Hansard -- Tuesday, April 30, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 16 (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		3059

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3059
	Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401) T. Christensen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3060
	Conference of coastal communities G. Trumper Chilliwack Chiefs hockey team J. Les Aunt Leah's Independent Life Skills Society V. Anderson

Oral Questions		3061
	Long-term care facility closings and consultation with seniors J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Food bank usage J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell Long-term care facility closings W. McMahon Hon. K. Whittred Sale of Skeena Cellulose B. Belsey Hon. R. Thorpe Lobbyists registry J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant

Petitions		3063
	R. Sultan W. McMahon J. Wilson A. Hamilton

Tabling Documents		3064
	Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2001

Committee of the Whole House		3064
	Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Hogg T. Christensen S. Orr V. Anderson

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3074
	Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17)

Second Reading of Bills		3074
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21) Hon. S. Hagen J. Kwan B. Lekstrom Hon. L. Reid V. Roddick Hon. J. van Dongen J. Les Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

Committee of the Whole House		3085
	School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Clark

Royal Assent to Bills		3090
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11) Child, Family and Community Servcie Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17) Supply Act, 2002-2003 (Bill 33)

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a couple of friends from the municipal realm. Hans Cunningham, of course, is the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and with him is Richard Taylor, who is the executive director of the same organization. I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome. They do a great job on behalf of their local government.

J. Weisbeck: Mr. Speaker, today a number of us had a delightful lunch with a number of members from the Portuguese Parliament from the Azores. It's an independent area. I'm going to introduce these names. I had a little lesson in Portuguese, so you'll have to bear with me. First of all, Francisco Barros, Antonio das Neves Lopes Gomes, Paulo Manuel Avila Messias, José Humberto Madeiros Chaves, Cleio Ribeiro Parreiro Tosta Meneses — I want to refer to him as Bob — Raul Aguiar do Rego and Paulo Antonio de Frietas Valadao. They are accompanied by the consul, Pedro de Sampaio. Would the House please make these very distinguished guests welcome.

R. Sultan: We have in the gallery today Steven Bright, director of public affairs for the Toronto Stock Exchange. Would you please make him welcome.

B. Penner: I'd like to introduce a reporter from the Fraser Valley, Lisa Morry. She's joining us today in the press gallery. She'll be here today and tomorrow working on articles for the Chilliwack Times and the Abbotsford Times newspapers, visiting both me and the member for Chilliwack-Sumas, as well as the Minister of Agriculture. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: We have a delegation from the British Columbia Printing and Imaging Association here in the House today. We'd ask the House to please welcome Blair Fraser from the West Coast Reproduction Centres in Vancouver, Jack Hazeldeen from Hemlock Printers in Burnaby, Terry Tanner from Trade Business Farms in Burnaby and Marilyn Knock from the B.C. Printing and Imaging Association from Surrey. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm always amazed at the network that the interns in this Legislature have and how it passes from year to year. I'm just tracing the set of e-mails that I have before me. I want to offer congratulations to Eldon Sala, who's an intern with the government caucus. He and his wife, Alana, had a new baby — I think it was about a week ago — Mya Adrianna Sala. It's their second child and their second daughter. I'm very glad to have him back at work, and I want to extend our congratulations to him and his wife as well.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their teacher Ms. Bodill, as well as several parent volunteers. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: In the precinct today I'm pleased to say that we have almost 80 grades 4 and 5 students from Cloverdale Catholic Elementary School. They are joined by their teachers Doreen Brady and Jeanne Tyrrell, along with a number of parents led by Mr. Mike Garisto. I would ask that the House please make them welcome.

K. Stewart: It's my privilege today to introduce a person who's well known to many members of the House, a person who's a longtime school trustee and alderman in Maple Ridge, a friend of mine and neighbour for many years, a person who was involved in the Liberal Party when there were fewer Liberal members in British Columbia than there are members in the House today. Would the House please make very welcome Mae Cabott.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House my niece Rachel Hessells. Rachel has the distinction of living in a house once occupied by a Premier of this government, Premier John Oliver. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

K. Krueger: We have a particularly wonderful assistant in the Whip's office, who I'd like to introduce in Portuguese, but I don't speak Portuguese and neither does he. I'd just like to do the job that the Deputy Speaker did. His name is Steven Puhallo, and with him today in the gallery is his grandmother Kay Puhallo and her daughter, Patricia Dessau. I'd like the House to please make them all very welcome.

K. Johnston: I'm just looking across the House here, and I see an old friend of the House up there that I'd like to introduce, a gentleman who is no stranger to this place and who helped me very much in my campaign, Mr. Art Cowie. Would the House please make Art welcome today.

T. Christensen presented a bill intituled Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002.

T. Christensen: I move that a bill intituled Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced now and read a first time.

T. Christensen: This bill will restore Spring Enterprises Inc. to the corporate registry, as it was struck more than ten years ago. A special act of the Legislature is the only means of doing that.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

G. Trumper: Ten years ago coastal communities in British Columbia, frustrated with constraints to development and with the lack of coordination and communication with various levels of government, held the first conference of coastal communities organized by the Coastal Community Network. At that time I was the mayor of Port Alberni, and we were the first people to bring this group together. This event explored opportunities for economic development for Pacific coastal communities.

This weekend Port Alberni is hosting the tenth anniversary of the conference of coastal communities. The theme is a decade of change: shaping our future. It is timely, indeed, as we face enormous changes in the shape and function of our communities. Our resources base, fisheries, softwood lumber, aquaculture, offshore oil and gas, tourism, the services sector all face challenges unforeseen even one decade ago.

Many of the challenges, however, are familiar, such as transportation, resource development, environmental issues and jurisdictional concerns. These shared issues have helped the Coastal Community Network develop a collective consciousness on the coast, sharing experiences and lessons and becoming the big voice for small communities.

This conference does more than provide an opportunity to share stories. In its first ten years the Coastal Community Network has organized fisheries support programs, protected staffed lighthouses, promoted economic development initiatives and collaborated with similar communities in Atlantic Canada. This year they will present an updated report entitled The State of the Coastal Economy, with regional and sectoral statistics on our coastal communities over the past decade.

Most importantly, members of all levels of government, including several of my colleagues in this chamber, will gather with industry, community and first nations representatives. Our goal: to explore the challenges facing our Pacific coastal communities and promote creative solutions through enhanced networking.

I anticipate a lively and productive gathering and look forward at a later date to reporting back to this House on the progress of this important conference. I urge any member of this assembly, if they have the opportunity, to attend the session in Port Alberni. They would be most welcome.

J. Les: Several weeks ago I reported to the House on the fact that the Chilliwack Chiefs of the B.C. Hockey League had won the provincial Junior A championship. The next step in the playoffs and the advancement to the national championship was the playoff series against the Alberta champions, the Drayton Valley Thunder.

Mr. Speaker, I have more good news. In a seven-game series, which at one point Drayton Valley led, two games to one, the Chilliwack Chiefs came storming back to win the playoff series, four games to two. With the final game last Saturday evening before a sellout crowd at the Chilliwack coliseum, the final game was tied 3-3 at the end of regulation time, with Chilliwack's winning goal coming in the second overtime period on a beautiful goal by David Van der Gulik.

The integrity of the roof structure of the coliseum was seriously put to the test. I've got to tell you that it felt really good to watch B.C.'s best beat Alberta's best. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Chilliwack Chiefs are off to Halifax to play in the national Junior A hockey championship, the Royal Bank Cup.

I want to pay tribute to the great job done by coach Harvey Smyl and his staff as well as the dedicated owners of the team, Al Brew, Heinz Hasselman and Moray Keith. Without their unqualified dedication, support and enthusiasm, the Chiefs would not have become the success that they are.

Chilliwack hockey fans have thoroughly enjoyed an excellent season of hockey. They are extremely proud of the Chilliwack Chiefs' achievements, and I am sure that all members of this House join them in wishing the team well in its quest for the national championship in the playoffs starting this coming Saturday in Halifax.

V. Anderson: I rise today to speak about Aunt Leah's Independent Life Skills Society. The name tells the story of a society — a group of ordinary citizens in the Marpole and south Vancouver area who volunteer their time to help others get the skills to become capable of independent living in our society.

Mike is one example. He is a teenager who was part of a restaurant training program — a 16-week program

for 15-to-18-year-olds. It is a combination of classroom and personal assessment and food service, including community meals. They learn by serving. The program was half-funded by the community and half-funded by the government — until the end of June, that is. It's going to the community now to raise the full amount of $150,000 a year. Sixty youth are now on hold.

Aunt Leah's is also a residential program for pregnant and parenting teens. It is an alternative living for street youth to discover themselves and their potential as positive family members. It's a new start towards a hopeful future because there are people who care and understand. It's a home to grow from.

The Support Link program, also a part, is a semi-independent living initiative for youth at risk. Self-contained suites with practical and emotional support enable the transition from dependence to independence by developing everyday skills and being supported over the rough spots. Transformed lives are the result. Community outreach established a trust relationship with these youth. They are experiencing depression, drug and alcohol abuse or a misunderstanding of themselves. It reconnects them with family, peers, school and community.

J. MacPhail: Seniors and their families are in a very high state of anxiety about the government's plan to close long-term care facilities. Last week I visited the Kootenays, where senior health officials had promised the community a 30-day consultation process before any decision would be made to change or shut down any health care facilities. Those officials complained to me that the government had blocked their plans. I guess it didn't fit in with the government's communications strategy. The government thought it was better to keep people in the dark, putting politics before patients.

To the Minister of Health Services: why did the government deliberately block the interior health authority from engaging in a 30-day public consultation process? And will he please release all correspondence between the government and health authorities with respect to their aborted consultation plans?

Hon. C. Hansen: I gave no such instructions to the interior health authority.

J. MacPhail: In fact, the government told the interior health authority not to proceed with the consultation. Theoretically, although we're finding it less and less so, the Minister of Health Services is in charge of this radical change in health care.

Once again, maybe he doesn't know. Let me tell him this: after being denied input, the residents of the Pioneer Villa long-term care home in Creston woke up last Tuesday to the news that their home was being closed. It came as a complete shock. In Summerland the Kelly Care Centre and the Summerland Lodge are closing, forcing seniors into private care arrangements that cost a fortune. These seniors are calling for a moratorium on closure of long-term care facilities, pending a full public consultation.

Maybe it was the Minister of State for Long Term Care that shut down the consultation. So will she stand up and apologize to seniors for causing so much pain and hardship? Will she promise seniors, at least in the interior health authority where they're ready to go but were told to stop, that no new strategy will be put in place until a consultation has happened? Will she stop moving seniors around like pieces of furniture?

Hon. C. Hansen: Quite frankly, that kind of language coming from that member is irresponsible. Prior to the announcements…

Hon. C. Hansen: …we encouraged all of the health authorities to engage in consultation around this province.

Hon. C. Hansen: For the first time in this province we are actually laying out a three-year plan for the redesign of health care, unlike the previous government who used to keep the public in the dark until announcements were made. We are looking at the stock of long-term housing in the province. We are doing a responsible and consultative process over the next two to three years in terms of what facilities will be phased out while we build new facilities. And as we said a week ago today, no door will be closed before another door is opened. We will ensure that every single senior in this province is consulted. Their families will be consulted. There will be a plan put in place for their orderly care, and their transition to new facilities will be better for the care they require.

J. Kwan: Food bank directors got together last week to compare notes, and they're seeing the same trend. From Sooke to Vanderhoof, demand at food banks is increasing dramatically. What's more disturbing is that it is the children and seniors that are now, more than ever, turning to food banks for help for the first time.

When this was brought to the attention of the Minister of Human Resources, he was unavailable for comment. He is always available for comment when he's there to slash income assistance programs. He's available to tell the disabled that they're on their own, and of course, he's always available to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Will the Minister of Human Resources simply admit that his draconian changes to income assistance are forcing children to rely on food banks?

Hon. M. Coell: I have for years watched the ebb and flow of people using food banks in British Columbia. I can tell you that for ten years, those members of the now opposition ruined this government, chased jobs out of this province, mismanaged the forest industry, chased the mining of this province. This House doesn't need to listen to you.

For ten years you chased the forest industry out of this province. You chased the mining industry out of this province. You mismanaged this economy.

Hon. M. Coell: What this economy needs is a government that will help rebuild it to produce jobs for families to keep people out of food banks. The ten years of decline are over in this province, and this government is going to help rebuild this province to create jobs for people to keep them and their families out of the food banks.

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

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the Finance minister has thrown open the doors of the provincial treasury to the richest of British Columbians.

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

J. Kwan: In the meantime, food banks across the province are struggling to meet the new demand created by this government's mean-spirited attack on our most vulnerable citizens. To the Minister of Human Resources: just how much more evidence does he need before he realizes that putting children first does not mean putting them first at the food bank lineup? What does the minister need to understand that assisted living does not mean helping seniors carry their groceries home?

Hon. M. Coell: I simply wonder how many people could be fed for the half a billion dollars that was wasted on the fast ferries. We had ten years of wasteful government in this province, ten years of a government that didn't try and create jobs for families. That's over. This government is rebuilding the economy in British Columbia so that families and children will have the money and the support they need.

W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. In recent days some have tried to deliberately stir up confusion over how the government's recent changes to health care will affect seniors in British Columbia.

W. McMahon: Media reports in my riding have left seniors at Moberly Manor care centre fearing that they will be removed from their home and left without care. To the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care: will she assure the residents of Moberly Manor that the government will not abandon them?

Hon. K. Whittred: May I say once again that I share the regret of many that have expressed the unnecessary fear and anxiety that has arisen amongst seniors residents.

Hon. K. Whittred: A week ago, at open cabinet, I asked executive council to give consensus to a resolution that stated that all the health authorities must have a transition plan in place before any plan is implemented. Health authorities know that they are required to consult with families. They know that there must be individual plans in place. I repeat once again: these are long-term plans. They are going to be carried out over the next several years. We will provide better care, more comprehensive care, with a great many more choices.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has a supplementary question.

W. McMahon: My constituents are also hearing reports that the government is moving seniors out of extended care facilities and into supported living homes. As a number of my constituents currently live in extended care facilities, what assurances can the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care provide to them that they will continue to receive the care they need?

Hon. K. Whittred: This government is committed to providing 5,000 new intermediate and long-term

care beds by the year 2006. This is a long-term plan. It is a long-term plan that will provide the best care in the most appropriate setting. We are moving from a two-track system, where a person has to either live at home or in long-term care, to a multi-track system that offers seniors a whole variety of choices along a spectrum of care. Supported housing or assisted living is an appropriate level of care for intermediate-level clients. Clients who need extended care will receive extended care.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. I understand that the Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed the application by first nations requesting that the Minister of Forests withhold his decision and consent for the transfer of Skeena Cellulose to Northwest B.C. Timber and Pulp. Can the minister tell us what the next actions are in returning Skeena Cellulose to the private sector?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to advise the House that the last hurdles in returning Skeena Cellulose to the private sector have been removed. The Minister of Forests has consented to the transfer. NWBC has signed the agreement to become the new owners. We have been successful in returning Skeena Cellulose to the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to thank a few people for all of their efforts in this matter. First of all, I must give thanks to my ministry staff and our advisers, who have literally worked around the clock to make this happen. Second, to the members for North Coast, Skeena and Bulkley Valley–Stikine: thank you for your comments, advice and guidance over the past ten months. A very special thanks to the families, communities and community leaders who have assisted in returning Skeena Cellulose to the private sector.

B. Belsey: My supplement is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Many of the residents in my riding have been out of work for some time while Skeena Cellulose was in bankruptcy protection. Can the minister tell my constituents when they can expect to go back to work?

Hon. R. Thorpe: After four years of management under the NDP and a loss of over $400 million to taxpayers of British Columbia, NWBC is now the owner of Skeena Cellulose. They have been travelling throughout the north and meeting with community leaders, families, workers and loggers. It will now be up to these new owners to put a plan into place to get families and workers back to work so that the northwest can have the economic activity that it deserves.

J. MacPhail: We continue to await the proclamation of the Lobbyists Registration Act, and yet representatives of various private interests are hot on the heels of cabinet ministers.

We've seen WCB regulations go up in smoke. We know that the Employment Standards Act is going to be changed to keep the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association happy. We've seen contracts in health care gutted to keep Sodexho happy.

While the registration isn't in place, we're going to have to ask on a case-by-case basis. There's no registration.

Can the minister responsible for the Lobbyists Registration Act confirm that organizations represented by Bruce Clark have been meeting with his cabinet colleagues?

Hon. G. Plant: Last I heard, Bruce Clark was a lawyer who occasionally represented some first nations in British Columbia in claims of sovereignty before the courts. I don't think Mr. Clark is in the jurisdiction anymore. I'm sure I'll take the opportunity to look into it.

What is great to report is that we have the most open and accountable government in Canada. We were a government that introduced fixed election dates. We were a government that introduced a fixed budget date.

Hon. G. Plant: We were a government that introduced a parliamentary schedule that works for British Columbians. We have introduced a Lobbyists Registration Act. We will bring it into force and effect.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by approximately 10,000 supporters of the Capilano Care Centre, a long-term care facility on the North Shore. Because of the mass of paper involved, this box in front of me only contains one-third of the petitions. I'd be glad to deliver the balance to the Clerk's office once I recover my strength.

These petitioners ask the government to exercise whatever encouragement it may with the Vancouver coastal health authority to keep open this home to 217 of our beloved seniors.

W. McMahon: I also rise to present a petition. This SOS, Save Our Services, petition is signed by 1,380 Revelstoke residents and 35 ferry users from other communities in British Columbia who are concerned with the changes to various services within this rural community.

J. Wilson: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 25 constituents expressing their concerns about school board funding.

A. Hamilton: I also rise to table a petition with 1,086 signatures from the B.C. Family Network concerning people with disabilities.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2001 of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: We were discussing section 8 of Bill 17. Could the minister please tell the House what the current policy is for those who have an interim order to care for a child? In the area of government support, what is the policy that exists now?

Hon. G. Hogg: I should take this opportunity to introduce Chris Haynes and Mark Sieben, who are the two staff members assisting us in this discussion.

The answer to the member's question is that in virtually all instances those would be placements in foster homes and therefore would be paid at the foster home rates that were commensurate with the needs of the child.

J. Kwan: With the passage of Bill 17 and the eventual passage of Bills 26 and 27, will there be any difference in terms of eligibility for support for people who will have interim custody of a child under this act?

Hon. G. Hogg: There is no legislative link between this legislation and Bills 28 and 29. In that sense, the answer to the member's question is no.

Under section 8 of Bill 17 the language is added to suggest "an interim order that the child be placed in the custody of a person other than a parent with the consent of the other person and under the director's supervision." The operative piece that I want to canvass with the minister is, of course, the notion that the child would be placed in the custody of a person other than the parent.

It is my understanding from the minister that with the interim order as such, the adult person who will have custody of the child on an interim basis would still qualify for income assistance support for the child that this individual will now have custody of. That person will still qualify for income assistance if the person is a low-income, working individual.

Hon. G. Hogg: The member's question falls under the Ministry of Human Resources and whether or not the ministry would be prepared to continue to provide income assistance. I can't answer specifically for that minister and that ministry. The determinations and decisions on the way they choose to treat any amounts for income and maintenance that were provided for a child from this ministry would clearly be up to them.

We want to have a process that makes sense, which provides some continuity and does not create undue hardship. We've been having a number of meetings with the Ministry of Human Resources and are aware of some of the concerns that exist in terms of how we provide maintenance for children in these circumstances and situations.

I am confident that the legislation doesn't prevent us from providing any of the services that children will need should they fall under the auspices of this act. There is nothing which will prevent us from providing the continuity and funding necessary to support a child within whatever the home of best resource is determined to be.

When I look at the two acts, I do see the linkage. Earlier the minister said that Bills 26 and 27 were not linked with Bill 17, but I do see the linkage. Unless the minister can tell me otherwise, there is completely no link on the issue around assessment for financial support. Under Bills 26 and 27, and particularly a child in the home of a relative…. When Bills 26 and 27 go through committee stage debate and are passed in the House, then the children living with relatives who are legal guardians are considered to be part of the family. If, in that instance, the family unit does not qualify for family assistance, they will not be able to get support from the government to support that additional child. That makes a big difference in terms of the impact on the child.

I want to be sure that in this act, Bill 17…. The language here allows for the interim order for a child to be placed in the custody of a person, and when the child is placed in the custody of the person, it makes that person a legal guardian of the child. If that person then needs income from the government to sup-

port that child under the income assistance from the government to support that child under the income assistance act, that person would not be qualified unless that entire family unit is qualified for income assistance.

Formerly, under the current policy prior to the change, if you are a legal guardian of the child or have custody of the child, you don't necessarily have to have the entire family unit be qualified for income assistance in order to get support for that additional child who's coming into your family unit. That is a distinctive change. Maybe I'm wrong in understanding that. Maybe in the current policy as it exists, where a person is coming into having custody of a child, that family unit would be qualified for income assistance for the child even if the family unit does not qualify overall for income assistance.

I'd like to get certainty from the minister that with an interim order, when the child is placed in the custody of a person, that person is able to get support from the ministry — because assessment, as I understand it, will be done by this ministry — and that that child would be able to get income assistance support from the ministry if they need it.

Hon. G. Hogg: For any child who is in the care of the ministry, the ministry has the resources to provide the supports for the placement of that child. That is covered under section 25 of the amendment act.

J. Kwan: What the minister said is that when a child is in the care of the ministry, then that child is entitled to support. With the language change here, where you're placing the custody of the child with the person, does that mean to say that the person is not in the care of the ministry? It would say that child is now in the care of the person who has custody of the child. Therefore, it would disqualify the person from getting access to support from government.

Maybe I'm wrong in understanding that. If I'm wrong, please correct me, because I want assurance that when a person has an interim order that the child be placed in their custody and then when that family unit is not able to get income assistance, they are still able to get support for that child from the ministry, whether it be this ministry or the Ministry of Human Resources.

Hon. G. Hogg: The change in the wording does not deter, detract or take away from the responsibility of the ministry to that child. That wording does not change the test or the provision of services. The answer to your question is yes, the ministry will still provide funding in those interim circumstances and situations, should it be needed, just as there would be today.

J. Kwan: The minister said that the family unit will be provided the same kind of support. Then, when the person is assigned custody of a child by the courts on an interim basis, that family would be entitled to gain support from this ministry. Is it the current case now, before Bills 26 and 27 have been adopted by government, that the person who is qualified for assistance in the Ministry of Human Resources would still be qualified for income assistance from Human Resources after Bills 26 and 27 have passed?

Hon. G. Hogg: Bills 26 and 27 have no impact on this legislation and what is being provided here. The evaluation and assessment have to be made for a child coming into care on an interim order, in terms of the types of needs for the services required for that child to exist and live within the placement that is deemed appropriate for the child. This ministry is not impacted by the decisions of the Ministry of Human Resources with respect to the legislation the member refers to. We have to make an individual assessment of need and respond to that need according to the child and the circumstances that they are placed within.

J. Kwan: During the estimates process with the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of Human Resources advised that of the 4,530 individuals who are in the Child in the Home of a Relative program…. I asked the question: how many will no longer be eligible to receive income assistance support because of the proposed changes by the government? The Minister of Human Resources advised that he estimated that about 1,790 children who live with relatives, who are their legal guardians and have sole custody of the children, will be affected. In this instance, when a person is given custody of a child under this section of the bill, according to the Ministry of Human Resources definition, that would be a child living in the home of a relative. If that is a low-income working family, that family unit would not be qualified for income assistance for support for that child.

Is the minister saying that that child would be able to get support from this ministry in the same amount that they would otherwise get from the Ministry of Human Resources as a minimum?

Hon. G. Hogg: If I may be allowed to try and interpret what the member is saying and using some poetic licence in that, I think the member may be referring to some of the concerns which will arise with the change in the Child in the Home of a Relative program, and some of those children who may also be in need of protection and as a result are being placed in the CIHR program, which is an income support program. The Ministry of Children and Family Development's responsibility is the issues of child protection. There's that distinguishing point, which can become blurred, obviously, in some of the issues.

For that reason, I've been meeting with the Minister of Human resources around that program and looking at ways that the program can be assured to be providing the principles which we're talking about, which are to try and keep extended families together — that the best placement for a child is within the context of a family and an extended family that they can be a part

of. The CIHR program, in many instances, provides that type of support. Again, that's an income support program, so the Ministry of Children and Family Development, if there are protection needs, does have resources and funding to be able to put into those circumstances to appropriately support a child who has those needs.

I recognize the member's focus and direction and concern with the 1,790 children who are in the home of a relative, who may not be eligible for continuing support. I understand the ministry is looking at that program and looking at the changes to that. There may be some alternatives which are being developed. If there are no alternatives developed, then any children who are in need of protection issues…. Our ministry has responsibility for those issues and will provide the appropriate support for those families. Those are protection issues as opposed to income assistance issues.

I know at some point they become blended in terms of those types of services where a child is placed, perhaps, with a grandparent who may be on assistance or may be just above the assistance level, as the member points out, at a working level but not being able to support another child in the family. We want to make decisions which are in the best interests of the child in those matters. We're working with the Ministry of Human Resources on that. If it is a protection need, then clearly we will be supportive and be involved. If it's not a protection need, the Ministry of Human Resources is aware of those concerns. We've had meetings with them, and they are looking at some alternatives to do that. I understand that they've actually extended the Children in the Home of a Relative program as it currently exists for another two months to allow that review to take place.

J. Kwan: Well, that's exactly what I'm concerned about. If it is a protection issue, the minister has said that the ministry will become involved, so then the ministry will provide assistance in that instance.

What I'm also worried about, though, is that if it's not a protection issue and because it's a matter of finances, it may well become a protection issue. If the family unit is unable to have the financial support for that additional child, it may actually put the entire family unit at risk if they have other children.

It doesn't make sense to me. On the one hand, the mandate and what this minister is trying to do is to place children in the home of a relative — people that the child might have a relationship with — in the best interests of the child. But by doing that, it could actually jeopardize the future of that child and potentially other children in that home as well. It makes no sense to me, and it actually goes contrary to the intent of the ministry.

I can tell you that when I asked the Minister of Human Resources questions around this, the minister responded by saying that it is something that he's going to monitor with the Minister of Children and Family Development to see if there's any change in the desire of people to become guardians. Ultimately, it could have an even longer and worse impact as the minister is trying to get more people to become guardians and to take custody of other children. You could potentially have a negative impact whereby people are just saying: "You know what? We can't do it because we don't have the financial means to do it. We may have the capacity emotionally or otherwise to do it, but financially we're not able to do it because of this change that's forthcoming in the Ministry of Human Resources."

The minister says that he'll monitor this. How will the minister monitor it? And again, under what circumstances would the person be able to get the government support that they need? Would it be that they actually have to reach a place where they would be in jeopardy in terms of child protection issues, and then there would be consideration for support from the government?

Hon. G. Hogg: I can't answer for the Minister of Human Resources. The member has commented on a couple of comments from Hansard which the minister made. I don't want to get into interpreting or understanding specifically what his response to that was.

Let me reassure the member, firstly, that within the purview of this act and this piece of legislation we have before the House today, we have resources for any child who is the responsibility of this ministry and will provide the necessary support when they are under an interim order.

If I can be allowed to stray a little bit from this piece of legislation specifically, I understand the difficulty that the member is in between the two ministries and the concerns around that, but the principle which our ministry is focusing on — the member is quite correct — is: how can we provide the best support for a child within the best environment for that child? In British Columbia and indeed in Canada we haven't explored, as well as a number of other jurisdictions and countries have, the ability to use extended family or kin care for being able to keep a family together and provide the necessary care and support for a child. We want to be able to look at that.

There are clearly some instances within the Ministry of Human Resources, through the CIHR program, where they are in fact doing that. We are working with that ministry to ensure that we don't put children at risk who are currently in the home of a relative for income assistance or income support being provided so that it becomes an issue of child protection.

We're working with that ministry to coordinate that to make sure that it is the case. We've had meetings as recently as yesterday around that matter. As I said earlier, the Minister of Human Resources has decided that the income support through CIHR will be continued for another two months at the current levels while he looks at strategies that address specifically the issue that the member is referring to.

Those issues are ones which are of great importance to our ministry as well. We don't want a child who is living in an extended family and being supported there to fall into a vulnerable circumstance or situation in which protection may become an issue. We have to ensure that there is coordination between our two ministries to in fact provide that safety net for those children. I'm confident that over the course of the next two months in those discussions with the Ministry of Human Resources, we'll be able to achieve exactly that.

J. Kwan: Given that we actually don't know how that will be sorted out…. While the ministry may well be looking at this issue and trying to come to a resolution on it over the next two months, given that we don't know — we the public, we the members of the opposition, don't have the assurances right now of how that would be sorted out and whether there would actually be financial support for these families — then why wouldn't the minister stand down this section until such time as those answers are available?

I think those answers are crucial. Prior to coming back from the lunch break, I did take the time to phone a couple of agencies in the community who provide child advocacy services and child support services and who deal with children who are in these kinds of situations. I asked them if they have this concern, or am I just being paranoid in my own mind because I am seeing the link between Bill 26, Bill 27 and this bill and ultimately the impact potentially for children and the family units? They advised me that they, too, share that concern. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense for government to proceed, by a bill, by ordering an interim order placing a child in the custody of a person other than a parent when doing that may well jeopardize that individual's opportunity to get income assistance support through Human Resources.

Hon. G. Hogg: Let me just say again that the children who are on an interim order will not need funding from the Ministry of Human Resources. They receive their funding through our ministry. In that sense, there's a total distinct separation. Anyone who comes under an interim order, at the presentation hearing by the judge, and requires support will receive that support from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. There is no reliance on the Ministry of Human Resources. There is no reliance at all upon the CIHR program. That's distinct and different. That's an income assistance program that will not be coming forward at a presentation hearing where the issue is protection of a child.

There must be some other way I can say that more clearly. However, the issue is: at an interim order at a presentation hearing — the issue being neglect or abuse and the best interests of a child — and the courts making an interim order and placing somebody, it is the responsibility of this ministry to ensure that the supports are there for the child and that wherever that child may be placed, there are appropriate resources from the state to ensure that that child receives the type of financial support within the context of that family which is required. That is distinct, separate and different from the income assistance which is provided under the CIHR program.

While I appreciate the member's forays into the issue of when there are issues of protection which may arise out of an income support circumstance, this legislation deals specifically with when issues of protection come to the fore. There is funding in place, and it will be in place to deal with those circumstances and those situations.

J. Kwan: The minister said that for interim orders there is funding in place. Maybe I can wait until we get to section 17, which is the permanent transfer of custody. When it's a permanent transfer of custody, is there funding in place also?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, that is exactly the same provision. In fact, where it would be a child in care with a permanent order, a continuing order is made that those resources would be in effect just as they are today for children in care.

J. Kwan: If my understanding is correct, the minister says that when a child is placed in the custody of a person outside of the parent on an interim basis or on a permanent basis, the adult who is taking care of that child, who has custody of that child, is entitled to get government support to support that child even if that person is not qualified for income assistance support. In other words, if that adult is a low-income working person and therefore not qualified for income assistance under the Child in the Home of a Relative program, that adult — the extension of that adult with a child — is able to get assistance from this ministry. There's been no policy changes in the way in which a person can access government support through this ministry, nor are there any rate changes in terms of that individual being able to get access to financial support for that child.

I just want to be absolutely clear because I'm very worried about this provision. If that's not the case, then my intention is to not vote in support of this section of the bill.

Hon. G. Hogg: With respect to the member's comments around those provisions, there are no changes proposed in this act in terms of the support which will be provided to a child coming into care. There are no changes as a result of the eventual passage of this act. It will not change as to what was in effect a year ago or two years ago. The same process and support will be in place.

Just as a year ago there was not an entitlement, but there were individual case decisions made around the type of support needed when a child comes into care, those same circumstances, practices and policies will be

J. Kwan: The changes in Bills 26 and 27 and the program of the child in the home of a relative would not impact the financial support of the individuals and the children who would otherwise be able to get the support in this bill through this ministry.

Hon. G. Hogg: That's correct. The children in the home of a relative is, again, the income support part of it. This is the protection side of it and will not be influenced by that at all.

I want to just ask the minister a question. Earlier we canvassed the area where the child could be placed in the custody of a person other than their parent. It could be a relative. It could be a friend. In most instances — and I think the minister actually confirmed that — it is expected that the child would know this individual or have some sort of relationship with them save and except in the example the minister pointed out in the aboriginal community. It may well be that within the band there might be a community who could actually take care of the child in that sense. In those situations that provision would be made to assign custody of the child to such individuals.

In this bill, though, under section 10 it actually references specifically the Nisga'a government whereby if the child is a Nisga'a child, a designated representative of the Nisga'a government would be provided notice and therefore would be involved and could have the opportunity to be involved. Then section 10(c) actually says that if it's an aboriginal child other than a Nisga'a child, a designated representative of an Indian band or aboriginal community would be served notice, as well, so that they too would have the opportunity to be involved.

Outside of the aboriginal community in that context whereby a child could be placed in the custody of a person outside of their parents, what other examples could the minister give where a child may not have any relationship with or knowledge of the individual of whom he or she might be placed in the custody…?

The Chair: We're on section 8, but the member is referring to section 10 and trying to relate it to section 8.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I'm raising section 10 as an example because section 10 actually speaks specifically to aboriginal children. In section 8, when we discussed the matter earlier, the minister actually gave an example of aboriginal children whereby the child may not have any relationship with an individual that might get custody of the child. The minister used an example of an aboriginal child.

Section 10 actually specifically addresses that. I understand that in those instances a child could be placed in the custody of a person with which the child has no relationship in the aboriginal community situation, because they may well be the band or the Nisga'a government's representatives coming forward to provide support to that child.

Under what other circumstances would that scenario happen whereby a child could be placed in the custody of an individual who that child has no relationship with or knowledge of?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are a number of principles that are reflected in the best-interests tests. The member asked for some other examples. Another example might be an uncle who perhaps lives in Ontario or Toronto, who the child has not met in the past, but the uncle or the family wishes to provide support and the family's in agreement. That may be an appropriate circumstance.

We used the example of the aboriginal community. It may be an example with the Indo-Canadian community, where they have an extended family or a relative and a cohesive community that wants to provide support for a child that may not have met with them. That applies to many types of community that may be defined in a number of different ways to provide that type of support.

We don't want to preclude those opportunities and circumstances, which were, again, in the best interests of the child when the principles driving that are the child's safety, the child's physical and emotional needs and level of development, the importance of continuity in the child's care, and the quality of the relationship with the parent or the person. They may not have a relationship in some of the instances and examples that we have given, but the other tests may prove that that still is the best circumstance and situation into which a child should go.

Another one of the tests that is applied is the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage. The child's perception, the child's view, is taken into consideration with respect to that and the effect on the child, should there be a delay in any type of decision-making, because of the uncertainty and the problems associated with that.

With respect to the application of section 8 and section 10, which define the aboriginal community specifically, that is certainly an example that tied into the Nisga'a people, but I think the principle of that applies to many different cultural and extended family opportunities that would exist in the best interests of the child.

T. Christensen: I've just got a couple of brief questions around section 8 that sort of go back to the specific wording and the addition of subsection (d), which adds, essentially, the provision that the child can be returned to somebody other than the parent. Firstly, can the minister confirm whether there's any ability of the director to return a child to somebody other than the child's parent prior to the presentation hearing?

Hon. G. Hogg: I'm not sure I exactly understand the question, but my interpretation of the question was

whether or not the ministry or the director has the ability to place a child, prior to the presentation hearing, in a home other than the parental home from which the child was apprehended.

The child, up to seven days prior to the presentation hearing, is in the care of the ministry, and the ministry can and does place the child, in most instances, in a foster home. But the ministry and the director of child protection have the ability to place that child — again, using the principles which have been outlined previously — in whatever placement they deem to be most appropriate.

Specific to the question of whether they can place them other than in the parents' home, the answer to that is yes, but the critical point in that is the seven days, which cannot be exceeded, prior to the presentation hearing before the courts to make a more permanent determination.

T. Christensen: Perhaps just to clarify. The minister has indicated that the child, prior to the presentation hearing, can be placed in sort of temporary foster care. I recognize that, obviously, the director himself or herself isn't holding onto the child for those seven days. I would hope not, at least. Can that temporary placement include an aunt, an uncle, a grandparent, a neighbour that the child's familiar with — somebody who's not a recognized foster parent — at the time the child is apprehended? That's what my specific question is directed at.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, it can. The issue is the child's safety. So long as there can be some assurance with respect to the safety, that would be a most appropriate resource — again, wanting to recognize the continuity and the trauma which a child goes through at the point of apprehension. If there can a placement with an extended family, with someone that the child knows, then that is far less traumatic than a more dramatic placement with someone who the child doesn't know. That would be one of the principles applied in terms of the issue of continuity of care, of the position of the child and their input into the decision-making and, most importantly, the issue of safety.

T. Christensen: In respect of the presentation hearing itself, then…. I've got some limited experience with child protection proceedings in my past life. It was quite limited, though. Typically, in my experience what would happen is you have a child who's been apprehended. In some cases, the child's two parents are not residing together, so each of those parents is seeking to have the child returned at the presentation hearing.

Am I correct in my assessment that all that this amendment to section 35(2) does is simply allow another party — perhaps a grandparent or extended family — to come to the presentation hearing and say that rather than keeping this child in foster care away from family contact or returning the child to each of the parents who may be there with their separate counsels seeking interim custody of the child, we simply have another family member who the court can look to and assess their qualifications and the suitability of their home for placement of the child? Then it opens the door to that one further option subject, as always, to the court being satisfied that the best interests of the child are satisfied by the placement the court chooses.

Hon. G. Hogg: The answer is yes. It would not just be a family member that might come forward. It might well be that the ministry would be seeking out, as part of the preparation for the presentation hearing, extended family members or people of interest who had contact with the child who could provide that. The answer is yes, but you don't have to be there. The ministry may well be seeking that out in the best interests of the child in those matters, to find those people that would appropriately provide that support.

T. Christensen: Just a clarification based on the minister's last comment. If the director hasn't sought out the particular person that they perhaps would like to see have interim custody, is it still open for a grandparent?

Certainly, I know that in terms of my constituency work, often that's…. In child protection matters, my office is contacted by grandparents, in particular, who are frustrated that their grandchild has been taken into care and who feel that they don't have any opportunity to really be involved in the process. I realize there's always a lot more background information than perhaps I'm being given right up front. This would allow a grandparent to appear at the presentation hearing, and even if the director hasn't asked them to do that, the grandparent on their own could come and present their case to the judge and say: "I really am the appropriate place for this child to be."

I guess the extension of that would be that if the director has concerns about the placement with the grandparent, they would obviously raise those concerns at the presentation hearing. If they don't have any concerns, they may simply take no position. Thirdly, if they think it would be a great placement, then they'd presumably speak in favour of it at the presentation hearing.

J. Kwan: The member for Okanagan-Vernon has just triggered a question in my mind in this section. That is, in all of the different options under section 8 here, which amends section 35(2), it provides for the option that there can be an interim order that the child be placed in the custody of the director. That means foster care situations.

It allows for the option that the child be returned to or remain with the parent apparently entitled to custody, under the supervision of the director. That's allowing for the child to be returned to the parent under supervision.

The next option is an order that the child be returned to or remain with the parent apparently entitled to custody. So there's no supervision from the director. The fourth one is an interim order that the child be placed in the custody of a person other than a parent with the consent of the other person and under the director's supervision.

How come the ministry has not provided the option of an interim order that the child be placed in the care of a person other than a parent with the consent of the other person and with the supervision of the director? So you may not necessarily have custody, but you can actually care for the child. Why is there such a distinction, and why isn't there an option?

Hon. G. Hogg: The phraseology could say "care and custody," but if it just said "care," there would be vulnerability associated with the parent or the person who was acting as the parent, because they wouldn't have the custody to deal with the child as well. So custody is inclusive of care. When the word "custody" appears in here, it also means care associated with the provision of the services to the child and their needs at that point.

J. Kwan: So it's strictly a legal question in relation to the parent relationship with the child? It's strictly a legally technical matter?

J. Kwan: This amendment changes the language that used to describe the person the child was with prior to the presentation hearing.

The original act returns the child to the parent or other person who, at the time of the removal, was caring for the child. The amendment changes this language to the parent or other person who had custody of the child.

It appears to me the original language is broader. It allows for the person to be a custodian or caregiver. It seems to me that this language is more limiting. The person can only come into play if the person actually has custody of the child. Am I right in that interpretation? Does it actually make it more narrow in terms of the number of people that can come to be caring for the child, or is it just another technical issue related to the legal language? Is this just a matter of changing the language so that it's consistent with the previous section?

Hon. G. Hogg: It is a technical issue. In fact, the 1999 amendment act which the last government put into place made an effort to change the wording to what is currently in place. I think it was an oversight in the last amendment and the changes which the last government made.

J. Kwan: This section expands the options available for where the child may be placed. The original act only allows for the child to return to the continuing custody of the director. The amendment, as I understand it, allows for the child to go to a parent or the director. Furthermore, the amendment explicitly recognizes that this decision must be in the child's best interests. In addition, the amendment seeks to consider the long-term need for the child to have finality in his or her custodial situation.

Am I reading section 13 correctly? It simply allows for that range of options to be chosen by the courts to be available and to be expanded. Is there anything that I'm missing in reading this section?

J. Kwan: Again, I just want to make sure that I am understanding section 15 correctly. Am I right in reading that this section allows for the termination of a custody order if section 54(1) is invoked? Section 54(1), looking back at the old document, allows for a party to the custody order hearing to apply to the court for the cancellation of the order. Again, this is just an expansion in terms of provision to allow for others to come in to apply to cancel the order?

Hon. G. Hogg: The answer is yes, it does simply provide more options. As the member has pointed out, section 54(1) will provide greater clarification of the provisions that will be allowed for within that.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I didn't see the other members. Maybe I can start off some of these questions, and then others can join in.

This section, as I understand it, increases the ability of someone other than the child's parents to obtain permanent custody of the child. There is no mention of the screening process for determining who is eligible to seek permanent custody of the child. Could the minister please advise us what is the process to screen for this application for permanent custody of the child?

Hon. G. Hogg: The screening processes are not usually outlined within the statutes. They're not there for the choice of foster homes or adopted homes either, but they're reflected in policy.

The assessment process will be consistent with the practices currently in place. They include considering a person's past history of caregiving, considering whether there has been a protection history with the ministry or criminal offences which would affect a person's ability to provide care for children, considering the person's ability to provide for the child's safety and well-being, considering whether the person's physical home is suitable for the child, considering the child's views on the plan as well as the views of others who know the child and the person who may be in receipt of that custody.

J. Kwan: This section again does not identify whether or not the purpose of the amendment is to allow for family members other than the parents to seek custody of the child. 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 dangers 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?

Hon. G. Hogg: The measures that would be available with respect to the assessment process to ensure that appropriate placements were made would be the methods which I just read into the record on the previous question — just as they are, as I said earlier, in issues of foster placement and adoption to ensure that the home is an appropriate placement for the child.

J. Kwan: So the standard is the same whether or not it's a relative or otherwise. It's the same application to evaluate the appropriateness of the individual to have custody of the child. There's no difference if it's a family member or otherwise?

Hon. G. Hogg: The answer is yes. There would also be an ongoing monitoring to ensure that the placement was appropriate and the anticipated circumstances were, in fact, the ones that were followed through with.

J. Kwan: Is there a requirement for parental consent before permanent custody of the child is awarded to a third party?

Hon. G. Hogg: No. There is not a requirement for parental consent. These are children who would be in the care of the ministry. Just as parental consent is not required when a child is adopted or put up for adoption, there would not be consent required for this. It would be a matter of policy or practice in most circumstances that parents would be notified with respect to those. That would be a matter of common courtesy and practice. However, there is not a legal requirement that parents be notified — just as, as I say, there isn't in issues of adoption, as well, because in these instances the state is the parent of the child.

My question is going to be on section 17 as it relates to section 54.1(3)(a) of the act, if you could pull that out. This is important for me. The question is: was the office of the public guardian and trustee consulted with respect to the transfer of guardianship of the child and the child's estate?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes. The office of the public guardian and trustee was consulted and is satisfied with the application process and requested that it be required to give the consent which is reflected in section 54.1(3)(a). This ensures that the director and the public guardian and trustee are working together to ensure that the transfer is being made in the best interests of both the child and the child's estate.

V. Anderson: The first question I would have is this. In transferring the custody of the child to another person, I'm curious about the aspects of the information for the needs of the child in that transfer. We talk about testing the person we're going to transfer the child to. I want to know about the needs of the child. What I'm wondering about is if persons like foster parents, who have come to know the specific needs of a child over a period of time, or parents or grandparents, who may have a very close interest in the child and ability, will be given the opportunity to testify and provide the kind of information that is needed to make the most satisfactory decision by putting forward the real current needs of the child.

Hon. G. Hogg: The answer is yes. They would have that opportunity; there would be that provision. The director, in putting together an application to the courts with respect to such an order, would be meeting with and talking to those people who may have interest in having care and custody of the child. Certainly any extended family members — the member has highlighted grandparents, and we've had a number of discussions with grandparents over a number of years who have been looking at and are interested in gaining care and custody — would be entitled to put forward their ideas and their thoughts, firstly to the director, and to be aware of when the application is being made. In most instances I'm sure the courts would be wanting to hear from them as well.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that, because I know that in the past there have been instances where grandparents were not allowed to make presentation. It was not for the well-being of the child.

I then wanted to ask: in section 54.1(2), at least ten days before the date…. It seems to me that I would question that ten days, even though it's carried over from the previous act, because that actually only gives five working days. If you come on a Friday, four days

are used up on the weekend. Particularly with the availability now of courthouses, persons who may need to respond may be at a distance. Whether the ten days is adequate, whether that's ten working days or, even if it is, whether it's adequate…. I'd ask that question.

Hon. G. Hogg: The ten-days provision is consistent with other pieces of legislation. It is also interpreted, under the Interpretation Act, in terms of what exists with respect to ten days. Having sat through a number of hearings, though, I would point out that if there was somebody who had a distance to come from and who was interested in it, certainly they could contact the director. I'm sure that the courts, whose primary test must be the best interests of the child, would have the flexibility to set that over and to deal with it in any unique or particular circumstances that the member may be referring to or highlighting.

V. Anderson: Under section 17, in section 54.2 on the next page, in (2), I'm mystified by the meaning of this: a custody order under section 54.1 is not enforceable under this act. Could you explain to me the meaning of that paragraph? I'm afraid I just don't follow it.

Hon. G. Hogg: The issue means it's still enforceable, but it's not enforceable under this act. It would be enforceable under the Family Relations Act, which deals with matters of custody, where two custodial parents or the courts may be making determinations with respect to who has custody. This simply refers to the act which will be the act providing the enforcement. That is the Family Relations Act as opposed to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

V. Anderson: I would wonder if that shouldn't be indicated, for persons in the future who may not be able to follow that reasoning as easily as you've explained it. It implies an interpretation which the ordinary person would not have.

Hon. G. Hogg: That clarification is included in section 35 of the amendment act. That is where it is highlighted. It may be difficult, as we deal with the legal machinations, to reflect the public policy that we want to infer. However, it is laid out at that section and hopefully will provide the clarification necessary for any persons using the act.

T. Christensen: Can the minister confirm what the status of access orders will be when custody is transferred under the proposed section 54.1?

Hon. G. Hogg: They will remain exactly the same as they are prior to any transfer of custody under the act.

T. Christensen: To be absolutely certain, once custody is transferred pursuant to the proposed section 54.1, then any person who believes they are entitled to access, if they have an existing access order they simply wish to maintain, then that's fine. It is maintained automatically. If they wish to vary it or if they don't have an access order and they wish to apply for access, they still have the ability to do that but pursuant to the Family Relations Act?

Hon. G. Hogg: That's correct. The bill includes consequential amendments to the Family Relations Act which allow those access orders to now be treated the same as they are under the Family Relations Act. This is appropriate, given that these access orders now involve two private parties: the person receiving custody and the family member who has been granted access to the child in the court. The director of child protection no longer has a role in those arrangements under the Family Relations Act.

J. Kwan: I want to reconfirm under section 17 where permanent transfer of the custody of the child is made in that instance, when permanent custody of the child is completed, that the family unit once again is still entitled to government support if they need it and even if they don't qualify for income assistance. I just want to reaffirm that under this section of the act.

Hon. G. Hogg: The answer is yes, and under section 25 the director of child protection is permitted to enter into a maintenance agreement in such circumstances.

S. Orr: I would like to know why section 95 is being repealed at this time, please.

Hon. G. Hogg: Section 95 sets out administrative requirements related to the transfer of custody of children in care between directors. Up until now there has only been one director of child protection in the province, and as a result this section has never been used.

It is anticipated that there will be five regional directors in the new regional service delivery model which is currently being developed by the ministry. Therefore, it would be necessary to streamline the legislative requirements for the transfer of children between directors when the service delivery system is regionalized. The consent and notice requirements of this provision would be placed in requirements as set out in policy rather than in legislation to facilitate a new governance model which is more reflective and responsive to community-based needs.

S. Orr: Under section 28, the new section 98(7.1) allows the court to make an interim restraining order. Why is an interim restraining order necessary?

Hon. G. Hogg: Well, currently, following an application for a restraining order, the court may adjourn the proceeding in order to allow parties to prepare more fully for a full hearing. The new provision would allow the court to issue an interim order so that the child is protected from the time of the adjournment of a hearing until the conclusion of that hearing. This change is needed because children and others such as caregivers, a person who has custody, a child under a temporary custody order, a director or a person providing some type of residential or educational support or indeed any other type of support services to a child or youth are potentially at risk if the court grants an adjournment of a hearing but cannot issue an interim restraining order in the meantime to provide the appropriate amount of protection and support that the child may need in those circumstances.

J. Kwan: This amendment changes by making an individual who violates section 75 of the act, which is confidentiality of information, be subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 or an imprisonment for not more than 24 months or both. Could the minister advise: is the ministry experiencing violations at this time of confidentiality of information? Is that why this change is being brought about under Bill 17?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, it is estimated there have been approximately 44 cases over the past two years which would fall under this. The sanctions provided in this provide for an offence penalty which was not in existence previously. There was an expectation of compliance with respect to the issues of confidentiality but no penalty as a result of a person or people who may break that confidentiality. There was an expectation placed without a consequence. In fact, there have been a number that the ministry has seen over the past couple of years.

J. Kwan: The minister advises that there have been some 44 cases in terms of breach of confidentiality. Could the minister please advise under what kinds of circumstances the breaches have occurred? Are these serious? I assume they're serious. I just want to get a better understanding of what it is so that the injection of a penalty could potentially assist in this breach of confidentiality.

Hon. G. Hogg: In most of those instances, it was the provision and/or printing of a name or photograph of a child. The personal information, particularly in high-profile child protection cases, was disclosed and utilized by the media. This has not only caused harm and/or potential harm to children but also created a situation where the ministry could not respond to allegations without disclosing further particulars and potentially further causing harm to the children. Without a penalty, the prohibition against disclosure could not be enforced. This provision, we believe, will deter the printing and availability of personal information being disclosed. That is consistent with the expectations that have existed in other pieces of legislation to protect the confidentiality of children in these circumstances.

I'm sure the member is well aware of the reasons for those confidentiality issues being in existence and our need to be able to protect them consistent with similar prohibitions which exist under the Young Offenders Act and the protections that exist there. It's somewhat ironic that there are protections for young people who commit offences under the Young Offenders Act, but there aren't the same types of protections available for children who may be in issues of protection from abuse or neglect. We're trying to provide at least a similar level of provision and protection for those children who are subject to abuse and neglect as are those children who commit offences under the Young Offenders Act.

J. Kwan: Would the penalty, if you will, and the enforcement of this section of the act apply with media personnel who may somehow have access to the information and breach the confidentiality by disclosing it through media reports or the like?

Hon. G. Hogg: I think that is a possibility. These issues are enforced by the police and Crown counsel. Crown counsel would have to decide whether to charge a person based on whether or not there is a likelihood of conviction and whether a conviction is in the public interest. Certainly, the minister and the director are not a part of that decision-making at all. That is decision-making which is in the hands of the police and the Crown counsel.

V. Anderson: I'm just following up on the last suggestion. I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of this amendment. I'm wondering, though. In the past when families have found themselves…. The children were not supported by the system and wanted to challenge the system itself. The very fact that information was made available did benefit, in many cases, those particular children, and in many cases it was the parents themselves or in some cases maybe even children who have made this public in order that they could get restitution. I'm wondering how those other cases, where secrecy can itself be oppression, fit into this discussion.

Hon. G. Hogg: The intent is clearly not to have secrecy but certainly to protect the issues and confidentiality of children who may be hurt under those circumstances. The amendment isn't to be, should not be and cannot be used as a shield under which the ministry can hide. Individuals in the media can still have their stories told and clearly should have their stories told but without the identifying information which infringes children and families.

The privacy which may provide harm or embarrassment to them for years after is to be protected, but at the same time there should be issues reported to the media without the identifying information, just as currently under the Young Offenders Act there are provisions and there is media coverage of incidents that happen with respect to young persons in courts. It is appropriately covered, and challenges are provided, and that is part of the openness which, I think, helps provide accountability and integrity to a system.

We clearly need to have that accountability and integrity through the media, and access for parents and others who feel that they've been aggrieved by the process or by the ministry to that public airing of those circumstances. The practices of the ministry are to be open and to be aired and to be viewed in a public way, but not the families and the children that we're charged with protecting. We have to protect their confidentiality, but the processes of the ministry should be wide open to challenge by the media and by others.

Hon. G. Hogg: I move that the committee rise and report completion of Bill 17 without amendment.

Bill 17, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Hagen: This bill is an important step in facilitating improved management of both our agricultural and private forest lands. This bill gives statutory meaning to our core review direction and the new-era commitment to make the Land Reserve Commission more regionally responsive to community needs.

For over 25 years the Agricultural Land Commission has been responsible for preserving and protecting B.C.'s limited farmland. It has provided advice on land use planning to local communities, adjudicated applications for the use of land in the agricultural land reserve, and encouraged farming to provide a basis for a sustainable economy and a secure source of food. The ALR now comprises 5 percent of British Columbia's land mass, or 4.7 million hectares.

The Forest Land Commission was established in 1994 to minimize the impact of urban development and rural settlement on B.C.'s commercial forest land base. It has adjudicated applications for the use of private managed forest lands and reviewed proposals to add or remove private land from the forest land reserve. The Forest Land Commission has also advised the Minister of Forests on proposals to remove Crown land from the FLR and administered the private forest practices regulations.

In April 2000 the provincial government enacted legislation to combine the Agricultural Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission into a single body called the Land Reserve Commission. Since that time the two reserves have been managed under their respective legislation.

The Land Reserve Commission has undergone a comprehensive core services review to examine how it can become more efficient, effective and accountable while better reflecting the needs of each region of the province. New legislation is required to implement this direction. With passage of this bill, three pieces of legislation currently under the Land Reserve Commission's jurisdiction will be repealed: the Land Reserve Commission Act, Agricultural Land Reserve Act and Soil Conservation Act.

Land use provisions of the Forest Land Reserve Act and related land use regulations will be repealed. Provisions of the act which establish the reserve and provide for the regulation of forest practices on private FLR and managed forest ALR by the commission will be retained. ALR regulations will be repealed and replaced with a single regulation for use, subdivision and application procedures in the ALR under the new legislation. Consequential amendments of a minor nature will need to be made to the Local Government Act and the Land Title Act, as well as other minor amendments to statutes which make reference to the Agricultural Land Reserve Act.

This bill will establish the provincial Agricultural Land Commission, outline its purpose or mandate and operations; establish authority for managing the ALR and regulating land use in the ALR; establish procedures for applications and the authority for cabinet to pass regulations; and provide new enforcement and compliance powers for the commission.

This bill implements not only core review recommendations but deregulation directions, administrative justice project suggestions and the new-era commitment to make the Land Reserve Commission more regionally responsive to community needs. This bill implements cabinet-approved recommendations for the Land Reserve Commission's core review by eliminating the FLR land use system and setting the stage for the transition of the private forest practices regulation. In the coming months further discussions on forest land use designations through the working forest

initiative and on how best to regulate private forest practices will be ongoing.

The bill maintains the ALR and makes it more efficient, effective and regionally responsive by providing for regional commission panels and expanding delegation. This bill and upcoming changes to the regulations respond to the Land Reserve Commission's core review and government's deregulation initiative by making the regulatory framework for the agricultural land reserve more enabling and less prescriptive, by streamlining processes and by expanding a limited set of permitted uses in the ALR. The provisions of this bill incorporate suggestions from the administrative justice project for the appointment and operations of the commission.

This bill will ensure that we meet our new-era commitment to make the Land Reserve Commission more regionally responsive to community needs by pursuing a collaborative model, by local governments using delegation as a tool and by deregulating and streamlining permitted uses and processes. These improvements to governance, which bring decision-making closer to the people, are well balanced with provincial interests. Local governments that would like to move forward with delegation agreements that are not consistent with the provincial interest cannot do so. Furthermore, there can be no downloading of responsibilities as deregulation is on a strictly voluntary basis.

This bill meets our government's commitments, particularly for the economy and communities dependent on our forests. The forest land reserve use regulatory system will be repealed to be defined by my ministry within the next year as we progress with the working forest initiative. It is important to note that the core review found the designation of the forest land reserve to have no grounding in biophysical assessment but rather a tax management classification. Forest lands will continue to be subject to local government bylaws where applicable.

Forest practices regulation on private lands, which are currently managed by the commission, will be managed by either government or industry or by a private sector partnership in a new model to be developed over the next year. Through revised regulations the range of permitted uses in the ALR will be expanded to provide for new economic opportunities for farmers and landowners. With less prescriptive and fewer regulations, significant cost savings will result.

This bill ensures the ALR will continue to be administered by the provincial Agricultural Land Commission, which will continue to protect the integrity of the agricultural land base to meet the current and future needs of British Columbia. The commission will work cooperatively with the public and others in maintaining economic opportunity, protecting resources and building healthy communities for all British Columbians.

J. Kwan: During the debate of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management's estimates, the minister made several commitments to provide various pieces of information to the opposition within a couple of weeks. That was about six weeks ago now. The ministry, Land and Water B.C. and the environmental assessment office did provide the opposition with a binder of information, and I thank the minister for that. However, I'm going to run through the information that I have yet to receive as it would be helpful to the opposition to have this information so that we can analyze Bill 21 and the Land Reserve Commission appropriately. The information is critical to analyzing the merits of the changes being made.

During the debate the minister was not 100 percent clear about the cost of the regional panels that will occur. The minister had advised it would be roughly the same as the current commission at $289,000. I would appreciate it if the minister would provide the opposition with that figure prior to the start of the bill's committee stage.

The minister also committed to providing the opposition with the different workplans of the six regional panels. The minister said they were being drafted at that time but would be available by April 1, 2002. He committed to endeavour to make that information available to the opposition. We have yet to receive that information.

The minister also committed to provide the opposition with information about travel costs with the commission as it exists now and anticipated travel costs with each of the six regional panels so that myself and my colleague may make the comparisons around cost savings. We haven't received that information either.

Finally, the minister said that the detailed breakdown of the budgets for each of the regional panels in the commission would be available on April 1. This would of course include travel expenses, salaries, administrative costs, etc. That information would also assist the opposition in evaluating and making analyses of this bill. We have not yet received this information.

We would appreciate having this information as soon as possible, if not by the end of the day, since it was promised to the opposition about a month ago. The opposition needs this information so that we can enter into proper debate during the committee stage.

Created in 1972 to protect agricultural land from urban encroachment in this province, the agricultural land reserve, as this government has recognized, is a compelling public interest. The reserve and its presiding commission have protected and encouraged agriculture and its development for nearly 30 years. However, this legislation raises serious concerns that this new-era government does not value the spirit in which these lands have historically been protected.

Bill 21 would constitute an unprecedented change to the agricultural land reserve and its commission, potentially putting our agricultural lands at risk. This act, as the minister has noted, repeals the Agricultural Land Reserve Act, the Land Reserve Commission Act and the Soil Conservation Act while also drastically

While this new legislation incorporates some of the provisions of these acts, it ignores critical components that address issues around protecting the integrity of the agricultural land base in British Columbia. The minister has said that they will maintain the principles currently in place for the inclusion and exclusion of land from the ALR. However, it is impossible for the opposition to determine that commitment at this time, since Bill 21 contains no reference to the planned permitted use of the agricultural land reserve. Most of the important information pertaining to the use of the ALR is missing from the legislation.

In debate around Bill 26 it was the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara who summed up the concern around missing regulations the best. On April 16 the member said:

On the fact that there is no substance in many of these new-era bills, the member continued:

Bill 21 is of the same model as Bill 26. All of the important changes that appear to be coming are absent from the legislation and therefore absent from debate.

The trend starts early on, even in section 1, where the definition of "fill" is subject to the phrase "other than materials exempted by regulation." This is just one of the many examples where the government is leaving the door open to slide an important change about the activities that could occur on land within the ALR. Traditionally, fill was associated with and considered a non-farm use. This government is leaving that definition wide-open.

The concern around the lack of specific references to what activities will be permitted is a well-founded fear. The government has been very forthright that it plans to break down the traditional protection of the ALR and expand permitted uses.

The Land Reserve Commission's own service plan makes that point several times. The concern that the opposition has is that we have no idea what expansion will occur. The regulations are conveniently unavailable for a proper debate.

We know that this government is planning on letting more non-farm uses occur on the ALR. We just don't know what. Could it be for golf courses or oil and gas exploration? The government has outlined its position that expansion of use should occur as long as sustainability and suitability of the land is maintained. This statement should be comforting, but unfortunately in all of the estimates debates the opposition has been unable to get a definition of sustainability that is in any way significant to the protection of the integrity of the land or the environment. The only talk of sustainability this government has put forward is in its big business–driven economic rhetoric. Not even their own minister of environmental protection can tell us how environmental sustainability will be ensured.

They all go on about results-based management. We know now from estimates that no one in this government really knows what that phrase means, never mind how it is any better than the system we already have. How could all of these ministers include commitments to results-based standards in their service plans when they have no idea what that is? And what do you know? Even the Land Reserve Commission commits to it in its service plan. But wait a minute. There is no description, definition or reference to it in Bill 21.

If this government and the Land Reserve Commission is committed to this management approach, then where is it? How will the management of the agricultural land reserve be performance-based? What does that look like? What are the standards? This government and this minister, quite frankly, have no idea. Is this something that's going to come down in a regulation with no debate? It seems like that's what this government's approach is: they hide the fact they're making changes but don't really know how it's going to work or want debate around it. Then they sneak the answer in the back door.

Perhaps for the government this is just a game of hide and seek. How can we believe that the agricultural land base will be adequately protected, especially when we don't have the regulations available to examine exactly what changes are taking place? What does this government have to hide?

Speaking of regulations, one only has to turn to section 58, where we see two and a half pages of lines giving the government power to make regulations on almost every section and clause that is in this bill. The Land Reserve Commission is supposed to be an independent agency with the power to make impartial decisions, but the government has left itself numerous escape hatches in this legislation to ensure it gets what it wants. Knowing that with the new-era approach, it's all about development — coal, oil and gas and generally low environmental integrity — one can only imagine why this government needs so many loopholes and wants so badly to keep its fingerprints all over the commission, even though they say the commission has more flexibility. That just means when things start looking bad in the public's eyes, the government can wash its hands of the issue.

The Land Reserve Commission is supposed to be an independent body. We see that with the regulatory powers the government has given itself, and that they

can "establish policies and procedures to be followed by the commission in conducting its affairs, performing its duties and functions and exercising its powers." Where is the independence? Where is the assurance that the ALR decisions won't just be based on this government's big-business agenda? Answer: there are none, because this government, through this legislation, reserves the right to make those critical decisions through regulations which cannot be debated during this crucial time.

This could be the sleeper in here. If the government revises the list of permitted uses — which we can assume they are doing, since they have not said otherwise in the legislation — all this minister has to do is delete certain uses from having to come to the commission, and the ALR is undermined without the government having to take the political heat for doing it outright. What will be the public process around determining what additional permitted uses will be acceptable? The answer is probably none.

Another big area of concern around this legislation is the delegation of authority to local governments. Now, the minister and this government have said that decisions are better made at the local or regional level. That is why Bill 21 establishes regional panels and permits local governments to negotiate with the commission to establish a setup where they can have the responsibility of the land in their jurisdiction as it applies to the agricultural land reserve. It sounds great at first. However, there are some concerns around consistency and adequate protection of the ALR.

In a Times Colonist article from April 16, 2002, Wayne Hunter, the mayor of Central Saanich, says that smaller rural municipalities will face tremendous development pressures because of these changes. The mayor said that the changes put more regulatory onus and pressure on municipal councils. Municipal councils are elected for three years. Mayor Hunter's concern is that municipalities used to count on the commission to be the consistent body saying: "No, we don't think that's appropriate." Now you'll get the local political flavour. Mayor Hunter continued to argue that these changes amount to downloading regulatory responsibilities to municipalities, setting the stage for major pro- and anti-development battles.

Now, this minister may argue that there's nothing wrong with a debate at the local level and that it is time to stop micromanaging. But it is clear that this government just wants to relieve itself of its duty to protect the ALR. Just like in education, with the school boards and the health boards, this legislation gives flexibility and tools, if I could use the minister's words, so this government can say: "It wasn't us; we didn't do it."

There's also a concern that's been raised by some that this bill actually removes power from municipalities, especially in sections where an agent of the government, a public body or another person prescribed by regulation can be given the same authority over applications for non-farm use as the local government or the commission itself. This was seen to allow groups other than municipalities to go through the process and bypass local governments.

Furthermore, there's a major concern that groups like the Oil and Gas Commission or Land and Water B.C., formerly B.C. Assets and Land, will be able to access ALR lands for uses not traditionally associated with the land reserve. This would make it easier for agricultural land to be used for oil and gas exploration and development and to allow for flooding of agricultural land to assist this government's independent power producers agenda.

Overall, this piece of legislation is lacking in information critical to having a proper debate about what this government has planned for the agricultural land reserve. This bill tells us that there is a hidden agenda and that this government would rather bring in their significant changes through regulations, so they do not have to face scrutiny in this House. I ask the members: how is that open and accountable?

The opposition has grave concerns around this. As members of this House and the public can appreciate, the agricultural land reserve is the base that produces food. It is the base that produces food for British Columbians and for people outside. It's part of our economic engine. Without the safeguard of the land reserve, what is the future for food production? Is it the government's agenda to open up the land reserve for development pressures so that over time, more and more of our agricultural land is lost and food production would be further hampered?

The opposition will have questions for the minister during the committee stage. The opposition would appreciate it if the minister could ensure that the information that was asked for during the estimates process is provided to the opposition. The minister had committed that that information would be provided to the opposition within a two-week period, approximately. It's been more than a month now, and we still have not yet received much of that information so that we can enter into proper debate with regards to Bill 21. I would urge the minister, if not by the end of today, to see that the opposition receives this information. We certainly would need to receive this information in ample time so that we can prepare for committee stage debate on Bill 21.

J. Kwan: And as my colleague has suggested — and I agree with her 100 percent — committee stage on Bill 21 should not be called until that information is received by the opposition.

V. Roddick: I rise today to speak fully in favour of this act. We need regional representation. It is progressive planning to align the province in the same regions — be they Health or Agriculture or any other ministry, for that matter — because of the interests and concerns of like minds.

I would like to ask the minister for some clarification, however, on page 9, section 20. Would the minister please clarify the concerns re the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Mineral Tenure Act?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, this is second reading debate. Your time to speak is 30 minutes. Questions of a specific nature will be best asked in committee.

V. Roddick: All right. My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we could reorganize me, then. I wasn't prepared to speak for 30…. These are just the questions, and I've obviously stood up at the wrong time.

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to support Bill 21 and the contents therein. I think that for far too long people have looked at the agricultural land reserve and maybe have not quite understood what it's there for, and I have to point it out.

The issue of local decision-makers making local decisions based on their knowledge of the regions that we're talking about in our province is a good move. It's a progressive move and one that I think will help all areas of this province to protect the agricultural land that's so near and dear to each and every one of us.

Far be it from me to say: "Who knows the land better?" I can tell you that farmers know their land. They know their areas. They know the decisions that have to be made when it comes to the issue of either inclusion or exclusion of land from the agricultural land reserve.

There are a number of issues within Bill 21 that I'll stand here and, under committee stage, speak to as well. But I want to make it very clear: the issue that's been brought up, the concern that there'll be tremendous development pressures placed on local councils, is not, I think, a bad thing. The issue that we have to address here is…. I come from Peace River South, an area with vast amounts of agricultural land. The people who live in that area understand very clearly the importance of agricultural land and what it means not just to our region and not just to our province but to our country and to our world. I think that sometimes — and I've said this time and time again in the House — the people in society don't place enough importance on the issues of agriculture and food production.

I think we have to look at this in context. Allowing our local representatives within the local regions a say in what's going to take place — whether it be through, as I indicated earlier, the inclusion or exclusion of land — is going to be a positive step forward for the agricultural land within our province and a very positive step for the people that live in British Columbia. Local decisions are the base that this bill is going to progress on and allow our input and local input from different jurisdictions in this province to make the decisions that are rightfully made locally and not by others coming into an area.

I want to make it very clear that the issue, if I can draw a similarity, of removing 50 acres from the agricultural land in the Peace River area is far different from removing 50 acres from a parcel in the lower mainland. The significance is that we have many, many thousands of acres. Many of our farmers seed, on average, 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 acres. So I think it's important to have an understanding of the region we represent, for the people that we want to represent those regions, and to understand the issue of agricultural land. Those are the people, certainly, from the area I represent. I'm very proud to be from Peace River South and proud to be from the north. They understand what agriculture is all about — not just the input costs and what we're seeing as far as prices, but the true value of the agricultural land from which they harvest their crops.

I look forward to the debate in committee stage on this. It's certainly something I hold very near and dear to my heart. I believe I have a good understanding of the usage and an understanding of what agricultural land within our province means to the people. Far too often — and I can't stress this enough — the people not just in British Columbia but in our country and around the world do not place anywhere near the importance on the agricultural industry that needs to be placed there. I've said it before: we can deal with many issues, but if we can't support our farmers and ensure that we have a quality agricultural land base for our province as well as our country, then we can't do anything as a society. We have to look after it. We have to do it in a manner that allows the public and the local regional representation to make the decisions for the people and the land in that area.

I'm not worried one bit about some of the speculation that this is pro-development or anti-development. We have to move forward as a society. Does that mean on occasion there's going to be application for removal of a piece of property so that we can progress as a region in Peace River South? That possibility exists.

I want to tell you that I stand here and support this bill in its entirety. I think it's a good bill. I commend the minister for bringing this bill forward. We see it as a very positive step not just in Peace River South, but I see it as a positive step for the people of British Columbia. More importantly, I see it as a very important step in ensuring that we look after our agricultural land in this province.

Hon. L. Reid: I am delighted to rise in debate this afternoon and lend my support to Bill 21, the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

I represent the riding of Richmond East, an agricultural community ten minutes from downtown Vancouver. We have 81 square miles of some of the finest farmland in this country. My hon. colleague opposite may even think he has the finest farmland, but I can tell

you that Richmond East produces the finest blueberries and cranberries anywhere in the world.

This is a community that's tied to its farmland and that believes fundamentally in the development opportunities in terms of enhanced farming practice. We have 81 square miles — not a grand amount of land when it comes to the land that's available across this province, but a vitally, mightily productive chunk of land that sits between the north arm and the south arm of the Fraser River in urban British Columbia. That is absolutely worthy of safeguarding with the strongest possible tools.

This legislation, Bill 21, will safeguard farmland in my riding and will safeguard farmland across this province. Frankly, that is the necessity for this debate — that we can actually localize decision-making and have the people who are closest to the land make the determinations and go forward with the opinion, with the thought, of how valuable that particular piece of land is to them, whether they're in the Kootenays or they're in Richmond East. It's vitally important that we allow, permit, enhanced decision-making around some of the most important decisions we will ever take as a Legislature. The land base is probably the most important aspect of what we do as government — vitally important. How we choose to live on it and how we choose to live together are all issues that are vitally important.

I can tell you a little bit of history of the Richmond Farmers Institute in my riding. It began in 1988. In terms of them coming together, it's a relatively short space of time in terms of history. In those days we were the corporation of the township of Richmond, so you know how much we've grown in the last decade. The township sent the farmers letters inviting them to come out and to tell them they'd approved an official community plan that was all about safeguarding the land base. They went to a meeting and decided to give their blessing to this plan — vitally important.

They had their inaugural annual general meeting in 1989. I can tell you that the constancy of the directors in the Richmond Farmers Institute…. The same individuals who began it in 1988-89 are still members today and are still carrying forward the notion of how vitally important it is to ensure that their children and those who will come after have the opportunity to farm the land in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

Bruce May was the president in 1988-89. He is again the president in the year 2000. He was vitally important to the process over the last three years when we had a viability strategy underway between the city of Richmond and the Richmond Farmers Institute so that people could come together to decide how best to partner around effective land use. This is an era of partnership. It's vitally important that we continue to partner.

There will always be issues around land use, particularly in Richmond. All of you will know where we sit in terms of the Fraser River. There will always be issues around drainage, always issues around wildlife control, always issues about how we live together — whether or not there are buffer zones between agricultural land and residential, commercial, industrial land in Richmond — and how we build public awareness of how important it is to look out for a farmer's investment in his crop and in his field.

I can tell you — my colleagues in this Legislature, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and our colleagues over the last number of years — we have organized tours so that individuals have come to the riding and participated in the cranberry harvest, toured the greenhouse operations. It's not just my belief in Richmond East and in the viability of farmland. My caucus colleagues over the last 11 years have stood with me as we've promoted the notion of protecting farmland. It's vitally important to all British Columbians.

It's not an aspect that's owned by any one government. It's vitally important to British Columbians. It's worthy of our support, it's worthy of our respect, and it's worthy of an opportunity and commitment to honour the land base. Once it's gone, we don't have the opportunity to return to baseline, if you will.

We are part and parcel of a process that will localize decision-making, which I think will be an enormous improvement to the process. Where we are today is all about credibility and integrity in that type of decision-making. The people who are on that land today need to know that those who would make those decisions have some knowledge of what the land base requires and what the land base needs in terms of safeguarding. They have to know that those people have actually put their foot on that piece of land. Decisions reached in isolation or reached from afar do not lend that level of credibility to the process.

Again, we're a diverse community, and we're vitally interested in how we go forward. This is about solutions. It is about collectively problem-solving. However, uppermost in the minds of the British Columbia Liberal caucus is how to safeguard the land base so that succeeding generations have the opportunity to avail themselves of that glorious opportunity, whether it's Richmond East, whether it's the Kootenays or whether it's Prince George North. This is probably one of the most gloriously beautiful provinces in the world.

Can we be more effective as a farming community? We need to be. We need to spend a great deal of time thinking how best to do that. I think we get to that place by inviting the most knowledgable people to the table so that they indeed have an understanding of why that is so vitally important to our future.

This province needs to be able to produce a food source. We need to understand that it is part and parcel of our future livelihood. If we don't have those opportunities in place, if we're not prepared to look out for each other as we go forward, if we're not prepared to achieve some balance…. Certainly the minister responsible for sustainable resource management understands the necessity for balance on these questions. This is about commercial interests, industrial interests,

but it's about agricultural interests first and foremost. It's how we achieve balance, how we go forward and how we ensure that opportunities exist for all British Columbians. We will not give that up.

If I might talk about where I was in 1988 in terms of the Richmond Farmers Institute and pay a special tribute to some of these individuals who have stood by for many, many years of debate. Don Gilmore, George Wright, Bill Zylmans, Paul Dhillon, Tony Kavelaars and Art Savage — individuals who've stood by and worked continuously, repeatedly, day in, day out, month in, month out, on the executive of the Richmond Farmers Institute. Bruce May was the first president. He was the one who actually led Richmond in their participation with the city in terms of the Richmond agricultural viability task force, which we're now calling a strategy — how best to put that in place.

I think Richmond is a fabulous example of good community cooperation. I believe that this act will ensure that that level of cooperation and collaboration exists across the province. People haven't felt that they were part of the process in the past. I believe this legislation will make that change, and make it in an open and transparent way. People will know decision-makers and will believe that those decision-makers know the piece of land of which they speak. That is vitally important.

This is about maintaining an incredible connection to the land base. That is what this legislation about. We're not wavering in our dedication to farming in British Columbia. We are going to make this legislation more responsive to the needs of local communities so that they, indeed, feel that they can participate in that level of decision-making. That is a determination we made prior to the election; it's a determination we made since the election. Frankly, it's the determination that will carry us forward into the next election — that a transparent process is what people believed in when they voted for this caucus. We will deliver on that opportunity for individual British Columbians to participate in this very important process.

It's an honour for me to represent Richmond East. It's an honour for me to represent a farming community in urban British Columbia. I know my colleagues opposite are rural British Columbians, and they believe their farmland to be equally as valuable. I respect that, because this is a respectful debate in terms of where we go next. We will go forward, I think, with incredible determination and with solid, informed, scientifically based decision-making on how best to resolve land use questions.

Will this process ever be complete? I don't believe so. I think it will always be a work in progress, and that will speak, frankly, to the leadership of the minister — that he will continue to lead this process with some vigour and with some skill and with some expertise that hasn't always been at the forefront of this debate. We need to ensure that these decisions are reached from a scientific standpoint, and I have every confidence that this minister will ensure that happens. I have every confidence that this Legislature will go forward with this bill as a tool to assist communities to reach the most effective, most viable decisions. I look forward to that opportunity.

V. Roddick: I rise to speak fully in favour of this act on behalf of all the farmers of Delta South and the 22,000 acres of prime farmland that we have in Delta South. We need regional representation. It is progressive planning to align the province in the same regions, be they health or agriculture, because of like interests and concerns.

We in Delta South require clarification of section 20 for our farming community. We would like to register three issues of interest and ask that we get a response: that the right to farm absolutely take precedence in the decisions being made, that the Land Commission does wholeheartedly retain the final say in the overall decisions, and that the Land Commission Act and all that entails be moved to the Ministry of Agriculture sooner than later.

To my knowledge, we still have to eat to live, so if we truly support this premise, we need agricultural science and the agricultural ministry to deal with our provincial farmland. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my privilege to rise today in this House to speak to Bill 21, the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Our government has reaffirmed its role in preserving agricultural land on behalf of all British Columbians, and I'm very pleased to support this bill.

This bill refocuses the mandate of the commission on the preservation of farmland, using the agricultural land reserve. The government's core review recognized the success of the Agricultural Land Commission and what it has achieved over almost 30 years in preserving the province's important food lands. The government believes that preserving farmland in B.C. serves a compelling public interest and that the ALR is an appropriate tool to accomplish this objective.

As the minister mentioned, we think that the program can be delivered in a more regionally sensitive way and can be streamlined. We believe that we can make the Agricultural Land Commission more regionally responsive to community needs while, at the same time, protecting our agricultural lands. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is our new-era commitment: to make the commission more regionally responsive but at the same time protect our agricultural lands. The commission's mandate in legislation for agricultural land is unchanged. What will change is the commission's structure and its way of doing business.

This bill provides for six panels, each with three commissioners, who will be appointed from and will make the commission's decisions in their respective regions. Each of these six regions is quite distinct in terms of its agriculture and other community needs. Certainly, in my experience travelling the province and

visiting with farmers and communities, that is indeed very, very true. The types of agriculture, the types of pressures farmers face, the environmental issues they face and the types of community issues we face in each of these six regions are very distinct — hence, I think, the merit of having the regional panels that can adjust and adapt to those regional and community needs.

The bill provides for an executive committee composed of the chair and six vice-chairs to ensure that provincial oversight is maintained and provincewide matters are addressed in a way that reflects the provincial interest in agriculture.

The bill provides for a dispute resolution system when local governments and the commission do not agree on the use of agricultural land for public purposes or are not able to agree on community planning for the ALR, and I think that dispute resolution system is a very good mechanism and a very good feature in the bill. It does leave the authority with the commission, as the previous speaker mentioned, and I think that is a very good aspect of that mechanism.

The commission has had the power to delegate decision-making to local governments for many years, but only one delegation agreement is in place. This bill expands the power to delegate certain decision-making to other public bodies, such as the Oil and Gas Commission or the environmental assessment office. This will facilitate streamlining of the process of permitting oil and gas wells while still retaining accountability to the Agricultural Land Commission.

Again I want to endorse the comments of the previous speaker. I think it is important to note that the final authority and the oversight and accountability are with the Agricultural Land Commission. I know there was a significant amount of debate about that, but I support the minister in the final outcome in the bill. When local governments assume land use and other Agricultural Land Commission decision-making authority under voluntary agreements — and I think it's important to note the aspect of voluntary agreements and that these agreements are voluntary by local governments — this bill provides new enforcement and compliance powers.

The bill also gives the commission additional tools to ensure compliance with the act and its regulations. This helps the commission move towards results-based regulation. I believe results-based regulations only work if there are serious penalties in place to ensure performance by those affected by the bill. This bill, Bill 21, does facilitate this with increased penalties.

The bill also introduces a new streamlined procedure for activities involving soil removal and the filling of agricultural land. It replaces a separate application procedure now under the Soil Conservation Act with a simple notification process and the setting of conditions by the commission to ensure that lands are reclaimed for agriculture.

Whenever we're dealing with issues of soil removal or soil placement on agricultural lands, there are two issues — in my experience, certainly, in the Fraser Valley — that are critical. One is timely permitting, and the other is effective enforcement. Both of these are critical when dealing with issues of soil placement or removal. There are many situations where we have surplus soil available that can be put to good use in the agricultural land reserve, but the issue of timely applications and timely permitting is critical because this soil is only available for a limited period of time.

Similarly, we need good enforcement measures to ensure that the opportunity to put soils on agricultural land is not misused and that we don't end up with materials that are unsuitable for agricultural production.

Following passage of the bill, cabinet could consider new regulations for the agricultural land reserve that will expand permitted uses, thus providing increased economic opportunity to farmers in the ALR. I think this is a very good feature in the bill, because we do have in British Columbia one of the most diverse agricultural industries anywhere in North America. We see farmers expanding their operations to include various forms of agritourism and many different approaches to direct farm marketing and that kind of thing. This ability to permit expanded uses will be very helpful to the increased economic viability of agriculture.

Other uses such as equestrian facilities and processing of farm products up to a certain threshold can be permitted without the need for an application to the Agricultural Land Commission. Again, as I said, that will help improve the economic viability of our industry in the ALR. Certain agritourist facilities will also be permitted, and this will encourage much-needed farm diversification, an initiative that is important to my ministry and the farm community.

These regulatory changes complement the initiatives contained in the bill that support the government direction of improving the economic viability of our agrifood industry. Certainly, if you look across British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, there is a need to constantly create the conditions for agriculture to be economically viable, and that may be different in different regions. It may be quite different in Fort St. John, Quesnel or Williams Lake, let's say, than it may be in the Fraser Valley or the Saanich Peninsula. This bill will give us the opportunity to be flexible in these various regional interests to improve economic viability.

These regulatory changes complement the initiatives that our government has taken to improve our viability and our ability to create jobs in rural communities. I support the new legislative provisions which provide the commission with the tools to carry out its purpose more efficiently and more effectively.

The Agricultural Land Commission and the land reserve are a made-in-B.C. success story. Government is building on this success by refining the commission, by encouraging more participation and joint planning with local government, and by streamlining procedures and decision-making. Our commitment remains to maintain the provincial role in preserving agricultural land for future generations while delivering the

We as a government are very sensitive to the fact that there is strong public support for the agriculture land reserve. As Minister of Agriculture, I consider it essential to the viability of agriculture that we maintain a stable agricultural land base on which the industry can operate. I want to emphasize that it is important not to misinterpret the intent of these changes in process. They are intended to allow flexibility on a regional basis, but we remain committed to a stable agricultural land reserve.

We also continue to actively support the Farm Practices Protection Act, otherwise known as the right-to-farm legislation, which is really companion legislation to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The two go hand in hand, as mentioned by the member for Delta South. Farmers who farm responsibly have a legitimate right to farm within the agricultural land reserve in land zoned for farming. The Farm Practices Protection Act was introduced in 1996 to protect farmers from local bylaws, nuisance complaints or court injunctions that interfere with this right to farm in a responsible manner.

The spirit of the act is not just to protect farmers but to promote good-neighbour farming and good-neighbour relations. We are working with local governments and community groups to help them plan better for the growth of agriculture and other land uses in their communities. For example, we are currently working with the corporation of Delta and the township of Langley to try to resolve concerns around greenhouses and mushroom composting respectively. We're also working very actively, for example, on the issue of blueberry cannons, which affect a number of municipalities in the Fraser Valley and in some cases the tree fruit industry in the Okanagan.

Obviously, I'm a supporter of agriculture, but I also have a duty as a member of government to help reconcile differences with our non-farm public. The government's ongoing support for a strong, provincially mandated agricultural land reserve in British Columbia is very important for agriculture.

Agriculture is a $2.2 billion business at the farm gate. At the farm level it employs 28,600 British Columbians. These jobs and our provincial agrifood industry are spread all over British Columbia. From the $50 million-a-year grain industry in the Peace River to the $330 million cattle industry all over B.C.'s north, the interior, the Okanagan and the Kootenays to the intensive dairy, poultry, hog, greenhouse, vegetable, floriculture, nursery and berry industries in the Fraser Valley to the exciting wine and tree fruit industry in the Okanagan and the very diverse and unique agriculture of Vancouver Island, agriculture makes an important and growing contribution to rural British Columbia.

On top of this there are two other major related industries. The farm supply and service sector, which is often underestimated, includes things like feed companies, farm equipment dealerships and repair shops, welders and manufacturers, veterinarians, financial institutions and the work that tradesmen such as plumbers, electricians and carpenters do on farms. All of these jobs are based on the need for a stable agricultural land base to maintain our primary industry.

The second major industry is the food processing sector, which encompasses sales of $4.7 billion and 21,700 jobs in British Columbia. I'll just give a quick example of a processor that I was very impressed with. About two weeks ago I toured the Britco Pork processing plant in the township of Langley. They have invested $6 million in the last four years, are developing new lines of retail pork products and have taken their employment at the plant from 37 people four years ago to 161 today. I was impressed with their commitment and determination. But this plant is interdependent with our hog producers who, again, need a stable land base on which to operate.

The agricultural land reserve policy of the last 30 years has served the province well. In meeting our new-era commitment to sensitivity to community needs, we also clearly want to be sure that we maintain a stable and viable land base for agriculture. There is no question that there are significant differences in the issues and the situations that exist in each of the six proposed regions.

Without question, the intensity of agriculture and all other human activities in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley rival any other location in North America. As all this land use activity continues to intensify as time goes on, our provincial and local governments will continue to need more finely tuned tools, communications and decision-making processes.

Bill 21 helps to provide these tools along with, as I said, the right-to-farm legislation, which we are actively working with. It will enable careful, planned decision-making closer to the location of the actual activity but always governed by the strong, overriding provincial perspective.

I believe that in active urban locations such as the lower mainland, the Okanagan or the Saanich Peninsula, the existence of the agricultural land reserve has been absolutely consistent with good land use planning for residential, commercial, industrial and other uses. Bill 21 will help to further successful partnerships with local governments and communities to ensure maximum public value from our increasingly scarce agricultural lands. These fertile agricultural lands combined with our favourable climatic conditions provide valuable agricultural capacity that is comparable to anywhere else in the world.

Bill 21 gives the provincial and local governments enhanced tools to continue good land use planning in the face of more intense needs of other, different land uses. I also believe that Bill 21, by making decisions on a regional basis, will allow us to differentiate decisions from one region to another. This ability and opportunity will allow for the decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission to reflect the unique issues, land

uses and community needs in these diverse regions, but always in a manner consistent with a commitment to the protection of our provincially based agricultural land requirements.

Our government recognizes the critical importance of our agricultural land base. At the same time we clearly recognize the other uses within the agricultural land reserve and the need to be sensitive to other community needs. There is no question that there is a critical need to appropriately balance all these needs for the long-term best interests of agriculture and the public.

I look forward to working with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management to support and implement the bill that he has presented to this House today. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on what I think is a very progressive bill.

J. Les: I wish to make a few comments with respect to Bill 21. First of all, I'd like to commend the minister for bringing forward this legislation. I think this particular legislation was very much required. The previous act was, in many respects, somewhat out of date and unworkable. The new bill certainly provides the tools that we'll need in the future to continue what I think has become a fine tradition in British Columbia of preserving good agricultural land for the future.

Speaking from the vantage point of a riding such as mine, which includes Sumas Prairie, Greendale and vast expanses of some of the best agricultural land in the province, it is something that is of particular interest to my riding and to the economies that these agricultural lands support.

I had a lot of experience with the workings of the Agricultural Land Commission Act in the past, in my previous political role as mayor of Chilliwack. I found that sometimes it was very difficult to square the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission Act with other requirements and often even with provincial legislation. We saw, for example, in the late nineties the requirement for each regional district to put together what were called regional growth strategies to deal with growth and how that was going to be handled over the next 25 or 30 years. We set about that process in the Fraser Valley regional district, and we fairly quickly came to the conclusion that the requirements of that act were incompatible with the requirements of the agricultural land reserve. When we tried to resolve those, it seemed that there was no process by which to resolve those competing requirements, and we essentially ended up in a stalemate situation.

I am very pleased to see that we have, in section 13 of this new bill, a dispute resolution process which draws specific attention to issues such as the regional growth strategies under the Local Government Act. I think that's going to be a very useful mechanism to relieve some of those tensions that have evolved between the requirement to preserve agricultural land on the one hand and, on the other hand, the need that communities have to be able to comply with that requirement in a way that is rational and reasonable.

There is no question that there is something to the argument that some have promoted — that the need to preserve agricultural land has impacted somewhat negatively on agricultural communities such as those in the Fraser Valley. In a community like Chilliwack, for example, you can easily drive by many, many acres of land that is not available for development. Nevertheless, it is serviced by very extensive and expensive urban infrastructure.

When the agricultural land reserve was put in place in 1972, it was necessarily done very quickly and in a very broad-brush way. There was never a rational process, it seems to me, to rationalize those ALR boundaries and to fine-tune them in a way that would properly balance the requirements and the needs of the agricultural community with the needs of the broader community and provide to an ALR an urban boundary that could function well and address everybody's concerns.

I'm pleased, as well, to see in the bill that there is reference to the need for schools, hospitals and publicly funded institutions, perhaps, in these agricultural areas. I often tried to remind commissioners of the Agricultural Land Commission that farmers' kids, too, needed to go to school, that farmers, too, needed to go to church. It was always a puzzle to me why no way could be found in order to provide a small bit of land for these people to provide these facilities for themselves.

I know that some of the communities in my riding and beyond will be very pleased to see that they will be able to move forward with these requirements for their communities. I know of one specific example in the Abbotsford area where an agriculturally oriented school, in fact, will be able to make use, potentially, of this legislation.

I think what this bill does, in summary, is ensure that the preservation of agricultural land in British Columbia will remain a key government priority. At the same time, it does that in a balanced way and in a way that is able to deal with the tensions that arise between the various land uses. It also has the potential to recognize the concerns of growing communities within the Fraser Valley and elsewhere and their need, under the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, to balance that growth and to make sure that our communities are sustainable.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. Communities throughout British Columbia, I think, will very much appreciate the ability to work with the Agricultural Land Commission in making sure that agricultural land is preserved and that communities can grow and thrive in a balanced way.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: It's indeed a pleasure to rise and join my colleagues in speaking in support of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, Bill 21, that we have in front of us this afternoon. It's a very important, I feel, for two reasons. One is the impact that the agri-

cultural land reserve has had on the development of our province generally. Second is the impact and role it plays in my constituency and in the city of Richmond in particular.

Indeed, it's rather ironic that this bill is introduced in 2002. I think that's about 30 years after it was introduced in 1972-73, when the legislation first came into effect. I was just a little sprout at the time, so I can hardly remember. I think my father told me, or maybe Stan told me about it. That was a long time ago. It is a concept, indeed, that has stood the test of time. Now this legislation makes it even more relevant to the new century.

As we know, British Columbia is a province of mountains and river valleys. In the valleys we certainly have competing land uses. We have our watercourses, our transportation routes, the urban growth of our communities and, of course, our agricultural land. As the minister said earlier, less than 5 percent of British Columbia is capable of growing food in these valley bottoms. Therefore, this land must compete with all other land uses and a growing population.

As I say, I can remember that back in the early 1970s when agricultural land was first protected in British Columbia, it was viewed by local communities around this province, I think, as a holding zone for what might be industrial or residential or future commercial development. In the lower mainland particularly, as I recall, subdivision after subdivision marched across our farmlands. Also, coincidentally, the farmlands that the subdivisions and industrial parks encroached upon were also the best farmlands for foundations for homes and therefore competed directly between farms and industrial and commercial development. The agricultural land reserve, I think, put a stop to the erosion of our farmland throughout British Columbia.

A lot has happened over the past two decades, and I think this legislation builds on that. Communities across our province have put zoning bylaws, official community plans, regional plans and growth-management plans in place. These planning tools are particularly critical around the high-growth areas in our province, particularly around here in greater Victoria and the Saanich Peninsula, the lower mainland of the GVRD, the Fraser Valley regional district and the Okanagan Valley. The Land Commission was part of reviewing these plans and ensuring there were no areas where local land was in conflict with provincial policy.

Today we face even greater challenges in terms of urban encroachment on the one hand and increasing competition in agricultural markets on the other. We have to make the Agricultural Land Commission Act as efficient as possible. We must take steps to ensure the viability of our agriculture sector and to address what communities can do to encourage and strengthen farming and farmers. We want to protect farmland but not sterilize it. The best way to protect farmland is to have a healthy farming industry.

This legislation allows the Land Commission to enter into a partnership with local governments and other agencies. If the subdivision standards and land uses in the OCPs and zoning bylaws meet the approval of the commission and are consistent with this act, then the local communities or agencies can deal with applications at the local level. This cuts down on red tape and saves time. We have a layered approach of regulations and plans now. Let us reduce the red tape where we can, and let the farmers get on with the business they know best.

There are many uses that are routinely approved by the commission and enhance the livelihood of farms. These will be set down in regulations. The local communities can then deal with them directly. Examples — I just throw these out as possible examples, because I know the minister will bring them forward in legislation — might be roadside stands, bed-and-breakfasts, conforming subdivisions or farm vacations — uses that are very important to the economic livelihood of many farmers.

The legislation creates six regions in British Columbia and six regional panels to examine applications and problems. This will go a long way to address local concerns and issues. The provincial regulations in context are paramount but local situations — and I can think of some in my community around the urban-agricultural buffer in the city of Richmond and other issues we have of local concern such as the spraying of cranberries and the setbacks that the airplanes and helicopters have to have from residential areas next door…. The same applies to blueberries, which we grow in Richmond, and even the water table. Increasingly, as we have residential and industrial encroachment lowering the water table in our city, it impacts severely on these two crops and does require local knowledge.

Some people are concerned that involving local communities and having regional panels will somehow weaken the reserve. I believe the opposite is true. The president of the Richmond Farmers Institute was recently interviewed in the local media about this new legislation. They asked him if the farmers in Richmond were worried. They're talking about the Land Commission, the city council and the delegation of some authorities to local council. This is a quote from the president: "As you know, council is as stringent as the Land Reserve Commission has ever been. They're only going to do what's in the best interest of agriculture." I think that's absolutely true.

The president went on to say: "Local commissioners can have a better grasp of the issues. I think you want local guys making decisions where you can." They talked about a fear of, perhaps, some changes and some exclusions. He went on to say: "I don't see that happening. The city of Richmond's agricultural viability study is making significant progress in addressing local farming concerns and ensuring farmers can make a decent living." He added: "This keeps development pressures in check. I think the pressure is wherever agriculture isn't viable. What Richmond is working on is having as much land as viable as they possibly can."

To me, that's the key. It's the viability of farming — not just to sterilize the land with a circle around it on a map, but making sure that farming is as viable as possible. That's how to keep the ALR strong.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of cooperation between local communities and the Land Commission. This legislation adds to that cooperation by in fact setting up a dispute resolution mechanism. Local government and the commission can go to a mutually agreed-to third party to help resolve a community use issue. Ultimately, it's the commission that has the final say. This is only the responsible way that is there to carry out the provincial mandate.

I know, particularly in some of the farmlands surrounding urban communities…. In my community, in Richmond, it's about 50-50. About half the city is in the ALR and half isn't. There are a lot of issues around that urban-agricultural fringe. To have a third party that we can go to to discuss those particular issues, I think, will go a long way to solve disputes.

In conclusion, I believe this bill goes a long way to updating the Agricultural Land Commission, and economically it helps our farmers. It delegates some decision-making, with very strict guidelines. It provides regional panels of commissioners for local knowledge and a response to the local situations. It introduces a dispute resolution mechanism for local communities, and I sincerely hope that through the regulations it will allow for more farm-friendly uses to be carried out in the ALR to keep our farmers as prosperous as possible.

Hon. S. Hagen: This bill, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, is all about preserving farmland throughout the province. I was really pleased to hear the support of my colleagues who spoke in support of this bill. I appreciate everything they said with regard to that support.

This bill implements not only the core review recommendations but the deregulation directions. I think that's important, too, to meet our targets for deregulation. This bill implements cabinet-approved recommendations for the Land Reserve Commission's core review by eliminating the FLR land use system and setting the stage for the transition of the private forest practices regulation.

This bill maintains the agricultural land reserve and makes it more effective and regionally responsive by providing six panels throughout the six regions in British Columbia for decision-making. This bill and upcoming changes to the regulations respond to the Land Reserve Commission's core review and government's deregulation initiative by making the regulatory framework for the agricultural land reserve more enabling and less prescriptive.

The provisions of this bill incorporate suggestions from the administrative justice project for the appointment and operations of the commission. These improvements to governance, which bring decision-making closer to the people, are well balanced with provincial interests. Local governments that would like to move forward with deregulation agreements that are not consistent with the provincial interests cannot do so. Furthermore, this is not downloading of responsibilities but in fact delegating strictly on a volunteer basis.

Hon. S. Hagen: 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 21, Agricultural Land Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I'm missing the definition section, Mr. Chair. The first definition that has new…. I wanted to start by asking the minister a request. I have the amendment act, and I've had to tape the changes made in the last what are either the Bills 27 or 28 of the last session — 26. Does the minister have a copy of the School Act that's up to date as of March? I'm sorry. I've had to do tapings over.

J. MacPhail: If that could happen…. We won't get very far today, because I think the minister knows that the Lieutenant-Governor is coming in at 5:30. I'd appreciate that.

J. MacPhail: Well, whatever. We're still not going to get that far. I'd appreciate that. I have tried to do my cut and paste.

On the accountability contract, I note the use of the accountabilities under section 79, part 2. It really is very limited in its direction of what one does with an accountability contract. Could the minister please explain what will be in an accountability contract?

Hon. C. Clark: A school board may agree to put a whole number of different things in an accountability contract. It can vary district to district. They can be academic outcomes. They can be outcomes related to student safety in schools. There can be a whole range of different human and social development measures that are in the accountability contract. This year we signed an accountability contract with every district in the province. We were working with a limited amount of baseline data, so they certainly don't cover all the areas that we hope they eventually will. It was certainly a good start.

J. MacPhail: The minister says there are already accountability contracts in place. If there are, could she give a range of what the contents are? Is it a district-by-district negotiation? Is it a set of negotiations?

Hon. C. Clark: The accountability contracts will use for their baseline data things like the foundation skills assessment tests. They'll look at graduation rates. They may look at, specifically, aboriginal graduation rates. Accountability contracts can look at how well districts are doing in serving special needs populations. There can be a whole different range of things that they look at.

Ultimately, what we're attempting to do is raise the bar in education and make sure that every year we're doing better than we were the year before. If we don't set goals for ourselves and we don't measure ourselves against whether or not we meet those goals, I'm not sure we can always tell whether we're improving. That's the purpose of the accountability contracts.

J. MacPhail: Actually, that's interesting. I'm not inquiring about the purpose of the accountability contracts. I'm asking about the content. It would seem to me that if it is a set of negotiations, then how do those negotiations take place?

What the minister has listed so far is a set of outputs. I would assume that inputs into a contract might be for negotiation too — for instance, the demographics of the school, the health and safety conditions of the school, and the geographic location of the school. Those are the inputs. The minister has talked about outputs.

I'm really interested in the process for establishing an accountability contract, and here's why. A contract is different from a commitment. A contract is between two people. While this government has a view on the stability of contracts, I don't think the definition of a contract can be changed to say it's the imposition of one's view on another.

Hon. C. Clark: That certainly hasn't been the process by which we've met our accountability contracts this year. It was a process in which my deputy met with every single school district superintendent, sat down and agreed with them about what was important and talked about what their goals might be for the following year. This year it wasn't required in legislation for school districts to do it, but they all certainly did it willingly, and all of them have set goals for themselves.

I hope that next year for many districts the goals are more specific and more wide-ranging than they were this year, but I think we've made an excellent and very cooperative start with school districts.

I just got a note in. The member asked me for a copy of the legislation. Yesterday my office did provide it to her colleague, the critic for education. She could either get it from her colleague, or we could try and provide it to her — whichever she prefers.

J. MacPhail: No, that's fine. If it was given yesterday, I'll get it. Sorry, it's a little hard to keep up here.

Let me just tell you the issues that have been raised around the accountability contracts that were put in place for this year. Let me just clarify. I hope we're talking about the right things. The accountability contracts of which the minister is talking expire when?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm not sure it's fair to characterize them as expiring. The contracts in the legislation have to be updated by October 31 of every year. So we expect districts, starting now, to go through a process of updating those contracts for October 31. They will be able to, we hope, use the results from the FSAs, from their student, staff and parent surveys and a whole variety of other information to update them and see whether they've met their goals and whether they have areas where they need to improve.

J. MacPhail: What role does the ministry play in that, then? I get a sense that it is totally based on outputs. Is there any discussion on inputs — for instance, class size or English language training requirements? I expect that the minister will want to know about magnet schools or schools of choice, etc. How does one determine whether a contract is being met?

Hon. C. Clark: The discussion of the plan and the accountability contract obviously happens in context. We will have a discussion about how many ESL students there are and how well they've been doing, or how many aboriginal students there are and how many of them are graduating. We'll have a discussion about that kind of context and then reach an agreement about how the district can improve. I must say that every district that we've talked to is anxious to try and improve on the results they're getting in a whole bunch of areas.

The point of accountability contracts, of course, is that if we don't set goals for improvement, I don't think it's fair to expect that taxpayers and the public will ever know that we are always improving.

J. MacPhail: This government has a majority of 74 here. I take it as a given that accountability contracts will be in place. That's not the issue here. I'm trying to figure out the advantages of accountability contracts.

Is the minister aware of the resolution that was passed at the BCSTA meeting this weekend on accountability?

Hon. C. Clark: I was at the BCSTA meeting on Friday, but they haven't sent me the resolution yet.

J. MacPhail: I'll read it for the minister, then. I understand that. "That the BCSTA" — the B.C. School Trustees Association — "not sign any agreements with government on behalf of boards that exceed BCSTA's authority and purpose, especially in the area of student performance plans."

Now, from what I understand, the concern is that the student performance plans are an output, but there's no analysis of the inputs in terms of student performance. While the minister may believe that what has happened so far to date has worked — fair enough — I have no idea whether that's the BCSTA's point of view up until that time, but they are suggesting that there will be limits on what they will agree to sign in the future. What's the minister's reply to this resolution that carried?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the BCSTA doesn't sign any agreements on behalf of its members. Individual school boards will be entering into accountability contracts next year, as they did this year, with the government. The difference this year will be that it will have legislative recognition and have a legislative requirement, so of course we expect school districts will live up to the letter of the law and enter into accountability contracts with the ministry.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that this resolution is unnecessary? Is that what she's saying?

Hon. C. Clark: What I'm saying is that the legislation will require school districts to enter into accountability contracts with the government. That's an essential part of our public reporting. That's an essential part of making sure we improve year after year, that we set goals for ourselves, that we have a plan for improvement every single year at every single school. Accountability contracts are absolutely fundamental to being able to achieve what we expect out of our public school system.

J. MacPhail: Well, I have no idea. I guess the school trustees will judge whether that was a reply to their resolution or not.

Just for the minister's information, of course, there are several others in the resolutions, the disposition and motions, which I'll be discussing tomorrow. There's at least a half dozen on those.

There will be 60 accountability contracts. I think there's 60 school districts now. Is it the minister's view, then, that the majority of those will be singular, that they will be particular and that there will no templates in accountability contracts?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, certainly, the baseline measures we will use will often be common between districts — for example, foundation skills assessment, graduation rates, transition rates. Those kinds of things will be common through districts and certainly will use much of the same baseline data district to district. Whether a district decides that it needs to make a dramatic improvement in, for example, aboriginal graduation rates might be different in the North Coast than it is in West Vancouver, for example. Different districts will set different goals for themselves based on the characteristics of their local population. I think that as accountability contracts evolve over the years, we will see each district have a more distinct and individual accountability contract of its own.

J. MacPhail: So we have it that one of the accountability baselines will be the foundation skills assessment. I thought it was interesting…. Perhaps the minister can advise whether she was accurately quoted in terms of her discussion yesterday — I think it was yesterday — publicly with the BCTF about the foundation skills assessment. Was the media an accurate reflection?

Hon. C. Clark: Most of what was quoted was quoted from discussions in the chamber.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering why, I also note, in what I thought was kind of an unusual act — but this minister doesn't shy away from breaking new ground — after the School Act was tabled, her ministry issued a news release specifically targeting the B.C. Teachers Federation and their response to the School Act. I have it here. I'm sorry. As the minister can see, I'm flipping through pages here. I hope she's not wrinkling up her nose because she doesn't know that it was released. It is here, and I will certainly get it. It was released right after the School Act. It was deliberately targeted…. It mentions the BCTF, as a matter of fact.

We're getting into a situation where…. I just wonder where the minister is going in terms of an accountability contract that's mandated, that's legislated now that the foundation skills assessment is going to be one element of a template for an accountability contract, and there have been some pretty harsh words spoken between the minister on the teachers' views about the foundation skills assessment. When are we going to get to a stage where we're all working together on these matters?

Hon. C. Clark: It's certainly my hope, and that's certainly my intention. My concern is….

Actually, the reason I sometimes wrinkle up my nose is I'm always concerned that when the member starts going down a road, she's always in danger of misquoting me.

I do want to be clear. I don't have an issue — in fact, I've never had an issue — on this with individual teachers. In fact, I think that individual teachers will refuse their union's call to advise children that they don't need to be writing the test. I think that individual

teachers take their jobs very, very seriously. They're professionals, and they behave like professionals in the classroom.

J. MacPhail: Let me just read for the minister the news release that she issued right after. It's from the minister herself, dated April 19:

That's right from the minister. The minister can rest assured that Mr. Chudnovsky didn't have to tell me that this was said. I got it off the website, actually. It was put on the website, and it's an op-ed piece that the minister filed.

What I know from the very hard lessons I've learned throughout life is that one doesn't stick one's chin out and poke one in an eye when one's trying to make peace, but perhaps that wasn't the intent. Maybe the minister can explain this op-ed piece, combined with her comments yesterday and the now very firmly entrenched foundation skills assessment.

Let me just be very clear: I support the FSA. I did when I was Minister of Education, and I do now.

Hon. C. Clark: Let's talk about these two issues separately. First, with the foundation skills assessment my point was, and remains, that I don't think that anybody — government or union — has any business dragging this argument into the classroom. I don't think it's right to affect children because there's a political issue. I just don't think it's ethical.

My point when I was talking to the union is…. You know, they can have a fight with government. I know they want to do that, and I know that they've got a plan, a five-year plan, to try and defeat the government. That's part of their union's political activism. They're a political organization. They're elected. They have the right to make those kinds of decisions. My point is: let's not drag kids into it.

J. MacPhail: But that's not making peace. That may be the minister's political point of view, responding to what she claims to be a political point of view of the B.C. Teachers Federation. This op-ed piece and the comments yesterday are not making peace.

Hon. C. Clark: I've met with them a couple of times. They've recently requested another meeting with me coming up, and I'm certainly happy to meet with them.

I know that the minister is always skeptical that my voice is the voice of the BCTF. I'm not asking these questions on behalf of anyone except people who are very worried about the instability in our education system right now. These words from the minister happen to be, in my view, very pugilistic words. I'm asking for reassurance now that they're not. I also know that speaking with such strongly held views by a minister in public isn't helpful. No, my apologies; I take that back. It sends a signal that can be interpreted in various ways.

When will the minister be meeting? Is it a matter of high priority? Will it be within the coming days or the coming weeks — amongst teachers?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I received the request three days ago, I think. We're certainly considering it, and we're going to try and schedule it as soon as time allows.

I'm interested, though, in the guidance of the Chair about how this relates to section 1.

J. MacPhail: Well, because the dispute the minister is having with the BCTF is around foundation skills assessment. I've just learned that the foundation skills assessment will be part of a template of accountability contracts. There's the link. That's exactly how it relates. You know, if the minister has some other forum in which she would like to answer these questions, that would be fine, but this is the forum in which we have the ability to ask these questions.

Well, if it's not the foundation skills assessment that's a template of all contracts…. Let's get back to that then.

J. MacPhail: My gosh, it's a little bit early — we're on definition 1 of the act — to be so upset about questions being asked. There's a lot of work to do here. These are new concepts that the minister is introducing, and they're controversial concepts. I've asked on behalf of the BCSTA, and I'm sure they'll judge whether they got an answer to their question or not. Now I'm asking on behalf of teachers about it.

Let me ask, then, on behalf of the people who actually go to school, the students. In an accountability contract, will learning conditions be judged as an input?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, I want to be clear before the member snaps at me again — just about the templates. I didn't say that there was a template for accountability contracts. What I said was that there will be common baselines that we use across the system. That does not a template make, and I do hope that school districts will evolve very different accountability contracts as time goes by — ones that reflect their local needs.

Now, as I also said, though, we will be talking about context, and we did talk about context when we sat down with school districts and talked about where they could do better. Certainly, the whole range of inputs is part of that context.

J. MacPhail: So it's something that might be the number of portables, the adequacy of learning resources, support services. Will they be considered — the physical inputs?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah. In the discussions that we had in setting up the accountability contracts this time around — and I expect it will be the same in the future — it was a discussion. It was a cooperative discussion, not a confrontational negotiation that I think the member may be more familiar with from her time in government.

This is a fairly cooperative discussion. We sit down. We talk about context. We talk about what's going on in the district. We're certainly happy to hear from the district on the whole range of things that are having a bearing upon education in their communities. Ultimately though, we do focus — as the member will know because I know she will have seen some of the accountability contracts that we've posted on the web — on outputs for the accountability contracts. We focus on how well kids are doing, whether people are satisfied with the system, whether people feel like they're learning what they need to know in the system, whether parents feel like their children are being respected, whether children are being taught to respect other people.

There's a whole range of different things that we'll look at from academics to the social environment that's available for those kids at those schools. That's all part of the accountability contract, but again the accountability contract focuses on baseline data and focuses on outputs. The discussion that leads to the accountability contracts certainly includes a lot of the context that the member will have raised.

J. MacPhail: The accountability contracts that are posted on the web were assigned before budgets were released. That's why these concerns are being raised about inputs now from everybody, from all the stakeholders in the system. It's all very well and good to have an accountability contract about outputs, but if the inputs are being strangled or cut off, then that makes a very different ability to meet the terms of the contract.

Frankly, it's interesting that somehow the minister would describe a contract as being a confrontational, adversarial approach. Society rests on contracts. I think it's a document or a doctrine of clarity. That's why I'm asking these questions.

Perhaps the minister could clarify this for me. This will be the last question, Mr. Chair, before I ask the committee to rise. Perhaps the minister could advise whether in future, given pretty much every one of the 60 school districts' — maybe less two school districts — concerns about funding…. Will there be allowances or incentives around achievement that may be funding based or graded into the contract depending on the funding cuts that have been made?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, I think I've pointed out a number of times in committee and previous committees that the education budget actually hasn't been cut this year. I'll start with saying that and say this: we are not contemplating a system where we provide incentives for school districts or schools that do extraordinarily well in certain subjects. I mean, that money has to come from somewhere. The flip side of that is that the schools that don't do well get penalized. That's not equitable because the people who will pay for that are the children who are already having a tough time in school. I don't contemplate having the kind of system that the member has described.

It's interesting to note that even after the minister's experience this weekend, she still insists on the mantra that there will be no cuts. It's quite interesting that she continues to say that.

The other piece of information that I asked for, and perhaps the minister's staff could advise if it was sent to my colleague, was information on what the content is of an annual report that's now repealed. If that has been sent, fair enough.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so then it was sent to my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Fine, because I'll be exploring that tomorrow in the context of the annual report, the accountability contract and accreditation.

Noting the important event of the arrival of the Lieutenant-Governor, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002
Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this act.