Hansard -- Thursday, May 2, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 3 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		3149

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3150
	Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 40) Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3150
	Role of grandparents D. Jarvis Powell River Regals hockey team H. Long Seniors housing K. Stewart

Oral Questions		3151
	Funding for mental health services J. MacPhail Hon. G. Cheema Negotiations with physicians J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Circuit court services D. Chutter Hon. G. Plant U.S. softwood lumber duty R. Visser Hon. M. de Jong Kyoto accord J. Kwan Hon. R. Neufeld

Petitions		3154
	H. Long

Tabling Documents		3154
	Workers Compensation Board, annual report, 2001

Second Reading of Bills		3154
	Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House		3159
	Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23) R. Stewart Hon. G. Plant

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3160
	Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23)

Motions on Notice		3160
	Supplementary report to 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee report Hon. G. Plant

Tabling Documents		3161
	Supplementary recommendation of the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee

Committee of the Whole House		3161
	McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3161
	McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10)

Committee of the Whole House		3161
	Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30) Hon. G. Plant

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3161
	Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30)

Committee of the Whole House		3161
	Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 29)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3162
	Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 29)

Second Reading of Bills		3162
	Food Safety Act (Bill 37) Hon. C. Hansen J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce in the House today two hard-working staff members who make me look good.

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speaker, I think you heard the Finance minister say that I need more staff, so that's on the record.

Anyway, I'm pleased to introduce Barb Caldwell and Heather James. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: That was the most creative plea for more money I've heard in the last year.

I want to take the opportunity to introduce two people who are here visiting with us today. My mother is here. She comes not infrequently, but she's here today — Kay Collins, who lives in Sidney. With her today is someone who hasn't been here before. It's my eldest sister's eldest daughter. My niece, Megan, is here. I ask the House to make her welcome as well.

First, today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge a special visitor from Slovakia. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Dr. Miroslav Mikolasik, the Ambassador of the Slovak Republic to Canada. This is the ambassador's first official visit to British Columbia, and I'm very pleased that he has travelled to British Columbia to discover the many opportunities our province presents. He is accompanied by his wife, Dr. Elana Mikolasikova, and Stanislav Lisiak, the honorary consul general of the Slovak Republic at Vancouver. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

I am very proud to introduce a very important member of my family who is in the House today. He did not want me to introduce him, but as his father, I overruled him. Would the House please join me in welcoming my son, Anuraj Cheema.

A. Hamilton: It's my pleasure to welcome two dedicated members from my constituency, Val Terry and Marilyn McIldoon, who are visitors here today and are my constituency assistants. Would the House make them welcome, please.

Hon. R. Neufeld: You'll know that it's not very often I get to stand up in the House and introduce someone from northern British Columbia, but it's my pleasure today….

It's my pleasure today to introduce someone who makes me feel really good — a lady that I will have the pleasure of getting married to in August of this year, Montana Currie.

Before I opened my constituency office, I was advised by people much wiser than myself to make sure that I got a very good constituency assistant. I'm proud to say that more by luck than by skill on my part I accomplished that objective. I would like to introduce her today, because she certainly forms the bulwark of the team that provides the effective and efficient service to the community. That's Linda Morton.

Also, I have another important person in the House who's a member of our team. That's our assistant legislative assistant, Jessica Terry. She's here today also.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery, too, is my legislative assistant, Laura O'Connor. Laura does a fantastic job of keeping me on schedule and keeping me organized. She's not responsible for how I look, thank goodness. She does a terrific job, and she really keeps things moving. I appreciate her hard work. Would the House please make her welcome.

I. Chong: Joining us today, as well, is a constituent of mine who's a good supporter, a dedicated volunteer. He indicated to me that it's been some years since he's been here. I was happy to share lunch with him, and now he's here to watch question period. Would the House please welcome Mr. Ron Heaps.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted to welcome to the precinct today Mr. Mehmood Alibhai. Mehmood is the director of health policy for western Canada for Novartis and is someone who has worked actively in the community of Richmond on mental health issues for more than a decade. I would ask the House to please make him very, very welcome.

J. MacPhail: I'm so delighted to be able to rise…. I think this might be the first time in this sitting that I'm able to rise and welcome some students here from Vancouver who are educated in my riding. They are 15 grade 11 and 12 students in the Spectrum Alternative Program. They're accompanied by their teachers, Laurie Finch, Kathy Thompson and Chris Johnston. I'm

just absolutely delighted that they're here. May the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 40 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 40 includes a number of amendments to the Forest Act, both of a housekeeping and a technical nature. More particularly, however, Bill 40 includes amendments to the Forest Act that will make provision for the certification of timber that is offered to licensees through the small business program administered by the Ministry of Forests. Beyond that, there are some technical and housekeeping amendments.

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

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Jarvis: I believe it's time to begin a conversation in this Legislature on behalf of the youngest citizens of our province. We have, collectively, a responsibility to honour the 40,000 babies that are born in our province every year. Many of these babies will form durable relationships with their grandparents, and many will not. Building capacity in our communities will result in increased attachment between babies and their extended families. We are on the road to building resilient families. The best outcomes will be stronger communities and stronger families.

Mr. Speaker, I am a grandfather, although you would never know it by looking at me. My three grandchildren are Jake, seven; Emily, eight; and Diandra, nine. I pay tribute to the joy and humour and the great curiosity that these grandchildren share with me on a regular basis. Research shows us that children's development from conception to age six is rapid and dramatic and affects lifelong learning behaviour and health.

We know children's future success in school and as adults is largely dictated by the quality of emotional, physical, nutritional and intellectual care that they receive in their early years. As grandparents in this Legislature, I believe we have a special obligation and opportunity to be there for our youngest citizens. To all of you, I say: enjoy these moments.

H. Long: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with another great hockey story — a good-news hockey story. I rise today to congratulate the efforts of the Powell River Regals hockey team.

Recently, the very proud tradition of Powell River's sporting community showcased one of hockey's most prestigious amateur events. On April 9 to 13 the Powell River Regals seniors hockey club hosted the Allan Cup Canadian hockey championships. The teams from Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and our own Powell River Regals competed for one of the oldest true amateur titles left in the country. Replacing the Stanley Cup in 1908 gave a need for an amateur Canadian title that took on the name the Allan Cup.

Of the 25 players on the Regals, an unprecedented 15 are locally born and raised in Powell River. After a hard-fought tournament, the Powell River Regals lost the Allan Cup championship this year to the Quebec Garaga. However, they have taken the cup three times in the past.

Following their last win in 2000, they were chosen to represent Canada in Nagano, Japan, for the 2001 Nagano Cup Team Canada. That was the first time since 1960 that an amateur team was asked to represent Canada. Not only was this a highlight for the 25 players on the team but also a proud moment for British Columbia. Our boys wrapped themselves in Canadian pride. While pulling the red and white over their heads and wearing the maple leaf over their hearts, they showed the world once again that at a local and international level, the determination of a small community in British Columbia can both thrive and excel at home and abroad against insurmountable odds.

K. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as the demographics of our community change, we see those on the front end of the baby-boom generation now entering their golden years, with the majority to follow. Our mature seniors are living longer and more active lives. As our society changes, our housing needs also will need an adjustment. A majority of seniors now remain active and, hopefully, will continue to live in their own homes. Improvements in health care allow many seniors to extend their time and health to historical highs, but the reality is that at some time their abilities will diminish and their housing requirements will become more onerous. With minor building adjustments and assisted living we will, as a society, be able to provide what

This government has committed to providing better care, more comprehensive care and more choices. We are not planning to do this alone. We are looking to our community partners. Along with traditional non-profit agencies such as the Legion, Kiwanis and Rotary, we will be looking for new partnerships. I would like to touch on a few of those partners who have been very active in my community: the Legion branch 88, with 271 units and more on the books; the ECRA Society, 119 units built in conjunction with a new seniors centre, which services many of the newer seniors residential facilities that surround it; and Willow Manor, coming on stream on August 15 with 100 congregate care and 33 licensed care beds available.

We have to recognize that to meet the challenges of our aging population, we are going to have to change the way our health care delivery system works, working towards improving the opportunities in housing. At the conclusion of this session, over the summer I will be meeting with seniors groups in my community to discuss these future needs. I believe this government will live up to its commitment to build and operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term beds by 2006 and ensure that comprehensive transition plans are in place so seniors are respected while changes are made to improve their condition of life.

J. MacPhail: Last week mental health services were hit hard when the government announced its plans to reorganize health care in British Columbia. As part of that announcement, the North Shore branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society lost all of its funding. For a small investment of $65,000 a year, the society provided a wide array of programs that help families, along with the patients, cope with the unbelievable stress of the mental illness.

To the Minister of State for Mental Health: will he please stand today and show some leadership and step in and order the Vancouver Coastal health authority to reinstate the funding for the North Shore branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society?

Hon. G. Cheema: We have made it very clear to the Vancouver Coastal health authority that any reform in mental health must be consistent with this government's commitment to improve the lives of those with mental illness, and nothing else will be tolerated.

J. MacPhail: Well, the North Shore branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society is just one of hundreds of mental health organizations around the province with their funding now in jeopardy. When the Minister of State for Mental Health fired the mental health advocate, many people predicted that that was exactly what would happen. The Vancouver Coastal health authority alone is cutting about $7 million from mental health services. In fact, virtually every health authority is cutting funding for mental health services.

Will the Minister of State for Mental Health stand up in the House and either put his money where his mouth is and have these funding cuts stopped, or, if he won't do that, why doesn't he just admit that he is cutting mental health programs to make up for all the other mistakes his government has made?

Hon. G. Cheema: I don't think we need a lecture from that member on the mental health issues. Mr. Speaker, if they were smart, can you imagine how much you could do with the $463 million they wasted on fast ferries? They could have supported 79,000 subsidized housing units for mental health. They could have supported 4,000 emergency response beds for mental health. They could have supported 2,000 day hospitals in this province. They could have supported over $1.5 million of respite care for the families.

We made the commitment, and we are fulfilling that commitment. We will be spending $263 million over a period of six years to meet the needs of patients with mental illness.

J. Kwan: This minister knows it. They have taken away $400 million from the basic budget for mental health from the Health budget.

J. Kwan: …about the agreement reached with the doctors. The Finance minister helped him out by hiking MSP premiums. Then he hiked the PST. The Labour minister helped him out by ripping up collective agreements. Now it looks like he's going to need some help again. Tomorrow specialists announce job action commencing on Monday.

Can the Minister of Health Services tell us what backup plan he has to assure patients that their health would not be jeopardized by any job action?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I just wanted to correct the member's comment about mental health funding. It has not been cut in this province; it, in fact, is being unenhanced. We're, for the first time, actually funding the mental health plan that the previous government committed to but then didn't budget for.

The negotiations with the B.C. Medical Association have been proceeding well over these last number of weeks. I recognize the fact that there are groups of doctors in this province who have been quite anxious about this issue for a year now, while the negotiations and mediation and arbitration process have been un-

folding. I have certainly encouraged each of these groups of specialists and other physicians to contact the BCMA if they're anxious about the progress of negotiations and they'd like to get an update.

I'm very confident that we will be able to resolve these issues in the very near future. We put $392 million of additional money in the budget for physician remuneration, and we are in the final stages now of sorting out exactly how those dollars will be allocated.

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

J. Kwan: Just a word of warning. When this government says they're protecting services for you…

J. Kwan: …what it means is reduction and cuts in programs that you depend on. Seniors feel that they have no recourse other than civil disobedience to protest being moved against their will. Last week we saw that "health care where you need it and when you need it" has become "health care down the road if you can get it."

J. Kwan: Now, once again, patients are being held hostage because negotiations with the doctors are falling apart. To the Minister of Finance: it's almost been a year, and tax cuts have not increased government revenues. Just where is the money going to come from to pay for the settlement with the doctors?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned in my earlier answer, $392 million of additional money has been put into the budget to provide for physician remuneration. That has been funded out of increases to the Medical Services Plan premiums, which nobody wanted to do and nobody likes to see happen, but we needed to find a revenue source to fund the increases in physician remuneration. We also increased the tobacco tax in this province, and those dollars went to cover that $392 million.

Hon. C. Hansen: Before I leave the issue of the MSP premiums, I do want to also remind the members opposite that there are 230,000 British Columbians who are going to see their MSP premiums actually reduced as a result of the changes that were introduced.

D. Chutter: My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has indicated that he is looking to improve access to justice for all British Columbians through the expanded use of circuit courts. Last week he announced that 100 Mile House had been chosen for the circuit court option, and today it is the city of Hope.

Can the Attorney General advise my constituents of the arrangements that have been made in Hope?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm glad to be able to confirm the announcement, which was made earlier today, that court services will continue in Hope through a circuit court model.

Under the existing arrangements there are full-time staff, including a court registry, present in Hope, even though court sittings were about three days a week. Under the new arrangements, the judges and Crown counsel staff will travel to Hope on an as-needed basis to ensure that court sits in Hope for those days when court needs to sit in Hope.

I think it's good news for Hope. I want to thank the district of Hope for the financial contribution they made and thank the judiciary for the work they've done. In particular, I know all members of the House will want to congratulate the member for Yale-Lillooet for his strong advocacy on behalf of the citizens of his constituency.

D. Chutter: The option of circuit courts has raised considerable interest in many communities across B.C. as a way to improve our justice system.

Can the Attorney General outline steps taken to maintain access to justice in communities affected by courthouse closures?

We are continuing to pursue circuit court as an option in as many communities as are interested in having the conversation, recognizing that dollars are a real issue. In communities where the local community is strongly behind the idea of circuit court and willing to contribute financially, that certainly raises the chances for success of that discussion.

We're also particularly focusing on those communities where the establishment of circuit court will maintain a level of access for the region around those communities.

We're continuing to develop policy initiatives around fax filing. We've got the agreement of the judiciary to expand the use of video conferencing.

There is more that we are doing and will continue to do in the weeks and months to come to ensure that we can maintain a reasonable level of access to justice for people across the province of British Columbia.

R. Visser: My question is for the Minister of Forests. This morning the International Trade Commission in the U.S. handed down its ruling on whether the U.S. lumber industry has been hurt by imports of softwood lumber from Canada.

Could the Minister of Forests update British Columbians on the ruling and what it means for our softwood lumber industry?

Hon. M. de Jong: The ITC, or International Trade Commission — which is in fact an arm of the American government — did make a decision this morning that is disappointing but not surprising when you consider that at every step along the way in this process, the forces of protectionism within the U.S. have prevailed in the face of what is supposed to be a free trading nation and ethic down there.

The decision — a finding of threat of injury — is significant because only six weeks ago American Senators and lumber interests were crying out that because of action in Canada, their industry and mills were being put out of business. Even the ITC has rejected that argument. That's good news for British Columbia.

What it should mean in the short term, of course, is the return and release of bonds that have been posted, dating back to August of last year, and it provides us with a short window of opportunity between now and the 23rd when the U.S. will actually be in a position to begin collecting duties from B.C. lumber interests.

R. Visser: These crippling American duties have devastated forest-dependent communities across B.C., including the ones I come from. Today's decision is just a further blow to the many families in my riding that depend on the softwood lumber industry.

Can the Minister of Forests tell us what the next step is for our government and what the next step is for these communities?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's clear that notwithstanding the nature of the decision — in fact, because of it — a bad situation is on the verge of getting much worse.

We had a summit meeting earlier this week convened by the Premier. We had a good discussion. We've had lots of good discussions with the federal government about the support that needs to be brought to bear for the people who are going to bear the brunt of this dispute if this matter is not resolved prior to May 23.

The challenge now is to get beyond the words and actually have the federal government step up to the plate with a concrete offer of support — some real dollars that we can put in the hands of the people who, as I said earlier, are going to bear the brunt of this dispute if it continues unresolved. There are thousands of them. It is time now for governments across the country and, most particularly, in Ottawa to take decisive action in light of what has taken place in Washington today.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the Liberal government was seen to be placing great stock in the results of a stale-dated poll.

To the Minister of Energy and Mines: a Decima poll tells that fully 78 percent of the population back the Kyoto accord — a strong expression of the will of the people. Perhaps, then, the minister can explain why his government refuses to back the Kyoto accord and, in fact, is setting the stage for a massive expansion of carbon gas–producing industry in this province.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The province of British Columbia — the Minister of Water, Land and Air and my ministry — has attended about four meetings now where all provinces come together, all ministers, along with the federal government to talk about the Kyoto accord. The Kyoto accord is a federal government initiative that they have not put on the table yet.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If they will allow me to finish, what we have asked the government of Canada to do is put forward to British Columbians and everyone in Canada what is going to be in the Kyoto accord, what it's going to cost British Columbians and what value it is at the end of the day. When we find that out and when the federal government lives up to its commitment to tell all Canadians what it is, then we will look seriously at what they're putting on the table.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your assistance on resolving a question which is unique to this Legislature. It relates to a question of privileges of members and reports of committees funded out of the Legislative Assembly budget.

The act that was amended by this government stipulates that the $6,000 stipend for the chair of the offshore oil and gas government caucus committee is paid out of the Legislative Assembly global budget. My question is for consideration by you, Mr. Speaker. Are any of the privileges that are granted generically to all

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The point of order is noted. I will bring back a decision in due course.

Hon. G. Collins: On what I think was the point of order, but it's sort of a point of privilege…. I'm not sure. If the issue the member raises deals with privileges of members, which is what she said, then the appropriate way to do that is through a privilege motion. If she has a question about the way the budgets of the Legislature work, she has been invited to be a member of LAMC to discuss how the budgets are determined and how they're allocated.

Normally, the longstanding practice in this House is for those issues to be raised at the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, which is required by statute as well. I would just argue that that's a far more appropriate way to raise that issue. Those minutes are made public as well. I think the member knows that, but obviously she chose to do it in this way. I know there are many issues which could be raised that way, if that's the way the member wants to have them raised.

H. Long: I would like to present a petition that I received from Gibsons Chiropractic in my constituency. Collectively, I've received 132 signatures from Powell River–Sunshine Coast constituents. The petition urges the B.C. government to include chiropractor doctors in the medicare plan on a basis equal to medical doctors.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the annual report of the Workers Compensation Board for the year 2001.

J. Kwan: Prior to the lunch break I was making comments regarding the bill that the government has introduced, Bill 45, the Legal Services Society Act. The issues I raised before lunch centred around the cuts with legal aid services in British Columbia, the cuts in the courthouse closures, the impacts for the people who need legal aid the most, who would not be able to access it. Of course, the cuts are now accompanied with this bill, Bill 45, which takes away the independence, in my view, of the board of the Legal Services Society.

It allows for the government to overturn the budget that is set out by the Legal Services Society Board. It changes the representation of the board with the majority to be represented by government appointees, and it takes away community representation, whereby formerly the community law offices and native law offices would have representation at a 15-member board. It is now a nine-member board with five members to be appointed by government.

In my view, it allows for the government to fire the board much more easily than the current piece of legislation, although even with the current legislation, it did not stop the Attorney General from firing the board when the board challenged the government on its cuts, when the board said that by making 38.8 percent of the cuts to legal aid, it essentially means that legal aid would not be able to meet the mandate as set out by the ministry. That is to provide access to justice for all British Columbians.

One of the most important pieces around the change in legal aid with this bill, Bill 45, is that it takes away the mandate of legal aid to provide services in the area of poverty law. The former Legal Services Society Act, the original act, states: "The objects of the society are to ensure that" an individual, under item (d), "has a legal problem that threatens…."

Let me just go back a little bit. Let me read this into the record as well: "The objects of the society are to ensure that…services ordinarily provided by a lawyer are afforded to individuals who would not otherwise receive them because of financial or other reasons, and…education, advice and information about law are provided for the people of British Columbia."

Then it goes on to talk about how it needs to be made available for a qualifying individual who meets one or more of the following conditions. The conditions include criminal proceedings, proceedings that involve civil proceedings that may result in imprisonment and issues that relate to domestic violence. The piece that is being taken out with this change of the legal aid bill, the Legal Services Society Act, is this: where people have "a legal problem that threatens…the individual's family's physical or mental safety or health…the individual's ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for himself or herself and the individual's dependents, or…the individual's livelihood."

This area that is being eliminated from the mandate of the Legal Services Society essentially takes away the mandate of the Legal Services Society to provide poverty law assistance. Other people may coin it with the term "administrative law." Essentially, it is taking away the mandate of the society to provide legal advice or legal assistance to individuals who, quite frankly, need it the most. The reasons why the individual would

need legal representation are because it threatens the individual's family's physical or mental safety or health; because it threatens the individual's ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for himself or herself and the individual's dependents; and because it threatens the individual's livelihood.

One would argue that that mandate is the most fundamental piece in terms of the individual's need to get assistance. When you're unable to address issues of providing basic needs like feeding, clothing and providing shelter for yourself or the individual's dependents, it threatens the well-being of the individual. On that basis, the former mandate of the Legal Services Society Act is such that in British Columbia, government is required to provide legal assistance to those individuals.

Now, with Bill 45, the new Legal Services Society Act introduced by the Attorney General…. For this government to try and push through this debate with less than 24 hours of the debate for second reading…. The government is going to take away the most fundamental piece that underlies legal aid for those who are faced with threats to their health and safety; to their ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter; and to their livelihoods.

You may ask: "What is wrong with that picture?" There was an article that was written in the Vancouver Sun by Ian Mulgrew. I'll just take parts of it to illustrate what is wrong with this picture. I quote from the article, which is entitled "Legal Aid Staffers Brace for Worst."

Then the article has a little bit more to say in terms of the concerns around cuts to legal aid.

The Attorney knows very well that by underfunding legal aid, the only ability that legal aid would have would be to provide assistance in the areas of criminal cases and family law cases that involve violence. That's mandated in the act itself. But without funding, they are unable to provide for support in the area of administrative law. By deleting the require-

ment that that service be provided, the government, the Attorney General, is essentially saying: "We will no longer fund legal aid services in the area of poverty law." It's not creating flexibility. It's limiting access to justice. It is that simple.

The Association of Community Law Offices of British Columbia and the Native Community Law Offices Association of British Columbia have written a submission to the Ministry of Attorney General, justice services branch, on the Legal Services Society Act amendments discussion paper. I'm going to read some of their comments into the record, because I agree with these comments:

This was the paragraph that I read out earlier from the original act, which deals with the issues around services that will now no longer be mandated for legal aid to provide: where it threatens the individual's family's physical, mental health or safety; the individual's ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for himself or herself or the individual's dependents or the individual's livelihood.

Then the society has some comments around revenue generation, which essentially states that they don't have a problem with revenue generation. But let me just read their words into the record:

Hon. Speaker, the Association of Community Law Offices of B.C. and the Native Community Law Offices Association of B.C. have voiced a strong opinion on the proposed changes. Now the bill is before us, Bill 45, Legal Services Society Act. This bill, in my view, is fundamentally flawed, as it penalizes the people who are most vulnerable, who will now no longer be able to access justice. It takes away what was formerly in the Society Act to provide for, in my view, essential services for the poor — access to legal services and legal representation in the area of poverty law.

Some of the quotes that I'm going to put forward are from individuals who've made comments…

Maybe the Attorney General is frustrated with debate in this House, because he just sat in his seat and said: "I thought I heard the opposition member say she's nearly finished." Maybe he's frustrated because we're engaging in debate in this House. It is no wonder, quite frankly. What this government has tried to do is silence opposition at every step of the way. They try to do that every step of the way. Is it any wonder, when a bill as important as this was introduced in the House less than 24 hours ago…? Now we're here doing second reading debate.

J. Kwan: The House didn't rise until late in the evening last night. We had less than 24 hours to look and see what this government's doing — not just the opposition members but the public as well. They didn't have access to this bill until yesterday. Now the Attorney General's frustrated because there's debate in this House.

God forbid that someone challenge the actions of this government when they attack the most vulnerable British Columbians — the poorest of the poor, people who need to have access to justice, people who should have the right to access to justice. The Attorney General himself admitted that with the changes he's bringing about, there will be limitation to access to justice for some British Columbians.

I thought we lived in a society where we pride ourselves, as Canadians, that what makes us so great as Canadians, as British Columbians, is that we have compassion. We know what is right, and we know what is wrong. In our hearts we know the difference. When we know the difference, we act on those differences. Government steps forward to make sure that the poorest of the poor have their rights afforded to them. This act undermines that fundamental principle that makes me proud as a British Columbian.

That is the issue we're debating today. It's not just my view — not just me who shares these opinions. Here's some other people who share this view as well.

The Law Society president, Richard Gibbs, said that the firing of the board had "terminated the independence of legal aid in British Columbia." Bill 45 further erodes any sense of the independence of the Legal Services Society Act. That's exactly what this bill does — takes away the independence of the Legal Services Society.

Here's another quote: "We won't maintain the level of service. I expect there will be people who will have an even harder time finding access to justice than before." Guess who made that comment: the Attorney General himself, who's sitting here making these cuts. How could it be that we have the Attorney General, who is the person in this province who's been charged to ensure access to justice is provided for all British Columbians, making such a comment: "We won't maintain the level of service, and I expect there will be people who will have an even harder time finding access to justice than before"?

Here's what a criminal lawyer who provides service in the community had to say: "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."

Another lawyer, a front-line person who provides the services: "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."

These are just some of the comments. There are many other comments that British Columbians came forward and stated.

The government and this Attorney General did not heed the words of the broader community — not from the opposition, not from anybody. They're simply going to plow ahead with the cuts. They're going to take away legal aid services for the people who need it the most.

Hon. Speaker, I intend to vote against this bill. I think it's reprehensible that this government is attacking the poor the way they are today — this bill with a combination of others: Bills 26, 27…. The list goes on. I intend to vote against this bill and challenge the government every step of the way and attempt to hold this government accountable, as they said during the election they weren't going to attack the most vulnerable. We now see their actions are different from their words during the election — yet another broken promise.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: Many of the remarks made by the opposition member go to funding issues rather than the new structure of the society that is proposed in this bill. The opposition member and I had a very long debate and discussion about those issues during the estimates debate. Many of the points the member made then she has made again today. I know these are issues that she feels strongly about.

In terms of the changes proposed in the legislation, they actually open up the mandate of the society. They open up the capacity, the powers, the objects of the society to ensure that the society has the greatest range of options available to it to deliver on the most important areas of responsibility in the provision of legal aid services.

This bill preserves the independence of the society in those areas where the society needs to be independent. I listened to the member's comments about that and, frankly, waited for her to explain what she meant when she talked about the way in which she believes the bill undermines the independence. After all, it's quite easy to make the statement, but if you can't explain it, then I guess people who hear the statement might wonder if in fact there's any foundation to it.

I tried to make quite clear in my second reading remarks the way in which independence is, in fact, an important value and how that value is preserved and enhanced in many ways, in my view, in this act; how, in particular, the issue of independence around the delivery of legal aid services is fundamentally an issue that says the society must be independent around the decisions to provide counsel to people who are engaged in matters where the government is on the other side. If government were directly involved in the appointment or selection of counsel for someone who has been accused of a criminal offence, I think there are people who could then say: "Well, the government is there appointing Crown; government's there appointing defence counsel. That doesn't look very good." Indeed, the society will continue to have all the independence that it needs in relation to those aspects of its operation.

When it comes to that fundamental question of how much money the society should spend, that is an issue for government. We make a decision as government about how much money is available to the society. We have not just the right but the obligation to be at the table with the society, sitting down and discussing in broad terms the service priorities that the society should have. It is the taxpayers' money that is being spent by the society.

In fact, what this bill says, which I think is a marvellous innovation, is that where the society has the ability to recover funds from other sources — which it has done, I should say, in some cases, but it will be able to do more of because of this bill…. Where the society has other dollars, they'll have greater freedom of action, I think, because of this bill, in terms of how they spend those dollars.

The member made some comments about her continued opposition to the spectre that there would ever be any commercial activity anywhere in the province of British Columbia, particularly her fear that the society would be in some way missing its function if it engaged in commercial activities. Well, the society has in fact been engaged in some forms of fundraising and other commercial activities for some period of time. In fact, it was the society that came to government and said: "Look, we are leading-edge developers of information technology and management systems for how to manage the delivery of a wide range of litigation services. People come to the society all the time from other parts of the world and say: 'Can you teach us how it is you do what you do? We think we have much to learn.'"

I think that given that the taxpayers of British Columbia have made the investment in creating that intellectual property, if you will, the society should be in a position to share that with other parts of the world, with other places, with other organizations. If there's an opportunity for them to do that in a way that offsets their costs and gives them more tools to provide legal aid services to people who need it, I think that's a good step. I think all members of the House should applaud that part of this bill, which will give the society those tools.

Yes, the bill very much also gives the society the opportunity to engage in a greater degree of cost recovery. I know the society will take that responsibility very seriously. There are many, many people who come searching for legal aid who simply have no resources whatsoever. There are, however, many other people who come for legal aid who do have the ability to provide some modest contribution either up front or later. To give the society the tools to ensure that they treat people fairly and that they give the taxpayers value for money in terms of providing the widest possible range of service to people who need it, I think, is a good part of this bill.

We did actually, as the member notes, undertake a discussion process with the profession and others. It was a fairly compressed process — I concede that — but circumstances required that we move forward quickly. In particular, the fact that the old board of the society decided by a majority that they could not implement a budget meant that we were put on a pretty accelerated timetable in terms of making sure there were changes made.

Many of the comments the member makes in terms of citing other statements made by people about whether the society could have delivered on that budget were in fact raised and dealt with by the courts, and all of the courts' findings are completely contrary to the member's statements. The board was in fact able to deliver on the budget. The fact that they chose not to put the government in a very difficult position, because our responsibility as government is to provide the service to the people who need it. The board wasn't willing to do that, and that put us in a situation where we had no alternative but to appoint a trustee.

We're now moving forward. We're moving forward to put in place a new governance structure, a new mandate, a new range of powers that I think will make British Columbia a leader in terms of the way we deliver legal aid services, the range of services we provide and the range of people that will be affected by and will receive a benefit from the provision of those services.

I think this is a good initiative, and I'm glad to have heard the member's comments. I look forward to continuing to discuss some of those issues — not, of course, the funding issue, which has been dealt with in the estimates debate, but in terms of her concerns around the mechanisms of the bill. I'm sure we'll have a chance to pursue those in committee stage.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 45, Legal Services Society Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; H. Long in the chair.

R. Stewart: The concern we've got with this kind of issue…. I've got a constituent , for example, in my riding who has expressed serious concern about the ability to enforce maintenance orders and such when the spouse has left the country. In this particular circumstance, the spouse is out of the country, and her ability to have those orders enforced she finds severely curtailed. I wonder if there is a process in place that would allow us to raise specific issues regarding the enforceability of orders.

In particular, she has a couple of concerns: her ability to enforce interest payment on an unpaid debt related to family maintenance. She finds that she has no ability to enforce that if the spouse has left the country. That particular concern is one that she's raised on a number of occasions — that where the debt exists and the spouse is still in the country, there is interest payable, but where the spouse has left the country, there is some inability to enforce the interest payable on that. I wonder if such issues have come before the Attorney General.

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the member's question. The status quo as it may exist, in terms of entitlement to recover interest, will not be affected by this bill. I'm also told that British Columbia may be the only jurisdiction — if not one of the only jurisdictions — where interest is recoverable on a debt for unpaid maintenance. That would, clearly, make it more difficult to recover it from someone who is resident in a jurisdiction that would not recognize the obligation to pay interest on an unpaid support debt. Frankly, that is something, at least at first impression, that is probably

more an issue with respect to the substantive law in the jurisdiction where the paying party resides.

There is only so much we can do here in British Columbia to assist or even deal with those issues. What this bill is primarily concerned with is putting in place processes that will make it a little easier to obtain and then register an order for support in a case where a party resident in British Columbia wants to obtain an order against a party resident in some other province or jurisdiction.

The extent to which these processes would be of assistance to someone seeking to obtain and enforce a maintenance order against somebody resident in another country would depend, in part, upon whether or not the other country is a reciprocating jurisdiction. Many countries, as I indicated in my second reading remarks, are reciprocating jurisdictions with British Columbia, but, of course, many are not.

R. Stewart: Therein, I guess, is the crux of the issue. I raise the interest as an example only perhaps to illustrate that, clearly, it's a very complex process to negotiate these interjurisdictional agreements to enforce the order of a court in British Columbia upon someone living in a country in Europe or Asia.

I wonder if the Attorney General could perhaps explain the process that B.C. enters into as it negotiates these — or maybe it's not B.C. that negotiates such agreements — and how such agreements can be changed, altered or expanded to include items that aren't currently included in such agreements.

Clearly, if we can identify an expense that ought to be enforceable within Canadian jurisdictions, it is just as likely that it ought to be enforceable when the spouse moves out of Canada into another jurisdiction. I wonder: what is the process that allows us to influence the way in which they can be enforced in another country?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that British Columbia takes the responsibility for negotiating directly with other jurisdictions, even countries. The provisions that would lead to an agreement whereby the two jurisdictions would become reciprocating jurisdictions…. The member would, I'm sure, realize that to be reciprocating means that the other country will agree to enforce our orders, but we will agree to enforce their orders. The likelihood of achieving an effective agreement for reciprocal enforcement is probably enhanced when the legal systems are sufficiently comparable to make the dialogue an effective one.

I don't know whether and how the specific issue of interest recovery might arise in negotiations with other jurisdictions, but it's certainly something I would be willing to take up with staff, recognizing that we are dealing here with something that is going to always be a problem. One party to a relationship leaves a jurisdiction and could be liable to provide maintenance and support to the party living here in British Columbia, or the other way around.

The system whereby you get an order and enforce it and actually maintain its enforceability in a practical sense will always be much more complicated than it is if both parties are resident inside British Columbia.

R. Stewart: I thank the Attorney General. Personally, I believe in the orders of a court in British Columbia, and I believe that we have to, as a society and as a government, do everything we can to ensure that someone cannot escape the orders of a lawful court in British Columbia. In this particular instance, the example I cited, there are a number of other complex issues that my constituent faces. I've raised them with your ministry, and I've received some satisfactory responses.

I appreciate the efforts of ministry staff in the past months to work through some of these issues, and I recognize the complexities of them. The Attorney General undoubtedly shares my desire to continue to expand the way in which we as a society and as a government can assist British Columbians in ensuring that justice prevails through the enforcement of orders of the court.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 23, Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Plant: I move Motion 15 standing in my name on the orders of the day:

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of that supplementary report, which I will seek leave to table at the conclusion of debate.

Hon. G. Plant: I seek leave, if leave is required, to table the supplementary recommendation of the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee.

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND TREATY No. 8
ADHESION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 10, McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. G. Plant: I just want to make this one note here for the benefit of people who might be interested in this issue and this debate. This is an amendment act. What will happen if the House passes this act is that a variety of statutes will be amended to give effect to the basic principles that are being implemented here. This particular bill will sort of disappear into other statutes of the Legislature. The most important destination will be the Trustee Act itself, where section 15 is being repealed and a number of sections are being added that will give effect to the heart of the principles in the bill.

Again, I'd like to express my thanks to the Law Institute and, frankly, my own staff in the ministry for having worked hard to bring this initiative forward, which I hope will make a difference in the business of trustee investment in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 30, Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 29; H. Long in the chair.

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

Bill 29, Securities Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Hansen: British Columbia's food safety system is among the best in the world for ensuring safe, wholesome food for B.C. consumers. This bill enables government to maintain high standards for food safety while providing flexibility to meet the changing needs of consumers and the agrifood industry now and into the future. It consolidates the food safety aspects of the Milk Industry Act, the Fish Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Act and the Health Act into one unified statute.

This bill was developed by the Ministry of Health Services in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to streamline and modernize food safety legislation to meet the needs of consumers and the agrifood industry. For consumers, the bill offers the assurance that government will continue to set and monitor strict food safety standards with clear direction to the food industry for meeting those standards. For industry, the bill demonstrates that government is responding to its concerns about outdated regulations which sometimes frustrate the ability of this vital and growing sector to improve operations in regards to both product and food safety.

The sector has raised legitimate concerns about restrictions on trade imposed by varying food safety standards across the country. The frustration and cost of multiple inspections and the regulatory burden of outdated provincial regulations are all to be addressed within the scope of this bill.

It is time to move from overly prescriptive regulations, which limit the sector's ability to perform at the highest standards of food safety and production, to outcome-based regulations, which focus on the safety of food and not the method by which the food is produced. Outcome-based regulations reflect a shift from detailed, overly prescriptive regulations to simplified goal-oriented regulations that would allow industry more flexibility in how the goals are met.

A case in point is the regulation governing dairy production that specifies the distance between the milk tanks in a dairy and the walls on the outside of the building that the milk tanks are in. Those, up to now, have been governed by the width of a push broom when, in fact, the dairies have introduced new technologies to perform the same function that meet higher safety levels. From here forward, the dairy industry can decide whether to use a push broom, a vacuum system or some other technology to keep their equipment clean, as long as the standards are met.

Revised regulations will reduce the regulatory burden to provide industry with the flexibility to use new technology and methods for production and processing. This will encourage industry innovation while ensuring that food remains safe. These outcome-based regulations will be developed in consultation with the food industry to replace the existing regulations governing the dairy, fish and meat industries.

This bill also enables integrated federal-provincial inspection delivery systems. It provides for greater flexibility in the appointment of inspectors, which means that federal inspectors can be appointed to carry out provincial inspections in addition to their federal responsibilities when that joint kind of inspection is appropriate. This is already happening in the meat industry through agreements between the federal and the provincial governments.

This bill will assist our agrifood industry to stay competitive and effectively respond to changing technology, consumer demands and the requirements of interprovincial and international trade. It will ensure that government has the legislative tools necessary to continue to protect the safety of British Columbia's food.

Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 37. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: I just have a quick comment on this matter on the issue around consultation. I would urge that the minister, when he goes about developing regulation on the food safety matter, not only consult with industry but rather consult with a broader group of individuals who would have an interest in ensuring efficiency but also that the standard of safety is maintained.

That's the only comment that I have. The minister, I'm sure, will be eager to move to the next stage of this bill.

Hon. C. Hansen: The point that the member makes is a very good one, and we will be embarking on that very comprehensive consultation with consumers, with the retail outlets, with the restaurant industries as well as the agrifood industry itself. Certainly, that consultation will be very important as we proceed with the drafting of those regulations. We'll make sure that her suggestion is followed up on.

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

Bill 37, Food Safety Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.


	YEAS — 42

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	Santori	Nettleton
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Bond	de Jong	Stephens
Neufeld	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Nuraney
Long	Chutter	Johnston
R. Stewart	Bray	Locke
Nijjar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan