Hansard -- Tuesday, May 14, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 13 (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		3425

Committee of the Whole House		3425
	Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51) J. Kwan Hon. R. Coleman J. MacPhail

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3433
	Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51)

Committee of the Whole House		3433
	Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21) Hon. S. Hagen J. MacPhail T. Christensen

Hon. S. Hagen: It's an honour for me to introduce a friend in the House today, a friend who lives in my riding and who is originally from the Sechelt band. He's a master carver, an entrepreneur and a business person. Please welcome Richard Krentz to the House.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 51; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Section 15 no longer requires the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to consult with the information and privacy commissioner before enacting regulations related to information-sharing agreements. I wonder if the minister can advise the House whether or not there has been discussion with the privacy commissioner with respect to this provision within the act. And what is his response?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I'll just quickly introduce the staff that are with me. I have Elaine Ivancic from film classification, Eric Davies from security programs and Teri Mosher from victim services.

Last summer when we debated this act, I had a letter that I read into the record for the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the consultation and the appreciation of the privacy commissioner's office for our consulting with him with regard to this act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if I can shrink, but if I could, I would shrink this way, not that way.

I'll say that again. Last year during the debates on this particular piece of legislation I read into the record a letter from the privacy commissioner with regard to the fact that he was quite happy with section 22 and how we consulted. I can do that again.

The other thing was the reason for removing the consultation. We have had conversations with the privacy commissioner's office, and it could be a conflict for him to be consulted by us and then have to make a ruling on the act itself, so it was felt that the consultation part should be taken out of the legislation.

J. Kwan: Section 23 deals with the Criminal Records Review Act. This section indicates that the person requesting the criminal-record check will be required to pay a prescribed fee. Could the minister please advise: will the person requiring the criminal-record check be obliged to apply for a criminal-record check every time they seek employment?

Hon. R. Coleman: I did check this question for the member after second reading debate yesterday. The intention is to have a registry that will be an annual thing, so they don't to go from jobsite to jobsite. They'll be able to have their criminal-record check done once a year, and it would apply for any jobsite they would go to, because we would maintain a registry.

J. Kwan: Am I, then, assuming correctly that the criminal-record check will be valid for a period of time during which the person does not need to reapply for a criminal-record check, and that period is one year? It's an annual renewal of the criminal-record check, and then it's on the registry so that individuals will not have to reapply for a criminal-record check if they switch jobsites.

Hon. R. Coleman: For other areas of industry we already do that. It's a short-term registry where they need not reapply for a year. They do an annual update on their criminal-record check.

J. Kwan: The legislation, as I understand, requires that the person who is applying for the criminal-record check pays the fee. Am I right in understanding that? Is it the person who is applying who must pay the fee?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, the act is silent on that. It just says the application must be accompanied by a fee, and that fee would be described by regulation. That fee can be paid for by employer or employee. It doesn't matter. Separate arrangements would probably be made by different groups relative to the relationship with their employers.

J. Kwan: Formerly on criminal-record checks, that was paid for by government. Now is it the anticipation of the minister that it would be brought in by regula-

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to make sure I know the question correctly, my interpretation of the answer would be — and tell me if the answer is wrong — that the regulation will set the fee, but the requirement to pay is, basically, that it has to come with the application. Either employer or employee can pay the fee, depending on the arrangement between the parties.

J. Kwan: Criminal-record checks — formerly, were those not paid for by the government?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not all were. For instance, in security programs if somebody wanted to be a security guard, they paid their own security check. There are a number of employment activities that they already pay for. This is for people that are either licensed, funded or employed by government. We're requiring those departments, agencies or employees to pay the fee.

J. Kwan: Is there a distinction between who's required to pay if you are a non-profit agency — as an example, a child care centre? Is there a distinction between who is required to pay?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I'll give sort of a broad answer, and you can tell me whether I'm covering the bases for you.

The licensed, funded or employed by government will be required to pay a fee for criminal-record checks. The discretion is in the discretion of the registrar for non-profit groups — i.e., Scouts or something like that. The criminal-record check would still be required but not require a fee. It could be paid for by government. We have left the option open to deal with the discretion on the non-profit side.

Make no mistake. Anybody working with children or taking responsibility for children will have a criminal-record check done, whether it be paid for as a result of a licensing and funding or the employment relationship or whether it be by a non-profit because we pay for it. They will be required to have a criminal-record check.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could narrow it down a bit and give examples of where new costs will have to be borne by people, individuals or organizations.

Hon. R. Coleman: New costs to anybody licensed, funded or employed by government will now be required to pay a fee to have their criminal-record check done…. In the past, government paid for that. We're saying that it is now the responsibility, through an employment relationship, of the employer to pay or the employee to pay.

J. Kwan: I just want to state our position very clearly on this issue. It concerns me in terms of the new fees that are being imposed by government, particularly the new fees that would apply to, let's say, the profession of child care workers. Formerly, that fee for criminal-record checks would have been paid for by government. Now it is a new fee that is being imposed.

As I mentioned in second reading debate, child care workers make approximately $10 to $15. It's not a lot of money that they make, but they engage in a very valuable profession, which, of course, is to take care of our children.

I think that it is appropriate for government to continue to pay for criminal-record checks. That is acting in the best interest of British Columbians. It's not a lot of money. It's not a lot of money for government to bear, but it has great benefits for government. I worry that the criminal-record check being imposed on child care workers will create hardships for them. Furthermore, with the cuts that are taking place in government right now in the child care sector, I think it creates further difficulties for child care workers and the centres alike.

Even if the employers decided that they would assume that cost, child care centres, with the reduction in subsidies going to them and the provision of support from government in child care operations…. It just puts the pressure back on the community. It doesn't make sense for the government to say that on the one hand they give, but on the other hand, they're taking back. It's nickel-and-diming the community in a way that I think is inappropriate in the worst kind of way.

J. Kwan: Section 35 is a new section to the act, the section that allows for the fees to be waived. Could the minister please provide an example of when a fee may be waived?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's pretty broad. It allows us to basically waive the fee in most instances. One example would be an unlicensed day care, where anyone on the premises has to have a criminal-record check. It's a small operation, and it's unlicensed — maybe three children — but the other people require criminal-record checks. We would probably waive the fee in that situation.

In the case of somebody that's actually teaching children in, for argument's sake, a church environment, where it's non-profit and they're not paid…. For me, part of the discussion in and around this act was people that would be in a volunteer unpaid position and would be giving services to children, like through some of the non-profit groups like Scouts and what have you. Those would be the cases where we would waive the fee.

J. Kwan: Will the minister be developing guidelines around this? Are there guidelines available for people to look at so that they would know who would be required to pay and who would not? If those guidelines will be available, when will they be available for people to review?

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely. We will be developing guidelines. Those guidelines will be ready when they're complete. It's part of the drafting of the regulations to go with the act to make this work. It's certainly always been in our discussions that those guidelines will exist.

J. Kwan: The minister suggests that it'll be ready when the regulations are complete. Did I hear him correctly? I'm not quite sure. There seems to be sort of a muffled tone with the minister's response. I can't quite hear. If he could sort of maybe speak up just a little bit as well. Thanks.

We would be developing guidelines between now and when we think we can start cost recovery. That's not until October of this year. We will develop those guidelines between now and October and make sure they're in place before we actually go to cost recovery.

J. Kwan: Just to recap, generally speaking, volunteers who would be engaging in volunteer work in the community — the fee would be waived for them. If you're a small operator — I think I heard that from the minister — an unlicensed child care facility which is a small operator, fees would be waived for them in those instances. I think I heard the minister say non-profit organizations which provide programming to the community will also have the fee waived for them. Is that the general gist of it, then? It's the non-profits, the small operations and the volunteers primarily, who will not be faced with a fee for criminal-record checks.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, I made a mistake in my earlier comments. People like Scouts and those people aren't actually caught within this act, having to do either cost recovery or criminal-record checks. That's a relationship between the organizations and local police. Oftentimes they get it done for free. They're not actually affected. It's in the day care sector, where you have people that would be volunteering or people that would be in unlicensed day cares where they would be on the premises. They would live on the premises. They're not actually involved in the business, but because they're on the premises, they'd require those checks. That's where we see the exemptions would be.

J. Kwan: This section allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe fees for a criminal-record check. Will the prescribed fees mirror the fees charged in each jurisdiction, or will it be the same fee for everyone across the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: They would be the same across the province, set by regulation, and we anticipated somewhere between $20 and $25. We know that some jurisdictions charge more for outside criminal-record checks than industry, but we would be setting our fees by regulation, and that would be the charge.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know what the range is in terms of the fees that are being charged in different jurisdictions?

Hon. R. Coleman: The range varies, but basically it's between $20 and $50 per check. In some sectors, obviously, they charge nothing. But it's between $20 and about $50, the high being $50, the low being around $20 or $21. We think that the cost recovery charge is between $20 and $25. This is not intended to make money; it's intended to break even. So it's not going to be a charge that is intrusive.

J. Kwan: Record checks will only be required for programs prescribed in the regulation. Will there be any programs that currently do not require a criminal-

J. Kwan: Just one last question about the fees around the Scouts situation. The minister suggested earlier that the Scouts would not be required to pay a fee in that instance. Does the minister have available the list of regulations that prescribe who would be required to get a criminal-record check, and could he share it with members of the House just so I know what is on that list now?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to clarify, it's anybody licensed, funded or employed by government. It's a big list. If the member would like us to get it prepared and send it to her office, we'd be more than happy to do so, but it's going to cover, if you can imagine, branches, employee groups, individuals and groups that are being funded, like societies that are doing work with children. We'd be more than happy to prepare the list, but it's not something we would cart in here today. It's actually quite lengthy.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate it if the minister could, at a later time, send that information to the opposition's office, just so we have a record of who is being asked to do criminal-record checks. I haven't actually looked into that, so I would appreciate it.

Just to be consistent with our previous position on the notion of requiring a fee to be imposed, particularly to the child care sector and other sectors, this section here prescribes the fee that would be payable. To be consistent with our earlier position that we don't support the imposition of fees for criminal-record checks, the opposition will be voting against this section on division.

J. Kwan: The Motion Picture Act refers to and describes, under the definition section, the designated classification authority and describes it as a person or agency prescribed as a designated classification authority by the Lieutenant-Governor. Then it further provides for a definition of a motion picture distributor.

I'd like to just canvass generally with the minister. In the classification authority, does this Motion Picture Act have anything to do with the changes that have been brought about with the new government in terms of classification? That is to say, formerly, the classification was required to be done. The former Attorney General introduced a bill relating to it, particularly for the classification to be done in-house in British Columbia in evaluating motion pictures and video games, as well, especially on the violence content and the appropriateness of content for young people. There was a lot of concern relating to that issue, and I know the then opposition, now the government, supported the former Attorney General on that reclassification of the Video Games Act.

I'd like to just get a clarification from the minister on this Motion Picture Act. In the reclassification or designated classification authority, does that impact the former act that was in place, introduced by the previous Attorney General, or is this completely separate and different?

Hon. R. Coleman: This act actually allows for a parallel amendment to the Video Game Act, which has not been enacted. The intent here is basically for a number of things. One is that it allows for the ability of the branch to examine a video game under the Motion Picture Act relative to its violence or what have you. It will allow it to examine and perhaps prohibit it within the marketplace. It also allows us at the same time to adopt the ESRB standard for video games for North America, which rates video games all the way from "child" right through to "adult."

An education program has been put into place in our retail sector today with regard to that and, in addition to that, a quarterly report to the minister on the success of how that is being done, including the self-disciplinary shopping of establishments by the industry and a 1-800 complaint line for anybody that has a difficulty with a video game in B.C.

I should tell the member that we have not received any complaints, and our compliance rate is very high.

J. Kwan: This act also deals with the rating system. Am I correct in understanding that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it does. It allows us to use rating systems from other jurisdictions like Ontario, rather than us view every single film that comes into Canada. We actually believe there should be a national rating standard for video games and movies in Canada, rather than having individual provinces actually thinking they have to watch every single video and movie that comes into their jurisdiction. We also think that at some point in time we'll get there.

Really, we're probably in some ways at the stage the motion picture industry was at in the early 1960s, when they actually went out and developed a national standard in the U.S. for rating movies. They worked with communities and industry to get there simply because at that time you could actually have counties rating movies within states, and it was actually getting to be quite dysfunctional, relative to how this could be done.

We believe that there should be standards set. If the standards, frankly, step outside the boundaries, that's why we still have the branch. In addition to that, we want to be able to adopt other standards. It's better that they exist so that we don't have to, basically, adminis-

ter every single piece of the electronic, video or computer games that come into our province.

J. Kwan: Is the minister aware of information…? In fact, this information was provided to me by an individual named Cran Campbell. Is the minister aware of the information that's been sent by this individual regarding the rating system? There have been a lot of concerns that have been highlighted in terms of the rating system that is being used.

I will just read a section of the information that I've received, and the minister can advise me whether or not he's aware of this information.

In its fifth annual report on video and computer games, the National Institute on Media and the Family gave rating enforcements a D-plus. The report noted that sting operations with children aged seven to 14 have found that most retail chain stores allow youths to purchase even those games that are rated M, as suitable only for persons 17 and older. According to the report, only Target and FuncoLand were enforcing policies to prevent the sale of violent-rated games to youngsters.

That's one area in terms of a report that was done in evaluating the success, if you will, and effectiveness of a ratings system, of which the result was that it was evaluated at a D-plus.

Maybe the minister can comment on such a rating system and the one that we will now be using as well, under this act, and the level of confidence one may or may not have with its effectiveness in preventing children from getting access to motion pictures and video games — later on in this act, there's a section that deals with video games — and its effectiveness in preventing children from accessing materials that are not appropriate for them.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm very familiar with the gentleman. I'm also familiar with the issue. Even when you speak to people involved in COVE, the issue isn't the rating system as much as it is who gets to get their hands on the video and how.

There are two ways you could look at this. You could think that you could build an enforcement team that would go across the province and shop at every store and try to discipline what they were selling, or you can have a relationship, an accountability agreement by retailers to parents, which we have now. An ESRB standard is being used in the stores. A shopping program by the Retail Council of British Columbia to see if anybody is abusing the system and reporting back to the minister…. In addition to that, and to Mr. Campbell and COVE, anytime I've had discussions, I'm saying that we've got the Video Games Act. We're holding it here in abeyance. We want to see if the industry can discipline this thing. If they can't, then at that point in time we'll move to the other model. At this point in time, in our 1-800 line from parents, we have not had a complaint relative to somebody distributing through the retailers that have signed on, which is about 85 percent of those people that distribute videos in B.C. who are part of this.

There are now, in a number of chains in this province, some pretty strict disciplines relative to employee behaviour with regards to video games, including the fact that the second time they retail out or rent out an adult video to an underage individual, they would be losing their employment. I think that what we need to do now is…. We've been watching this thing progress as we've worked towards it with industry. I think we may have a model that will work in other jurisdictions, but I think we need to give it another six months at least or go through the first year to see how the discipline and the complaints and all of those things are handled relative to the discipline in the retail marketplace.

We do have very good working relationships with all the suppliers on this and with the major video outlets and the Retail Council of British Columbia. I think that we have actually come a long way relative to the discipline in the marketplace and if we can do better, we will always try.

J. Kwan: I think that there are two aspects to the issue around this matter. It's not just the notion of access and enforcement. Yes, that's one piece of it, but the ratings system is another component of it as well.

As I indicated earlier, when a report was done in evaluating materials and determining whether or not youth could get access to them, there was a report that said, quite frankly, a D-plus is not a good indication of success, if you will.

Also, because the evaluation system varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, to adopt a not-made-in-B.C. sort of approach puts the issue at the forefront for British Columbians. Arguments have been made that other jurisdictions may have a different standard that would be applied. Whether or not that's appropriate for British Columbia is a big question mark. Those questions have been raised particularly by this individual, Cran Campbell, who I know has done a lot of work around this issue and in raising awareness to the point that he's also gotten many city councils to support his call for a made-in-B.C. rating system and enforcement approach to this matter as well.

I would disagree that it is just the notion of enforcement, because I think there are two components to this entire issue that we need to be mindful of. Could the minister please advise — he mentioned that there would be agreements between parents and so on — how parents would find out about these agreements? How do they go about participating in relation to these agreements?

Hon. R. Coleman: The last part of your question is quite an easy answer. That's point-of-purchase material that's already there. We're out there in the marketplace with point-of-purchase material, letting parents know that the stores have accountability to parents. Parents can go in and ask that certain videos not be sold or

rented to their child. They can actually put it on their computer system, and when a child comes in, they would be refused the ability to do that.

The D rating system that the member refers to comes from the centre for media and families. That was done a while back, and that D rating was relative to the discipline of retailers, not to the actual rating system. As a matter of fact, the federal trade commissioner in the United States has reviewed the ESRB standard and rating of video games and actually gives the ESRB standards very high marks.

Our position is that we want this market to discipline itself. That's why we now have shopping in the system that's paid for by the retailers to check that videos are not being rented or sold to people under age. We have a reporting system back to the minister by the report. We also have the 1-800 line for complaints, and to this date it has not had the complaints. More than anything else, the calls have been coming in where something might be available.

I'm comfortable, in spite of the fact that Mr. Cran Campbell may not be, that this industry has to be given the opportunity to see whether they can meet a standard and set a standard for discipline in this province so it can be taken across the country into other jurisdictions and prove themselves. They've taken some great steps to do that.

For government to think that they should build a whole infrastructure and bureaucracy in and around having to rate every video game in B.C. and then trying to have some enforcement package in addition to that is beyond what I think is necessary at this time until we see that this system works. We already have tremendous pressure on our law enforcement community with regards to this thing. We're already dealing with a great deal of effort, even trying to build an infrastructure towards handling cybercrime, let alone having to have our people involved in this.

It's an opportunity to see if government and the retail sector and the manufacturers and the distributors can work together, which we're doing, to see if we can discipline this marketplace. I think we'll find out within the next six to eight months whether we've been successful.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I wasn't going to get into this debate because my colleague is doing a very admirable job on this. I don't, in any way, want my comments to be a judgment on anyone close to me, including my son. These are questions of a general nature.

The Solicitor General stands up and somehow suggests that we should be giving the industry an opportunity to do the right thing, regulate itself and enforce standards, and we should just give it time to do that. It was on the basis of those comments that I had to engage in this debate for this reason. Children of a certain age spend hours and hours in a relationship, in direct engagement, with video games — hours and hours. It's unprecedented. Children of the generation from the ages of five to 21 now spend more time with their video games than one could ever have possibly imagined in our day in organized sports, more time than one could ever imagine in our day — and I assume the Solicitor General is a baby-boomer — and than we could ever have spent in school.

Parents lead very busy lives. All parents are asking for is some sort of consumer confidence that their children are safe in this activity. When I heard the Solicitor General suggest somehow that parents can impose a ban on their children shopping at a particular store — which is, basically, what that is when he says parents can go to a video store and ban their child from getting certain videos — that puts a really different relationship in place between the child and the parent. Parents don't have to do that with liquor. Parents don't have to do that — at least I don't think they do — with cigarettes.

Yet somehow now this industry is being treated differently than any other product that we suggest our children should have controlled access to because of the potentially harmful effects. I don't think the world is going to come to any conclusion that all of the violence and all of the inappropriate content of certain videos have had no effect on children's growth. In fact, I expect that society will come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

We have discussed this scientific principle of uncertainty. When the scientific evidence is uncertain in its outcome, one errs on the side of caution. One errs on the side of going with the most conservative approach to that scientific evidence. That was the purpose of this program.

I also know that if we surveyed a whole raft of parents, I expect they would be hard-pressed to know where to find the retailers' agreement on this issue.

It wasn't a big deal when parents asked for this. I shouldn't say…. It was a big deal for parents when they asked for this program, this made-in-B.C. program, but it wasn't a political big deal. There was no scream from the opposition that this was inappropriate, probably because they were facing an election, and they knew it would be silly to protest parents wanting better control of their children over access to violent videos. I mean, I think the costs imposed were costs that weren't imposed on government.

I was listening very carefully to find comfort in terms of these new changes. Frankly, I haven't found it. I think that this government, in rushing so much to support this industry, has put at greater risk parental involvement in controlling access to these potentially harmful videos.

J. Kwan: Just to carry on with regard to this matter, the minister has said that he trusts the self-regulating approach with respect to monitoring access to video games and the like by young people, and for it to be regulated by industry. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings mentioned, and it has been pointed out also by Mr. Cran Campbell, that when the government now, including the now Solicitor General, were cam-

paigning during the last election, they indicated that they would support the changes brought forward by the former Attorney General that would be spearheaded by Andrew Petter and then later on by Graeme Bowbrick. They would support it. I have the Hansard here from the then critic of the Attorney General, the now Attorney General, in support of the government's action in bringing forward the act.

Now, after the election, all that has changed. The government is not enacting the act that was brought in by the previous government, and they're going through with the self-regulating model.

Mr. Cran Campbell has written to many people on this issue. He has indicated that self-regulation does not work in this industry. British Columbia parents have had no input on the decision with respect to the government reneging on their word during the election, now that they have been elected.

The information that Mr. Cran Campbell sent to me outlined a lot of the different issues relating to this matter. In fact, there was a study done that indicated an evaluation of the ratings education, the retail ratings enforcement, the overall grade, the marketing and advertising and the arcades — how they were performing in terms of this self-regulation approach. The information actually puts out a report card that doesn't look too good. It's one that you wouldn't want to bring home to your parent, one might say.

Let me just look at the ratings education piece. Here's what was reported in the Fifth Annual Video and Computer Game Report Card. It was done by the National Institute on Media and the Family. They received a grade of C for ratings education.

That is the issue that the study has found with regard to the ratings education.

One piece that jumps out at me is that only 29 percent of the parents actually understand the rating system and how it works. Even if you are a conscientious parent who goes to look at all the rating systems to make an evaluation of whether or not your child should have access to a particular video or video game, the information the individual is receiving may be so elusive that you may make the wrong judgment on that matter. This report card highlights that as an issue.

Then it goes on to say, around retail rating enforcement, which is the D-plus rating that I mentioned earlier:

I won't read each and every piece of the findings of the report onto the record, but let me just go to a couple of recommendations that they have highlighted.

That, of course, only comes if the rating system is easier to understand, so that one could actually master the intricacies of all of that. The disturbing piece related to this is:

Other findings indicate that some 54 percent of eighth- and ninth-grade boys have bought M-rated — that is, mature-rated — games with their own money.

These are just some pieces with respect to the findings around the need for a stronger rating system and, of course, not an industry-led regulating system around access to videos, video games, motion pictures, etc.

E. Brenzinger: On behalf of the Minister of State for Women's Equality, I would like to welcome 25 grade 12 students and teachers Mr. Philippe Legentil and Mrs. Monica Harding from Brookswood Secondary School in Langley. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, last I looked, there were no Target stores in Canada. This is a U.S. study we're talking about. What we're talking about in British Columbia is a solution made in this province. We're trying to get one.

Twice in the comments that were read out into the record by the member, that report referred to a universal rating system. In my earlier comments I said that we're trying to work with the federal government and all provinces of Canada to get to a universal standard in video games so people will understand what the rating system is. The commitment to parents in our retail sector is in 85 percent of our stores in British Columbia. A study like that would be interesting to see after our system has been working, to see just how our consumer thing is working. We're actually doing the disciplinary shopping within the marketplace.

The member mentioned how busy parents are, but parents ask for tools. They know that not every tool is available to them, but they certainly do want to have the ability to restrict access to certain things for their children within a video store. They can do that on their television today by blocking out, if they want to, certain channels with a code if they have digital TV. They can do that on satellite TV. These types of things have existed as tools for parents to discipline within their own homes, and we're not going to tell them which of those tools they should use.

The reality here is that we may be developing something that'll be successful. I believe it has been, since we have very little complaint. We have a very good system of standards that is understandable. There's an education factor, the Retail Council of Canada…. The manufacturers and the distributors have committed to making it work in this province. They want to see it work in this province so they can use this model as a model for other jurisdictions both in Canada and in North America. They recognize that they want to have that partnership between the retailer, the distributor and the manufacturer and with the community.

I think that this will be a successful model and that it will move forward. In doing so, we will have achieved a lot more than we would have by just passing a piece of legislation. In actual fact, in order to make this work, you need buy-in. You need buy-in from all the players within the industry in order to discipline a marketplace.

Even having said all that, the fact of the matter is that this afternoon my son could get on the Internet and download a video game that I have absolutely no control over. That ability exists. That's a whole issue in and around cybercrime relative to how we can manage the Internet. When it comes to these tools, these tools are to allow parents, communities and retailers to have the tools, education, enforcement and discipline in this marketplace.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm going to seek your guidance in a moment on how to vote. Perhaps I'll put that question to you, but I also have some comments to make. My colleague and I wish to vote. We also understand time issues here. We wish to vote against the entire changes made to the Motion Picture Act and the Video Games Act. We'd be pleased to do that with a division call on just one, but maybe you could seek counsel.

The Chair: Then I'll just pass sections 39 to 58, and we'll take those entire sections on division.

Just a couple of comments to the Solicitor General. I know that the Solicitor General understands extremely

well and is very committed in the area of strengthening parenting in this province, but the difference between a study in the United States and the effect in Canada is completely indistinguishable. One can't assume that because there's a border between the two countries, the effects aren't exactly the same.

I'm not quite sure why we're even having such a confrontational discussion here. The Americanization of this area of entertainment for our children is complete. Electronic arts work here, and they work in the United States. The retail sector is one of the most integrated multinational sectors that exists in the area of consumerism. Best Buy in the United States is Future Shop here. I hope the Solicitor General, by virtue of where the study was done, is not discounting it.

My last point on behalf of my colleague and me is this. Yes, parents have a great deal of difficulty controlling the circumstances of access to consumer goods in their own homes. Control of the liquor cabinet sometimes is just as hard as control of the computer. Control of the silver box of cigarettes on the coffee table is just as hard as control of the computer. What parents are asking for is that when they design certain circumstances in their own home of control of access to potentially harmful items for their children, they can expect the same control mechanisms in the public domain as well. That isn't here. That's why my colleague and I will be voting against all amendments to the Motion Picture Act and to the Video Games Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not discounting any of the member's comments. I'm also well aware of the issues in and around video games, having raised two children myself.

You know, it really comes down to when you take something as broad as this to try and actually get it in a position where you can do it for the protection of the community, you need community buy-in. You need standards; you need discipline. You need buy-in from the sector that's either selling or distributing it.

We have 85 percent of the retail market in B.C. signed on to this form of discipline and management relative to video games in the province. I think that's actually good news — that we actually have these people committed. We will now watch them; we will discipline them. We will deal with it in a manner that will make sure that we are not, as best as we possibly can, renting or selling video games inappropriately in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 51, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

J. MacPhail: I just want to open this section by discussing some of the definitions. I'll also just note for the record that our debate on this is somewhat limited by the fact that we requested during estimates a lot of information on the agricultural land reserve, the Land Reserve Commission, which would have assisted us in this debate, and we have yet to receive any of that information from the minister. I just note that with disappointment. Given the tasks we face in this Legislature, the debate would have been much more greatly enhanced if the minister had delivered what he had promised to deliver to us on these specific issues. He promised during the estimates, which occurred almost two months ago now. The debate will be less informed by the lack of that information.

On section 1, the section that deals with many of the definitions, I need to refer to some of the key points made by the minister during second reading in order to let him know where I'm going on this. The issue of real concern to us is the lack of regulations that should be accompanying this act but are missing.

I would also note for the record that there was very little public discussion around these changes to the act. Therefore, there hasn't been public consultation. There are no regulations available. We don't have the information promised to us in estimates on the matters directly affecting this legislation, so section 1 is greatly impacted by the lack of all that codifying information.

That would also be true in sections 20 and 21 and so on. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the Land Reserve Commission itself have been quite open that their intention is to expand the permitted uses under the Agricultural Land Reserve Act. Even though it's mentioned throughout the act that there will be expanded uses, there's no clear explanation, as far as I can tell, of what those uses will be.

It is in this context that the minister will have to be pretty clear, I hope, in his answers to the questions. Let me just give you, Mr. Chair, one example of that under section 1. It's the definition of "fill." It was being amended in this act. It will now read, "any material brought on land in an agricultural land reserve," and then this part is added: "…other than the materials exempted by regulation."

So we have an expansion of definition, but nobody's quite sure what the expansion will mean. I wonder, given that this is really, literally, the only forum for debate on this matter…. As far as I know, the letters I've been receiving on this matter — and there have been plenty — have said there has been no public consultation on this.

Let's use this as an example. To the minister: when will the regulations be forthcoming? Will there be public debate on the regulations? Maybe he could use this definition of "fill" as an example of what the regulations will bring about.

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to respond to the member's opening comments. I have sent a letter to the member with regard to why the information couldn't be produced more quickly. It is due to the fact that the commission was appointed on May 2, and it was necessary that they review the budget before it was made public. I have forwarded earlier today the information that was requested, and I do apologize for the lateness. It should be in your hands as we speak.

With regard to your question about some of the additional permitted uses under the new act, one of these would be agritourism, which is something the agricultural community had asked for. I also want to dispel what the member said about lack of consultation. There has been full consultation with the UBCM and with the agriculture community around the province. Some of the additional uses would be agritourism, bed-and-breakfasts, dog kennels. These are all uses that have been permitted when they've been asked for from the commission.

With regard to fill and materials exempted by regulation, the proposed regulation will exempt fill for farm uses such as greenhouses, intensive livestock and aquaculture facilities.

J. MacPhail: Well, I understand the minister thinking that consultation with the UBCM and the agricultural community is enough, but there are many other people and organizations in this province who have strongly held views about what land should be used for in this province. I also expect that the consultation with the agricultural community didn't come back with one voice, in terms of input, and the UBCM itself has very mixed views, as the minister well knows from the correspondence he's getting from various municipal councils on these changes.

I would urge this. Let me ask this question before we move on. The document from which the minister was reading on what it means for fill — is that a regulation that's ready to go for public consultation?

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister would see it worthy enough to at least have public consultation on the regulations as he moves forward. They're not ready, by his admission, and they are extremely important to the legislation. I would urge him to at least have public consultation on those matters.

I put on the record that I'm an urban MLA. However, I also know the absolute importance of the sustainability of any society to be able to produce their own food, to produce all of the nutrients that are

needed to sustain human life. It is on the premise of that value that I ask all of these questions.

While the commission may have approved alternate uses other than just the strictest definition of agricultural use for land, there was a provincial perspective to these approvals. That will no longer be there. Under this legislation there will be regional approval that may indeed not allow for the overall protection and security of land base that will permit security of food supply.

Let me just read you this letter from a person who sent in a copy of this letter that she fired off to the minister after second reading on this debate. It's from a Mary Dalen of Kitwanga, B.C. She copied me in on it, but the letter was sent to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

I'm just wondering…. That's why I started with the premise of asking how it is that we can have a debate on this legislation with key pieces of information missing, key pieces of information that will come in the form of regulations.

I'll be very frank about our cynicism in this area. I'll just put it in context for the minister. My colleague and I are now debating Bill 27, which is the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. There's a huge lack of understanding of the implications of that bill, and the Minister of Human Resources is saying: "Oh, don't worry. All of those concerns will be addressed in regulation."

I guess it's the same premise here. We can't even have definitions. Normally, one goes to the section of the definitions to say: "How will the act be governed on the face of it? What do the words in the act mean?" You go to the words in the act, as they're defined, and we have to wait for the regulations.

Hon. S. Hagen: Before I address that question, I just want to introduce the staff member that I have with me, Julie Glover, who is with the commission.

I want to assure the member opposite. She made a comment about regionalizing this and sort of throwing out the thought that the actual governance of the commission might also be regionalized. The act covers the entire province.

This government is determined and dedicated to preserving farmland throughout the province. The commitment we made in our New Era document in the campaign was that we would make the commission more regionally responsive, which is what a lot of people out there have been asking for whether they're stakeholders or the general public.

The regulations will be passed by cabinet. Then we will do a period of consultation with stakeholders during the 90 days after that, before the bill is enacted.

I just want to address the regulations again. The new bill and the associated regulations are modelled on the existing legislation and its regulations, which define uses permitted in the reserve and which do not require application to the commission.

The proposed regulations reflect the existing regulations with the addition of some new ones currently permitted by the commission general order. The regulations have been under development for more than a year, and the commission has already consulted with a range of stakeholders.

Once the regulations are approved by cabinet, as I said, we anticipate that we will not enact them for the 90-day period, which will give local governments and others time to review the regulations and their implications on their own regulatory framework.

The new regulations will clarify specific uses and subdivisions permitted in the reserve, will simplify some of the requirements and will reduce the overall number of regulations. I assure the House that the reserve will not be weakened by expanding some uses, which are complementary to agriculture, and clarifying others that have in fact been asked for by the agriculture community.

J. MacPhail: Thank you very much. I'm sure people will be pleased to note that there will be a 90-day period before the regulations are enacted.

Did the minister guarantee a public consultation around those regulations before they're enacted?

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sure everybody will be trying to get themselves defined as a stakeholder then.

My colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant did just deliver the regional budgets that just arrived in our offices this morning. As I see it, flipping through, we just received this: the regional budgets for the different panels. We'll have to examine that carefully because the information just arrived. It was just delivered this moment.

T. Christensen: As you're well aware, certainly this is a bill that has some great importance to, I think, all members in the Okanagan and all citizens in the Okanagan, as it — perhaps second to the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island — is one of the areas of the province that does seem to face this conflict between urban development and preserving farmland that often raises a great deal of interest and is of course important to all of us. I've received a few inquiries in respect of this bill that are relatively specific. I'm just going to ask the minister, as we go through today, to clarify a few points.

The first, in respect of section 2, is that some constituents have raised a concern about the interaction of the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act. I notice that the right-to-farm legislation is not one of the acts listed in section 2(1). The specific question is: is it possible that Bill 21 or a regulation that may be developed under Bill 21 may limit what would otherwise be a normal farm practice under the farm protection legislation?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, it's not intended to do that. It will actually complement the other act.

T. Christensen: To the minister: I think section 6 is an important section, because obviously a purpose section of the bill does flavour the interpretation of the legislation and certainly will flavour what the commission or panels of the commission do. It does, I think, go to a number of the points that the member for Vancouver-Hastings raised in terms of concerns around protecting agricultural land. Section 6 speaks directly to that.

My specific question is…. In respect of section 6(b), it refers to "other communities of interest." I take it that that means, essentially, consultation with stakeholders, with local governments. Those are the communities that have an interest in agricultural land as opposed to other potential values of that land.

J. MacPhail: This is the section that includes the provision for regional panels. The information that I just received this morning is on the budget for the regional panels. I thank you for that information; I guess it was from the Land Commission office.

I haven't had a chance to actually look at the details. Let me just reiterate that the basis of the discussion which happened at estimates was that there was a deficit in the whole commission. I think it was about $289,000. There was a deficit that they had to make up. Was there going to be enough money for the regional panels to operate?

What I see from the quick review of the information is that the budgets of the regional panels will remain the same as they were under the previous. However, their role has been expanded. What happens there? How does one compensate for no new money but an expanded role?

Hon. S. Hagen: If you think about it for a second, there are six regional panels which will operate in the regions of the province in which they live. Therefore, their travel expenses are far less than having to travel from the Kootenays or the north to Burnaby for a meeting. So although we have more people on the commission, the travel expenses are less because the distances they have to travel are less.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that the only increased activity requiring funding is travel or lack thereof?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised that there are not any other significant expenses. Most of the expenses for the commission are travel expenses.

T. Christensen: This is a critically important section in terms of the change that it introduces to the operation of the Agricultural Land Commission. I simply want to commend the minister very much for moving towards this more regional panel setup.

Certainly, in my review of the individuals that have been appointed to the various geographic areas around the province, they are all people with extremely strong backgrounds in land use planning, in agriculture — people who will bring a lot of insight in terms of the local conditions to decisions made under this legislation.

I think this is an extremely progressive move in terms of addressing the unique factors that each geographic region of the province possesses and the simple fact that we talk about all the time — that this is a very diverse province and really does need some local information in terms of approaches to these types of issues. This is particularly so in areas of the province where there is often strong debate and conflict between preserving agricultural land and all the forces that work against preserving agricultural land.

In respect of section 11, could the minister just perhaps clarify that the panels themselves will, for all intents and purposes, essentially replace what the commission as a whole was doing previously?

Hon. S. Hagen: The panels themselves will make the decisions in the regions but under provincial guidelines. In other words, there's an overall provincial act, obviously, that controls what can be done with farmland and what comes in and what goes out.

The chairs of those panels form the executive committee, together with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. They will meet if there are issues that come up in the regions of a provincial nature. Then those issues will be decided by the executive panel, which would be the chairs of the panels, who would come together and meet with the chair.

J. MacPhail: This is the section that will resolve disputes between various pressures in the community. I just want to make a couple of comments on this. There are two sections that deal with dispute resolution mechanism. Section 13 is one, and section 44 is another that involves dispute resolution priorities.

They're similar to this extent: the two sections give weight. There's a weighting system now put in place in terms of values that have to be determined for resolving disputes or determining merit if it has to go to a facilitator or a mediator. There are different weighting policies, but I will get the difference when we debate section 44. It does seem to be a bit….

Let me ask this: there's a weighting of values in this dispute resolution mechanism under section 13. For instance, it says:

When one goes to section 44, where one actually has to give weight in another area, the weighting system is much different. Perhaps the minister could explain why the different weighting systems.

Hon. S. Hagen: Section 13 deals with the regional aspect, and section 44 deals with provincial interests. I might point out that section 44 hasn't changed from the old act.

J. MacPhail: That's the point. Under the old act, which had a provincial interest, the weighting system and priority rankings were much clearer. They are still clearer in section 44. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm relating this to section 13, though, in terms of its difference.

In section 44 the weighting system has remained the same as previously when it was an application of the public interest provincially. Now somehow the weighting system is different when we have a regional application, and people are concerned about that.

Let me just go on to explain the concern. The concern is, basically, that there is little sense in legislating an ordering of priorities, as this does under section 13. In one priority it clumps four very specific values — very specific values. Our attention has been brought to the lumping together of environmental and heritage values. They have to be considered in the same context as economic and social values. I'm sure the minister has received this correspondence, because it was written to him from the West Coast Environmental Law Association .

It has been acknowledged in the past that some of the land in the agricultural land reserve is still in its natural state and has high and in some instances even rare conservation value. The example given is the rare grasslands ecosystems in this province. There's also critical habitat for threatened and endangered species in areas such as the Okanagan that are contained now within the agricultural land reserve. In other areas of the province, important wetlands are often found within the reserve.

The concern is that there's been a historical loss of wetlands. Some of the habitats that are within the reserve now are increasingly vital habitats for threatened or endangered species, particularly in the Okanagan and in the lower mainland. In fact, it is now such that these wetlands are more scarce than the agricultural land itself.

The point is made that under the present wording of section 13, where there's a ranking of priorities, the ranking and grouping together of, really, four values into one could lead to an inadequate consideration of environmental values in this circumstance. Under the present wording under section 13, a regional facilitator could not give the provincial rarity of endangered wetlands a priority ranking.

How would a regional panel apply? Given that there's this hierarchy, but mass grouping under one section of the hierarchy, how does one get to protect wetlands, as an example?

Hon. S. Hagen: The values referred to in section 13 of the bill, to be followed by a facilitator under dispute resolution, are intended to provide guidance to the facilitator in making a recommendation. The provisions order the values insofar as agriculture is the first priority, but other important values can also be considered.

While I agree that rare environmental values should be considered a priority, I believe that the provisions as worded will allow for the recognition of those values. It should also be noted that the recommendation of the facilitator is non-binding. The final decision rests with the commission.

J. MacPhail: Before we rise, let me ask: under what section would the commission make its final determination, then?

Hon. S. Hagen: The commission makes its decision based on its mandate, which is to preserve agricultural land in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I'll have more of this after the break. 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.


	YEAS — 59

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	Nettleton
Roddick	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Plant
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Bell	Long
Chutter	Trumper	Johnston
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Sultan	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	[ Page 3427 ]

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 58

Coell	Hogg	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Nettleton	Roddick	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Plant	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Bell	Long	Chutter
Trumper	Johnston	R. Stewart
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Lekstrom	Sultan	Hamilton
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan