acute services rather than less or more sporadic services.

I know that the minister has addressed this in estimates, but I think it's worth repeating because it is one of the concerns that members of my community in Victoria raise. It is important that as we make this cultural and strategic shift, we include the community in this change and that we consult with the experts out in the field. The experts are front-line staff, but they're also parents, service providers, associations such as the Association of Foster Parents and the B.C. Association for Community Living, who are also experts at dealing with children, children at risk and families in crisis. They will often be the first people that can highlight any potential problems as this shift happens.

We must ensure that we're ready to listen and we're ready to act on any of those situations to ensure that children receive the care they deserve and that the maximum benefit for these amendments and the future changes are realized, because it will be the community delivering it and the community responsible for it. As we go through this process, we owe it to the community to make sure they're fully involved.

Most of the proposed amendments are to clarify or add detail to the existing legislation, as we understand it. Therefore, they do not change the original intent of the legislation. As we heard from many members of the House, the best interests of this piece of legislation and, I would argue, in the work we do as members is to ensure that children have the best opportunities afforded them and that they too enjoy the best protection from the ministry side. There are, however, some pieces in the legislation that I think raise questions, and members of the opposition will be asking the minister these questions during committee stage.

One area which I think may highlight questions for the opposition would be amendments that relate to the empowerment of third parties to gain interim or permanent custody of a child where little or no input from the child's parents is afforded. I think we need to canvass that area a little bit in terms of seeking out the intent of the legislation and what ramifications that would have for children, given that what we want to do is ensure that legislation is in place in the best interests of the child.

The other piece, of course, that relates to this kind of amendment would be where a warrant is used not only for removing a child from a potentially dangerous situation but also for selecting a new custodian for that child. In that instance, in what circumstances would that be used? How would it be utilized? What kind of powers are being conferred to the custodian, for example? I think those are important questions we need to canvass in committee stage.

The current legislation only allows for the child to be placed in the custody of the director or the custody of a parent. It does not allow for a person other than a parent to have custody of the child. I think questions that arise around that would be: who is a suitable person to take custody of the child? How is the suitability of that person determined? Is this person a family member or a family friend, as an example? If it is a person the child does not know, how would one determine what is better in terms of placing the child in custody? Would it be placing the child in the custody of the director or with a person whom the child does not know? How would that process unfold?

There are other questions which are raised, particularly in amendment 12 which speaks to section 42.1 of the bill. The original language of the original bill is one that is broader and allows for the person to be a custodian or caregiver. The new language seems to restrict it and return only to the custodian, as an example. On the one hand, the bill is looking at allowing for more categories or individuals, if you will, to have custody of the child. On the other hand, it seems to be restricting it, and it seems to go contrary to the original thrust of the bill. We'll be canvassing that area with the minister in committee stage.

There is no mention of the screening process for determining who is eligible to seek permanent custody of the child. I think this area raises some questions for the minister, and I'd be interested in understanding what kind of screening process would be in place, once again, to ensure that the best interest of the child is acted upon.

The section does not identify whether or not the purpose of the amendment is to allow family members other than the parents to seek custody of the child. Is that the intent — to allow for family members to seek custody of the child? Is it broader than that? What is the intent of the legislation? If the amendment is intended to make it easier for extended family members to gain permanent custody of the child, what measures will be taken to ensure that the child will be safe and that the danger that led to the child's removal from the home will not be a threat to the child if he or she is in the custody of a family member? How would we ensure that? What are the measurements that would be in place? How would one assess these kinds of situations?

There is no explicit mention of whether or not parental consent is required before permanent custody of the child may be awarded to a third party. To what extent would a parent have a say in this issue? How would they be involved in that process? Will they be involved in that process?

Once again, I think it all goes to the issue around how we ensure that the best interests of the child are afforded and protected in the amendments to this legislation. In the committee stage the opposition members will be canvassing some of these areas with the minister, hopefully, to shed some light and get some answers on these areas so that we can see that the current legislation is in fact being amended to enhance the safety and protection of children who are faced with difficulties in their home and who would be needing others to take care of them to ensure that they have a future and opportunities afforded to them for full development. We will be canvassing these questions with the minister at the appropriate time.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate on Bill 17, the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. G. Hogg: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and my thanks to the many members who've provided comments and queries with respect to this and, in particular, to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with the queries and questions she has, which we'll look forward to dealing with at the committee stage.

In the broad spectrum of services that are provided, many involved with child welfare have been frustrated and in some cases disappointed by the intrusions and, in many cases, the ineffectiveness of current practices. Brian Wharf, a professor emeritus at the University of Victoria, has written: "Those being served are often dealt with as cases to be inspected and assessed by risk-assessment instruments and by case management schemes and, not surprisingly, resent being treated as objects…. Policy-makers cling tenaciously to the assumption that the enterprise can be improved by increasing the control and surveillance over both staff and those being served." He argues that community social work and community organizing are often neglected but are potentially powerful strategies for improving child welfare.

The amendments before this House, combined with the strategic shifts and the organizational shifts previously announced, will give greater flexibility and more options to social workers. It will give them more latitude in exercising their skills, education and training, and more latitude in their ability to respond to the needs of children and families.

It will, in conjunction with many community partners, facilitate a more locally based and more sensitive and responsive system, one that honours and respects the role of local communities in dealing with challenges which exist in the communities at the individual and family level. It will, most importantly, provide more legislative support and focus on the best interests of children and their families within the context of their own kith, kin and communities.

Hon. G. Hogg: I move that Bill 17 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be dealt with at the next sitting after today.

Bill 17, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002, 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. K. Whittred: I am pleased to now move the commencement of second reading of Bill 16.

The Community Care Facility Act governs the licensing of community care facilities in the province. The primary purpose of the legislation, together with its regulations, is to protect the health and safety of vulnerable and dependent people who are cared for in licensed facilities. This bill affects a number of people, and it is very important for British Columbians to understand the changes we are proposing before we seek public consultation during the spring and summer.

The existing Community Care Facility Act, which is substantially in the same form as originally enacted in 1969, has not kept pace with current trends in community care. In fact, I find it very interesting that the act actually dates back in some form to 1930, when it was called the Welfare Institutions Act. Over time the existing act has led to an overly prescriptive, complex and outdated governing structure for community care facilities — a structure that is not meeting the needs of today's clients.

Our government has made a commitment to improving health care for residents of British Columbia, no matter where they live in the province. As Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care, one of the ways I am working to help fulfil our government's commitment is to promote and develop enhanced and renewed home and community care services for British Columbians.

This bill will clarify the scope of the Community Care Facility Act and its associated regulations as applying to only those facilities that provide care to vulnerable and dependent people. It will allow for the development of strong provincewide standards that are specifically focused on protecting the health and safety of the vulnerable and dependent people in care rather than establishing prescriptive, complex regulations for how those standards are met. It will strengthen local authority over licensing decisions to ensure that care facilities are able to meet the specific needs of people in communities throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to elaborate on the three ways the new Community Care Facility Act will lead to better care. First, the scope of the legislation will be clarified. The new act will apply only to those community facilities that provide care to the vulnerable and dependent. This will reduce unnecessary regulation of facilities serving individuals with a greater level of independence, such as supportive housing for seniors or supportive recovery homes for persons with substance dependencies.

Under the current act a licensed community care facility is broadly defined as any facility that provides care or supervision to three or more people, regardless of their level of independence or ability to direct their own care. This means that supportive housing or recovery services must meet the same licensing requirements as facilities providing a higher level of care for extremely vulnerable and dependent persons. As a result, people with greater levels of independence end up being institutionalized unnecessarily in facilities that often do not meet their demands.

In addition, the existing legislation impedes the creation of new care concepts. By clarifying the scope of the Community Care Facility Act, we will be removing some unnecessary barriers to the development of a broader range of alternatives to institutional care that better suit the needs of clients.

Second, the new legislation will allow for the development of strong results-based standards for community care that are consistent provincewide. This will include consistent standards for child day care facilities and for the protection of persons who have complex care needs in residential care homes.

The current regulations contain a series of complex, obsolete and restrictive provisions for facilities that in many cases do nothing to protect or ensure the health and safety of individuals. For example, the regulations prescribe that facilities must have a window area of not less than 10 percent of the bedroom's floor area. As a result, facilities and the health authorities responsible for monitoring them are forced to divert resources and energy to comply with narrow, prescriptive operating rules rather than on strengthening and improving the health and safety of the residents and children in care.

The new provincewide results-based care standards will ensure that health authorities are accountable for a consistent and high-level quality of care for all licensed facilities and that the resources of facilities are devoted to meeting those required outcomes. In particular, the provincial director of licensing will have authority to set standards for community care facilities that local medical health officers must consider in setting terms and conditions for licences.

The director of licensing will also have the authority to investigate, audit and request reports on health authority licensing programs to ensure accountability for meeting those standards. As well, the director of licensing will be able to issue orders to protect health and safety if deemed necessary.

Third, the act will strengthen and improve local authorities for licensing decisions by ensuring that local medical health officers have primary responsibility for evaluating, reviewing, issuing and enforcing safeguards for all community care facilities, consistent with the provincewide standards that are to be established.

The current legislation provides for time-consuming, complicated and inconsistent processes for licence decisions and appeals. For example, the provincial director of licensing has authority to cancel or suspend existing licences. However, this authority is dele-

gated to the local medical health officer. If the medical health officer's decision is challenged, a local hearing must be held, and then the medical health officer makes a further decision based on the outcome of that hearing. That decision can then be appealed, and then the matter goes to the Community Care Facility Appeal Board.

The procedure for processing applications for variances from existing regulations is just as complicated. The local medical health officer makes an initial decision on whether to recommend the variance. The application for variance is then forwarded to a variance committee established by the provincial director of licensing. If the variance committee denies an application, the matter can then proceed to the Community Care Facility Appeal Board. As a result, decisions on licences or variances can be prolonged and subject to a complex, time-consuming process for all parties involved.

I think many members in the House are familiar with the process involving the Montreux clinic for eating disorders here in Victoria, where the decision to act upon a licence was long and protracted, partially because the role of the provincial and local authority wasn't clear. Under the new act, the local medical health officer alone will have primary authority for all decisions.

Local medical health officers will issue licences for community care facilities. They will have the power to attach terms and conditions to licences as well as suspend and cancel licences. They will also be able to grant exemptions from regulatory requirements, to encourage innovation and new concepts for care in circumstances that don't increase risk to health and safety.

This streamlined process will strengthen local authority, ensure more timely decisions and provide greater consistency and fairness in the way decisions and appeals are considered. By clarifying the way variance applications and exemptions are considered, it will also provide an opportunity for innovation and new care concepts based on local circumstances, providing that the health and safety of those in care are not compromised.

It has been a longstanding commitment of this government to make amendments to this piece of legislation. While in opposition, the present government highlighted the need for broad changes to this act. My colleague the Health Services minister made reference to this in the House on at least two occasions: once in June 1999 and again in June 2000.

Our government is committed to working toward a health system that is focused on the needs of patients, a sustainable and affordable health care system created through a thoughtful, planned approach with a strategic delivery of services. We have taken significant action to fulfil key commitments to save and renew our health care system by putting patients first. This bill is one more step in that direction.

R. Hawes: I want to say, first, what a great day it is today. Bill after bill is rolling out today with nothing but more good news, and it just keeps coming.

The Minister of State for Deregulation must be really thrilled with this particular bill because for a long, long time in this province the Community Care Facility Act has failed to meet the needs of British Columbians. It is so overly burdened with regulation that it just creates bureaucracy and eats the much-needed capital we have to keep our operation running properly. It's just long past due that we get rid of this kind of unnecessary regulation.

I'm pleased that this is an exposure bill. It's going to go out to the public. The public is not just going to have an opportunity to come back and comment on the bill but is also going to have an opportunity over the summer to have a lot of input into the regulations that are going to be put in place, replacing what was there. I know what's going to happen. We're going to have some regulations that make some sense, and it's long past due.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just give you a couple of stories of incidents that have happened around the Community Care Facility Act in my own riding. One would involve Lydia Home, which is a drug and alcohol treatment facility, a residential treatment facility for women. It's run by the Union Gospel Mission out of Vancouver. Lydia Home houses eight women and is not licensed. They don't get five cents of government money, not a dime.

They operate a wonderful facility, and they operate it strictly from their own resources. The year before last they were ordered to license under the Community Care Facility Act. They were required to do so. In the meetings that took place between the health authorities and Lydia Home, they were told there would be very little impact on their operation.

The authority was happy with what they were doing, with just minor changes — perhaps a dietitian, or perhaps they would have to come in and do a little bit of physical change in their facility. The Union Gospel Mission took a look at that and said: "We can't afford it. We have no desire at all to go on the government's payroll. We don't want money from the government." Their option was to close Lydia Home, one of the very, very few drug and alcohol treatment facilities in this province for women.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that prior to this government taking office, the Premier — then opposition leader — made a number of statements that this act is overly bureaucratic, overly cumbersome with regulation and should not affect organizations like the Union Gospel Mission and their operation of Lydia Home.

I'm really pleased that we were able to get the health authorities to hold off on forcing Lydia Home into closing. They've decided to wait. Now I know they're going to be exempted. That type of facility should never have been included in this onerous type of situation.

Another one that's going on right now. The Chehalis Indian band in my riding is trying to open a drug and alcohol treatment facility for youth. By youth I'm

not talking about children; I'm talking about kids that are 16, 17 or 18 who have some problems with drugs and alcohol. Heaven knows, throughout our province there are lots of problems with kids that get involved in that kind of thing. There are precious few places for kids to go and get the treatment they require.

The Chehalis band has a site that, in the past, operated for many years as a religious retreat. They've taken it over, and they want to operate a drug and alcohol treatment centre for youth. They're being stopped from doing so because they have to license under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act. They have to go through quite an extensive renovation of their premises. They've got to go through all of the bureaucratic hoops. Meanwhile, they have 20 kids that are staying in a longhouse somewhere on their reservation waiting for this facility to open. It's a crying shame that this kind of thing has to get in the way of kids receiving treatment that's much needed in this province.

I'm so happy to see that that type of thing will end when this bill is completely redone and that kind of regulation is taken out of the way of organizations like the Chehalis band, who really just want to get on and do the right thing.

Not long ago I visited some of the residential homes in my riding, run under the Ministry of Children and Family Development. As I went through there, I talked to the Association for Community Living in my community, the Mission Association for Community Living, and they were giving me examples of what this act is doing to them. They showed me that on the refrigerator in one of the homes, there's a menu for two weeks' worth of meals. It's got to be posted on the refrigerator. As it's posted, if you want to change next Tuesday from chicken to pork chops, somebody has to enter that in pencil, with the date, and initial it. If it's not on there, someone's going to be in trouble.

The real tragedy of this is that we're paying people to go out and actually inspect things like that menu. It's just bizarre where we're spending money — foolishly spending money — that should be directed towards programs that actually help people. Instead, we've got an army of inspectors out there measuring the size of windows, as the minister alluded to. The list of regulation is actually fairly lengthy, if you look at what surrounds the act. This is the adult part of the act. There's page after page of just the titles of these regulations. A lot of them are absolutely silly. They make no sense at all. Somebody thought of something somewhere, threw it into a regulation, and then we hire people to go out and try and enforce this kind of stuff. It just costs all kinds of money.

It's little wonder that we as a government are faced with a problem and have to make cuts to services that should be provided because we have not yet seen our way through this regulation, and we're still paying for it. I know that once this stuff is out of the way, there's going to be a tremendous amount of extra money to put into actual programs that really help people. That's where we need to be looking.

I'm so happy that the minister and her staff have had the foresight to bring this bill forward, to do it quickly as an exposure bill, as I said, to let the people of this province have some say in it as well as the providers of services, who understand what the regulation does to them. This is an opportunity for the front-line provider to give some feedback to the government, to say: "This is what doesn't make sense." I believe that the minister is going to be listening to that very closely, and I think we're going to see a tremendous, tremendous improvement. We're going to see it in the fall as this bill comes back.

I want to speak for a moment about an unintended result that arises from what the minister is bringing forward here. I just want to give you a quote from the auditor general's report that recently came out — his 2002-03 report on the public service. He says: "Only 27 percent of employees reported" — in a 6,000-member government worker survey — "being confident in the leadership abilities of ministry executives. Even fewer — 23 percent — said they feel confident that their ministry is making the changes necessary to be successful in the future."

That's a terrible, terrible condemnation. Then you look at what the date of this survey was. Gosh, it was done in January of 2001 under the previous government. I want to commend the minister, because an unintended result of this survey…. Oh, I'll just give you one more little quote here. The auditor general reports: "Effective leaders provide direction, ensuring their staff know what is expected of them and what they are trying to accomplish." That is happening here, Mr. Speaker.

What is going to happen from this and the result of this is that we are going to see an increase in morale. We're going to see the public service stand up and feel more proud of what they're doing. As it says here, they are feeling the opposite of that right now, because they can't see the leadership being provided under the previous regime that clearly will be in place with the direction the ministry is now taking in this particular bill.

I'm proud to stand here and support the entire concept of moving ahead the way we are. I want to, one more time, invite all British Columbians who have an interest in this particular bill to give their feedback, to take a look at the unnecessary regulation and help us get it back to a level that makes some sense.

In closing, I'd like to again congratulate the minister. This is a very, very thoughtful way to bring this forward. It's very timely, and I'm extremely happy to see that we're doing it in the way we are. With that, I know others want to pass on the good news as well.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Okanagan-Vernon, speaking to Bill 16, the Community Care Facility Act.

T. Christensen: I, too, rise today to speak in support of Bill 16, the proposed new Community Care Facility Act. Like my colleague from Maple Ridge–

Mission, I agree that this is very important and very timely legislation. I think all of us, in looking at the existing act and as well at Bill 16, quickly recognize that this legislation has a very direct impact on care for individuals around the province — individuals that are, in many cases, among our most vulnerable citizens.

Certainly with some exceptions, the bill will primarily impact British Columbians at the beginning of their lives and at the end of their lives. It lays the foundation for the licensing of day care facilities as well as the licensing of care facilities that tend to provide care primarily to our more senior citizens. Of course, there are British Columbians of all ages who find themselves in residential situations that are covered by the Community Care Facility Act and individuals that require care. This legislation will obviously have a direct impact on ensuring that they, too, receive quality care.

While Bill 16 has those very direct impacts on our most vulnerable citizens, it really also provides a foundation of comfort for those of us who may not be vulnerable ourselves but who rely on those care facilities to look after our family members, whether it be our children who are in day care or a parent or grandparent who may be in a licensed facility caring for seniors. What Bill 16 and its regulations will eventually provide is the comfort that each of us is assured of a proper standard of care and supervision. As the minister has indicated, while in opposition this government highlighted the need for broad changes to the Community Care Facility Act, and I'm very pleased to see that the government is following through with these very necessary changes.

It's worth looking at the evolution of the current legislation. The existing Community Care Facility Act dates back to 1969. To give you some perspective on that, in 1969 I was three years old. I didn't know, actually, that the child care regulation didn't pass until 1989, so it was long before it had any impact on me. It does put into perspective where the world was 32 years ago. In 1969, when this legislation first came into place, it was prior to the development of the numerous long-term care facilities we find around the province now, facilities that in many cases were developed in the late seventies because of specialized federal funding, I understand.

It was certainly prior to the very significant increase in the number of British Columbians who are in their eighties, their nineties and in many case older than that, many of whom still lead active lives and require some assistance but certainly do not require full residential care. It was also prior to the movement to deinstitutionalize people who are developmentally disabled and to integrate those citizens into our communities, which I think we will all agree has been a very positive move for our communities.

Now, as with most legislation — I would suggest all legislation — the Community Care Facility Act has evolved over time. It's been amended to try and address changing needs or particular issues. It's had additions either to the act or to the regulations in a number of attempts to look after particular problems as those have arisen. In particular, there have been many additions to the regulations.

I think the adult care regulations are a very good case in point. Those regulations first came into force, I believe, in late 1980. At that time it appears there were about ten sections to the regulations. Well, now if you look at the table of contents to the adult care regulations, you find that under section 5 you've got something like another 23 regulations that number 5.1 through 5.23. In total, in fact, there are now 89 different sections in the adult care regulations. It has obviously evolved a great deal or has certainly been expanded on a great deal since the regulations were first introduced.

That's not necessarily a good thing, as the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has pointed out. In many cases some of those regulations have created barriers to licensing facilities and to allowing those facilities to function properly and provide the care we really need them to provide.

I think that sooner or later, as an act is built upon and amended, the time really comes when it needs to be deconstructed, when the purpose of the act needs to be reviewed and assessed and in some cases remembered. It certainly then needs to be rebuilt. For the Community Care Facility Act that time is long overdue, and I'm very thankful that the rebuild is starting now, with Bill 16.

I think we can all agree that times have changed very significantly since the Community Care Facility Act first came into being. We now have senior citizens who perhaps…. As they approached their seventies 30 years ago, it was appropriate to put them — and they wanted to go — into more residential care facilities where they would have a high degree of care provided. We now have many more seniors, but we also have seniors and other citizens with a wide range of abilities and needs. That diversity of need has changed most dramatically and continues to change. I think it will continue to change in the number of years ahead, particularly as this ominous baby-boom bubble moves into the age where they are looking for a number of alternatives in terms of the support they need to lead productive and quality lives.

We find today that we have a number of options that are starting to develop. We have supportive housing that does provide a certain level of support to people who need a bit of help but otherwise are pretty independent. We have assisted living that ups the ante a bit.

The reality, I suspect, is that just as we have many, many seniors, all of whom have individual needs and abilities, we really require a very broad range of care options. What has happened is that the existing act is too broad. It captures living arrangements based on the number of people sharing a particular living arrangement rather than based on the level and scope of care that the person requires or is able to maintain themselves.

I think it's telling, when one looks at the adult care regulation, that it was necessary to add section 2.1, which actually provides an exemption. It says that a particular type of facility, a supportive recovery residence, isn't to be considered a community care facility. Obviously, the wording of the act was so broad that it enveloped all these things, so you then find yourself needing to exempt particular situations from the application of the legislation.

Bill 16 will focus licensing requirements on facilities where care is provided to three or more vulnerable and dependent people, which in turn may remove strict licensing requirements from situations where individuals are well able to direct their own care.

Bill 16 is a first step in the important process of moving from an overly prescriptive model of licensing care facilities to a model that sets strong standards but allows more local autonomy and, quite frankly, allows the application of common sense by the medical health officer in ensuring that a particular facility meets the needs of the people who are actually going to be using that facility in a particular community.

This is a very important and, I would suggest, an increasingly important area of government policy. I commend the minister for the decision to introduce Bill 16 now and to follow the introduction of this bill with public consultation through the spring and summer. I expect that this public consultation will certainly ensure that the government is moving ahead with the best possible legislation in the fall.

Of course, Bill 16 and its eventual enactment, with or without amendment, is really only the first step. The discussion around the regulations that should be developed and adopted pursuant to this act will be of great interest, I suspect, to all British Columbians. It certainly should be. One need only look at the existing regulations and consider the subject matter to recognize the importance of these issues and, to some extent, the complexity.

When we look at the child care licensing regulations, we find that there are different categories for preschool, special needs day care, family child care, out-of-school care, residential care, emergency care, child-minding for 18 months to school age, occasional child care at a ski hill or resort. The list is endless. That's not to say that each of those don't have specific needs, but what we need to do is have a good discussion in our communities about how we set the framework within legislation and regulations to enable our communities to foster and develop appropriate care that meets that communities' needs.

I think that all of us, as individual members in our constituencies, have found that one of the greatest current problems involving licensed care facilities, whether those are residential care for dependent adults or child care facilities, is the current lack of available space. I know, certainly in my own constituency, I am often contacted by parents who have been out beating the bushes, trying to find a licensed day care space for their child, wanting it to be a licensed space so that they have that comfort level that a certain standard is being met. Yet the space is simply not available.

Similarly, on an increasing basis I'm being contacted by people looking for space for their parents. In many cases their parents still have a certain level of independence, but they do need some assistance. People are finding that they're not able to do that in their own homes. We do need a legislative foundation that's going to allow those opportunities to be created in our community.

What's particularly telling…. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission did touch on a couple of points where regulations and overly zealous or, in many cases, what appear to be ridiculous licensing requirements have been a barrier to particular projects continuing. Again, I find in my constituency that we're seeing an increase in people who are interested in looking, whether it's a non-profit society or in some cases a private business, to move ahead with a development that's going to meet some of the care needs in our community, whether that is supportive housing or assisted living or something more or less than those options. They're looking at the regulation that applies in this area, and they're simply not prepared to go down that road under the existing licensing scheme.

Really, we need to be asking ourselves: do the regulations make it too onerous to develop a licensed facility? Certainly, we have anecdotal evidence that it is the case in some instances.

Obviously, when we have legislation and regulations, we need to ensure they're there for a reason. Obviously, in my own case as a father, I want to be confident that the regulatory requirements that apply to a day care facility my children may go to are going to ensure the safety of my children. I'm certainly no different than any other parent in that.

The question becomes: what regulations are contributing to the safety, well-being and social development of children in a day care facility, and which of them are providing no benefit but perhaps imposing an unnecessary hurdle or cost to the expansion of that particular day care facility or to the development of more licensed facilities? How do we best regulate child care without making it impossible for people to operate child care facilities?

We need to have that discussion, Mr. Speaker, and we will in each of our communities over the next number of months as the minister follows through on the commitment to consult with British Columbia around the regulations to be developed under Bill 16.

Similarly, there will be consultation around the adult day care regulations to follow Bill 16. One need only flip through the current adult care regulations to really question why some of this stuff is there and to get an idea of really prescriptive regulation gone mad. The table of contents is particularly telling. We have bedroom space requirements and bedroom furnishings regulations; we have bedroom privacy, bedroom windows, bedroom illumination, room temperature, water temperature, telephones. The list — there's 89 of them

— goes on and on. I'm sure the intentions were good, but this really does beg understanding as to why on earth many of these things are here.

As we all agree, we need to have strong standards to ensure the safety, well-being and excellent care for our loved ones who may be in a seniors facility, our children who may be in a day care facility or other adults who may be in a range of facilities in the province that will fall under the Continuing Care Facility Act. But we also need to be able to apply a little common sense to how these facilities operate and allow these facilities to have a little bit of flexibility in what they're doing.

As I've said, Bill 16 definitely does set us off in the right direction. It focuses the licensing on those facilities that provide care to vulnerable and dependent people. Right away we're focusing, really, on the people that aren't in a position to make a decision on their own. It provides for the development of strong, provincewide, results-based standards and for monitoring of those standards by a provincial director of licensing but gives considerable authority to the local medical health officer. What that's going to do, certainly, is ensure that a consistently high standard of care will be delivered across the province but allow for local requirements or anomalies to be addressed.

I think all of us in this House can have a long discussion on the unique attributes of our particular constituency and how it differs from another constituency. If nothing else, what that certainly indicates is that we all have unique needs, and in a province as diverse as British Columbia, flexibility needs to be key in addressing those local needs. The discussion over the next number of months will be of paramount importance.

In my constituency of Okanagan-Vernon we're ahead of the demographic curve in that we already have a higher than average number of seniors. Addressing the need to care for the vulnerable and dependent among that group is critical, as is the need to develop alternative housing and care arrangements for seniors who are still relatively independent.

A variety of seniors housing is required in Vernon, as well as in Lumby to the east of Vernon. I very strongly believe that Bill 16 will better facilitate those options. I know it will be good news to non-profit groups and others in Vernon and Lumby who've been looking at opportunities to improve the availability of affordable housing options for seniors.

In Okanagan-Vernon we also have a well-developed and strong community of care for persons with developmental disabilities. Again, Bill 16 sets a foundation to continue and improve care for those individuals while providing some flexibility to address their individual needs.

As well, like elsewhere in the province, Okanagan-Vernon has a need to develop greater availability of quality child care space. I believe that, again, Bill 16 starts us on the road to having that very important discussion of how we ensure a quality level of care and the safety of our children but also encourage the development of a greater number of licensed spaces so parents don't find themselves in this spiral of looking and looking for a space, and it's simply not there.

Providing care to our most vulnerable and dependent citizens is one of the most important areas of government policy. I applaud the government for getting the ball rolling. I'm looking forward to the discussion over the balance of this year as the minister consults with the public on Bill 16 and then on the all-important regulations to support this legislation. As I say, fundamentally I believe this really is the first step in this process. I think it's a very strong first step. It's hitting the right buttons.

I suspect it's going to be a lively discussion as the minister starts the public consultation process and moves ahead with this legislation and in particular the regulations. It's very much overdue. At the end of the day, I'm very confident we're going to end up with a care system that delivers a number of options and that really does meet the needs of all British Columbians.

I. Chong: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill 16, the Community Care Facility Act, this afternoon as well. I take this opportunity to speak on this because of the time I spent in opposition, where I had the opportunity to speak to care providers in my community and to actually visit a number of facilities. First of all, before I get into that, I do want to thank the minister of state responsible for so quickly dealing with this piece of legislation and bringing it in so we have an opportunity to look at it as an exposure draft, I suppose.

Consultation will take place. Because of the new legislative calendar we are now under, it will allow for us to return to these chambers in the fall, deal with it and have it passed even next spring or perhaps this fall. In the previous system, where there was no legislative calendar, it would always take a year before anything could happen on a piece of legislation — especially a piece of legislation as important as this. I think the minister of state has done all British Columbians a service by introducing it in this fashion and then indicating immediately that it will go out for public consultation, discussion and debate.

As well, when we were in opposition the minister of state was the critic for seniors. I know she had toured the province and visited many communities, had gone into many care facilities, seniors homes and residential care facilities. She had seen the variety of care facilities that existed and knew from a very early stage that we were moving into a different model of care — assisted living, supported living. These were new terminologies because we were meeting the needs of our seniors in a different way.

This minister of state was fully aware of all the models and the variations that were possible, and so when she put her head to making a change to this legislation, I know she did it with great knowledge and

The reason why I believe that this new legislation is necessary is, as I stated, that while in opposition I did manage to go into some of the care facilities in my riding. In Oak Bay, in particular, there is a facility called Oak Bay Lodge. I've spoken of it many times in this chamber because I'm very proud of the way that the board runs this particular facility. It is one that many people try to exemplify, but they have run into some problems over the course of the last few years. They ran into some difficulty as a result of the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act because it was so restrictive.

Just one example was where they were found in violation of the act for something as simple as not having had a glass of water that a resident drank at regular intervals, even if a resident chose not to request his liquid. When an inspector came in and said, "This is what's required. Under the act these are the standards that you have to adhere to," and found they were in violation of that, it didn't make sense. Oftentimes simple, commonsense things like that would have to be referred to some sort of appeal or tribunal process, taking up dollars in legal fees or other professional fees, where those dollars are best directed to offering and enhancing better patient care.

Another instance I recall was where this facility housed many seniors. The licensing provisions required that there had to be weighing of the residents at certain times or intervals. Even though it had no effect or impact on providing care to a particular resident, the licensing act was so restrictive and so prescriptive in nature that it took time away from the care that was really necessary and fundamental to people.

It is important that as we move forward in the twenty-first century and as our seniors are aging, I can tell you that here on Vancouver Island the capital region certainly has its complement and share of an aging population. Perhaps we have one of the largest populations of aging seniors, because it's such a wonderful place to retire to. Eventually, once people retire here, they want to move out of their homes and into a care facility.

I'm very mindful of the need for us to consider these seniors. The fact is that even while they are aging, they are also making choices. The choices they're making are such that they do have a level of independence. They do have a form of residential occupation that was not what we had envisioned originally when nursing homes and care facilities and the like were first implemented back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Things have changed; our seniors have changed. They are not totally dependent when they move into a care facility, so we need to change our act to ensure that we encompass those changes.

What's also important is to acknowledge that while we are going through this change, we will be doing so to better protect people in care. This act will be more focused on the protection of vulnerable and dependent people than the previous act was. This act is going to allow facilities that provide, primarily, housing and low-level support to…. While they meet the same licensing provisions as facilities that provide complex care, they have opportunities to provide more flexibility or have the opportunity with more autonomy.

We do know that those facilities that have more complex issues will continue to have the protection this particular act will provide. If we focus on those facilities that deal with the vulnerable and the more dependent, then we will enhance the protection requirements necessary. It will also allow us to target resources to protect the health and safety of people in adult residential and child care facilities. In this day and age when we all know the fiscal challenges we are faced with, it is important that we do target those dollars and that we do focus our health care dollars most efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak on the fact that with the new local health authorities in place, this will also provide more decision-making powers to them and for our local communities to have more influence on the kinds of care facilities we want to see in our communities.

Medical health officers in the past were, I think, restricted in their ability to offer exemptions. As I see it, in this particular piece of legislation there will now be an opportunity for medical health officers to provide exemptions and, as well, to suspend or cancel licences, without going through an arduous process, if in fact they do see something significant that may breach the act.

I know there is much to be said about this piece of legislation. I think it's important to note the fact that we are going to have a consultative process. I think we will be able to flush out all those concerns people have. I think it's important that those who may be watching this legislation know that all stakeholders have an opportunity to be consulted. A wide array of stakeholders will, in fact, be consulted. All they need to do is provide input or submissions, once the website is set up, or even to their own local MLA offices. That, again, is where our stakeholders oftentimes come as a first choice to offer opinions.

I expect that I will be hearing from some of my constituents, as will the members and colleagues who have spoken. The members for Okanagan-Vernon and Maple Ridge–Mission must be in their communities, and they also must be hearing from the people that are there.

I heard the minister speak about the Montreux clinic here in Victoria in her opening remarks. She is absolutely correct. That particular process dragged on for a long time. It put all the residents and the clients who were in that facility in a state of uncertainty for some time, as well as the owners of the buildings and the medical health officer. It was a long process, and I remember there were hearings after hearings. I would hope that at the end of the day, we will not see that kind of process repeated with the new Community Care Facility Act.

I think we need to know that while there will be some changes, there will also be some items that will stay — some things of importance and of protectionism. For example, there will still be record checks. Again, for people who are providing care in facilities, whether it be in seniors facilities or child care facilities, those will still continue to occur. That should not cause any alarm for people with changes to the Community Care Facility Act.

There will also be adult care regulations that are going to be met, as the member for Okanagan-Vernon has mentioned. I know he spent a lot of time going through the regulations, and I appreciate the fact that he has already indicated there is such a volume of regulations. I think everyone in this chamber, particularly, knows that when legislation is brought in, it's the regulations that sometimes tie up the legislation or do not allow us to accomplish the outcomes that the legislation was intended to provide.

I, too, will be taking a look at the adult care regulations as they are brought forward and debated. I would hope that they will be streamlined, that they will also have a process where they can be streamlined on an ongoing basis and that we don't wait 30 years into a piece of legislation before we take a look at these things.

As we know, our economy and our citizenry are moving at a very, very fast pace these days. As we do move forward, we have to take a look at the regulations that impact and influence us.

There are so many more things that can be spoken of. I'm sorry that I didn't hear all the comments made by my colleagues. I'm sure they have expressed some concerns, and I don't want to repeat them. I will check Hansard at a future time.

Before taking my seat, I just want to say that I am very pleased that we are finally able to move forward on a piece of legislation such as this, legislation that is going to deal with provincewide standards. It is a piece of legislation that is not being hurried but at the same time is being dealt with, a piece of legislation that will allow for community input, community consultation and just overall better decision-making so that as members of this Legislature — we represent the province, and each of us has a care facility of one kind or another in our community — we have the opportunity to provide input to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. We will have a piece of legislation that all communities can work with.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity I've had to speak on this piece of legislation. I look forward to the time when we come back to this chamber and deal with it at committee stage and, eventually, to the passing of it.

Hon. L. Reid: Our intention is to provide opportunities for consultation over this spring and summer. We would very much like to continue this debate in the fall of this year. Having provided that rationale, I would now move adjournment of this debate.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 15, Degree Authorization Act, be read a second time now.

This bill is a progressive step forward for post-secondary education in British Columbia. It will lead to expanded learner choice and opportunity and will undoubtedly enhance the capacity of British Columbia's post-secondary education system. It will promote quality post-secondary education, and it will protect our students.

Currently, there are a number of barriers facing private institutions and public institutions from outside British Columbia that wish to grant degrees in our province. If an institution wishes to grant a degree in British Columbia, it must obtain legislative authority to do so through an act of the Legislature. Without legislative authority, institutions must either partner with an existing degree-granting institution or grant their degrees from their home jurisdiction.

The government recognizes the unique and very complementary roles of the public and private advanced education and training sector in offering opportunities that reflect the knowledge and skill requirements of a global, knowledge-based economy. This bill will establish a clear and transparent process for private institutions and public institutions from other jurisdictions to obtain authority to offer degree programs and grant degrees in British Columbia.

Another aspect of the bill is also exciting and forward looking. The bill will expand the mandate of public colleges, institutes and university colleges by allowing them to offer applied degrees. The bill will make it possible for colleges to offer applied baccalaureate degrees and for university colleges and institutes to offer applied master's degrees. By enhancing these degree-granting opportunities for both public and private institutions, students will have a wider variety of choice and flexibility in their pursuit of a post-secondary education.

More degree-granting institutions and an expanded mandate for public institutions will enhance the capacity of the post-secondary system. I know we have spoken many times in this House about the need for increased access across the system, and we need to find creative and unique ways to be able to ensure that British Columbians have the opportunity to attend institutions. There will be an expanded range of degree program choices, locations and delivery methods that reflect the rapidly changing labour market and the need for continuous learning.

In fact, it's another opportunity for us to begin to allow British Columbians to learn more and to be trained in the areas where they live. We demonstrated that in our creation of the northern medical program

and the satellite campus at UVic in partnership with UBC. We believe that if we train people close to where they live, they will stay there and participate in the economy and help in those communities that so desperately need to retain and recruit individuals.

Currently, there are a number of institutions offering degree programs in British Columbia, but they are granting degrees from outside the province. Some of these institutions are private, and some are public institutions from other jurisdictions. Currently, the British Columbia government has no role in ensuring that students are receiving a quality education from these institutions.

The bill will enable private institutions and public institutions from other jurisdictions to grant degrees in British Columbia after participating in a quality assessment process. Institutions offering degree programs in B.C. but granting their degrees from other jurisdictions will not be able to bypass this process. Unless otherwise exempted from the consent requirements under the act, these institutions will be required to go through the quality assessment process and get consent before continuing to offer their degree programs in this province. Requiring completion of the quality assessment process will ensure that British Columbia degree programs have a solid educational foundation and that they are marketable and of a high quality.

I will be establishing a quality assessment board to review applications from the institutions who want to offer degree programs in British Columbia. The board will make recommendations to the minister, who has the authority to grant consent to institutions to confer degrees.

The quality assessment process will be independent, based on transparent criteria and representative of the degree-granting sector in British Columbia. The process will be client-centred, streamlined and timely so that institutions are not burdened with unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape. The quality assessment process will also ensure consistency in quality between private and public degree programs and provide a mechanism for public and private program articulation.

Proposals from B.C. public colleges, university colleges and institutes for applied degrees will undergo a review by the provincial degree program review committee, just as other new degree program proposals from B.C.'s public post-secondary education institutions currently do. A review is currently underway to streamline the degree-approval process and to consider any modifications to the membership to ensure that the appropriate expertise to evaluate the applied degrees exists.

By requiring institutions to complete a quality assessment process prior to obtaining authority to offer degree programs or grant degrees in British Columbia, the bill will protect students against financial and program loss. The quality assessment process referred to in the bill will include an organizational review of applicant institutions to ensure that they are financially stable and that there are adequate policies in place to protect our students' interests.

The bill will also protect students from being misled about the nature of an institution by ensuring the appropriate use of the word "university." The bill will do this by limiting the use of the word "university" to those institutions that have legislative authority or that have gone through the quality assessment process and have obtained consent to use the word "university" in their names. Transparent criteria will be developed to guide this process as well.

The Degree Authorization Act increases accessibility to post-secondary education in British Columbia. It will contribute to a top-notch education system for students of all ages, and it will ensure responsible, accountable management of public resources and tax dollars.

J. Les: I just want to make a few brief comments on this particular legislation. First of all, let me say I'm delighted that this legislation is before the House. It certainly will go another long way to ensure that the students of British Columbia have expanded choice and flexibility available to them. I say that not only as a member of this House but also as a parent. I have children in the University College of the Fraser Valley, which is a very valuable institution in the Fraser Valley that provides post-secondary education. I know that my children have benefited immensely from the availability of that institution.

However, as the minister is aware and I'm sure other members of the House are aware, as well, it was only in the fairly recent history of that institution that it obtained the ability to grant bachelor's degrees. The advent of that, I must tell you, was warmly welcomed by the students and parents in the Fraser Valley. Now, with this expanded ability to eventually award master's degrees by the University College of the Fraser Valley, this will be another important step forward in the evolution of that important institution in the Fraser Valley.

The Fraser Valley historically had been an area where post-secondary education participation rates were substantially below provincial norms. The creation of what has now become the University College of the Fraser Valley has been an important tool to increase those very low rates to something that is closer to the provincial averages.

If we are going to develop the economic potential of the Fraser Valley and develop sustainable communities, it is important that these education opportunities are available to our young people. This legislation certainly is a great assist in that regard. I note that the president of the University College of the Fraser Valley, Dr. Skip Bassford, also noted the advent of this bill with great approval in comments he made last week.

I would encourage all members of this House to approve this bill. It is an important step forward. In my comments, I have referred only to the Fraser Valley. I

recognize that, but I am sure this will be equally welcomed throughout the province. This is good news for our young people, good news as they avail themselves of this expanded flexibility and access to post-secondary education.

R. Masi: I'm pleased to rise today in the Legislature to participate in this debate on Bill 15. This bill is long overdue. For the first time in a long time in this province, we have a government that is committed to planning for the future needs of our citizens in the critical area of advanced education.

The whole notion of education in our society has changed dramatically since I attended university. The common perception of universities and colleges at that time was one of stuffy academic institutions, not the groundbreaking, research-driven places we enjoy today. Back then, if you were lucky, you got to go to your university or college, and once you received your degree or diploma, that was it. You were set for life. There was no expectation that you would ever need to go back again, but that has changed now.

Today the need for lifelong education is fully accepted by our society as the norm, not the exception. It's a reflection of the reality that we live in a global world, one changed almost daily by pushing the frontiers of scientific research, development and technology. Just think about it. Fax machines, cell phones, personal computers, the Hubble space telescope, DNA and genetic engineering were all concepts that were either in their infancy or unheard of 25 years ago. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

If we as a society are to ensure that we continue to be at the forefront of these developments, we have to commit to providing the flexibility, access and choice for our citizens to achieve the education they need and want in their own communities. We need to do it now. That's what this bill is all about. I might add that it's what this government committed to the people of British Columbia in the last election, and it's what we are delivering on today.

I support this bill. It's progressive, it's visionary, and it's realistic. It recognizes that our post-secondary education system can and must play an ever-increasing role in our society. It recognizes that our colleges, university colleges and private institutions stand ready to help meet these challenges, and it recognizes that our citizens want the freedom, the choice and the opportunity to learn the skills and knowledge they need to compete in today's global economy.

I was fortunate to be a member of the Select Standing Committee on Education. The Education Committee recently tabled here in the Legislature our report entitled A Future for Learners: A Vision for Renewal of Education in British Columbia. Our report — the first to be tabled in the Legislature on education in the province since 1971, I might add — included public hearings in ten communities throughout B.C. in which we heard some 409 oral presentations as well as receiving 281 separate written submissions, many focused on post-secondary education and training — all in all, a very comprehensive overview of where the people of B.C. see their education system heading. What's interesting is that some of the very issues highlighted by the presentations referred to a unified, comprehensive and seamless education system, a system that encompasses educational opportunity from childhood well into the senior years.

Bill 15 opens the door to such a system. Bill 15 opens the door to a comprehensive, motivating post-secondary system based on a well-planned and organized approach to growth and development — growth which is not haphazard but must be carefully implemented to avoid unnecessarily costly duplication of programs.

Specifically, my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, who chairs the select standing committee, noted that the report's recommendations for systemic change eliminate the current barriers to access, choice, flexibility and quality, and strengthen the network of colleges and institutes.

Last December the committee heard from a Carolyn Shiau in Port Coquitlam who pointed out the following perspective of a student in high school: "Some of us want to go to university, some of us want to go to trade schools, and some of us don't even know what the options are out there. The education system has to realize we are not all the same. We have different interests, different needs and different goals."

Brian Malchow, from school district 61, noted at the Prince George public hearing: "It is time to give parents and students a choice in their education.…We need to trust consumers to make wise choices. Education can be responsive to the needs of the market if we are willing to remove the unnecessary constraints." Those are just two examples of the types of comments that we heard on the road.

Increasing choice at the local level was viewed as critical to the future viability of some of the more remote areas of our province. Consider the submission of Bonny Hawley of the district of Houston, who stated:

Access, choice, flexibility — these were the recurrent themes during the course of the committee's hearings, and they resonate today in this bill, which will help deliver a new era for students here in British Columbia. This bill paves the way for our public colleges and institutes to offer applied baccalaureate degree programs and as Susan Whitter, chair of the Council of Presidents and president of Douglas College, noted, will enable students to attain the necessary credentials

These applied-degree programs are closely linked to a specific labour market need and combine theory and hands-on practice in a specific technical or career area while also addressing the need to develop generic skills like analytical and critical approaches to problem-solving. For the first time, our university colleges will be able to offer applied master's degrees, allowing our post-secondary institutions to better respond to the economic needs of their regions and help retain educated employees in their communities.

In acknowledging this new mandate for our university colleges, Skip Bassford, chair of the University Colleges of B.C., stated that this will provide many new opportunities for advanced education and training that recognizes the special expertise of our institutions and meets the economic and social needs of our regions.

I applaud these changes in the mandate for our post-secondary institutions, but I must note that these changes mark an expanded mandate for our colleges and university colleges, not a new mandate. In other words, we need to ensure that these institutions do not move away from their traditional roles of providing trades and skills development. It's what students, businesses and communities have come to rely upon when looking to their local college, university college or other private sector institutions.

Similarly, I don't think anyone involved in this process wants to see our colleges and university colleges transformed into full-blown major universities. It is my hope that anyone involved in this process of opportunity would not want to see a major shift of emphasis by our university colleges and colleges.

I must emphasize that our major universities have a crucial role to play not only in leading the academic press for the province but in maintaining the highest of standards for graduate and postgraduate work. As well, we cannot forget the leading role our universities play in pure research, a role that is vital to our province both academically and economically. However, the beauty of the college and the university college system is unique. Where else in Canada can you find a system that is more responsive to local needs and can develop programs that meet local needs in a more timely manner? We need this flexibility at the local level. I believe our colleges and our university colleges understand this and indeed embrace it as a primary function of their being.

It also goes without saying that our colleges and university colleges are less expensive alternatives than our universities. Taxpayers understand this. That's a reflection of lower operating costs, especially faculty costs. I must caution that moving towards full university status could bring about significant reorganization of faculty and would probably lead to increased cost pressures internally, which would ultimately be borne by students and taxpayers alike. That, in my mind, would defeat the whole purpose of our college and university college system and most certainly is not what this bill is all about.

I find it astounding that here in the twenty-first century, we have not had a readily accessible process for determining which institutions may grant degrees here in British Columbia. Currently, and before this bill, the only way an institution is able to obtain the ability to issue degrees is to convince the government and the Legislative Assembly of their bona fides and obtain authority through a specific act of the Legislature — which, as members will agree, can be a laborious process. As a result, many institutions, particularly private institutions, grant their degrees outside of the province, undermining student confidence and employer confidence in regard to the academic quality they receive.

This bill will do away with that time-consuming and politically controversial process. With the Ministry of Advanced Education establishing a quality assessment process for determining which institutions are eligible to grant B.C. degrees, legislation will no longer be required. Recommendations will be made to the minister by an appointed quality assessment board.

The whole streamlined process is designed to ensure that B.C. degree programs are academically sound, marketable and of consistent quality. That's what we need if we're to meet the demands of the new era we're in, the demands of new skills and lifelong learning from students of all ages — a seamless education system.

In this new era, this new economy, we must strive to make British Columbia a global magnet for high-tech investment, growth and job creation, one which is recognized as the best place on earth to live, learn, work and prosper. Education is the key to a prosperous society. Improving post-secondary educational access, choice and flexibility for our fellow British Columbians is not only long overdue; it is the responsible choice for us to make as legislators.

I urge all members of this Legislature to support this bill as we move forward into a new era of educational choice for our children and our province.

J. Kwan: I rise to raise some concerns with respect to Bill 15, Degree Authorization Act.

The legislation does not provide much information regarding the regulatory structure for reviewing applications and monitoring the quality of degree programs delivered by private post-secondary institutions. The sections of the act fail to outline what criteria the minister will use to determine whether an application for degree-granting status is acceptable, whether the inspections will be conducted by an external review agency, how often the inspections will take place and whether an inspection is required prior to receiving approval for degree-granting status.

Comparing the Ontario private post-secondary education act, entitled Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, to Bill 15 reveals that the Ontario legislation establishes a more rigorous re-

gime for assuring the quality of private institutions. The Ontario legislation provides a detailed description of the composition, powers and expectations of the board that reviews proposals for degree-issuing status. In addition, the Ontario legislation provides the board and inspectors with the ability to assess the private post-secondary institutions' premises and documents for quality assurance purposes. The B.C. legislation fails to provide this information.

The Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C. has raised some issues with respect to the granting of degrees by private institutions. In fact, they have a set of criteria that they urge the government to adopt before any such contemplation of legislation is brought into the House. These items include the establishment of a regulatory mechanism for non-public degree-granting institutions in B.C. with the following elements:

They further suggest that all of the provisions set out above apply equally to institutions seeking degree-granting authority from the government of B.C. and to institutions with charters to grant degrees from other jurisdictions that wish to establish a physical presence in British Columbia.

The Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C.'s executive director, Rob Clift, says that private universities are not needed. He further on said: "If the government decides there are going to be private universities, they ought to be regulated as well as the public universities are." The question on the regulatory regime is raised: will regular inspections be performed to ensure that private post-secondary institutions comply with the act? How often will these inspections take place? Will the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission be there to determine whether institutions comply with the act?

There are grave concerns in the broader community with respect to the lack of consultation with stakeholders. The Canadian Federation of Students and the College Institute Educators Association are calling for "the withdrawal of sections allowing for expanded private education pending public consultation." The impact of the private post-secondary institutions on the public system can be detrimental to the students in British Columbia, who are particularly faced with financial barriers. The Canadian Federation of Students is concerned that a two-tier system of post-secondary education will arise in B.C. as a result of Bill 15. Summer McFadyen, the chair of the Canadian Federation of Students, states: "By underfunding the public system, this government is creating a market for high-priced, elite education for those who can afford it and a lower-quality education for the rest of us."

The Kamloops Daily News reported with respect to some concerns raised by the public education advocate. They worry that a private university system or model, if you will, that is degree-granting would cause talented professors and wealthy students to forgo the public system for a private alternative that emphasizes teaching over research. They also say that private donors who might otherwise support, let's say, UBC or Simon Fraser University could favour the private model instead. In these days of competition for talent in our public system and competition for donations for infrastructure building in our public system, this, I think, causes greater concern in the broader community.

The College Institute Educators Association president, Maureen Shaw, had this to say about this proposal: "The debate here is about the wisdom of going to a private education model, which means increased inequality and less public control and accountability." The requirements for a quality assurance procedure that need to be in place to protect students, to protect the education of young people…. Government needs to withdraw, I would argue, the section that allows for degree-granting authorities for private institutions. They need to do this to ensure that there is proper consultation in the broader community. Do we in British Columbia want to see a university of Wal-Mart, as an example, springing up here, there and everywhere? Is that the direction we want to go in with respect to this kind of legislation? Maureen Shaw went on to state: "When government gives the nod to private universities, it also potentially opens up a Pandora's box of problems under free trade agreements, including a si-

phoning of B.C. taxpayers' money into private universities and a lowering of education quality and standards."

The opposition along with the community, I'm sure, will be watching like hawks to see whether or not this government will put public dollars into private degree-granting post-secondary education institutions. If they do, then what they're doing is siphoning public dollars for public education to big private institutions and corporations. Students will suffer — students who want educational opportunities but not in exchange for high tuition fees, for skyrocketing tuition fees. They want to see that there's protection of their educational rights, and they want to see that government invests in the future of students and the educational opportunities of young people.

To do that, scarce public resources must not go into private post-secondary education, which is now going to be getting the degree-granting authority. The government would like to say that this is providing access or perhaps opportunities. I say again that the government is only looking at providing access and opportunity to those who come from the high-income brackets, people who can afford to pay. Access and opportunities ought to be provided to all British Columbians, whether or not they have the ability to pay.

There are some concerns on this bill which I am flagging for members of this House. The opposition will be engaging in debate in committee stage to get clarity with respect to these issues. Particularly, we'll be watching very carefully to see whether or not the government will put public funds into private post-secondary education institutions.

Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.


	YEAS — 67

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	van Dongen	Barisoff
Nettleton	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Hagen
Murray	Collins	Clark
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Weisbeck	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Bray
McMahon	Christensen	Hayer
Belsey	Bennett	Johnston
Mayencourt	Long	Chutter
Bell	R. Stewart	Brenzinger
Nuraney	Harris	Orr
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Visser
Lekstrom	MacKay	K. Stewart
Bloy	Suffredine	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan