Hansard -- Thursday, May 2, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 2 (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

Point of Privilege		3135
	J. Kwan

Introductions by Members		3135

Second Reading of Bills		3135
	Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36) Hon. R. Neufeld J. MacPhail Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45) Hon. G. Plant J. Kwan

J. Kwan: Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve the right for a matter of privilege.

Hon. M. Coell: Today in the gallery we have 24 students, their teacher and four adults accompanying them from Bayside Middle School in Brentwood. Bayside is a wonderful school. These young people are here to watch us today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, Bill 36 amends four acts: the Coal Act, the Oil and Gas Commission Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act. With this bill we aim to improve client service by removing barriers to development, encourage greater investment in the mining and oil and gas sectors, and reduce the cost to government. By encouraging investment and fostering private sector growth, we will increase revenues that help support government's priorities like health care and education. These changes mark a positive step towards results-based regulations and performance-based compliance and enforcement models for the mining, oil and gas and energy sectors.

The amendments proposed to the Coal Act streamline regulatory requirements for holders of coal licences and leases. Coal tenure holders wishing to access their licence locations will no longer be subject to the provisions of the higher-level plans under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. The proposed amendments will allow coalminers the use of on-site aggregate for building and maintaining safe mine roads. Metal miners can use on-site aggregate, but coalminers have had to obtain a separate tenure under the Land Act. This amendment corrects the inequity and removes the need for duplicate tenures.

Amendments to the Oil and Gas Commission Act are aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on industry and making the rules and processes clearer and more effective. They will help to ensure that the commission's operational practices, processes and regulation authorities reflect government's interests and priorities.

The amendments include a change that allows certain regulatory responsibilities administered by other agencies to be transferred to the commission for oil and gas activities and pipelines. The commission's lack of authority over certain regulations has limited its ability to streamline processes and improve efficiencies. Authorities to be transferred as a result of this amendment include the oil and gas waste regulation under the Waste Management Act and part 7 of the water regulation under the Water Act to the commission.

One subsection is being repealed to enable the commission to enforce provisions under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.

Presently the definition of a pipeline in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act is different from the definition in the Pipeline Act. An amendment will allow the Oil and Gas Commission Act to adopt a more appropriate Pipeline Act definition.

The act is being amended to increase the board of directors from two to three. The Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines will be a director and a chair of the Oil and Gas Commission. The changes clarify the roles, functions and duties of the board and differentiate the powers of the commission from those of the board. Changing the structure will strengthen the authority of the commission. Having the deputy minister serve as chair acknowledges the close relationship that must exist between the commission and the ministry.

With the changes comes a new provision that will create a general development permit, allowing for concurrent examination of surface effects of planned oil and gas activities and pipelines in local areas. This permit will reduce regulatory burdens for the industry, improve planning and land use coordination and streamline the commission's application review process.

A number of amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will help facilitate new developments such as coalbed methane, streamline administrative processes and clarify provisions. The current 600-metre depth restriction on test holes is being eliminated to make this tool more useful to industry. The term of a geophysical licence will be established in regulation to allow a definition of a longer term. This will reduce the cost for both industry and the commission while providing the appropriate administration. Currently, every licence year expires December 31 of the year it's issued. A company wishing to survey in mid-winter, when many surveys are done — in fact, almost all of them — may require two licences to complete a single survey.

New variance provisions will be created to permit more flexibility in the geophysical exploration regula-

tion and regulations made by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Geophysical regulations, section 4(5), lists a number of items that must be included in a final plan submitted to the commission after the completion of a project. The regulation might be written to allow an authorized commission to vary this list of items, either by adding to it or deleting from it.

Section 10 says that the seismic lines that do not entail the drilling of holes must be marked within a minimum of eight metre metal tags per kilometre. In some areas, or if the project is done in winter, making the lines might not be required or practical, so this provision might be written with the phrase "unless otherwise approved by an authorized commission employee."

Section 2 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act general regulation specifies all the fees for different things under the PNG Act. We may want to provide the ability for someone to waive a specific fee. For example, an issue came up a while ago, where a university wanted to conduct a Lithoprobe study, essentially a geophysical exploration program conducted over a fairly long distance using ditches along highways and roadways. The current regulation would not allow government to waive what amounted to exorbitant costs because of the length-of-survey component of the fee.

Section 8 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act general regulation requires the submission of a report every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. For some schemes a different reporting frequency may be appropriate or desirable. The expansion of petroleum and natural gas developments into areas outside the conventional petroleum and natural gas production areas of B.C. has increased the possibility for involving land where persons other than the province own the petroleum and natural gas rights.

An example would be the new interest in coalbed methane and other oil and gas developments on Vancouver Island, the Kootenays and the northeast areas where there are large privately held blocks of old Crown grants. The proposed amendments will clarify that certain parts of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act apply to those developments.

In some areas of the province and for some developments, such as coalbed methane projects, a variance from normal well-spacing rules may be required for technical, operational and other reasons. For example, normal spacing for gas wells in B.C. is 640 acres per well. Most American jurisdictions use spacing in the range of 80 to 320 acres per well for coalbed methane production. Amendments are proposed to provide for streamlining processes to accommodate other-than-normal circumstances in the development of resources such as coalbed methane.

Currently, the Ministry of Energy and Mines can invest in resource roads and other infrastructure to facilitate the development of energy, mineral and oil and gas resources, but there is no authority for tolls or charges for the use of those facilities by industry. An amendment to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act will authorize the ministry to administer and collect tolls and charges for resource roads and other facilities. It will promote ministry involvement in public-private partnerships, provide greater access to Crown land and resources, and protect and create jobs in the mining and oil and gas sectors.

The Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road, currently administered under the Build BC Act, is an example of a resource road that could be better managed under this amendment. It should be noted that this provision is expected to be consistent with the proposed omnibus private-public partnership bill. The title of the act will be changed to the Ministry of Energy and Mines Act to reflect the current name of the ministry.

The various amendments going forward under this ministry bill support our goals to create a thriving economy led by the private sector, one that provides high-paid jobs for British Columbians and reduces their tax burden.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to committee for…. I'm sorry. Strike that last comment from the record, please, sir.

J. MacPhail: I want to put some points onto the record around Bill 36, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, that will shape the discussion. I hope that we have, at committee stage on the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act…. I have a few areas of concern.

I know that all British Columbians want to see a strong provincial economy. It's important, at the same time that everybody wants to see strong economic growth, that we don't take too many steps backward while supposedly moving forward in the name of economic growth. It is important to recognize and maintain the important steps that have already been made in environmental protection over the last several years.

I listened very carefully to the debate last night around changes to the Waste Management Act, with my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant making some important points, and the reaction of the government benches. The members of the government, particularly this Minister of Energy and Mines, are always quick to try and blame the mining industry decline on regulations and so-called red tape from the previous government. It's very interesting to note that as soon as they took over government, the issue of commodity prices was suddenly an external condition. Under the previous government there was no such thing as external conditions of commodity prices, but under their government now it's all of that.

Let me just say that even as they go so far as to say that the previous government — and I've heard them say this over and over again in quotes — "hated" the mining sector in this province, that is just simply

wrong and inaccurate. In fact, this Liberal government is now merely building upon changes that we made in this sector.

During second reading of Bill 32, backbencher after backbencher rose and personally accused the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant of trying to condemn the mining industry in B.C. I'm going to take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to actually try and set the record straight on this. During all of this discussion, no one — no one — can possibly dispute the importance of the mining industry to communities throughout this province. In fact, it becomes increasingly important during a time when another part of our resource sector is so threatened, the lumber sector, the forest sector.

However, this is my point: it is imperative to maintain firm checks on an industry which can have severe impact on the environment and ecosystems that are part of other parts of a sustainable resource sector. If I could use the words of the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, we need balance. Unfortunately, much of this government's actions are not balanced, but they're unevenly skewed toward industry — guaranteeing certain access to land, removing requirements from the Forest Practices Code and planning to expand coal burning as a source of power in British Columbia. At a time when we as a nation are trying to meet international air-quality standards and improve the quality of air in British Columbia, this government — I think, Mr. Speaker, far more so leaning toward appeasing the Mining Association of B.C. — wants to expand non-renewable energy sources — all this at a time when the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has pledged to improve air quality in British Columbia.

The reason why I bring this up in this legislation is because it's a fundamental part of the legislation's purpose: to open up the coalmining sector and, ultimately, expand coal burning in British Columbia. I think we need to examine this as being part of a larger jigsaw puzzle that we're starting to put together. In the course of putting this jigsaw puzzle together, we really see what this government has planned for the energy sector and environment in this province. I want to outline some of the pieces of that puzzle.

Since it was completed in March, the Minister of Energy and Mines has been sitting on the final Energy Policy Task Force report. I think it's a safe guess to say that the government is stalling because of the extremely unpopular things which it will say and propose and which will probably, eventually, be adopted by this government. You know what? This government has decided to release the bad news bit by bit to try and lessen the outcry when the final report is released.

For example, the interim report proposed splitting B.C. Hydro up and moving toward privatization of services as well as increased price to customers. People kept on saying: "Privatization. You're selling off our resources, and you're increasing prices to us at the same time. What's that about?" Consumer groups and industry groups are still speaking out about those proposals. However, the minister announced on April 26, through the media — maybe the back bench heard it the first time through the media as well — that the people of this province should expect a price increase in hydro rates of nearly 40 percent.

As of mid-April when we had that debate, almost a month after the report was completed, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection had not seen the report. Now we have a bill before us that will allow for the expansion of coalmining in the province, freeing everything up so that this government can expand coal burning.

Another critical element of this jigsaw puzzle that we're starting to put together around industry, environment and the mining sector is environmental assessment. This bill, as we have discussed, will remove barriers to development. What this minister, the Minister of Energy and Mines, and this legislation are not saying, however, is the role environmental assessment will play in the development of coalbed methane or increased mining activity.

The news releases around this bill talk about flexibility to industry. Well, the question has to be asked — and I hope it can be answered, unlike any other time this question has been asked: just how much flexibility are we talking about? It's a real concern, because we've heard that the environmental act will be changing.

In estimates debate on March 7 the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management was asked if any areas currently assessed would no longer be under the new legislation. He responded: "The same types of projects that are being reviewed today will be reviewed under the new process." However, when pressed about specifics, the minister was not so confident. When asked about mineral refining, the minister said: "We haven't determined those details at this time." What the minister didn't know at that time was that the opposition had received an internal ministry document outlining that processes like mineral refining would no longer be required to go through an environmental assessment.

There you have it. There's another piece of the puzzle. The government's going ahead with this legislation to expand the mining industry, but it's keeping quiet — I would say dead silent — on the changes to the environmental assessment process that will impact the quality and comprehensiveness of that environmental assessment process directly on the parts of the resource-based part of our economy that are being opened up for business right now.

Let me make a prediction. I think the opposition's record on predictions is pretty good to date. Let me predict that under this government, we'll see the environmental assessment process so weakened that the Liberal government can say it has given industry flexibility, but it will all be at the expense of the environment.

This bill, Bill 36, also gives us a glance at the changes to the Forest Practices Code. Just yesterday, 24

hours ago, the Minister of Forests released a White Paper on the new code, to be followed by legislation this fall. This was supposed to be a period, right now, that allows for consultation with stakeholders before the legislation comes down. However, this government has obviously decided what the changes will be in many of the areas of this province. So much for consultation — 60 days to do what?

Bill 36 points out exactly the type of changes in the Forest Practices Code that we can expect. Let me just give you an example. The coal tenure holders wanting to build a road to a site will no longer be required to comply with the Forest Practices Code requirements. Well, isn't that interesting? I'm hoping that the minister has gotten way out ahead of his government and that his government simply doesn't know he's now legislating changes to the Forest Practices Code and thereby undermining, perhaps even questioning, the veracity of the commitment of the Minister of Forests to consult on the Forest Practices Code.

Again, where's the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection on this? Yesterday I heard the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection quote me on the use of coal in our economic development. She quoted me exactly accurately. Here's what I said. I said that the environmental safeguards around coal production are rapidly advancing. This was in discussion about the development of the Hat Creek coal site — absolutely accurately. What she failed to acknowledge was that the previous government didn't try, in any way, to limit the ability of the Forest Practices Code to protect the environment. The previous government didn't limit the comprehensiveness of environmental assessment, like this government is planning.

The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is exactly right that the previous government did everything, in an environmentally protective way, to encourage the development of coal, which now puts to rest all of the catcalls and hoots from the Liberal back bench that somehow we were anti–energy development. What we didn't do, the way this government is now doing, is say to the industry: "Have at the province. Don't worry about environmental protection. Don't worry about having to do any environmental assessment. The province is open up to you regardless of the environmental consequences." The previous government absolutely supported industry but, at the same time, took a balanced approach so that the province's natural resources were sustainable not only for this current generation but for the next generation as well.

Let me just put another couple of pieces into place around what this legislation is actually doing. The Ministry of Energy and Mines press release on Bill 36, the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, states: "Permit conditions will continue to ensure the environment is protected." What we see here is a group getting exemptions from very important requirements from the Forest Practices Code. No longer will these groups, while building roads, be forced to abide by the standards and regulations that protect the environment. "But don't worry. Trust us," the minister says. "There will be permit conditions." Really?

On the basis of what do we trust the government? The conditions won't be in legislation, not this legislation. These are conditions that are changing huge practices in this province contained in the Forest Practices Code, but here we are with no legislated guarantees, and we're supposed to trust the government. Once again environmental protection is thrown by the wayside — no legislated guarantees whatsoever — with a promise from this government saying: "Trust us, and trust industry."

Again, the minister might say: "Don't worry. Trust us. Be happy, because the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection will hold us accountable with standards and compliance and enforcement." Unfortunately, I have to reflect that people are saying across this province: "Sorry, that's of little assurance when one considers that the budget of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection for compliance and enforcement is being reduced by over 35 percent over the next three years, right at a time when its services are required more and more."

Maybe some people can see this jigsaw puzzle forming a picture of what the future of British Columbia will look like for a sustainable economy — for us, for our children and our grandchildren. It is a jigsaw puzzle that this government wants to keep a secret, but there are many, many in this province who are seeing what it looks like.

In fact, I think the Business Council of British Columbia last week in its economic statement said it best — that for many, many decades this province has relied in the past and continues to rely on resource development as….

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm actually having trouble concentrating, but far be it from me to question the member for Vancouver-Kingsway to actually get up and debate the matter.

What has been the economic agenda so far outlined, since the failed tax cuts haven't stimulated the economy? That failure led to the burial of lots of communities' infrastructure in this province — their hospitals and schools. So what's the government doing? They're talking about offshore oil and gas exploration. Gosh, that's really new economy. They're talking about expanding coalmining. Gee, that's really new economy. They're talking about privatization of the forest sector to eliminate community-based jobs but expand access for forest companies.

The Business Council itself, the best friend of this government, has said this is exactly the wrong direction to go in. Not only does the Business Council say that…. What the government is doing is going in ex-

actly the wrong direction and also risking the future of our children as well by having no protections in place to sustain our resources for the future.

I am standing up here reflecting the concern of many business people in this province, community people and, I would say, parents and grandparents who believe strongly in a sustainable economy. They are deeply concerned that the government is systematically dismantling environmental regulation in this province so that it can say: "B.C.'s open for business."

I predict this: if the high environmental standards that B.C. is accustomed to are not maintained, we will see a rebirth of a war in the woods — land use disputes like we've never seen before, as this government favours one sector's use of the land over another's. We will see a situation that will do nothing to improve investor confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I would prepare the government for very serious questions from the public at large on its so-called commitment to consult on Forest Practices Code changes that are clearly being legislated out of existence in this legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Energy and Mines closes the debate on Bill 36 second reading.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the remarks from the member for Vancouver-Hastings and look forward to some debate as we go forward. It's interesting that the member brings forward some of the issues that she did, and again it's the fear she tries to instil in people's hearts about what's actually happening in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I guess sometimes that member doesn't remember what it takes to keep a province going — such a short memory from that person — or what it takes to keep a health care system working for the province, which this government is intent on doing, or what kind of money it takes to keep a good education system. K-to-12 and post-secondary education in this province are a huge amount of dollars.

We have to open up our resources. We have to create good jobs in the resource industry. Those jobs that average $80,000 to $100,000 a year are the kinds of jobs we need in British Columbia so that we can continue to afford to have those excellent services that that member talks about having all the time.

It's pretty hard to be chastised by the member of the opposition about the burning of coal. This bill has nothing to do with the burning of coal. It has everything to do with making it easier for the coal industry to be able to do its business but to still have high environmental standards. We're known around the world for that. The highest standards in health and safety in North America continue, but what we need to do is be able to make sure that that industry is there is for us in the future and for our children so that they can have good jobs in the coal industry.

There's nothing wrong with the coal industry. In fact, as late as 2000, that member was speaking on radio and saying she had no problems with burning coal for the generation of electricity — in the year 2000, when she was in government. Today she comes into this House and has a totally different story, but that's not untypical of what we hear from that member day after day after day.

To say that the Business Council says it's wrong to have a good resource economy is totally taking things out of context. I can't imagine that the Business Council said that. I would, obviously, think they said we should be looking towards the new economy, but that new economy demands certain things. It demands copper in huge amounts. It demands good, solid electricity in huge amounts. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you know that high-resolution TVs, for instance, require four times the energy that normal TVs do. Where does that energy come from? It doesn't just come out of the sky. It has to be generated someplace. We have to generate it so that we can have that high-tech industry. That high-tech industry also contributes to how the industry operates.

Things have changed dramatically in how we mine. It's changed dramatically in how we mine coal or minerals, or search for oil and gas.

I should back up here a bit. The other thing that is interesting is that I'm sure this member…. I don't know if she's changed much, but when she was in government, she used to fly back and forth from Vancouver to Victoria — because her home's in Vancouver — on almost a daily basis on the helijet. I'm not exactly sure how much jet fuel that helijet uses on every trip, but I'm going to get those numbers, and I'm going to figure out how much it costs, how many barrels of oil have to be produced so we can have that helijet flying back and forth for our convenience. Every one of us wants that convenience. She's no different than I. I fly back and forth — not on a daily basis, but I fly home. It consumes jet fuel, but it gets me back and forth to my home.

It's interesting to note that every year we consume about 40,000 pounds of minerals and energy in our normal daily lives. That's what we do today, each and every one of us. I don't care whether you're an environmentalist or someone who doesn't care; it's the average, in the middle.

That has to come from somewhere. It can't just come from everyplace else. It's got to be developed here, and if we can develop it here and provide good, solid jobs in British Columbia, that's what we should be doing. If you take that 40,000 pounds a year and multiply it by the average age of about 70 years, it's a huge number. That's all energy that we consume on a regular basis.

When you see computers, when you see laptops, just think about what goes into making that laptop. There's copper; there's plastic; there's lithium batteries. The whole laptop is created mostly by mining of minerals. Then you need energy to run it. Lo and behold, you can't just plug it into the wall and — you know

To run around with a chicken approach, saying the world is falling if we don't quit generating electricity and we don't quit using minerals, is the absolutely backwards way to do things. We have to use that high-tech, which we do in the province of British Columbia, to be able to create those minerals and that energy in the province in the most environmentally sensitive, friendly way we can, still realizing that we need those things in our life on a daily basis. Sometime well into the future maybe we won't. I don't know, but I want to be careful that we make sure we have a world for our children to come into where they can have good jobs and provide for their children, for their future.

With those few words, I move that the bill be referred to committee for discussion at debate at the next sitting of the House after….

Hon. R. Neufeld: I got excited there, Mr. Speaker. When I talk about more good news, it's hard not to be exuberant.

I move that the bill be referred to a committee for discussion or debate at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 36, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

I would like now to provide a more detailed description of the amendments to the Legal Services Society Act contained in this bill. This bill actually will replace the Legal Services Society Act that now exists, with a new act, but many of the provisions in the existing statute have been maintained and will be carried forward into the new act, although with different numbering.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to describe briefly the province's obligations, which give rise to the need for the Legal Services Society.

First, the province has responsibility for the effective administration of the justice system, and legal aid is an important part of that system.

Second, the Crown — that is, Her Majesty the Queen, the right of the province of British Columbia — has obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as interpreted by the courts and also under federal statutes to provide legal services in certain kinds of cases where the individual affected by government proceeding would not be able to afford legal representation or where, by statute, there is a determination that the right to counsel is available in any case. Examples of those kinds of cases include adult criminal cases, young offender cases and child protection cases. Since the Crown is a party in those cases — the party in opposition to the person accused of a crime or a young offender or an individual involved in a child protection case — it's necessary for an independent body to exist to be able to make decisions on the legal services that are to be provided in order to ensure that there is no conflict. The independence of a Legal Services Society is required to ensure that there is no conflict in relation to decisions around what legal services should be provided to persons in those kinds of cases where the Crown has, either by reason of the constitution or by federal statute, an obligation to ensure that services are provided.

While the society does have to have independence of government in making decisions on individual cases, for the reasons I've outlined, government also has a legitimate role in defining the service priorities for legal aid. Government's involvement in defining service priorities is appropriate given the extent to which the Legal Services Society is reliant upon public funding to do the work that it does.

In my view, the participation and the need for participation by government in setting service priorities does not in any way undermine the basic independent role that the society must have in relation to ensuring that services are provided in particular cases. In terms of the independence issue, independence really is important, largely because of that potential conflict of interest that arises where the state and the citizen are in opposition or opposing interests to each other in some kinds of cases. For all other purposes, I think government has and must have a role in establishing appropriate service priorities for the society.

What this bill does — and the provisions in the act that this bill will become — is attempt to balance the need for independence with a reasonable level of participation by government. The key provisions of the bill and the act can be grouped into four topic areas. First, governance; second, mandate; third, relationship between government and the society; fourth, the subject of revenue generation and cost recovery. I want to talk about each of those four topics in turn.

First, governance. The new governance structure of the society will be found primarily in section 4 of the bill in which the old provisions for the governance of the society are amended and changed to reflect the direction of the new organization — the organization as it will be continued under this act. The current board structure is unwieldy with 15 members from four appointing bodies. The proposed governance model reduces the total number of appointees from 15 to nine and reduces the number of appointing bodies from four to two. That is, the board will consist of five directors to be appointed by cabinet on the recommendation of the Attorney General and four directors to be appointed by the Law Society of British Columbia after consultation with the executive of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association. Those nine board members must elect one of their members to be the chair of the board.

One of the things this bill does that is new in this act but is part of the general approach that we are taking to issues of board governance across government is that, for the first time, the bill will introduce into the Legal Services Society Act some selection criteria — I believe that's right, that it's for the first time — for appointments to the board which must be satisfied by the board as a whole. Those selection criteria are intended to ensure that the board will have a balance of perspectives and experience that will create a more effective decision-making body.

The second topic is mandate. This bill repeals the old statutory mandate of the society and replaces it with statements about the society's role, its objects, its principles and its powers under what will become sections 9 through 11. In broad terms, these sections are enabling rather than mandatory. They do not tell the society who must be given legal aid; rather, they permit the society greater flexibility in determining what services to provide, how to provide them and to whom to provide them.

These decisions, however, must be made within the parameters of budget limitations and, of course, consistent with the obligations that I spoke about earlier, which lie on the Crown to provide counsel to certain individuals in certain kinds of cases. Again, in the view of government, the fact that decisions will have to be made within the parameters of budget limitations is, in our view, a reasonable constraint to place on any organization which is funded with public money. This kind of provision is common in other Canadian jurisdictions that have enacted statutes to deal with the provision of legal aid.

The objects of the society, as they will be established by section 9, include the object to assist low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems and facilitate access to justice for low-income individuals. The objects also include the requirement to establish and administer an effective and efficient system for providing legal aid to low-income individuals in British Columbia. The society will also have the object of providing advice to the Attorney General respecting legal aid.

In fulfilling those objects, the society will be guided by the principles that are set out in section 9. It will have the powers and capacity established in section 10.

Then, section 11 is an important section, because it makes clear that the society may use a broad range of integrated services to meet its obligations and that it may limit the extent of those services. This section reflects the principle, which I think is important, that legal aid means more than the simple fact of representation by a lawyer. Legal aid assistance may take place before a dispute ever reaches the courts. Legal aid may be provided in a variety of different ways by a variety of different types of service providers.

I have said in other contexts and will repeat here again the commitment of government to develop new systems to help people resolve their legal problems by means other than the traditional adversarial court proceeding. Legal aid, I believe, is a key service in this larger access-to-justice picture, which looks at the justice system as something more than a system focused entirely on the courtroom.

What section 11 does is ensure that the methods of providing legal aid services are stated broadly and in a way that will provide the society with the tools it needs to do all of the things that constitute this broad definition of legal aid.

Other sections of the bill, including sections 13 to 16, contain cost-recovery and revenue-generation provisions.

Section 10, which I've already referred to, also provides the society with the capacity to generate revenue both inside and outside British Columbia. It also ensures that the society will have the power and the capacity to recover the legal costs of providing some services from clients in appropriate cases.

Sections 13 to 16, specifically, create a process through which the society may recover legal costs through the imposition of liens on the real or personal property of clients who may become eligible to repay. That often happens in situations where a client has the need of service, has no income stream to support the payment of the service as it's being provided but at the end of the proceeding may either have a stream of income or may have access to an asset that can be realized to provide the dollars necessary to ensure that the service is paid for.

Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, the traditional way in which lawyers have provided service to their clients. The client walks in the door with a problem. The client believes that their rights have been violated. The lawyer agrees to take the case on, knowing that while the client cannot pay the fee up front, at the end of the day if the client succeeds, there will be dollars available to ensure that an appropriate fee can be charged and paid for the service provided and that there will also be funds available in the form of the actual remedy available for the wrong that's been done.

In fact, when I first started practising law, that particular way of providing legal services was pretty typical of many of the litigation lawyers in the firm I prac-

tised in — certainly when they acted for plaintiffs in cases where there was some prospect at the end of the day that a successful outcome would create the ability to charge an appropriate fee.

Lawyers have traditionally, in the exercise of their professional discretion and judgment, made decisions to take cases like that on, knowing that even at the end of the day if there was no money, they might not actually be able to recover a fee.

It was part of the professional obligation of lawyers then, as I think it still is for many lawyers, broadly speaking, today, to reach out and attempt to help the broadest range of clients in the broadest possible way while at the same time ensuring that over the course of a year, they worked on sufficient numbers of files to generate a reasonable income for their hard work on behalf of their clients.

That kind of general approach in some respects is now being moved into the Legal Services Society to give the society the tools to, in appropriate cases, secure or protect the right to recover some of the costs of providing services.

In particular, the lien provisions that are being introduced in this bill are consistent with the existing practice of requiring repayment where clients receive cash settlements or windfalls, and they address situations where clients have an interest in valuable assets that are not liquid.

Sections 18 and 21 of the bill help to establish a new relationship between the Ministry of Attorney General and the Legal Services Society. As I outlined earlier, the society is established to help the government meet its legal obligations to ensure that individuals have access to legal representation. But it is also a body which is expert in delivering other legal assistance services. There is room for increased government involvement in defining the overall priorities for legal aid services while, at the same time, accommodating the society's independent decision-making capacity in individual cases.

It's also in the interest of the society and government, frankly, that the society be able to develop service plans over a longer period than one year. To do so — that is, to be able to develop longer-term service plans — will require longer-term certainty about funding levels. To enable this balancing of interests, the act will establish two mechanism.

The first is a memorandum of understanding, under section 21, which obliges the ministry and the Legal Services Society to negotiate terms of an agreement every three years. The agreement is to include a three-year projection of service priorities and funding estimates, among other elements. The second mechanism, found under section 18, establishes a budget approval process which allows the Attorney General to approve or not approve the society's budget. A similar mechanism is used in Ontario and Alberta for their legal aid plans. Again, the intention behind these mechanisms is to respect the balance, in an appropriate way, between the need for the society to be independent of government in some respects and the concomitant need of government to have an involvement in setting service priorities to ensure that public dollars are properly spent.

One of the things the government has done towards fulfilment of the objectives represented by these provisions is that through the three-year service plan of the Ministry of the Attorney General, for the first time in the history of the society, the society has a firm understanding of what government's contribution and commitments will be not just for this year but for the next two years. I hasten to add that one of the important aspects of this bill is to ensure or expand the range of opportunities the society will have to generate revenue from other sources and, when it does so, to use that revenue to provide the services it provides and, in some cases perhaps, to expand the range of services it provides.

Broadly speaking, then, this bill implements the core review service changes to the administration of legal aid in British Columbia. It will provide the society with a modern, flexible and innovative set of objectives, powers and capacities with the appropriate level of accountability to government and the appropriate level of independence. I think it's a good new model to enhance both the efficiency and the accountability of the legal aid structure in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I was listening to the words of the Attorney General, and I couldn't help but notice that once again, the Liberal government has used the term "flexibility." In his discussion around flexibility with the changes for legal aid, what is clear is that legal aid services are going to be taken away from some British Columbians, particularly those who are in greatest need. The government likes to use the word "flexibility." We see it in other areas as well. We've seen it in the area of education. We've seen it in other areas with government, whereby the government is making cuts to funding and programs that are essential to British Columbians. In this instance, we're talking about legal aid services. The government invokes the notion of flexibility as though somehow taking funding away is going to create greater options for British Columbians to access their right to justice. In reality, it is the opposite.

Let's just review for a moment what's been taking place in the area of legal aid as a result of the actions of this Attorney General and this government. The government has made its announcements on funding cuts — substantive funding cuts — in the area of legal aid. It announced that reductions to funding for advocacy groups include the areas of welfare rights and women's issues. Because of the funding cuts for legal aid, those services will likely no longer be available to British Columbians, especially at a time where there's a high unemployment rate, at a time when this government is bringing in Bills 26 and 27 changing eligibility rules, reducing rates, affecting people who are on disability and their access to income assistance from government.

Advocacy groups throughout British Columbia will see their funding reduced. Those people who will be denied access to get government support would not be able to get advocacy support through legal aid offices, community law offices, advocacy agencies that provide for such assistance.

The government has also announced a reduction in staffing and service locations for agencies such as the employment standards branch, the residential tenancy branch and the Ministry of Human Resources. Again, legal aid provides for significant help for British Columbians in these areas. If you are an individual who is working in an unsafe work environment and have a complaint to file against your employer, yes, you file that complaint to the employment standards branch. Well, there are closures and reductions of staff in the employment standards branch.

Many people who file these complaints, particularly those who are in entry-level jobs perhaps, people who are immigrants to the country who may face multiple barriers, women, single moms and harassment in the workplace…. When you want to file those complaints at the employment standards branch, staffing reductions have been made and offices are being closed. And when you turn to the legal aid offices to get assistance, you've found that service also not available as a result of the cuts by the Attorney General in the area of legal aid.

Residential tenancy branch. Another area — what is known as the area of administrative law. When landlord and tenant disputes arise; when tenants, particularly, are faced with illegal evictions, as an example. Illegal rent increases, as an example. Abuse from the landlord in a variety of ways — lack of maintenance that needs to be done in the rental property. The tenants often seek the advice and support of advocacy groups, paralegals, those who work at community law offices who work in legal aid. That service is being reduced and eliminated as a result of the cuts. This bill allows for that. The key part that's being taken away from the Legal Services Society Act by way of its mandate in providing support to the people who need it most…. I'll quote that into the record in just a moment.

In the government's eyes, when that service is being taken away for tenants who need it, who need advocacy work and support from legal aid offices…. When that support is gone, this government calls it flexibility. That's the new era, the new "f" word in the government's approach: flexibility. In terms of telling people: "We're no long providing a service that you need the most, but we're providing you a new definition called flexibility…." The new "f" word in the new-era agenda.

Human Resources. I touched on that for just a moment. Bills 26 and 27, impacting the most vulnerable people: single moms, children, seniors, people with disabilities. The government is going to cut their rates. They're going to eliminate their eligibility. They're going to cause people enormous harm by these changes under Bills 26 and 27, because the government says they want to save money — save money, not necessarily by actually really assisting people to find jobs.

I just got a call from my constituency office. Someone just came in — and I talked to my staff; this is rather unbelievable, Mr. Speaker — and this individual is on disability 1. Well, he found a job. He wanted to get a job, and he found himself a job. He went to the welfare office and asked for some gas money and some tools so that he can get out to the worksite, which is actually not in Vancouver but in, I believe, Maple Ridge. I believe that was the location.

He needed support for two weeks in order to get out there until his cheque came in, because he found himself a job. He went to the welfare office, and guess what they said: "I'm sorry. We can't provide you with that assistance." Effective April 1, the government has taken away the provision to provide support for people to get their job, to provide the tools they need to get to their worksite.

Then the office said to this individual: "What you need to do is go to a training program that the government's going to give to you and a job that we approve of you taking. For three weeks you need to do that." Here's this person saying: "I've already got a job. I don't need to go to a training program or need the government to tell me what job I should be working at."

This is the change that's being brought about with the government and Bill 26 and Bill 27. This individual would need assistance from an advocate to take this case on, to challenge the government on this issue. That service is no longer available as a result of the cuts by government on legal aid services. Poverty law support is no longer available as a result of this bill. It takes away the mandate of legal aid to ensure that poverty law services are being provided to British Columbians.

Court closures is another announcement by this government. Throughout British Columbia some 26 courthouses will be closed. Access to justice will be denied. Court cases will not be processed as a result of courthouse closures. This government seems to think that's giving flexibility and choice to British Columbians, when access to justice is denied.

We're still awaiting deregulation and reduction in protections under the Employment Standards Act that this government intends to bring forward. We understand that the government is intending to bring forward changes in the WCB laws that protect workers in the workplace from injuries and, after they've been injured, access to compensation for injured workers and their families. God forbid that there should be a death as a result of workplace injuries. The changes that the government's going to bring about in terms of limitations on access to WCB…. That is still to come, both in the areas of employment standards and workers compensation.

Cases involving employment standards and WCB are very complicated. They're heart-wrenching, complicated and have long-lasting impacts on the individuals and their families. They need advocacy, legal

aid, support. That service is no longer a mandate with the changes in this bill by this government.

It is not a surprise, and it should not be a surprise to the Attorney General, that over the last number of months, when it became public that the government is cutting legal aid significantly by some 40 percent — 38.8 percent, to be exact — a myriad of people came forward and spoke against it, including the Canadian Bar Association and particularly the poverty law section. They have stated that they profoundly disagree with the government's policies and priorities regarding legal aid funding.

It wasn't just the Canadian Bar Association that made that statement. Judges have come forward and opposed the government on these cuts. They have said that it is not just the rich who need access to justice; it is the poor also. It is through legal aid that the poor get access to justice. Irrespective of that, though, government is proceeding with the cuts to legal aid in any event — irrespective of what judges have to say.

Then it wasn't just judges. Prosecutors came forward and said to government: "This is not a good thing for government to proceed with. Find savings somewhere else but not from the poorest and most marginalized people, who should have the right to access justice. If you make these cuts, access to justice would be denied."

Community. People who care about individuals who are faced with difficult circumstances, people who are compassionate about the society in which we live and want to see those who are most disadvantaged have access to justice have come forward and support the call for government to reinstate the funding for legal aid and to not make changes to the Legal Services Society Act by eliminating the mandate to ensure that poverty law is provided to people who need it the most.

The government did not listen. In the new era of supposedly transparent, supposedly consultative government, this government has ignored the calls of the thousands of people across British Columbia for government to not proceed with the cuts to legal aid services and the change of the mandate of the Legal Services Society Act. The Canadian Bar Association has also objected to the government closing some 38 out of 45 locations that provide for poverty law services throughout British Columbia. This government is not listening to that.

In fact, just this last weekend I was in Prince Rupert, and I met with lawyers, paralegals, people who provide for legal aid services, individuals from Prince Rupert. They said to me that it makes no sense for the government to shut the legal aid office in Prince Rupert. The MLA from Prince Rupert — North Coast, I think the name of his riding is — didn't even know that there was a legal aid office in his constituency until most recently. He didn't even know that it existed.

They said that for government to eliminate this office, it will ultimately cost government more money, because there are some cases where people are entitled to legal representation, cases that the government still says they'll provide for: criminal justice cases, criminal law cases, family law cases where there's violence involved. In those instances, where the office is closed, they will have to fly a lawyer from the lower mainland or elsewhere around the province into Prince Rupert. I was advised that several trips would equate to the entire funding for the office and all the staff.

Not only that, every time you fly someone in, someone who is unfamiliar with the community, unfamiliar with the case, they fly in on a plane, they sort of get their papers, they read the papers, they go and represent the person. But they have very little prep time — little time to discuss with the person, around their case. Whereas if you have someone in the office, in the community, you can afford to make sure that there is more prep time and better understanding of the community so that people could ensure proper representation.

Will the government listen? I hope so. I know that they're preparing information for the Attorney General to hopefully talk some sense into the government from the perspective of both ensuring access to justice in the community and cost-efficiency — this government's mantra. The premise behind this bill, as the Attorney General has stated, is around cost-efficiencies. Well, here's the government taking an approach that would not be cost-efficient and would diminish services in the community in their access to justice. How does that make sense?

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I could just interrupt. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

A. Hamilton: Visiting us today are 25 grade 5 students, teachers and parents from L'École Victor Brodeur in my riding. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General touts the alternative dispute resolution as a panacea for all British Columbians who need to access legal aid support, as though somehow this will solve all the need in the broader community. While I endorse — and so do many of the advocates in the broader community — the alternative dispute resolution approach as a concept, the minister must admit that there are limitations on when alternative dispute resolutions can resolve an issue, including many of the poverty law issues.

As an example, an alternative dispute resolution is of little help when an unemployed homeowner faces a disclosure. The client needs at least summary legal advice from a lawyer about their legal rights. As well,

the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms appear not to be effective or in play for many disputes between individuals and the government, including access to income assistance, as an example. Those are just a couple of examples where this panacea that I know the Attorney General likes to tout as the be-all and end-all in terms of British Columbians' need to access legal aid….

The Legal Services Society has been recognized for many years as the heart of poverty law advocacy services throughout the province. Many of the funded and voluntary advocacy agencies rely on legal aid services for legal supervision, staff training, mentoring, conferences, written and video resources and many other client-related services. The virtual elimination of poverty law services at the Legal Services Society will impact these organizations significantly, but most important of all, it would impact the clients that depend on these services.

I came from the advocacy world. I was an advocate before I crossed the dark side and became a politician. I did start out, actually, at Legal Aid. I was a student there. I did my practicum from Simon Fraser University for my degree in criminology. I did my practicum at Legal Aid.

It was my first introduction to advocacy work in communities. I did my work at the Gastown office, close to the downtown east side. I dealt with many cases — cases that involved people who were on income assistance, landlord-tenant disputes, human rights issues, immigration issues. That's what I did at Legal Aid. That's what I learned at Legal Aid. In fact, I learned that there are many people in British Columbia who are faced with very difficult challenges. They have nowhere to turn to, save and except agencies in the community that provide the services, of which the Legal Services Society is one.

I remember thinking, even at that time as a young student: "Boy, there is so much need in our community, and there aren't enough resources to provide for that." Part of the work I also did at Legal Aid was process applications. There were many people turned away from accessing a paralegal, an advocate or a lawyer — not because they didn't need it, but because there weren't enough services or resources to provide for it. Even then I advocated that there needed to be more support. Instead of doing that, this government is further reducing the support in the community.

I'll give one example. This is one of the most memorable cases that I had when I was working at Legal Aid. In fact, it was my first case as a student working there as a community legal advocate. There was a young woman who came in who was a refugee claimant — her and her father from Vietnam. She had lost all of her other family members, and she and her father were the only survivors from the war. Her father was profoundly disabled as a result of the war and was unable to work.

She was a brave young woman who suffered in her own country, and they fled and came to Canada. She was older than most other classmates in her school. If memory serves me correctly — this is almost ten years ago now — she was 18 at the time, but she was only in grade 10. She was collecting income assistance to support her and her father, and welfare at that time told her she should get off welfare and go get a job at McDonald's and go to night school, if she wished, and try to complete her high school.

The woman was devastated by this because she didn't want to limit her opportunities in the future. She knew an education was essential and that, at the minimum, she needed to finish high school. She had a dream to become a nurse. She wanted to go beyond high school. She wanted to access post-secondary education. She wanted to become a nurse.

I remember taking her case. It was my first case, and there was a tribunal. I laboured over this case. I took the paperwork home. I researched like crazy to find out what arguments I could bring forward, with the supervision of a lawyer from Legal Aid. I remember that my supervisor at that time said: "You know, Jenny, you need to prepare yourself and your client in the event that you should lose."

My client was very emotional when we got close to the hearing date. She sat in the office and cried and cried and cried and was just worried sick that we were going to lose. I didn't really quite know how to console her, other than to say: "There are some options here, if we should lose, and I have all that prepared for you. We'll talk about that after the case."

We went into the tribunal, and we made our case — argument after argument. I remember the tribunal chair said: "We could always tell when an SFU student is coming in from legal aid services, because they come in with a pile of paper, and they've got argument after argument, submission after submission." That we did. For two hours I argued why this woman should not be cut off of welfare.

After that we had to leave the room for the tribunal to make the decision. We sat out in the hall, and my supervisor left at that time. He had thought we'd lost, and he had said: "Come back to the office with your client so that we can work over the alternatives." Anyway, we sat and waited. Usually tribunal decisions don't take that long, but in this instance it was well over an hour. We sat in the hallway in the United Church in the downtown east side, waiting for the decision to be made.

Ultimately, we were called back in, and we sat there. My client was crying, and I was holding her hand, and we walked in and waited for a decision. The decision was a unanimous decision in support of the client to continue to receive income assistance. She cried even harder because we won, and I cried with her. We hugged, and we went back to our office and celebrated. It was a victory that I will never forget — not for me, but for that young woman.

To my surprise, this young woman some years later sent me a Christmas card. She told me that she has gotten into school, and she's studying to be a nurse. It

took her many years, because she had to catch up on her ESL, and she had many challenges. She was trying to manage and help her father. She was on her way to realizing her dream, and she sent me a little card just to say: "Thank you, because my dream is now a reality." Not because of me — I want to be very clear — but because of the services that legal aid provided, which were available to the people who need it the most. This person got off of income assistance, supported her father and had a future.

I will never forget that case, and I have to say it was that case that eventually didn't bring me to law school. I thought I wanted to be a lawyer. I decided I wanted to work in the community and be an advocate, to make a difference. That eventually led me into politics. That's another story for another day, but the point here is this: legal aid service is provided to the people that will make a difference. I've experienced it. That's one example of which I can tell this story today, but there were many examples where we made a difference.

I remember another case of an individual — again, a refugee claimant. He had left China. It was around the time when there were a lot of political issues in China, and he was being persecuted. If he returned, he feared that he would lose his life. He came to the legal aid offices, and I was involved in that case as well. Again, we were successful. The individual won the hearing and was not sent back to China. He was able to stay. Some years later — he worked hard, hard, hard — he saved enough money and built up a small business in the Chinatown community, barbecued pork and duck and other goodies to be sold in Chinatown. He established his own little shop. I still go there from time to time. I see the fellow from time to time.

You know, those are the successes. The successes happen because legal aid services were there for them, and it makes a difference. But here we have a change of the mandate of the Legal Services Society Act that will take away support for individuals who need it the most.

J. Kwan: Thank you. I will just stop with those examples of my own personal experience where I know legal aid services made a difference in the lives of people and why it is needed.

I know that the Attorney General is fond of suggesting that British Columbia — prior to the cuts from government, cuts of 38.8 percent in legal aid funding — is one of the highest in funding for legal aid. I know that the Attorney General likes to brag about that. It is true that legal aid funding from British Columbia is higher than that of other provinces. You'd think that's something we ought to be proud of, because we're a province that wants to make sure access to justice is not denied to the people who need it the most.

I must point out one issue. That is, with respect to poverty law services, per-capita spending data means nothing when poverty law services are singled out for elimination. It means nothing, Mr. Speaker.

Some have even gone as far as to argue this: from the Canadian Bar Association — they say that that characterization of the government is a deliberate distortion of the facts, that the per-capita funding that comes from the average B.C. taxpayer is exactly zero. It is 100 percent funded from the legal services tax revenues and the federal government. The provincial government in fact makes money from legal aid in B.C., because it pockets more than it spends from the legal services tax.

The legal services tax that is being referred to here is the provincial sales tax, which has been raised by this government by half a percent, on legal services provided. That tax was instituted to fund legal aid services. It was instituted by the previous government. We received some criticism for that, particularly from the now Attorney General, who criticized the government for not putting 100 percent of that funding into legal aid then. It was short, I believe, about $12 million. I accept that criticism. Government should have put all of the moneys into legal aid, and it didn't. The previous government was short $12 million.

In addition to that, the provincial government receives about $12 million of funding for legal aid from the federal government.

When you add up all the taxes, it's close to about $90 million to $100 million for legal aid services — exactly the budget they need to carry on their work. Instead of that, this Attorney General, who was then the critic and chastised the previous government for not putting 100 percent of the legal aid funding into legal aid, is now bringing legal aid funding down to $54 million, a cut of $46 million approximately. That's what this government is doing.

And where is that money going? To general revenues to pay for, quite frankly, in my own view, the big tax cuts that this government brought in for the wealthiest British Columbians.

So the Canadian Bar Association takes a strong position against the government on this matter, and government has made significant cuts in the area of legal aid.

When the government made the cuts to legal aid, the Legal Services Society Board then had strong words for the government on this issue. In fact, the former chair, Ms. Tremblay, has stated 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." She refused to implement a budget that will cut legal aid services for the people who are most vulnerable and who need to get access to justice in British Columbia. The former Legal Services Society Board refused to close community law offices across the province.

Do you know what the government did? This Attorney General fired the board because the board said: "We cannot meet the ministry's stated new-era objective of providing equal access to legal representation and justice for all British Columbians." Because they were unable to do that, the government fired that board. So much for the independence of the Legal Services Society Board.

What does this bill do? It makes it easier for the government to fire the board — make no mistake about it — and allows the government to intervene in the independence of the Legal Services Society Board and their operations to the point that it allows the government to approve their budget.

What did the Attorney General say? "Section 18 gives room for the government to be involved," he says. Involvement is a complete distortion of what this bill is doing and what it is allowing. It is a complete interference of government in an independent or supposedly independent agency called legal aid. Not only that, so that the government would, I guess, have an easier time cutting the budget of legal aid services, because the new act the government is trying to push through here was only introduced yesterday. I had less than 24 hours to review the bill to see what it says — less than 24 hours for this debate — and I was only told this morning at 10 o'clock that we were going to be debating this bill. I had about an hour or two this morning to gather all my papers to try and come forward with an argument on this bill and see what I thought about it.

This government, in this bill, is going to create a situation where, quite frankly, the independence of the Legal Services Society Board is not going to be honoured. It allows for complete interference of the government around their budget decisions, around their resource distribution and many of those kinds of decisions.

It's dismaying, you know. You'd think the Attorney General would want to make sure this bill is out in the broader community, that there's discussion around it and that the opposition would have sufficient time to review the matter so that it could be properly debated in this House. No. The bill was brought to this House for second reading in less than 24 hours.

There were members in this House who earlier said…. Particularly, I recall the member for Vancouver-Langara, who said: "If there is honesty in government in ensuring proper debate and integrity of government in ensuring proper debate when legislation is introduced, there ought to be ample time for review so that people can debate these matters appropriately." I also recall that the now Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader, used to chastise the former government on legislation that was introduced and there was less than one week of notice. It was deemed to be inappropriate, and it was deemed to be in violation of the spirit of democracy from the point of view of making sure, in a democratic society, there is proper debate in the House.

Here we are in the new-era government with this Attorney General, with a Liberal government. With many of the bills we now find ourselves having to debate the matters in the House with less than 24 hours' notice. We saw that with Bills 26 and 27 — fundamental bills that will impact the most vulnerable people in British Columbia in accessing government support and assistance. That bill was debated in the House for second reading with less than 24 hours' notice. Here we are once again, another bill targeting the most vulnerable people in British Columbia who need to access justice — less than 24 hours' notice for second reading debate.

It seems to me, actually, that there's a pattern. I should go back and check and make a list. There is a pattern here. Which bills are being tabled in the House with less than 24 hours of notice for debate for second reading? They appear to be the bills that target the most vulnerable. It's sort of like when the government says: "We're putting you first — children, seniors, low income people." When the government said that, nobody thought it meant: "We're putting you first in the firing line for attack." Nobody thought that it meant for the government: "We're putting you first — the poorest of the poor to the lineups at food banks." Nobody would have thought that, but that's what this government has done since the election.

Due to the Attorney General's inability to cooperate with the Legal Services Society, a trustee was brought in. As I mentioned, the old board was fired. A trustee was brought in, and he's currently running the Legal Services Society. This, of course, enabled the government — the Attorney General himself — to increase this government's control over the society's actions and to ensure that the government's agenda to cut legal aid was implemented. Let's be clear. That was the motivation behind the appointment of the trustee. This bill allows for the firing of the trustee even more easily.

This legislation further strengthens the government's grip on the Legal Services Society. Section 4 of the bill reduces the Legal Services Society Board from 15 to nine members. When the board had 15 members, five appointees were selected by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by recommendation of the Attorney General. The majority were from outside in terms of appointment.

The board structure proposed in this bill ensures that five of the nine members are appointed by the Attorney General. The government can then ensure that a majority of the board members will support their agenda, even if the government's policies are in opposition to the perspective of the Law Society of B.C. That's what this new bill does; it biases the board with government appointments.

The proposed board structure, quite frankly, also lacks diversity. The original law society ensured that two directors would be appointed by the board of directors of the Native Community Law Offices Association of B.C., two directors were appointed by the Association of Community Law Offices and five directors be appointed by the Canadian Bar Association — people

who are in the front line to provide for these services who should have a say in the work of the Legal Services Society.

Now all that's changed. The structure of the board is significantly reduced, and the majority of the board are appointments by the Attorney General, by the government. It is interesting to note that the change takes away first nations community law offices as well as the community law offices representation. They are now out of the process of legal aid planning in this province.

Yet we know that many of the people who need legal services are aboriginal people. I know that the community law offices and the native law offices provided for a lot of support to the people in their community who are in greatest need. But now community representatives from these organizations will no longer have a seat on the board of legal aid.

Of course, as a token way of acknowledging diversity, the bill offhandedly mentions that in choosing the directors the Attorney General and the Canadian Bar Association should consider geographic location and culture as factors. The caveat is much weaker than the original act's provision for ensuring that the board is diverse.

But that is the way of the new-era Liberal government. They pay a lot of lip service. They try to use the right language to mask the real agenda they have. We've seen it.

As I mentioned earlier, a new definition of flexibility for this government is: taking away services. That's what flexibility means for this government. I know that some community members have dubbed it as the new "f" word from the government — flexibility.

This bill provides the Legal Services Society with the ability to raise funds through commercial activities. This is indicative of the government's attempt to abdicate responsibility for legal aid funding and to download this responsibility onto the Legal Services Society. Instead of focusing on meeting the needs of legal aid clients and ensuring and engaging in short- and long-term planning for the B.C. legal aid system, directors of the board and staff of the society will be struggling to raise funds through fundraising.

The bill also provides for the society to recover, through client contributions or any other method it considers appropriate, costs of providing legal aid.

I can acknowledge that some people who are entitled to legal aid may be able to make some sort of contribution to paying for legal aid services. However, we have to remember that most people who qualify for legal aid services are incapable of providing for legal aid services. That's why they're there. In fact, the eligibility for legal aid is such that only the poorest of the poor would get access to legal aid. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't qualify for legal aid. Yet the government is going to contemplate charging people.

I remember when I was student at legal aid services. Sometimes we did charge people — $10. It's not a lot of money. They charge when they can. A sliding scale is already provided for, if people can provide more. By and large, the people who are eligible for legal aid don't have the resources. That's why they're there. That's why they're seeking legal aid support.

Mr. Speaker, I have more to say about this bill, but I'm noting the time. I move that we adjourn debate.