Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 12 -- Monday, February 25, 2002

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		1287

Private Members' Statements		1287
	Restorative justice	1287
	J. Les
	Hon. G. Plant
	Piper James Richardson, VC	1289
	B. Penner
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Coal and electricity	1291
	B. Bennett
	Hon. G. Bruce

Tributes		1292
	P. Bell

Private Members' Statements (continued)		1292
	Coal and electricity	1292
	P. Bell
	Regional policing	1293
	B. Lekstrom
	Hon. R. Coleman

Motions on Notice		1295
	Access to justice services (continued)	1295
	Representation of small communities at annual provincial conference	1302

W. Cobb: I would ask the House to recognize the council from Clinton. We have Mayor Robin Fennell, Councillor Rebecca Swan-Wood, Councillor Laurie Allison and their administrator, Grant Loyer. Welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, it is my pleasure to advise the House that we have two Clerks from other jurisdictions on attachment to our House this week: Mr. Charles MacKay, the Clerk of the House in Prince Edward Island, and Ms. Loredana Catalli Sonier, the Clerk of the House in New Brunswick. Please join me in welcoming them both to our House.

J. Les: This morning I would like to discuss a concept known as restorative justice and youth diversion. In the course of carrying out our responsibilities as legislators, we often measure our progress by things we can attach a plaque to, for example, and things that we can point out physically in our communities, but over the years and in my previous life as a municipal legislator I was involved in establishing a restorative justice and youth diversion association in Chilliwack. I would like to highlight that today, because I think it can form the basis of consideration for other communities, as well, and make a real positive difference in our communities and, perhaps more importantly, in the lives of young people particularly in our communities.

This is not a new concept. I first became aware of it about six or seven years ago in the community of Maple Ridge. A lady by the name of Ms. Lola Chapman had been involved in establishing this process in her community. I think all British Columbians owe her a debt of gratitude for taking that initiative at that time.

Youth diversion simply involves a group of community volunteers getting together and providing a vehicle through which young offenders are dealt with in a different way, as opposed to the normal process of going through the court process with the very formal process that that involves and that is very costly to the justice system and, in fact, is a more adversarial process that can be avoided.

These volunteers are dedicated to providing the motivation and personal help to keep a first-time offender from becoming a repeat offender. This helps the offender understand the impact of their action on the community, the victim, their families and themselves. It also helps the offenders and their families access other help in the community, if needed. The goal is to hold young offenders accountable for their behaviour while reconnecting them to the community. This is done by bringing together volunteers with a variety of life experiences to work one-on-one with youth in conflict with the law.

The objectives are to deal with the offences promptly; to increase the offender's awareness of the way in which their action has affected the victim; to invite the victim to participate in the process and the consequences; to let the offender and their family know that the community as a whole is concerned about the conduct involved; to provide for restitution, where appropriate; to follow up on an individual basis; to involve the community in the solution; and to leave the offender with a feeling of self-worth.

When a youth is referred to the restorative justice program, the community accountability panel is held in private with the victim, if they so desire, the parents and the offender. The committee, after input from all of the parties, decides on the consequences in the form of a diversion agreement or a resolution agreement if the victim is in fact involved. The contract may include any of the following: restitution, apology, essay writing, volunteer service work, counselling attendance, attending support groups, etc.

It is a very non-confrontational process. It has proved itself to be extremely beneficial in terms of correcting unacceptable behaviour, and it is a very cost-beneficial approach as well. It is estimated that if one of these youths is processed through the regular court system — with the attendance of RCMP members, RCMP court liaison, legal services, community work order supervisors, Crown counsel, youth probation officer, the probation office involvement and the Provincial Court judge's time — the typical offender's costs would amount to something in the order of $2,600.

The restorative justice program procedure, on the other hand, involves no more than $80 actually expended and, of course, some volunteer time from the volunteer mentors who participate in this process. We have an enormous cost saving on the one hand, and on the other hand and more importantly, the human benefit that results is worth considering as well.

I have a number of personal testimonials of people who have been involved in the program. The first is the case of a 16-year-old girl who came to the program for stealing from family friends. At the time she had been kicked out of home and school, was living outdoors, consuming drugs and alcohol and involved in unhealthy sexual relationships. She was also in counselling with a recommendation for a psychiatric evaluation at Children's Hospital. The program, through her mentor, worked with her for ten months. When she returned to the program for closure, she made eye contact and held herself proudly. Her mentor advised the program that she was graduating with honours from high school, had moved back home and had not used drugs or alcohol for months. She had also earned

$1,000 restitution to be paid to the victim, had a part-time job, and counselling was no longer required.

The second example is an 18-year-old deaf male. On his own initiative he wrote a letter to the officer who arrested him. He says: "I am writing this letter not because the diversion program asked me to; it is because I need to thank you and apologize to you. I bet you have never gotten a letter from someone whom you've arrested. Hopefully, we can meet some day on different terms."

The third example is a letter from a 15-year-old female that the program accepted on a shoplifting incident: "I would like to thank the referral for all that they have done for me. Everyone makes mistakes, some more serious than others, but you should be able to put the past behind you and move on. I have put shoplifting behind me and would now like to help others do the same. You helped change me, so you can help change many others."

The odd time an older person is involved in the program, and I have an example of a 48-year-old grandfather caught shoplifting who had previously been a law-abiding citizen. He says: "The program is allowing me to make changes in my life without a criminal record, to get off my derrière and do something to change how I was feeling and reacting. I am now interacting with my family in a more positive way. I have just resumed my volunteering. I went to career counselling. I can't change what's in the past, but I can sure change what happens in the future. Maybe in the future I will forgive myself and move on." This man is now gainfully employed and still volunteers on a regular basis.

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to have the opportunity to rise today to respond to the member's statement and to express my appreciation for the insight he's offered into the work of restorative justice generally and also specifically in his own community.

This government supports the idea of restorative justice, and that expression of support is found in a number of important places.

As part of the mission of the Ministry of Attorney General to promote the safety and security of communities, we recognize that the justice system is demand-driven, labour-intensive and often very expensive. The challenge that we set out in our service plan summary for the justice system is to ensure that the system is accessible, affordable, and ensures fairness and equal treatment.

As members know, the identification of challenges by ministries through the core review process leads to the identification of what are called strategic shifts — that is, ideas, programs and projects for different ways of doing things to ensure that we can as government meet our objectives and meet the needs of society.

In order to meet the challenges identified for the justice system, my ministry has expressed its intention to undertake a number of shifts. One of them is "to increase use of out-of-court options including community-based programs for appropriate minor offences." That is precisely what the member has just been talking about. It works, I think, in Chilliwack. I've seen it work in other communities across British Columbia, and one of the goals of this government is to ensure that we can increase the use of restorative justice tools — sometimes called diversion, sometimes called alternate measures — to ensure that the charges that could be laid that don't need to be laid aren't laid, so that we can in fact provide the tools for better public safety responses in those cases where it's appropriate to do something other than the full court system.

In fact, taking the service plan summary that I referred to a minute ago into the full service plan that was tabled with the budget last week, one of our core business areas in my ministry is community and public safety. One of the strategic objectives in that core business area is to increase the appropriate referrals to alternate measures programs.

The value here, I think, is that not only can we create better solutions for individuals who may become involved in the criminal justice system, but we can in fact also save money. I think that across government, we have opportunities to do things better and to do them less expensively. It's a marvellous opportunity. It does require real commitment at the community level — commitment by volunteers, commitment by system experts to make these projects and programs work. I'm delighted to hear that it looks as though the effort the member supported when he was mayor of Chilliwack continues to serve the citizens of his community. I'll certainly do what I can, and government will do what it can, to continue to support that work in the months and years to come.

J. Les: I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General with regard to restorative justice and youth diversion, and certainly in the past I have very much appreciated his support for this initiative. It is one where, first of all, I measure the benefit in human terms. I have one more example here of a victim who was involved in the process, and this particular victim chose to give the youth involved driving lessons so that he could get his licence and apply for a job. Another victim left the meeting room and asked how he could become a volunteer and has now been a successful mentor for over a year.

There are many very touching examples of how people get involved in this program and benefit from the program — not only on the perpetrator's side but also on the victim's side. It is a real community exercise that often results in far more real reform in the conduct of an individual than the more adversarial, court-related process.

I would commend this process to all communities in British Columbia, because it is very effective. It does result in very low recidivism rates, and it makes all of our communities potentially a much better place in which to live. As I said at the outset, this is an example

of one of these kinds of initiatives to which we cannot, as legislators, affix a plaque. I think the result and effect on our communities is extremely beneficial, and as such, it is worthy of our consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Private members' statements continue with the member for Chilliwack-Kent. [Applause.]

B. Penner: Thank you, members, for that warm round of applause on a Monday morning.

I rise today to speak about a memory that comes to me every time I walk down the hallway here at the Legislature. One day during my first session following the election in 1996, I stopped in the hallway just outside this chamber to look at a number of plaques commemorating British Columbians who have been awarded the Victoria Cross. The Victoria Cross, or VC as it is often referred to, is the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Among the 22 plaques honouring British Columbians, most of whom received their VCs posthumously, was one with a photograph of a particularly young and mischievous-looking teenager. As I read the inscription on the plaque, I was intrigued to learn that this VC recipient had been a resident of Chilliwack. Thus began my fascination with what I call the Piper Richardson story, for Piper Richardson is how the hero came to be known.

Two years later during a visit to Ottawa, I made arrangements to meet with officials of the history and heritage section of the Department of National Defence. Major Bob Brown was kind enough to provide me with documents from their files. From these files it appears that young James Clelland Richardson was not good with figures, for at various times he gave the military three different dates for his birth — probably because he falsified his age in order to enlist before he was old enough to do so.

James Richardson, known to his friends and family as Jimmy, was born in Scotland, but his family moved to Chilliwack, British Columbia, where his father became the chief of police prior to the outbreak of war. Jimmy enlisted in 1914, most likely at the age of 16. He won three gold medals prior to heading off to war by competing in piping contests in Vancouver, North Vancouver and Victoria.

Young Jimmy also gained notoriety for bravery. One day, while visiting False Creek in Vancouver, a young boy fell into the cold water. Without hesitation, Jimmy made a running dive off the dock and into the water and eventually emerged holding the younger boy. Unfortunately, all efforts at resuscitation failed, but Jimmy's actions were to foreshadow his conduct to come.

In World War I Jimmy was assigned to the 16th infantry battalion expeditionary force, also known as the Canadian Scottish, and served in Belgium and France. His rank was that of a private, and his role was that of a piper — to play his bagpipes and inspire his fellow soldiers while intimidating the enemy. Jimmy also served as a cook, responsible for feeding up to 18 men at a time.

But it was his keen appetite for adventure which led him to frequently volunteer for dangerous assignments. On one occasion, with only moonlight for illumination, Jimmy advanced on his own beyond Canadian lines near St. Julien into a thick, dark forest. He eventually stumbled across a French farmhouse in a clearing and suddenly realized there were German soldiers all around him. Jimmy flung himself to the ground, trying to hide in the tall grass, but perhaps it was too late. A German officer was moving towards him while gesturing to the other soldiers. According to a letter he later sent to his father, Jimmy thought to himself:

During the Battle of the Somme, which was one of the bloodiest battles of World War I, Jimmy was in an area known as Regina Trench, northeast of the French town of Albert. One day, October 9, he pleaded for permission to "go in" with a planned assault by the 16th battalion on German-held positions. His battalion commander eventually relented. At 4:50 a.m. the Canadians opened up with a withering artillery barrage, and Jimmy joined other soldiers in leaving the relative safety of the trenches to advance across open terrain towards German positions.

Just when things were going well, the Canadians came up against heavy barbed wire stretching 400 yards across their path. It hadn't been cut by the artillery bombardment, as had been the plan. At that moment, gunfire and mortar fire erupted from the German lines, and the Canadians scattered for cover in shell holes and against the muddy ground. Company commander Major Lynch was hit in the chest by a rifle bullet and collapsed. At that moment, things looked very bad indeed. Not one of the Canadian soldiers from the 16th battalion had managed to get past the barbed wire. It seems as if, to a man, the attacking Canadian troops would become casualties.

Jimmy turned to Sergeant-Major Mackie to inquire if he should play his bagpipes, asking: "Wull I gie them wund?" Mackie replied: "Aye, mon, gie them wund."

Upon learning of the posthumous award, Major Gavin Davies wrote to Jimmy's father to express his satisfaction that the young piper had been awarded "the greatest medal of them all."

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's important that these issues are brought forward to the House from time to time — of those that have gone before us and given to us a country that is second to none and have committed, through their acts, an opportunity for us to live in a free and democratic country. Also, I think what the hon. member has done here today is put the real, human face on these situations. He relays the story of one from Chilliwack in the First World War.

A number of Remembrance Days ago I can remember sitting with my meat manager, actually, who'd been in the Second World War. We'd never actually discussed the details of what his days had been like on the front. I found only through the course of the discussion there that he had actually been shot out on the front and left on the battlefield. In fact, he was barely breathing as the enemy came through the fields afterwards, putting a bullet in any of those that were still alive. He managed to huddle down low in the mud in the trenches there and go unnoticed. They eventually all left the battlefield. During the course of the night he managed to crawl back through to his own troops and was, of course, restored to health and has lived a very useful and prosperous life. But, you know, we never knew that story until that particular day of him sitting there and telling me about it. I'd worked and lived with him for many, many years.

You hear of the events in war. Often it's put into the third person. What the hon. member has done today is brought forward to the House the meaning of what these individuals have done for us in respect to creating and allowing us a country as great as Canada, free and democratic, and that it wasn't a third party that did it. It was that neighbour, that man who worked with me, or that individual from Chilliwack in the First World War that committed so much to making sure we have a country such as Canada.

At this time when Canadian soldiers are overseas in Afghanistan, it is especially important to remember the individual humanity of all participants in armed conflict. This was brought home to me in one of the letters that Jimmy Richardson wrote to his brother shortly before his death, when he discussed a topic I can certainly relate to. I'll quote here from the letter.

"I was at town yesterday on a pass, where we were billeted over a year ago. I went to a house there which I used to go to, and the family knew me right away. The old lady has a fine daughter there whom I get on well with. I was asking her if she would come to Canada with me — ha ha — but then she replied her fiancé was at the war, so that finished me."

Later he wrote: "I am back with my old company, but I am sorry to say I see very few old faces." Let us not forget the incredible human cost of a war.

In August 2000 it was discovered that a set of old, mud-caked bagpipes kept at a private school in Scotland were actually of Canadian origin. The pipes had originally been found following the Battle of the Somme in 1917 and were kept as a souvenir. They were thought to be Scottish. However, as part of a school project, closer examination of the tartan weave revealed they belonged to the 16th Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force. This was Piper Richardson's battalion.

The city of Chilliwack has recently struck a committee, headed by Col. Yves Looper, Retired, to pursue some form of public memorial for Piper Richardson. Chilliwack will soon see the opening of a new courthouse, and I have thought how appropriate it would be to commemorate the spirit of Jimmy at this location. Perhaps the bagpipes that he couldn't find but that are now located in Scotland could be repatriated and placed on display in a secure case. I know the idea of a statue is being actively considered and may be located near Chilliwack's main cenotaph, along the entrance into town.

James Richardson is the only Canadian piper to have ever been awarded the Victoria Cross, and he is the only person from Chilliwack to be so recognized. His commitment to his country, his unflinching courage and his willingness to serve others stand as a con-

stant reminder of characteristics we should all strive to attain. Piper Richardson truly is a Canadian hero.

Mr. Speaker: Private members' statements continue with the member for East Kootenay.

B. Bennett: I'm going to deal with a topic that's near and dear to my heart. As a child, I was always thrilled when I received a lump of coal in my stocking. I've brought forward today a prop. I hope that's acceptable under these hallowed circumstances. Here's a piece of high-quality, low-sulphur East Kootenay coal.

B. Bennett: Oh, it's very clean, actually. I can handle it without any dust or anything.

In my riding of East Kootenay there are five operating coalmines. The average salary of the worker at those coalmines is $80,000 a year. That's not bad in this day and age. The coal industry also supports suppliers like the rail industry and the Vancouver Port Authority. Coming out of my riding there are eight trains full of coal steaming out to the coast every single day, seven days a week.

The coal industry in B.C. is a $2 billion industry at present and has tremendous potential for growth. We have in British Columbia some of Canada's largest accessible coal reserves, but right now we're not producing any electricity with that coal. In contrast, Alberta produces about 80 percent of its total electricity with coal, and they are planning more coal-fired power plants at the present time. One has been permitted already for just outside of Edmonton, at Genesee, and another large 1,000-megawatt power plant has been applied for in Brooks, Alberta. The United States generates about 92 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels — mostly coal — and it is also building more coal generation plants.

The main reason that we, here in British Columbia, haven't developed coal generation power plants is the uncertainty around whether coal can be burned to generate power while meeting air emissions standards that are acceptable to the people of B.C. The lack of this coal-fired generation in B.C. is certainly not due to any lack of interest on the part of companies. There is at least one B.C. company in my riding that's been proposing a coal generation power plant for the last 12 years, but they have been unable to obtain clearly defined emissions standards from not only the former NDP government for ten years but also the Social Credit government before that.

Given the critical role today in British Columbia of production of energy both for our use here in B.C. and for export, I suggest that our government should investigate how electricity can be generated here without generating environmentally unacceptable levels of emissions. Coal is a clean, affordable source of energy for our society. We haven't needed coal in B.C. because of the production of hydroelectricity, but last year B.C. became a net importer of electricity. Even with our huge hydroelectric developments and our ample natural resources, we had to buy electricity last year.

There are a few different ways in which we can generate electricity. There's nuclear. I haven't seen a great groundswell of public support for building more nuclear reactors in B.C. There's hydro, but again, I haven't seen a lot of public support demanding that we dam up more river valleys. There's natural gas, and of course, we're all learning that B.C. has natural gas in the northeast of the province. Then there are the so-called green sources of energy — wind, solar and tidal — but these will not meet the growing needs of North America, and a whole lot more research and development is necessary before we can rely on green sources of energy.

The coal-generated power industry in North America has made huge strides in emission levels over the past 20 years. The coal in my region, in the Elk Valley, is significantly lower in sulphur than the coal that's used for power generation in eastern Canada and in the U.S. Midwest. What that means is that there are much lower emissions for the same amount of scrubbing equipment.

This industry is also facing what I consider to be a threat from the Kyoto accord. The Kyoto accord will impose a $190-per-tonne carbon tax on Canadian industry. If you think about the crisis that we had last year with high gas and electricity prices, add $190 per tonne for carbon fuel to that, and you can imagine what kind of a crisis we would have been in last winter.

Emissions trading represents a huge carbon tax on Canadian industry, and it also represents a huge transfer of wealth and jobs out of our country. I suggest that agreeing to the limits set by the Kyoto accord would be economic suicide, particularly given that the U.S.A. is not agreeing to abide by those same limits. The U.S.A. accounts for about 85 percent of our export trade here in Canada.

Now, when emissions from hydrocarbons are being compared, they usually compare stack emissions when they compare, for example, coal versus gas. But they should be comparing the full cycle of emissions. That would include the emissions from a gas well at the wellhead as well as the stack. If those comparisons were made on a full-cycle basis, we would find that gas is really not that much different than coal.

Another good point to ponder, I think, is: how do we develop new and better air emission technologies in Canada without a strong economy, and will our economy in Canada be strong under the severe economic and business restrictions imposed by the Kyoto accord? We should bear in mind that Japan, the U.S., Korea and China all continue to enjoy the benefits of low-emission, coal-generated power plants. The company that wants to build a coal-generated power plant in my

riding is investing millions — hundreds of millions — in Alberta right now, today, a few miles east of where I live.

Can British Columbia afford to effectively sterilize our most abundant energy source? I want to read you a quote from Prof. John Christy. He was the professor who designed the U.S. satellite system to predict and monitor weather patterns. He was also the professor who made the submission to the U.S. Senate Energy Committee on Global Warming in Kyoto, which President Bush has relied on to make his decision to not sign on to Kyoto. This is the quotation:

I ask the question again: can B.C. afford to not exploit this plentiful natural resource?

B. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll leave my comments at that and finish.

Hon. G. Bruce: The hon. member brings forward an interesting topic to the House today: the history of coal and the need for energy in this great province of British Columbia.

The mining industry — not to digress, but how severely it's been beaten in the past ten years. If I can just touch on the aspect of coal for half a moment, you were speaking of the coal that's from your region. I commend you for bringing this topic forward for discussion. Coal, of course, has been a huge part of our history here in British Columbia. On Vancouver Island the mining of coal has been a huge employer.

The mines at Cumberland — my grandfather was a miner years and years ago in those mines. It's a different type of coal. I believe that coal there is a little dirtier and not quite as clean as your fine coal that you have in your part of the province.

The debate and discussion as to what we'll use this great resource for will go on to a great extent. What's important, I think, as the member has done here today, is to bring these topics forward. Let's have the discussion of what our minerals and resources in this province can mean to us and how we can meet the demand for energy in British Columbia — but more than that, the economic renewal and jobs would go with that.

To speak in the broad picture, the mining industry has been a huge employer for British Columbia. Whether it be coal or other minerals, it's time again to restore the presence of the mining industry here in British Columbia and the fine jobs for the men and women that have been in that industry — those that are here — and to bring back those that have left us.

P. Bell: I'm absolutely shocked that we've been able to make it through 40 minutes in the House so far today without congratulating our Canadian men's and women's hockey teams for their recent victories.

My heart certainly went out this weekend, watching the Olympics. The pride in watching what we were able to do yesterday was unbelievable, particularly when you recall that Eric Brewer spent most of his time in junior hockey in my riding of Prince George North. So Prince George was able to contribute in a big way to yesterday's victory.

P. Bell: I'd like just to speak momentarily, if I may, on the issue of coal, as the member for East Kootenay did. My favourite topic is to talk about wood products. I think there's something very similar between wood products and coal in B.C. If we in B.C. are not prepared to help ourselves, then who, really, is going to help us with our economy? We seem to negate the use of wood products on an ongoing basis and move to steel and concrete in the construction processes. It's the same with coal. We have this huge, abundant resource out there, and we seem to refuse to tap into that resource and use it in an environmentally sensible manner.

I think we have already done some positive things with regard to coal production. The PST exemption that we implemented last July, on production equipment and machinery, has certainly helped with the mining process of coal. But we need to go much further than that. We need to develop a single-window application process in order for companies to be able to get into the mineral resources on a more regular basis. I know that close to my riding, in Prince George North, we have vast amounts of coal certainly in Tumbler Ridge and throughout the rest of the region.

I really think the member spoke quite effectively about the need to review the Kyoto accord. There are some very real concerns in terms of what that would do to our industry. B.C. has very environmentally friendly power generation at this point, with the amount of hydroelectric power that we generate. I think there are opportunities for coal generation.

There are three final points of recommendation that the member for East Kootenay would like to pass on. The first is that the province of British Columbia should consult closely with coal producers and the Mining Association of B.C. to develop clear, concise standards for coal-fired generation plants. The second is that emission standards, once established, apply over a specific period of time so as to allow applicants to develop appropriate technologies to meet air-emission

standards and get their projects to the approval stage before the standards change. The final key point is that emission standards need to be flexible in order to reflect the geographic and climatic factors.

We have a beautiful province. No one has the desire to ruin our environment. But there is a huge opportunity, and if we are not going to help ourselves, who will help us?

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to speak on a very important issue — one that affects each and every British Columbian; one that is of significant importance to our municipalities and regional districts right across this province. The issue is the funding formula in which we share in the arrangement for funding of our RCMP officers right across our province.

As a previous mayor of a community, I understand the inequities that exist in the present funding formula and the work that has needed to be done for many years and that has eluded us for one reason or another. I'm very proud to be part of a government that's looking at a new formula for the funding of RCMP within our province.

I want to touch briefly on how it operates right now, how the funding formula works and who we see paying for that funding.

I'll start off by indicating that roughly 724,000 British Columbians pay little or nothing toward policing costs in this province at the present time, not because they don't want to, but because the funding formula that's in place does not enable these people to contribute in the manner that they should. Presently, a community of under 5,000 people pays nothing for policing. Although they have officers located in that community, they pay absolutely nothing under the formula.

Also, when you step up in size in a community…. A community between 5,000 and 15,000 people has to assume 70 percent of the policing costs — the single largest portion of a municipal budget, whether you're under 15,000 or over 15,000. That's 70 percent. When I was the mayor of Dawson Creek, it consumed roughly $2 million of our budget — a significant portion of a budget in a municipality that only collects roughly $5 million to $6 million in taxation in any given year.

Once you crest that magic number of 15,000 people, the costs go up significantly. No longer are you responsible for 70 percent. You then climb to 90 percent of the costs of your police force within your community.

We presently have 12 communities in our province that utilize their own police force. They don't utilize the RCMP. Those 12 communities have to fund 100 percent of their cost of policing. That's a choice that those communities make. It allows them to set their direction and work with their police force on what their local needs are.

The rural portion. The people that live in the rural areas of British Columbia do contribute to policing — a very small amount, though they do contribute. I think we have to look at some equality in how we fund our police forces. I rank policing right up there with health care and education. We can have the greatest health care system in this province. We can have the greatest education system in this province, but if we don't have a safe environment in which to raise our families and do our business, I think everything else goes for naught. I'm very proud to be part of a government that's looking at bringing some equity back to the issue of the funding that takes place now.

More significantly, I'm very proud to be part of a region of this province that's working on a regional policing model as we speak. Knowing very well that this issue had to be addressed at one point, our region, the Peace River regional district, has taken the initiative to work with our Solicitor General in putting together a program that would see the needs of the Peace River regional district met in cooperation with our provincial government and the RCMP. We're working together to come up with not only a funding formula but a method of working together and setting our priorities in our region that serves the members and the people of Peace River South.

Not only is this issue for Peace River South, but it is for Peace River North. The Hon. Richard Neufeld, my colleague who represents that riding, is working on this in cooperation with myself and, again, with the Hon. Rich Coleman.

The Peace River regional district, like any other regional district, works together on many issues. They have differences on many, but when the time comes to pull together, I'm very proud to be part of a region that not only recognizes a problem but recognizes that they have to put a solution forward in order to begin the cooperation that's needed and to begin the track back to what should be an equitable funding formula that we actually, to be quite honest, don't have in our province at this time.

Regional decisions made locally in cooperation with the RCMP can only benefit the citizens that those RCMP represent and protect. Protecting not only our children but all citizens of British Columbia is certainly the most important issue that we all face. As I indicated earlier, the greatest environment in the world, if it isn't safe, is not the greatest environment at all. We have to work very, very hard to get to a point where we can share in the costs for policing and can enjoy the cooperation of all areas of government — provincial, federal, municipal and regional — so that we can come together to deliver a service that we all want and enjoy.

Many people talk about the issue of funding, whether it be policing or any other issue, when in fact they may not see a police officer in their area. I live in an area that's very vast. I have sparse regions, vastly inhabited in some areas. In others you can go for miles and miles without seeing anybody, without seeing a home. But the key to that…. I make a comparison. Many people in the city of Dawson Creek…. A good portion of their taxes go to pay for firefighters. The best

thing that could ever happen is that a citizen of Dawson Creek never sees a fire engine, never has to use it.

I would say that goes the same for the RCMP. I don't want the RCMP to have to come to every business and every residence. The sign of a good society is one where they're doing their job. They're out there when we need them, but we have to know in our hearts that we're safe and that these ladies and gentlemen are doing a job that I have the utmost respect for.

The funding issue is one that they don't have to address. They put their lives on the line every day when they go to work, whether they're in a small community or a large community, an urban area or a rural area of this province. I believe the least we can do is make sure that we have a funding formula in place that allows these men and women to do their job, to go out there and protect the citizens of British Columbia. Again, I can tell you that I'm going to work as hard as I can on behalf of my riding, on behalf of all British Columbians, with our hon. Solicitor General to come up with a funding formula and a regional policing model that works for all of British Columbia.

I look forward to the response from the hon. Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and I'll have something further to say.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I would like to pass my congratulations on to him and his riding and the riding for Peace River North for somebody finally taking an initiative that will benefit all British Columbians, by us having a working model on something that we may want to use elsewhere in the province.

The interesting thing about the meeting I had with all the mayors and regional directors in Fort St. John, when we were in Fort St. John for the open cabinet meeting in January, was that this came from the region to me. They came and asked if they could move forward on an integrated and regionalized model for policing in the Peace. The interesting part about this concept is that it's something that really does work. It allows you to have an overarching model for policing in your area, where you can take care of things like forensic identifications and special investigations, dog teams and what have you, and share those types of services between communities while maintaining a community policing model across a region and having success in policing long-term.

The member is right: over 700,000 people in the province today don't pay for policing. The Premier charged my ministry with looking at a new funding model for policing, which we are working on now and which we will take out this spring for consultation with members from UBCM. We will then take that consultation forward to having a phased-in formula that works for communities — not something that hits them overnight, like some of the cases, when communities hit 5,000 people and all of a sudden have a massive bill in policing facing them versus having the ability to phase it in and understand their costs long-term.

The situation in the Peace is unique in that here's a group of people that have said: "We want to regionalize our policing." They're doing it by saying: "Okay, we're going to do that. Now the RCMP will come up with the model, they will come up with location, and they'll come up with the operational side to this. So we can take this and endorse it to our group and look for a model of taxation and shared costs so that we can take the costs across the region."

It's remarkable that that many people in political life could actually get together to begin with and agree that they would actually do something across communities all the way from Dawson Creek right up the Alaska Highway. In addition to that, as that group moves forward they will actually build a model that we may be able to apply elsewhere in the province as we see how these communities benefit from being able to share costs, manage manpower in an efficient manner and also get the resources into an area so that they can see the upper level of specialization of policing in their area covered off very well.

It is certainly something that I as Solicitor General welcome, because we have been encouraging law enforcement agencies to integrate services on the lower mainland. We have a working group of mayors that are now moving forward to integrate the services between detachments and city police forces down there. Then we'll have a model in the Peace that we can look towards and say: "There's another situation where a group of people have actually addressed the needs of policing in their communities by virtue of getting together and doing some thinking and some planning."

Policing, as the member mentioned, is a challenging situation for people within the law enforcement community. We should thank anybody that works shift work and goes out there and puts their life on the line on a regular basis for all of us in British Columbia. The fact that a group of politicians has now gotten together to get a model that works for police agencies in their area, versus having a model that works basically on boundaries or geographical grounds, shows that we can also build a model of policing without borders, without silos, where information goes back and forth, investigations work, and we have a long-term relationship in policing.

To the member, my congratulations to the Peace. We will go forward with this. I'm sure there'll be bumps along the road, but I'm sure we can work them out together and have a successful regional policing model in the Peace.

The issue that you've touched on, I briefly went over in my original statements. When a community is under 5,000 and they'd don't have to fund their policing within their communities, it makes it very difficult knowing that they're reaching and getting closer. The closer they get to 5,000 should be a good feeling for a community, but in many cases it's not. They're cresting that 5,000-person mark for their community knowing very well that the day after they reach that 5,000 mark,

they're going to have to fund 70 percent of their policing. We're going to look at a progressive scale, one that's going to work for all municipalities.

The hon. minister touched on something very important. He touched on working with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, of whom I was honoured to be a member of for many years in my involvement in local government. This is an organization that's well aware of the issue of the funding problem that exists and the equality that's missing as far as the funding that goes on. So I'm looking forward to working with our government, with our hon. Solicitor General and certainly with the people of Peace River South, Peace River North and all of British Columbia to come up with a model that works.

This isn't about just shifting costs for policing. This is about equality, and this is about providing better policing in the province of British Columbia.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, again I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for his leadership on this issue. Most importantly, I would like to thank each and every member of the RCMP who put their lives on the line every day so that we can live in a safe environment in the greatest province in the greatest country in the world.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to continue the debate with regards to this motion. I would like to make an amendment to the motion and place it with the Clerk.

Mr. Speaker: Moved by the hon. Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General to amend the motion by deleting the words struck out and adding the words underlined:

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you. The Attorney General has spent a number of months going through strategic shifts in core review to build a model that will work for British Columbians in justice.

His strategic shifts had to deal with some challenges, and that was to ensure that the justice system is accessible, affordable, and ensures fairness and equal treatment, and in the context of aboriginal negotiations to affect reconciliation with aboriginal peoples and to establish legal certainty over ownership in the provincial land base.

Within that realm the minister had to basically make some strategic shifts that would address the issues in and around justice in the province — new shifts that would increase reliance upon alternative dispute resolution and prevention of civil and family disputes.

The Attorney General sees the need for families to reconcile their differences and move forward in a less adversarial manner; increase the out-of-court options, including community-based programs, for appropriate minor offences; make greater use of new technology to ease access and reduce costs; undertake proactive risk and liability management; and shift focus away from complex, comprehensive difficulties in justice and move forward to where communities could access justice and work together on it.

The amendment speaks to those strategic shifts and is supportable by this House, so I am pleased to move the amendment.

J. Kwan: Speaking to the amendment, I have to say that it's stunning, really, for the amendment to be tabled and to suggest that the Attorney General actually has a plan to ensure that there is access to justice for all British Columbians, when he himself admitted on January 31, 2002, in the Vancouver Sun — that headline: "Legal Aid Cuts Will Hurt the Poor, AG Admits." That was an admission of the Attorney General. He may not have written the headline, but let me just quote what he actually said, and these would be direct quotes from the Attorney General in the paper.

Before I go to what the Attorney General himself has said, let's just review what the B.C. president of the Canadian Bar Association has said. The B.C. president of the Canadian Bar Association said, referring to these cuts: "It's devastating to the administration of justice. They have turned their backs on thousands of people who can't afford legal assistance." That is a direct quote from the Canadian Bar Association president.

The cuts, of course, will hurt the poor, the disabled and those who are looking for justice, who may otherwise not get access to justice because of a variety of different barriers that they face in their lives — whether they be income-related, language-related or education-related. The fact of the matter is that we live in a democratic society, and we pride ourselves in a democratic society where everybody should be able to get

The president of the Canadian Bar Association goes on to say: "They just won't be represented. There won't be legal aid available for them." That is what the people from the legal profession are saying themselves. I challenge the members in this House: who will stand up and say — with a 40 percent cut to the legal aid budget and the plan that the Attorney General himself has in place — that they will ensure that there is indeed access to justice for British Columbians — especially those who are most in need, especially those who face barriers, especially those who wouldn't otherwise get access to justice?

I quote another lawyer, a Victoria lawyer, who works in this field: "'The bottom line is that if someone does not have legal representation, they are being denied justice. The government has imposed an impossible burden on the poor of the province,' said Victoria lawyer Mayland McKimm, who does a significant amount of legal aid work. 'The cuts to legal aid will make the Legal Services Society budget in this province either the worst in the country or tie for the worst in the country.'"

Another lawyer, a criminal lawyer, Peter Wilson, agreed, saying that even poor people who face jail time will have difficulty in getting legal representation. He says: "There wasn't enough money as it was. There's going to be all kinds of people facing jail, and no one will take them on."

These are the people who are from the legal profession, who work in the field, who are saying to the Attorney General that these cuts will hurt British Columbians. The cuts will be reduced to $54 million by 2004-05. The Attorney General admits that these cuts will affect the poor and will affect access to justice for people who need it in British Columbia.

Here's what the Attorney General said, according to the paper: "At present, many people who don't meet the criteria" — those are the people I assume he's referring to who don't meet the legal aid criteria — "but who still can't afford lawyers do not receive legal services."

"Plant said the number of British Columbians who fall into that category will increase." By the Attorney General's own admission, the number of people in British Columbia who would not be able to access legal aid will increase.

This government claims to be open and accountable, to be one that wants to engage in discussions in terms of the revamping of a variety of different programs, including the legal aid program. The trial lawyers themselves have written to the Attorney General. Not only has the Attorney General not answered their requests when the letter was written to him requesting a meeting for consultation, but the consultation did not take place. This is with a full understanding of what government was going to do around the changes to legal aid.

The trial lawyers have stood up and said: "This will hurt British Columbians in their access to justice." They have said they would not be able to attain the representation they need in the system, even with the changes that the Attorney General glorifies and says that somehow, by these changes, British Columbians will be able to access justice.

The Legal Services Society and the board were very troubled with the plans of the Attorney General to cut the legal aid budget. This is back on February 7 when they had requested a meeting with the Attorney General. The legal aid board had its own meeting, and in a majority vote the board decided it cannot implement a budget based on the government's hierarchy of services and its severe cuts to the Legal Services Society's funding. In reaching that decision, they made it clear that the society needs more money if it is to provide necessary legal services to the poor and disadvantaged across the province. As well, they were adamant that the Legal Services Society must be provided with no strings attached and that the independence of the board as written in the Legal Services Society Act be honoured.

They wrote a letter first thing after they had that meeting with the Attorney General, advising him of this decision of the board. They told the Attorney General that the board remains committed to providing effective legal aid services and wants to work with the ministry to achieve that goal.

They raised the serious concerns they had with respect to the plans of the government. They stated that the funding cut that's being proposed by government would effectively "deny legal aid services to as many as 100,000 clients. It would require the society to largely centralize services, which would have a disproportionate and detrimental impact on rural and remote communities."

We just heard from the member from Dawson Creek, who stood up and said that he wanted to make sure there's access to community safety and to policing and that health and education aren't the only things that are important to British Columbians but that, in fact, safety and justice in our community are equally important, especially in the small communities.

Well, the Legal Services Society board — the former board, I should say…. This government just fired them when they disagreed with the government's plan, when they said to the government: "By doing this, you will effectively limit as many as 100,000 clients from accessing legal aid." They said, as a board, that that's not acceptable and that they would not be able to meet the mandate of the Legal Services Society Act, the act that has been put in place to ensure that justice could be accessed by all British Columbians no matter who they are, where they live and what their socioeconomic status is. The letter goes on to say that eliminating poverty law representation and advice services and severely reducing family law services would deny the poor their fundamental legal rights.

The society requested meaningful dialogue and consultation with the Attorney General. When they wrote this letter, they stated that none had occurred. None had occurred prior to the cuts being presented — from the Liberal government, who campaigned on openness, on accountability, on consultation. They made these cuts that would impact the delivery of legal aid services from the Legal Services Society, and they did not even bother to take the time to go and talk to them.

The letter goes on to note: "While the Ministry of Attorney General is faced with only a 14.7 percent cut in funding and 12.6 percent cut in FTEs…the Legal Services Society is expected to bear a disproportionate 38.8 percent cut…that would, if implemented, require a 74 percent cut in staff positions. This was interpreted by some as a clear attack on clients, particularly in light of the fact that Legal Services Society is being asked to shoulder $34.4 million of the ministry's $83 million overall cut."

Hon. Speaker, the former chair of the Legal Services board went on to note in her letter that with the funding services constraints it imposed on the society, the ministry had put the Legal Services Society in the position of being unable to provide continued and effective delivery of legal aid. She added that under these circumstances, no one can meet the ministry's stated new-era objective of providing equal access to legal representation and justice for all British Columbians.

When such an attack is put in place, when the Legal Services board states very clearly to the Attorney General that these cuts will hurt the very clients the society aims to assist and that they would deny the poor their fundamental legal rights in British Columbia…. They requested a meeting with the AG, and you know what the Attorney General did? He fired them. He fired them and said, "Thank you very much. We've reached an impasse. I don't agree with you; you don't agree with me. Guess what. You're now relieved of your duties" — the very people that were appointed to ensure that justice is upheld for all British Columbians, to ensure that access to justice is afforded to all British Columbians. When that society representing our community steps forward and challenges this government's plan and says, "Your plan will deny access to justice to the most vulnerable, to the poor," the solution from the government is to fire them, get rid of them, silence them. That is the approach that the Liberal government has undertaken.

It is absolutely shocking — absolutely shocking — that this government thinks that is the solution. You know what? They don't want to listen to anybody who has a dissenting view, even their very own colleague from the Canadian Bar Association, which the AG is a member of, I'm sure. Their own colleague suggests that this approach is the wrong approach, that it effectively denies access to justice to British Columbians and must not be followed through. When that voice rises in the community, the government's answer is simply to get rid of it, to silence it.

On February 22, just a couple of days ago, the Law Society and the Legal Services Society of B.C. sent out a press release. They have been dismissed by this government, and they sent out a press release. I'm going to read it into the record:

Then it provides information by which people can contact and connect up to this special general meeting.

The Law Society has been forced to take this step because, I believe, they see that access to legal aid is in jeopardy. People in British Columbia who need access to legal aid after this government's action will effectively see that for the poor and vulnerable, access to justice — the fundamental right to legal representation — will be taken away from them.

A variety of people have spoken up on this issue. I'm going to read some of these quotes into the record. You see, I know the government members are thinking that it is easy for the opposition, for us, to raise these points. Then they will somehow discredit it, because it's coming from the opposition. They say that they have the mandate, because there are 77 of them sitting here in this chamber.

It isn't just my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and myself raising these issues and making these points, but the broader community as well — in this instance, particularly, people who are in the field. The people who are in the field and are the front-line workers who see the need and deliver the need in our community are the ones who are challenging the government as well.

A quote from the former president of the B.C. Law Society, Richard Margetts, from the Times Colonist on January 21, reads: "For many people, especially women and children, the court is the last resort for aid and assistance. These types of cuts alienate the disenfranchised from the community even further."

Another quote from a criminologist, a professor from Simon Fraser. Neil Boyd stated, again in the Times Colonist on January 21, 2002: "This is an indication that the poor are less important than those more affluent."

Other quotes. From Mayland McKimm, the former president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, again in the Times Colonist on January 21, 2002: "The cuts are appalling. You're taking the most disenfranchised and the people who need justice the most and cutting them off at the knees."

Another quote, from the national president of the Canadian Bar Association, Eric Rice, in a letter to the Premier that was cited in the Sun on February 22, 2002.

"This unprecedented course of action will dramatically erode the benefit and protection of the law for many B.C. residents." A national president of the Canadian Bar Association made this statement in a letter to the Premier on February 22.

Another quote, from the B.C. president of the Canadian Bar Association, the B.C. branch. She says: "We are working to build a coalition with our partners in the justice system to persuade the government not to proceed with these cuts. We believe this is ill-conceived…British Columbians have not voted for a government that would remake government in this way." That was February 22, 2002.

Again, from the Attorney General, on his own admission, in the Vancouver Sun regarding the B.C. Liberals' funding cuts to the Legal Services Society of 40 percent over three years. A Vancouver Sun editorial points out: "There is no more damaging criticism of the cuts than the words of the Attorney General" — and he uses the name Geoff Plant — "himself. 'I expect there will be people who have an even harder time finding access to justice than before.'" The Sun editorial also states that a primary role of government is to protect those who can't protect themselves. Proposed cuts to legal aid funding in this province seriously undermine that role. The editorial concludes: "The government must reconsider this cut. Access to justice isn't a frill; it's a right." That was Sunday, February 1, 2002.

The government, I know, likes to again blame the former government for causing them, driving them, to make these cuts. But you know what? The reality is that this government had made a decision. They made a decision to give big tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians and to the big corporations — and at whose expense, Mr. Speaker? It's at the expense of the poor, single mothers, the disabled, the seniors, the most vulnerable — people, in this instance, who need access to justice. That's who is paying the bill to the wealthiest British Columbians who got their tax cuts, to the biggest corporations — the multimillion-dollar corporations, the multibillion-dollar corporations — who are benefiting.

Yes, the money paying for those tax cuts is coming from the poor — make no mistake about it — and it is the choice of the Liberal Party. It is the Liberal government who has made that choice.

The member from Dawson Creek rose up earlier and said that the most important thing for our community is, yes, health, and yes, education, but community safety as well. This goes right to the heart of community safety. It goes right to the heart of democracy, our legal rights. That is the right for legal representation. Legal aid provides that for the people who are most in need, for the people who are the poorest in the province, who need access to that.

The Canadian Bar Association's call on the Attorney General to re-examine the cuts. Carman Overholt today called on the Attorney General to work with the legal profession to ensure access to justice in British Columbia:

This is a quote from the president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

The government's cut hurts the poor; there's no mistake about it. He goes on to say, in the press release issued on February 22, 2002:

At the national mid-winter meeting in Moncton, New Brunswick, just this past weekend, Canadian Bar Association delegates from across Canada voted unanimously to urge the government of B.C. to reverse its decision to reduce legal aid funding and to commit to a properly funded legal aid plan. From the national body:

People have been urging the government not to take this direction. Government took this direction and didn't consult them. I know the amendment that the Solicitor General had brought forward suggests that the Attorney General has a plan to ensure that British Columbians, especially those who are most vulnerable, would be able to get access to justice. In fact, his own colleagues in the justice field, in the legal profession, challenge that and say that this plan will not work, that it will hurt people, that it is going to create a process of inequities within British Columbia and that people would not be able to access legal representation in a democratic society because they don't have the means to do so.

Even Canadian justices have come into this debate. This is a story from the Vancouver Sun back on February 2, where the headline reads: "Chief Justice Makes Plea for More Legal Aid. Canada's Chief Justice is urging governments and lawyers to stop caring about their bottom lines and start acting to cure the epidemic of

lawyerless litigants who are representing themselves in court because they can't get legal aid."

I'll quote from Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who said on Friday: "Providing legal aid to low-income Canadians is an essential public service. We need to think of it in the same way as we think of health care and education."

The Chief Justices themselves have gotten into this debate. They are saying to this government, who won't listen to the opposition…. Maybe they'll listen to the people who administer justice in our courtrooms or to the lawyers who represent the clients in the courtrooms or to the advocates in the broader community who bring voice to the people, voices that are not heard by this government. Maybe they'll take heed and stop with their reckless cuts in legal aid.

Maybe there is an answer to it. Take back some of that tax cut to the wealthiest British Columbians and distribute it to the people who need it the most. In this instance, that's legal services to the most vulnerable people in British Columbia who need to get access to their legal rights.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping that I wouldn't be the next speaker, that some of the private members…. I would be happy to yield the floor to any of them if I got up too soon.

Isn't that interesting. Once again, we have a private member's motion before us where the entire government caucus sits silent on what I consider to be a very, very telling amendment.

Let's just be clear about what the original motion was. It says: "Be it resolved that this House supports the right for all British Columbians to access to justice including representation irrespective of who you are, where you come from, where you live and socioeconomic status."

The Solicitor General, during a private member's time…. The executive council once again gets up and deletes from the original motion brought forward by my colleague, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the section that says "…supports the right for all British Columbians to access to justice…." He deletes that section. Isn't that telling? He replaces it with "…endorses the Attorney General's plan to ensure…." Isn't that telling? They have amended a motion and now delete the part that says "…supports the rights for all British Columbians to have access to justice…." Unbelievable.

The government private members sit back and say absolutely nothing — absolutely nothing. Are they so afraid and intimidated by their executive council that they can't even take the opportunity of their own time in this Legislature to get up and defend their communities?

It's very interesting. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has done an excellent job of saying exactly what the Attorney General's plan is in denying access to justice. In fact, the Attorney General's plan is a plan specifically to deny access to justice.

Let's see what's happening this morning with the Attorney General's plan. Let's see what the effect is of those Legal Services Society cuts. There's a conference call going on right now. A conference call is going on amongst all of the Legal Services Society staff and lawyers. Here's what they're discussing at this very moment. No wonder the Solicitor General is getting up to amend this motion. What they're talking about right now, at this very moment, is how they're going to have to shut down 60 community law offices. We just had a telephone call at this very moment, when those lawyers and legal aid workers were shocked at the Solicitor General's amendment.

That's 60 legal aid community law offices shut down. Perhaps the government members would like to hear this, because they're in your communities. They're being replaced by seven regional offices. My gosh, 60 community offices down to seven regional offices. Boy, that's really increasing access to justice — isn't it? No wonder he wanted to amend the motion.

Of course, they're also discussing how they're getting completely out of the business of poverty law, but I guess that makes sense when they're saying to people in 60 communities in the province that you're not going to have access to legal aid at all in your own community. Yeah, that's the good news today.

What communities are being affected? What communities are being affected in this province? Well, those 60 communities that are losing their community law offices are represented by Liberal government MLAs. Why aren't they standing up and asking the Solicitor General why he amended this motion? "Why is he amending the motion to deny access to people in my community," should they not stand up and ask? No, it's left up to my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me to raise these issues.

J. MacPhail: What is the Attorney General's plan to enhance access to justice? Well, he doesn't have a plan to enhance; he's got a plan to deny access to justice. And why? I hear executive council members saying: "Oh, the plan…. Legal aid is outrageously expensive. We're the third-highest in the country." Isn't this great? Isn't this lovely? We have a government that the only place they want to be the best is in cutting taxes for the rich and the corporations. That's the only place they want to be No. 1. On anything else they're happy to be No. 3, No. 5, No. 6, No. 8. Only when it's giving away to the rich and the powerful do they want to be No. 1.

Of course, that's why they're only talking to the business community. That's why day after day these great cabinet ministers go out and ensconce themselves in big hotel rooms and talk to the chamber of commerce, to the Business Council, to the board of trade. Do they get out and actually talk to people outside of those corporate boardrooms and those chambers of commerce? No, they don't.

Here's what's happening. Let me just give you an example of what's happening in a town like Nanaimo. Let me just tell you what's happening. The member for Nanaimo isn't present, I see. Let me just tell you what I learned this weekend from his constituents — what's happening to legal aid in his community. I know the Premier was busy at home watching the Olympics while tens of thousands of British Columbians showed up on the lawns here to talk about a wide range of issues, but top of mind amongst a group of people from Nanaimo was the pending cuts to legal aid in their community.

You know what they heard from their member? They heard from their member, the member for Nanaimo, how upset he was that he was getting an inordinate amount of referrals to his office from people who were no longer going to be eligible for legal aid. He was upset; he was annoyed. I can hardly wait for him to enter into this debate and say it to the Solicitor General, making this ridiculous amendment to undermine the whole notion of access for everybody. I can hardly wait for the member for Nanaimo to join in this debate and reflect his annoyance. Of course, his annoyance, as it was described to me, was directed at the people who were actually coming to his office and asking him: "What should we do?" It wasn't about the fact that these cuts were too deep and left people vulnerable.

This morning in private members' statements we had the member for Chilliwack-Sumas rising up to speak about restorative justice, and we had the member for Peace River South standing up to talk about regional policing and how important both of these aspects of justice and access to justice are — key to the well-being of their communities. What do they think we're discussing right now? What do they think access to justice for all British Columbians is all about? How can they stand up and talk about their own little corner of justice, whether it be policing or a different way of dealing with people in violation of the law? What do they think will happen when their courthouses are shut down, when legal aid is cut?

Is there a disconnect between the two? Well, there seems to be a disconnect, because they're standing up letting the Solicitor General amend a private member's motion that supports their point of view. The Solicitor General is completely taking away the ability of these Liberal MLAs to vote in favour of access to justice for all by saying that now they have to stand up in a test of loyalty to see whether they support the Attorney General's plan to cut the heck out of access to justice. That's what they've done. Everybody will get up when there's a vote on this, and all the government caucus members will stand up and go: "Aye, aye. I support the Attorney General."

Here's another benefit we have from this government for access to justice. The Finance minister is basing his forecasts for success in balancing the budget on having 5,000 fewer criminal prosecutions. Well, I guess that makes sense. Cut legal aid. Cut access to justice. Cut the policing out there, and let them go. Have 5,000 fewer criminal prosecutions.

Oh, that's good news. That's good news for the people in our community. That's good news for people who own homes in this province and are defending their property. That's good news for the safety of our community. That's good news for what the member for Peace River South was talking about in terms of regional policing. Well, I guess you don't need regional policing. You don't need more police, if you're going to prosecute fewer criminals.

It's all a nice plan. It's all a nice plan so that they can be No. 1 one in giving the largest corporate tax cuts and the largest cuts to the wealthy. That's what this government wants to be No. 1 in — absolutely nothing else. I am surprised, actually, that the executive council once again supplants the interests of the private members and completely undermines the ability for any — except for the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me — to stand up and defend the interests of our communities against these horrific cuts that will affect access to justice for every single person in this province no matter where they come from, no matter where they live and no matter what their socioeconomic status is.

Hon. G. Collins: I just thought I'd get up and bring a dose of reality to some of the comments that the previous two members made in response to the motion and the amendment which is before the House. The way the members opposite would have it is that if you were to look out one of the many windows this building has, huge chunks of the sky would be crashing to the ground and knocking people out on the sidewalk. That is clearly not the case, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. G. Collins: The members opposite, who seem to want to continue to debate even though they've already had their opportunity, make reference to comments by the legal community. The member failed to note that British Columbia presently has the most expensive legal aid program in the country. The member opposite talks about where the government is No. 1, and she says government is only No. 1 for taxes for businesses and high-income individuals. In fact, that's not accurate either.

British Columbia is not No. 1 for lowest income tax rates for people at the high-income level. In fact, British Columbia is not No. 1 for corporate taxes. We're about in the middle. We're sort of competitive now, Mr. Speaker. Under that government, we did have the highest personal income tax rate not just in Canada but in North America. That hurt everybody across British Columbia. We did have amongst the highest business taxes across North America…

Hon. G. Collins: …and across Canada. The members' rhetoric and reality, much like they have for the last ten years, don't bear much resemblance. In fact, the member talks about us being No. 1 for high income tax individuals having the lowest tax rate. She's inaccurate and not accurate in that case either. Where British Columbia is No. 1 is the income tax rate for people earning $60,000 and $30,000 and below.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, order, please. The Leader of the Opposition was listened to without interruption.

Hon. G. Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know reality hurts, and I know this member opposite has writhed in pain over the last decade as members have stood up and corrected her facts. I'll do it again. She says that her government brought in the lowest income tax rates for people $60,000 and below. That also isn't true, and she knows that. She would know, because she was Minister of Finance. British Columbia did not have the lowest income tax rate for people making $60,000 or less. I think she would know that, because she did occupy the Minister of Finance job for some very painful period of time. On our first day in office this government brought in a tax cut that made sure people earning $60,000 and below and $30,000 and below paid the lowest rate of personal income taxes of anywhere in Canada. That's a fact, and it's a positive fact.

If the member opposite really feels as strongly as she does about legal aid, services to people, dollars in communities and money in people's pockets, she wouldn't have sat around the Treasury Board and approved the fast ferry fiasco, which took half a billion dollars out of the pockets of British Columbians.

Hon. G. Collins: The Leader of the Opposition says half a billion and a sundeck might look pretty attractive to British Columbians. That's a shame, because right now — as a result of the Premier that she supported in two elections, supported over and over again — the people of British Columbia are pouring millions of dollars into a legal defence for the former Premier of British Columbia that perhaps should have gone into legal aid in this province. She's happy about that. She thinks that is a positive thing for British Columbians. She harks back to the good old days of fast ferries and criminal proceedings for Premiers of British Columbia and says that those were the good old days. They're better than they are now. I know that some of the people on the front lawn might have said that because they were the…

Hon. G. Collins: …members, the heads of the public sector trade unions, who held the power in British Columbia for the last decade. That's why it was so astounding to see them out there on the front steps over the weekend. They're the highest-paid civil servants in the country — the highest-paid — and they're out protesting on the front steps of the Legislature. If they wanted more money going back into services, why have they been demanding astronomical wage increases for the last few years?

Let's put some of this into reality. If the member opposite, who never seems to stop talking day or night, felt strongly about putting money into people's pockets, why did she, as minister responsible for ICBC, approve the project in Surrey that's $250 million, and they just had to take a $100 million write-down on it? If she was the champion of the taxpayers, if she was the champion of people, perhaps the member opposite would have done her job when she was minister responsible and put the brakes on Bob Williams. Or was she just afraid to stand up to the big head honcho in the NDP?

ICBC isn't doing that well, and it's because of the messes we're cleaning up from when she was the minister. Last year ICBC made a forecast under her government — she was Deputy Premier — that they were going to make $75 million this year. Do you know what? Do you know how much they lost? They lost $250 million.

Hon. G. Collins: And the member says that's her fault. Well, Mr. Speaker, she's got one thing right today: it is her fault. We're fixing ICBC. We're fixing the government of British Columbia. We're cleaning up the messes the previous government left behind…

Hon. G. Collins: …and we're making good progress on that. I just couldn't sit there and listen to the factual inexactitudes that were made by the member opposite. You look at the priorities, and you look at what government has to deal with, and I think the people of British Columbia understand that this province was in a mess. This province needs to be fixed. It's going to be tough to do that, but we're making the right decisions.

We're not making decisions because they're particularly popular or because people want us to make their decision in their particular area. We're doing it because, comprehensively, it's the right thing for British Columbia. We know how this province was driven into have-not status by the previous administration, and we know what it's going to take to turn it around.

When people hear the member opposite speaking, I know they recall what they've heard out of her mouth for the last decade. They know what they were being told, and they were being sold the bill of goods. They're being sold a bill of goods here today as well. The fact is that at the end of these changes to the Attorney General's plan for legal aid, British Columbia will be the third-highest in the country. Where are the lawyers screaming about those other seven provinces? Where are the motions coming out from the legal community? Where are the motions coming from the legal community, deriding the legal aid services in the seven other provinces in Canada? Where are the people complaining about that?

The reality is that the Attorney General has put together an excellent plan to make sure that we still have one of the best legal aid systems in the country, but he's getting it under control.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Order, please. The Government House Leader has the floor.

Hon. G. Collins: It is hard for members…. There are 76 of us, I think, that sit on the government side. It's virtually impossible for us to speak in this House when the member for Vancouver-Hastings speaks constantly, whether she's standing or sitting. I suppose she'll have a great deal of time in opposition to do exactly what she's been doing.

The reality is that the people of British Columbia know the challenges this government faces in cleaning up the mess of the last decade. That's why there are two of them on that side of the House. They knew what that government did to this province. They know what the previous government did to this province, and they also know it's going to take some tough medicine and tough times to get British Columbia back on track. They're willing to support it.

I think the Attorney General's plans to make sure British Columbia gets its costs under control, to make sure that British Columbia still has among the top three legal aid services in the country, is something the people of British Columbia will understand. I know, once the legal community gets over the fact that their receipts might be a little lower, they'll understand that as well.

Mr. Speaker: Further debate on the amendment to the motion? Everyone has read it and knows what it is.

Mr. Speaker: Division will have to be called at a later time today, at 5:30 p.m.

J. Kwan: Pursuant to standing order 31, I ask that motions on notice Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, as listed in schedule D, be allowed to stand and retain their precedence.

J. MacPhail: Pursuant to standing order 31, I ask that motion on notice No. 8, as listed in schedule D, be allowed to stand and retain its precedence.

Tomorrow the Premier of this province is calling a provincial congress, which will be meeting in Vancouver. This House will rise, and all MLAs, MPs and some communities will be represented at this provincial congress. In fact, 15 communities out of the 150 or so communities in this province will be represented — only the largest communities. In fact, it very specifically says: "Only the 15 largest communities in this province will be represented at the provincial congress tomorrow." There's probably a good reason for that. That's because this government doesn't want to hear from the smaller communities. They're going to hold the provincial congress tomorrow, and the smaller communities of this province will be denied their voice at the….

J. MacPhail: Uh-oh, I think we've struck a nerve. I think we've struck a nerve with the Government House Leader for sure. He's up there trying to set the record straight. But it's true, Mr. Speaker — the 15 largest communities. Here's why. All across the province there were rallies on the weekend — thousands of people in towns represented by each and every one of these MLAs — protesting what's happening to their communities.

Let me just tell you some of the things that are happening. The ferry fares have been hiked. All three routes have been cancelled in…the Marguerite, the McLure, the Little Fort. There's been reduced services for ferries on Kootenay Lake, Galena Bay and François Lake. The Needles, Glade and Harrop cable ferries are down, the Arrow Park cable ferry is down, and the Usk ferry is down. There are 24 courthouses closed. The

women's centres across this province have had their funding cut. Human resources offices in Sooke, North Island, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Squamish, Vancouver, Burnaby, Agassiz, Coquitlam, Surrey, White Rock, Lillooet, Clearwater, Ashcroft, Bella Coola, Fernie, Kimberley, Revelstoke, Invermere, Creston, Castlegar, Chetwynd, Fort St. James, Dawson Creek, Hazelton, Houston and Terrace are being closed. Right now there is a conference call going on, shutting down 60 community law offices. No wonder the Premier doesn't want representation from the smaller communities at his provincial congress.

There is a resolution from the city of Hope that they be allowed to attend the meeting, asking for a meeting. What have they heard from the Premier? Dead silence.

Transportation. Regional ministry offices are being closed in Nelson and Penticton. Water, Land and Air Protection services…across this province are unduly harming the smaller communities of this province.

The community charter, giving local autonomy to municipalities…. They are terrified of the downloading

that's going to happen, particularly in small communities. The downloading of policing for communities of 5,000 or less is greatly harming communities. On and on it goes.

But I must say that we will resume this debate when the provincial congress is over, and every single community of the 16 and greater number who are not part of the large 15 and who are denied representation will have more to say on this at the next private members' motions.