Hansard -- Monday, May 6, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 5 (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		3183

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3183
	Office for Children and Youth Act (Bill 43) Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3183
	Arts and culture in Burnaby J. Nuraney Hospice care in Vernon T. Christensen Royal Inland Hospital chaplain K. Krueger

Oral Questions		3184
	Negotiations with physicians J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Blacklisting of hospital workers J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Sale of Vancouver Canucks hockey team K. Stewart Hon. R. Thorpe Land use planning report M. Hunter Hon. S. Hagen Sale of Vancouver Canucks hockey team J. MacPhail Hon. R. Thorpe Employment program for disabled and mentally ill persons E. Brenzinger Hon. M. Coell

Petitions		3187
	J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents		3187
	Creston Valley wildlife management area, annual report, 2001

Committee of the Whole House		3187
	Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45) J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant Hon. G. Collins

Reporting of Bills		3207
	Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45)

Committee of the Whole House		3207
	Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32) Hon. J. Murray J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills		3210
	Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32)

Third Reading of Bills		3210
	Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32)

Committee of the Whole House		3210
	Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) Hon. M. Coell J. MacPhail J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm delighted that we have in the House today some special visitors from Sweden. We have Michael Hagberg, a Swedish Member of Parliament. He's accompanied by Christin Nilsson, a former Member of Parliament who is currently the general secretary of the Social Democratic Women in Sweden. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: I'm very glad to have in the gallery today with us Rose Farina, who is a longtime community worker in Burnaby who has served on many committees in Burnaby and is now the president of the Burnaby Arts Council. She is accompanied by Mary and Donald LeGrand. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: It's a pleasure for me to welcome three special guests to the Legislature today — their first time in the Legislature. The first, from the great riding of Burquitlam, is my mother Nessie Reid, who just celebrated her eighty-seventh birthday. The second is my sister, Diane Molyneux, from the beautiful Comox Valley at the north end of the island. Finally, there's my daughter, Katherine Halsey-Brandt, who is a student at UBC and is over here reconnoitring the University of Victoria. May the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I would like the House to join me in welcoming 31 grade 5 students accompanied by ten adults and their teacher, Father Conte, from Vancouver College in the Vancouver-Langara riding.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Office for Children and Youth Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 43, Office for Children and Youth Act. This act creates a children and youth officer to provide systematic advocacy and monitoring and to provide independent advice with respect to government services for children and youth.

The act covers services provided to children and youth under the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Adoption Act. Other services covered include early childhood development, mental health, addictions, youth justice and planning for transition from youth to adult services. This new model addresses the duplication of services for children and youth and implements the decisions of the core services review and deregulation task force with respect to the existing children's commissioner.

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

Bill 43 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.

J. Nuraney: Last week in Burnaby we celebrated the B.C. Arts and Culture Week. Many activities by artists of all kinds took place throughout the week.

It is a little-known fact that Burnaby is very prominent in the arts world and, in fact, the hub for arts activity in British Columbia. There are many art venues in Burnaby. The Shadbolt Centre has a theatre, music studios, art displays and other cultural activities. At the Ceperley House one can rent, buy or just enjoy art. Our local libraries are also a great place to enjoy arts and culture, where you can pull a B.C.-authored book off the shelf and enjoy reading it. In addition to these, we also have the Michael J. Fox theatre, which has gained enormous popularity throughout the lower mainland.

May I mention that Michael J. Fox is from Burnaby and is considered a mentor among the emerging young artists. He will in fact be in Burnaby in person on June 6, where he has agreed to come every year to promote fundraising for the theatre.

Many artists and arts groups belong to the Burnaby Arts Council, which acts as an umbrella organization for all arts and culture in my constituency. It services approximately 50 member groups and over a hundred individual and corporate members. The Burnaby Arts Council promotes the arts throughout the special arts program and cultural events. Every second year Burnaby Arts Council organizes the Showcase, which gives exposure of great talent that we have in Burnaby to members and member groups. The Burnaby Arts Council's Christmas fair is also held every year and is known throughout British Columbia for its local talent.

In Burnaby Heights, which is the business area in Burnaby, we have a great partnership between business and the art world. Burnaby Heights business asso-

ciation and the Arts Council coordinate the art walk, where artists display their work in stores and hold demonstrations. Some of the businesses have large murals to be painted on the outside of their stores, and this offers the local artists a great opportunity to exhibit their works. The murals are a good exposure for the artists as well as for the business.

The arts and culture are very much alive in Burnaby, and I'm proud to represent a constituency that has such a vibrant and exciting art world. I thank you.

T. Christensen: May is Hospice Month. Yesterday my family and I participated in the third annual Hike for Hospice in Vernon, one of a number of fundraising initiatives conducted by the Vernon and District Hospice Society to support its efforts to provide care and support for the dying and their families in the North Okanagan. The hike raised $20,000.

The society's many dedicated volunteers have been caring for people in my community for two decades. When the society identified the need for a hospice house in Vernon in the late 1990s, the community agreed and locally raised $800,000 of the total $1.3 million raised to pay for the construction of the Vernon Hospice House in its first year of operation.

Since opening a year ago, 96 terminally ill community members have received care, and their families have received support and counselling at Hospice. Hospice provides a compassionate, supportive and comfortable home to live out the final days of life while receiving quality palliative care. Hospice will also provide temporary admission for pain and symptom management and respite for unpaid home caregivers who, quite understandably, are exhausted in their day-after-day care of their loved one.

The greatest measurement of Hospice's success is the significant impact it has had on the families it has served. Their letters comment on the home-like environment, the compassion of the staff and volunteers, and how Hospice managed to make a time of great sorrow and sadness for family into a beautiful experience.

One significant challenge that has burdened Vernon Hospice House from prior to its opening has been a lack of financial support from government. Under the old health region, no operational funding was available for Hospice, notwithstanding that everyone seemed to agree that in most cases Hospice was able to provide more appropriate care to the terminally ill than an acute care facility.

I am very pleased that the interior health authority has exercised its new-found autonomy to recognize the value of the service being provided by the Vernon Hospice House and to provide some operational funding. It is a start to catching up to what my community has long recognized — that quality palliative care is best provided in a home-like setting with the support of loved ones and the community at large, and that Hospice must be considered an integral part of our health care system.

K. Krueger: Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops has a wonderful chaplain. His name is Viktor Gundel, and by all accounts, he is the salt of the earth. Victor is one of those rare people who really puts everybody else's needs ahead of his own, and he's available 24 hours a day seven days a week. Doctors, nurses, support workers, patients, families, clergy…. Everybody I know praises Victor — well, all but one person, and that's the person who abruptly fired him the other day.

I found out about this the same way most people in Kamloops did, by seeing a front-page picture of Chaplain Victor and his pregnant wife, expecting their first baby imminently, in the Kamloops Daily News. I was shocked. As it turns out, so was the chair of the interior health authority, who first learned of it the same way I did. In the days since, I've heard from constituents across the spectrum of society in Kamloops. Here are some examples: "Mr. Gundel's input into patient care has made an enormous impact in his short stay here. I can only say, as the director of the intensive care unit, that his position is essential to the global functioning of our unit and that losing him is a severe blow to us."

Another constituent, a worker in the hospital, writes: "Health care workers do not take care of themselves first. They put the patient and families first. Having Viktor around allowed us to think of ourselves and have support there immediately when we needed it. He was part of the team and is being greatly missed."

I've spoken with every management level of the interior health authority about this matter. Although there is general agreement that the decision could have been implemented more courteously and respectfully, indications are that the decision will stand.

Therefore, I appeal to the government on behalf of my constituents, with whom I am in full agreement. Spiritual care is an integral component of health services. Having a paid chaplain in a large facility to coordinate the efforts of community clergy and ensure patients' needs are met is a reasonable expenditure.

If we have not spelled out to the health authorities that this will be one of our expectations of them and that their performance will be measured, then I think we should. Regardless of how tough their decisions have to be in any personnel matter, this government will require courtesy, respect and kindness in all dealings with personnel.

J. MacPhail: The deal that the Premier cooked up with the B.C. Medical Association in his living room has collapsed. Doctors are pointing the finger at the

If that's not bad enough, the Minister of Health Services said this morning that it was now up to patients to put the political pressure on their doctors to get this thing settled. The Minister of Health Services is putting politics into the examination room. It is not up to patients to settle this dispute. They've suffered enough under this government.

To the Minister of Health Services: will he now stand up and assure patients that they will not be dragged into the government's public relations war against doctors? And will he tell patients what plan he has to settle this thing so that it doesn't involve them fighting his political battles?

Hon. C. Hansen: The memorandum of understanding that was signed about five weeks ago developed a framework for resolving the issues around physician compensation in British Columbia. This government put $392 million of additional money into the budget to provide for that. The B.C. Medical Association agreed that that was the envelope and that there would be no more on top of that.

There has been significant progress made in the negotiations. Quite frankly, I think the progress that has been made is a tribute to the negotiating parties on both sides. There are some remaining issues. We have encouraged the BCMA to get back to the negotiating table so that we can actually sort out those remaining issues so that patient safety will not be put at stake in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I asked what this minister is doing for patients, and he talks about a failed negotiating strategy. This government doesn't have a plan to put patients first. Soon they'll have an ad agency, but they've got no plan whatsoever for how to resolve this dispute with the doctors.

Again, to the Minister of Health Services: rather than play a game of chicken with patients in this province, will he now agree that it was a mistake to rip up the independent binding arbitration process — something, frankly, he supported in opposition and he supported when he first became Minister of Health Services? Will he agree to put independent binding arbitration back on the table so that this dispute can be settled before patient care is disrupted?

Hon. C. Hansen: Given the fact that this member has, every day, a whole list of multimillion-dollar priorities that she would like to see government spend more money on, I'm surprised, quite frankly, that she thinks government should fork out even hundreds of millions more dollars to fund the arbitration process as Mr. McEachern had brought it down.

We are putting patients first in British Columbia. We are working on a negotiation process that will allow us to resolve these issues within the framework that has already been agreed to. From day one we made it clear that binding arbitration was not on the table, was not acceptable. We're fully prepared to look at alternatives to that. We put a proposal forward to the BCMA around a third-party process for a dispute settlement mechanism to carry us into the future. Quite frankly, we were surprised last week, given that the BCMA has not responded in substance to what was there, that they would suddenly see this as the reason to walk away from negotiating tables.

We want to get back to the negotiating table. We want to get there today. We want to get these issues resolved. Quite frankly, I think it's inappropriate for any doctor or group of doctors in British Columbia to threaten to withdraw care from their patients while there is still good progress being made and there is an agreement that is there to be had. We just have to negotiate the details.

J. Kwan: This minister should have followed through with his own advice, and that is to allow the independent arbitration process to be completed and validated. Then perhaps we wouldn't have this dispute today.

Tapes released last week show that the real drive behind contracting out is to get Sodexho and other for-profit health care companies to carry the government's war with the labour movement. Blacklisting is a tried-and-true anti-labour tactic. It is one we thought we'd seen the end of, until this government invited for-profit health care outfits to the table.

To the Minister of Health Services: will he stand up in the House today and promise British Columbians that just because they belong to a particular union, they won't be forced onto the unemployment line?

Hon. C. Hansen: We do not condone blacklisting in any way, shape or form. We have made it quite clear that as health authorities go out to do open tendering to identify companies that can provide quality support services in our health care sector more cost-effectively than we've been able to do up to now, they have to go out in a tendering process that is open and that is transparent, and the companies they choose should be companies that abide by the laws in British Columbia and are good corporate citizens that treat their employees fairly. We would not condone any kind of blacklisting against any particular union or group of members in this province.

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

J. Kwan: I'm glad the minister has acknowledged that blacklisting is inappropriate. It is not only unfair to the workers, but it is unfair to the patients who depend on the years of experience that they bring to the jobs. X-

ray and lab technicians, licensed practitioners, dietary specialists and food service workers — these people are the backbone of our health care system. The average health care provider whose job is being threatened has over 20 years of experience in providing patients with top-quality care.

Will the Minister of Health Services, then, step in today and tell health authorities that throwing away that experience and expertise would damage patient care and create more chaos in our health care system? Will he order them to stop now? It is happening right now. If this government doesn't condone it, step in and say no.

Hon. C. Hansen: We made it quite clear to the health authorities that their tendering process has to be open and transparent and fair to all concerned.

I have also said that if there is any evidence that anyone has that the laws of British Columbia have been broken around labour practices, they should bring that evidence to the Minister of Labour, and it will be properly investigated.

K. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Over the weekend it was reported that the Vancouver Canucks are in discussion with our government on looking at options to improve the competitiveness of the team. Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise inform the House as to the nature of those discussions and the directions of those discussions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me be very clear. Our government will not subsidize any business in British Columbia. We are creating a competitive business climate here in British Columbia so that all businesses can compete and win. Not one penny of the money we have committed to spend on health care and education will be diverted to any organization, including the Vancouver Canucks. Our government is committed to creating a competitive business environment, so everyone can compete in British Columbia and win.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has a supplementary question.

K. Stewart: With the weekend media report that the Canucks' owners are interested in selling the team, can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us whether or not he expects the Vancouver Canucks to stay in Vancouver?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The decision on whether the Vancouver Canucks stay in British Columbia or not is strictly up to the Vancouver Canucks. Our commitment is to ensure that British Columbia has a competitive business climate so that all companies can be successful in British Columbia, be attracted to British Columbia and win in British Columbia. Once again I want to say to all British Columbians: not one penny of the funds that our government has committed to health care or education will be diverted to any business, for any subsidy, in any form in British Columbia.

M. Hunter: Last week the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management released a report that had been commissioned by the previous government. That report was to assess the performance of land use planning processes between 1992 and 2001. Will the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management please outline the results of that report?

This independent analysis shows that there were a number of costs and benefits associated with the previous government's land use planning efforts, including job losses from reductions in resource extraction, reductions in the economic base for resource-dependent communities and loss of government revenues.

This report clearly shows that land use planning should continue, but that it can be improved. This is exactly what our government has been undertaking to do over the last ten months.

M. Hunter: So this government has been committed to managing our natural resources through sound science and proper management.

Could the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management tell us what actions he's prepared to take in order to ensure that the problems outlined in the report he just talked about are properly and adequately addressed?

Hon. S. Hagen: As part of our core review and business planning, our government has undertaken a number of strategic changes in land use planning, including the smaller and more efficient tables, shorter time lines for completion, more clearly defined objectives for outcomes, stronger provincial oversight and broader input for first nations.

I'm confident that these changes address the significant economic problems outlined in the report while at the same time retaining the benefits that can result from successful land use planning.

J. MacPhail: It did occur to me, following those questions about the Vancouver Canucks…. To the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise — this is a very specific question; it requires a yes or a no, so you can look up: will the minister assure us that no lottery

money will go in any way to the Canucks either before or after the sale of the team?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Apparently, the member on the other side of the House was offside when I gave the last answer.

Let me just tell the member that our government has committed the funds to health care and education. We are committed to supporting health care in British Columbia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have increased funding to health care by $1.1 billion in the last ten months. In addition, my colleague and Minister of Education has maintained funding to schools in British Columbia.

Our government is committed, unlike the previous government, to ensuring that all businesses in British Columbia can compete and win in a global economy.

Last week the minister announced the new employment strategy for persons with disabilities. A number of my constituents with disabilities are concerned by reports that they will be forced to find employment without receiving adequate support.

To the Minister of Human Resources: how will the disabled see this strategy as being any different from any other programs in the past?

Hon. M. Coell: There are tens of thousands of people with disabilities who have employment in British Columbia, but people with disabilities have a 50 percent higher unemployment rate than people who don't. We've developed a strategy that we believe will help people with disabilities enter the workforce and do the best they can. We're going to start with earnings exemptions at $300. They'll be able to continue with their medical benefits once they leave income assistance. We'll be able to supply technical aids, workplace modifications, follow-up supports and a rapid reinstatement if someone with a disability isn't able to continue to work.

What we want to be able to do is help people work and support them in work. People with disabilities need that help.

E. Brenzinger: People with mental illnesses face unique barriers and often require specific resources to help them gain independence through employment.

Can the Minister of Human Resources outline for my constituents how this strategy will specifically help people with mental illness?

Hon. M. Coell: The desire here is to make sure the supports are there for people with disabilities, including mental illness, so that they can come on and off income assistance as needed. They would keep their disability status, so there would be rapid reinstatement back onto income assistance if someone was only able to work cyclically or part-time. The idea is to find the potential people have to support them to reach that potential no matter what their disability is.

J. MacPhail: I have the honour today to present a petition signed by Mr. Rick Wood and 3,607 other British Columbians, who request the government to reverse its decision to lift the moratorium on fish farm expansion. They point out that the scientific evidence proves that current fish-farming practices, if continued, are capable of destroying all species of wild and hatchery salmon.

Hon. J. Murray: I have the honour of presenting the Creston Valley wildlife management area annual report for 2001.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 45; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Under section 1 there is the new definition of financial obligation to the society, which states that it means, in relation to a client, the money that is to be paid to the society under a legal aid contract between the client and the society. Could the minister please advise what circumstances would cause an individual to have a financial obligation to the society?

Hon. G. Plant: I think the circumstances that engage that definition are those set out or provided for in part 3 of the bill, which starts at section 13.

J. Kwan: We can canvass this issue under section 13, or the minister can advise and provide information to the House with respect to the circumstances in which an individual would have a financial obligation to the society. I would like him to give us some examples and elaborate on the question that I asked.

J. Kwan: I take it from the minister's silence that he wants to canvass those questions then, in section 13?

Hon. G. Plant: The definition of "financial obligation to the society" links to obligations that arise solely in respect of the scheme or provisions that are in part 3, as I understand it. I think the right place to ask about what a financial obligation might be is in the context of those provisions.

It's not actually a very complicated definition. Financial obligation means, in relation to a client, the money that is to be paid by the client to the society under a legal aid contract between the client and the society. I think, though, that the place the issue arises in more concrete form is probably the provisions of part 3.

J. Kwan: I had prefaced my question by asking the minister if he wants to canvass that under the definitions section, which is section 1. Or does he want to canvass it under section 3? That was the question. All the minister had to do was rise up and advise.

The follow-up question in relation to this definition, of course, would be the consequences of not paying a financial obligation to the society. Again, I will seek the minister's perspective. Does he want me to canvass these questions under part 3 or under the definitions?

I'm particularly interested in understanding what the consequences are of not paying a financial obligation to the society. For example, will the society be requiring people to sell their homes or other properties? Is that what the "lien against land" is about under section 14, under part 3, in order to pay the financial obligation? We can canvass that under part 3. I'm seeking the minister's preference in relation to these questions.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm grateful for that, but I'm really in the member's hands. I'm certainly willing to answer questions. I've already said twice that I think the better place to ask questions about this is in the context of part 3 where, in fact, the phrase "financial obligation to the society" appears in the context of some specific provisions, including sections 13 and 14 at least.

J. Kwan: That's fine. I can canvass…. I do want to make it clear in terms of the place where the minister wants to answer the questions, because from time to time we've seen this. If a section is passed in the House, we may lose the opportunity to ask the questions. I want to be clear that I would be able to get my answers then at the subsequent sections, which is why I'm asking the minister on this point.

In the definitions section, "legal aid contract" in the bill states that it "means, in relation to a client, the contract between the client and the society under which the society provides legal aid to the client." This definition did not exist in the previous Legal Services Society Act. Could the minister please advise: what is the purpose of adding this definition?

Hon. G. Plant: It essentially sets up the context within which, among other things, the lien provisions may come into effect. It ensures that there will be a contract between the society and the client. In the context of the provisions of part 3, some of the terms of that contract may have to do with an obligation to pay money to the society for legal services provided to somebody in circumstances where, for example, there is a windfall or an opportunity to recover the funds for the costs of legal services from real property that may become available during the course of or as a result of the legal proceedings.

J. Kwan: The example the minister used is in relation to the liens provision. Would that be the only type of obligation and responsibilities that would be included in this contract?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't think it's limited to the lien situation, but we think that's probably the most likely situation when it will be used. Part of the objective of the bill is, in fact, to expand the opportunity for the society to engage in cost recovery even from clients, so the framework is set up to enable that, while recognizing that for a huge number of people who are eligible for legal aid, there is no prospect in practical terms that they would ever be able to pay for any of the services that are provided.

But you know, from time to time someone who is charged with a criminal matter and that would be eligible for legal aid might come into a windfall source of cash. In those circumstances, my view is that the public interest in terms of providing tax dollars to fund a defence without any possibility of recovery from the person who now could afford to pay for their defence is pretty thin, so the bill is intended, in some circumstances, to give the society the ability to seek cost recovery, as I've outlined.

J. Kwan: The minister said that is one of the examples in the liens provisions. He advised that there may also be other circumstances. Could the minister please advise what other circumstances?

Hon. G. Plant: I gave the member another example of a situation where a contract might be required to ensure that the society was in a position to recover windfall funds that might be in the possession of someone who is accused of a criminal offence. That's another example of the potential for the use of this kind of situation.

I think it's also provided for, perhaps by implication in section 10, the powers and capacity — a provision which gives the society the powers and capacity of an individual without limiting the power to determine the method or methods by which legal aid is to be or may be provided.

J. Kwan: In the case where there's a breach of the legal aid contract between the society and the client, what are the consequences?

Hon. G. Plant: The examples that I've used do not constitute a breach. In one case we were talking about liens. The contract would presumably provide that in the event the outcome of a matter produced an asset that was exigible, there would be the prospect of at least registering and ultimately, perhaps, enforcing a lien against that asset to the extent of the amount owing to the society. I assume it would be open to the society to take proceedings to enforce the lien if it should become necessary to do so.

A classic example of this is the situation where, in the family law case, there's a matrimonial home that may have hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity but no source of income for one of the partners to the relationship. That partner may get legal aid to help with a custody application on the basis that when the family law matter is complete, the society would be able to recover its fees or at least firstly secure its entitlement to fees on the matrimonial home. If, in the fullness of time, there was no ability to actually generate the money from some other source to ensure that the fees were paid, then presumably the society would be in the position of being able to enforce the lien.

J. Kwan: Are these legal aid contracts essentially meant to force legal aid clients to pay for services? Is that the primary reason why these legal aid contracts would be established?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, in circumstances where legal aid clients can afford to pay for services, they're usually not eligible for them.

J. Kwan: Is the minister suggesting that if clients can pay for the services, they would not be paying for legal aid services because they won't be eligible for it? So what is the purpose of these legal aid contracts?

Hon. G. Plant: We've already pointed out that one of the features of this act is part 3. It gives the right to the Legal Services Society to recover financial obligations to it. In some cases, that may include the ability to recover obligations for services provided.

The fundamental public-policy interest here is that we want to be sure that we provide legal aid coverage only to those who really cannot afford it. We also recognize that in some circumstances there may be an asset that already exists or the possibility of a windfall in the form of cash that we don't necessarily know enough about at the time the request for coverage is made to the society. The society, I think, should be in a position to ensure that if as a result of a proceeding or during the course of a proceeding, the person who received the service actually does come into a position where they could have afforded to pay for it, then they should pay for it.

J. Kwan: Let me use this example. With the change of this act, a lot of the legal aid services would actually be eliminated. I'd be tempted to use a case like a WCB case, whereby an injured worker could, after proceeding with a case, come into — to use the minister's words — a windfall of some moneys through winning that case. Given the change of this act, I think a lot of the WCB cases would not be covered by legal aid, because the resources won't be there to provide that service.

Let me use this example of a case where you could have a family in a family dispute where violence is involved, because that is the provision to which legal services would be provided. If violence is not involved, likely, again, legal aid services would not be provided to the family.

Let's use a situation where violence is involved and there are children involved and custody issues as well, and let's say it's the woman in this instance who is qualified for legal aid. After the court case it may well be that through the custody issues and the family asset distribution issues, the family unit — the woman and the child — may well come into some assets in that case. Would the legal aid contract bind that family, then, to sell their assets after the case in order to pay for legal services? Is that an option under the legal aid contract?

Hon. G. Plant: I think the reason why the provision deals with liens is, to answer the member's question, that there are circumstances where it's appropriate that the society might secure its right to prospectively, at a future point, recover some of the costs. I don't think it's contemplated that the society would have a contractual arrangement with a client that would, on its face, require somebody to sell some asset.

When I think of windfall — and I don't know if this is a good example or not — I think of the prospect of someone accused of a criminal offence who comes and makes an application through legal aid and discloses the fact that they have no sources of income but, on making full disclosure, realizes they have an obligation to disclose the fact that a relative has just died and that they may have an entitlement to a significant amount of cash coming from the estate of the relative. While that's not something that is a present entitlement or a present asset of the person who's seeking coverage, it might shortly become that. In those circumstances the society, I think, ought to at least have some ability to think about whether it can secure the right to repayment for some of the cost of its services against what I would say could fairly be characterized as a windfall. Those are the kinds of things that I think are probably

intended by the arrangements created not in section 1 but in the other provisions of the act.

J. Kwan: I saw the minister's staff actually shaking their heads when I asked a question about the prospective situation with a woman and a child where after the legal aid representation, if they did come into some asset, they would not be required to sell that asset in order to pay for the legal aid services they received from the legal aid society. If that's the case, can the minister please advise: where in the act does it stipulate under what circumstances a person would have to sell the assets or the windfall? What constitutes a windfall — under what circumstances? Where within the act does it stipulate that?

Hon. G. Plant: We are not going to have a very successful debate if the member spends much time commenting on the facial demeanour of the people who have served the public of British Columbia by assisting me in this debate.

The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. Let's confine the debate to two members. Thank you.

Hon. G. Plant: I've already illustrated what I think the scheme that's played out in this act is intended to do. Of course, the question of how it might operate in specific circumstances will depend in large measure on the way in which the society uses the tools that are given to it under this act. It's hard to predict the outcome of hypothetical situations, because they often do have facts that are not necessarily part of the explanation of the hypothetical situation.

In this case one of the challenges, of course, in giving examples is that while I have a pretty good idea of the range of services that the society is likely to continue to provide, the decision specifically about the range of services they are going to provide on a case-by-case basis is going to be a decision for the society.

What the provisions talk about in part 3 of the bill, which we're now debating, is making sure that in some appropriate circumstances the society has the ability to recover amounts that it has paid for representation of people who it turns out actually had or may come into the ability to pay for those services. If we are able to recover costs in those situations, then the society would have greater ability to actually provide coverage to those people who do not ever come into a windfall or do not have the opportunity to realize family assets that become available during the course of a family proceeding.

J. Kwan: Quite frankly, the section that the minister references in part 3 doesn't clearly stipulate under what circumstances and what obligations a client would have to repay legal aid services. I'm canvassing this question under the definition section that says: "Here's the meaning of the legal aid contract." What are the obligations associated with these legal aid contracts?

The problem here is this. The government is fond of saying: "Well, don't worry. Trust us." We've seen that, quite frankly. We've seen it in a number of situations. We've seen the government tear up contracts when they said they won't tear up contracts. We've seen that they've broken their word to the public on that matter.

With the changes in legal aid…. It is a very important set of changes that the minister is bringing about — fundamental changes that will revamp the provision of legal aid to the people who are in the greatest need in the province in trying to access legal representation and trying, quite frankly, to access justice. People who seek legal aid are the people who can't afford to get legal representation elsewhere.

Given that this is a new definition in the act — it was never there before — I'm canvassing from the minister: what are the purposes of this contract, and what are the legal obligations and responsibilities that would be included in these contracts? Quite frankly, the minister has not been able to answer that question in a clear, substantive way. He has not identified clearly under what circumstances people would have to enter into these contracts and what those consequences are.

In fact, the society has a long tradition of making people sell things before determining whether or not they'll provide coverage. If the asset is liquid and if the society is of the view that it's not essential, then the society may say: "You've got an asset you could sell. You should sell it and pay for your own legal advice."

What the society has not had the ability to do is secure through a lien the entitlement to realize at a later date some amount for the cost of the services that have been provided. In the case of, for example, a family home the society's view has been and will, I'm sure, continue to be that it won't make somebody sell their home in order to make sure that they get access to legal representation.

These things are a part of current practice already, and what is going to happen in the future as a result of the provisions of part 3 is that the society will have the ability to secure to some extent, in some cases, future recovery of fees where there is an appropriate asset that can be liened.

J. Kwan: Subsections (1), (2) and (3) under section 2 are identical to the original act, but subsection (4) is a new addition to the act. This subsection allows the society to carry on "a business, trade, industry or profession." I believe that this reference relates to the society's ability to generate additional revenue through business initiatives and fundraising. Subsection (4) then goes on to state: "…the society must not distribute any gain, profit or dividend or otherwise dispose of its assets to a member of the society without receiving full and valuable consideration."

Can the Attorney General provide an example of the types of business, trade, industry or profession that the Legal Services Society may engage in to raise funds for legal services?

Hon. G. Plant: One opportunity that has been identified to me is the possibility of selling some of the intellectual property that they have in case management and case management systems.

J. Kwan: Would the Legal Services Society raise funds by providing legal services to individuals who are capable of paying the full cost of legal services provided by the society?

Hon. G. Plant: I think it would be difficult to imagine how they could do that, given the basic objects of the society.

J. Kwan: Well, that's precisely the point. Why I asked the question is to make sure it is not the case that under this provision, the society would be able to sell their services to people who could pay for legal aid services. I fear doing that detracts from the scarce resources that will be available within the society to provide services for people who are in greatest need.

I want to be clear with respect to what the intent is with this government. It is never clear what the intent is. We often find ourselves reading between the lines to find out what the intent of the government is. If the minister says this is hypocritical, if that is the case, then I assume — although I can't just outright assume — that is the answer from the minister: it is not the intent of this act to allow for the Legal Services Society to sell legal aid services to the people who could otherwise pay for it.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, remembering that the objects of the society are to assist low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems and to facilitate access to justice for low-income individuals, and the other objects that are set out in section 9, I think the primary focus of the society will definitely be on the provision of legal aid services to people who can't afford them.

But let's be clear. As I read the model, the society created by this act, if the society were to use its own resources to provide legal services to people who could afford to pay for them, there would of course be no drain on the public purse whatsoever from that activity.

Then, if by doing that, they were in a position where they actually charged more for the services than it cost to provide them, they would be in a position where they had earned income from that activity. Having earned that income, they would then be required to devote that income to the provision of legal services to low-income individuals.

Although I don't think the act is set up to contemplate that, the society would become a for-profit law firm in addition to its not-for-profit primary objectives. The example that the member gives, if it were permitted by the act, would in fact increase the range of services that could be made available to low-income individuals.

J. Kwan: Well, quite frankly, there's no guarantee of that. There's no guarantee of that necessarily. It may well be that the resources that are available within legal aid would be drained from providing legal aid to the people who need it the most.

I'm not necessarily comforted to say that if you do sell your services, you can make more money, and then, by making more money, you can actually provide the services to the people in greatest need. It takes a lot of energy to invest and to develop revenue-making schemes. By doing that, it may take away all or substantively all the resources available within the society to provide for services to individuals in British Columbia.

So there's no guarantee that's the case. Given the minister's comment, I have no comfort whatsoever that it is not the intent of the act to actually detract from the resources of the society in providing legal aid to the people who are in greatest need.

Hon. G. Plant: If I may, I think it's important in this context to point out that under section 10(3), the bill provides that the society must not engage in an activity unless it does so without using any of the funding provided to it by the government. Or if it is using funding provided to it by government, then it has to do so in accordance with the act, the memorandum of understanding, the regulations and the budget. All of those things in part (b) will be directed entirely to the provision of what are properly called legal aid services — that is, services to people who could not otherwise afford them.

R. Lee: In the House today, visiting from my constituency, are 27 grade 5 students from St. Helen's School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ramalho, and five parents: Ms. Cathro, Ms. Petrollini, Ms. Rinaldo, Ms. Lee and Ms. Mobelio. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: While I'm glad that the minister pointed under the section, actually…. On the one hand the minister says that the society must not engage in activities unless it does so without using any of the funding provided to it by the government or does so in accordance with the act, the regulations, the memorandum of understanding referred to in subsection (21) and money for that activity is available within the budget approved by the Attorney General under section 18.

The Attorney General is actually going to be, quite frankly, interfering with the budgeting process of the Legal Services Society. It may well be within the government's agenda to engage in providing services otherwise to people who are in greatest need, because for this government the need is greater in terms of generating revenue as opposed to providing the services. It may well be that that's the perspective in the regulations or in the memorandum of understanding or whatever the case may be. That information is not before the House for examination by the members of this House or by the public.

In canvassing this question, in trying to understand what the intent of the act is, I want to be clear that the intent of the act is not to detract from services and resources of the Legal Services Society for people who are in the greatest need in an attempt to generate revenues for the government.

Hon. G. Plant: In fact, the intent of the act is to give the society some revenue-generating tools so it can expand the range of services it provides to people in British Columbia who can't otherwise afford to pay for a lawyer.

J. Kwan: Provided that it is understood it does not detract from the resources of the society in an attempt to make money, so that it does not detract from resources of the society to provide legal aid services to people in the greatest need, in an attempt to make money. That, I believe, has to be clear.

Hon. G. Plant: I don't what the member means by "detract," and I don't know what the member means by "resources." But there are people in the Legal Services Society who have been working hard over a number of years to develop some systems for how they manage case flow. They get calls from time to time from people who say: "Hey, you guys are experts in this." People from other jurisdictions call up and say they'd like to have the opportunity to share in this skill in the systems and the software, I think, that goes along with that, which may have been developed by the society for all I know. The society's view on that is that we have developed something here in British Columbia, with public dollars, that may have a value. We think we should be in a position, on behalf of the public interest of British Columbia, to see if we can sell that to the people who are willing to pay for it in other jurisdictions and to use money from that activity to provide or expand the range of services that they could otherwise provide beyond the range of services that they might be able to provide solely on the basis of the grant they receive from the province.

Everything about this is about enhancing the ability of the society to in fact deliver the services that are required across as broad a range of the spectrum as possible. In providing the society with the power to carry on a business, trade, industry or profession as an incident to its fundamental purposes, government's intention is simply to ensure that the society is in a position where it could take advantage of those opportunities.

I am certain that it would be able to do so without in any way detracting from its main responsibility of continuing to establish and administer a legal aid system in British Columbia. In fact, my view is that it will be able to enhance the delivery of legal aid services in British Columbia if these revenue-generating tools are made available to it.

J. Kwan: Section 4 deals with the change to the representation on the board of directors within the Legal Services Society. The original act had 15 directors on the board. This bill, Bill 45, reduces the number of directors to nine. The reduction amounts to maintaining the same number of government appointees yet eliminating appointees from the Association of Community Law Offices and the native community law offices. Could the minister please advise why the number of directors was reduced?

Hon. G. Plant: In my view, 15 is too big a number for an organization to operate effectively, particularly given the responsibilities of this organization. It's not, maybe, a general rule, but it's a rule that I think applies in this case. I think nine is a good size of board for the responsibilities that this board has.

J. Kwan: Why are the two organizations that provide front-line legal aid services no longer guaranteed participation on the Legal Services Society board — the Native Community Law Offices Association and the Association of Community Law Offices?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, government funds, substantially, all of what legal aid does, so I think it's legitimate that government have the opportunity to appoint some board members. There's also a need to ensure that the society has some degree of independence, particularly in relation to the potential conflict that could arise in cases where legal aid is provided to somebody in a dispute, like a criminal charge, where the Crown is on the other side. I think that's when the claim that the society…. Let me put it this way. I think that's when the claim that the determination about the provision of

counsel needs to be made by somebody other than government directly has some force.

The Law Society, as a representative of the legal profession in British Columbia, appeared to me to be a body that can appoint directors representing the Law Society's interests in these matters. That ensures that there are independent voices on the board. Of course, the board is established as the board of a society which will become itself independent and is already independent.

With respect to why we put together the board without representation from the two law office associations that the member refers to, I think the general thrust of the reorganization of the society requires a reconfiguration of service delivery that needed to be made possible. This new board will make that possible.

To be frank, I have long had some concerns about the fact that one-third of the Legal Services Society board, under its former configuration, represented people who had a direct interest in obtaining funding from the society. You had people who were on the board essentially asking the board to provide funding to their organization. I think that's not the right way to constitute a board. I think the board as constituted by this bill will in fact represent and protect the public interest in the best way possible.

One of the great things, of course, about section 4 is that for the first time we have introduced appointment criteria for those who will be appointed to the board. Those are set out in subsection (5).

J. Kwan: The 2002-03 service plan for the Legal Services Society states that one of the goals of the organization is to "work with aboriginal people in the communities to develop and promote innovative and effective methods to deliver legal services and legal education." How does removing the guaranteed representation of native community law offices support this goal?

Hon. G. Plant: With respect, I'm not sure that it has anything to do with it. I commend the society for having that goal, and I'm certain they'll work hard to achieve it.

J. Kwan: Well, with all due respect, I disagree. In the previous act, it stipulates representation from the broader community and particularly front-line workers. In particular, it stipulates representation from the native community law offices. The people who have direct contact with the clients, who are faced with the need for representation…. That voice is no longer guaranteed to be there in the representation.

As I mentioned during second reading debate of this bill, the government no doubt will pay lip service to representation, but the fact is that the act changes that guarantee to ensure that there is full representation from the broader community. I think it's a mistake to do this. It takes away, in my own view, the broader community representation that is needed within the board.

The original act also guarantees that at least two out of the five directors appointed by government would not be lawyers. The bill does not place any stipulations upon the appointees selected by the government. Again, why has the government removed the provision that ensures that at least two board appointees would not be lawyers? Isn't it important to provide people who are not from the legal profession an opportunity to participate in the process of setting priorities for legal aid in B.C.? That is often the case with many of the other professional boards. Often it is the case that lay people need to be at the table, because they bring a different perspective in terms of the need for representation and a different set of opinions from those who are directly in the profession.

Hon. G. Plant: What I believe is important is that the prospective appointees to this board would provide to the board as a whole knowledge, skills and experience in a number of areas including business, management and financial matters of public and private sector organizations; law and the operation of courts, tribunals and alternate dispute resolution processes; the provision of legal aid; the cultural and geographic diversity of British Columbia; and the social and economic circumstances associated with the special legal needs of low-income individuals.

I think if both the Law Society and the Attorney General recommend for appointment people who have those qualifications, then we'll have a board composed of people who are able to carry out the purposes and objects of the society in the best possible way. That's why those appointment criteria have been expressly provided for in subsection (5) of section 4.

J. Kwan: The subsection does talk about the consideration of other factors, such as knowledge, skills and experience with cultural and geographic diversity, business, the law, legal aid and social and economic circumstances of low-income individuals, but the act doesn't outright stipulate that broad representation. It doesn't guarantee that there be geographic representation, that there be cultural diversity, that there be lay people within the board outside of people who are from the legal profession.

Formerly, the act actually spelled out more specifically who needs to be at that table. Now that is not the case. One can only assume that while that is a general goal, there is no guarantee that that representation will be there on the board. Why would the government take away that goal? If it is the case that the government wants to ensure that there is broad diversity in the representation, why not include it in the act and stipulate the numbers of representation reflecting that diversity?

Hon. G. Plant: While the former act may have provided, for example, for the appointment of lawyers to the board, it did not make any requirements with respect to the qualifications or experience of those lawyers

in relation to matters like legal aid. I think we've taken a step forward here in section 4 by focusing on the qualifications of the prospective appointees and enumerating a pretty comprehensive list of those qualifications.

The critical issue, I think, for the purpose of protecting the public interest is whether you have people on this board who know something about how to manage public and private sector organizations, who know something about law and the operation of courts and alternate dispute resolution processes. I think the fact that that phrase — alternate dispute resolution processes — is there is an important step forward. It's important that the board members know something about the provision of legal aid and that they have knowledge, skills and experience in relation to the cultural and geographic diversity of British Columbia and the social and economic circumstances associated with the special legal needs of low-income individuals. I expect that the board will continue to contain a mix of lawyers and non-lawyers, but that will be up to the appointing bodies.

What's most important in my view, from the perspective of protecting the public interest, is that the people that are appointed have real qualifications. What subsection (5) of section 4 does is bring those qualifications into this statute for the first time.

J. Kwan: Well, the previous act, contrary to what the Attorney General suggests, actually stipulates that two of the five board representatives must not be lawyers. That's clearly stipulated. It also clearly stipulates that there be representation from the Native Community Law Offices Association of B.C. and that there also be two representatives from the Association of Community Law Offices of British Columbia — people who do have expertise and the skill set and the knowledge in the areas that the minister talks about with respect to issues around the need for representation for their clients, because these are the individuals who deal with the clients on a day-by-day basis.

Who would know better the needs of the people in the community than the people who are front-line workers? That's what these individuals are; they're front-line workers. They have the skill set, they have the knowledge, and they have the experience on a day-by-day basis. For the Attorney General to even question their knowledge and skill set, quite frankly, behooves all of us….

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out, as well, that the majority of the people who are to be appointed to the board are people that the government will select — not chosen from the people in the profession. The majority of them will be chosen by government. Therefore, they're government appointees, individuals that will aid in the bid of the government's perspective to the point where the act — and we'll go into that matter in a little while as well — directs that direct opportunity for the government and the Attorney General to interfere in the independence of the Legal Services Society in their efforts to establish their budget and to allocate their resources and so on.

Quite frankly, the independence of the board is being compromised, the diversity of the board is being compromised, and so, too, is the broader representation that is needed in terms of independent government appointees. That, with the change of this provision of the act, is being compromised.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I have this looming feeling that the member and I are not going to agree about this particular thing. Let's be clear. In the existing act there is no requirement that the appointees to the board know anything about private or public sector organizations. There is no requirement that the existing appointees know anything about the provision of legal aid. There is no requirement that they know anything about the cultural or geographic diversity of British Columbia. There is no requirement that they know anything about the social and economic circumstances associated with the special legal needs of low-income individuals.

Yes, the act as it now stands does contain provisions that say that some of the appointees by cabinet, for example, must not be lawyers. The issue is broader, though, than simply whether someone is a lawyer or is appointed by a particular agency or another. The issue is whether the people that we appoint actually come to the position with some knowledge, skills and experience in the area that they are going to be asked to do some work around — namely, the provision of legal aid services.

I think the fact that this new board will be composed of people recommended and appointed on the basis of a consideration of their qualifications is a step forward, and I may say that I think it's a step forward not just in relation to the governance of the Legal Services Society. But as government generally moves towards the introduction of appointment criteria for boards and agencies, I think we are, generally speaking, going to improve the calibre of service provided by those boards across government. I think that's a good step forward.

J. Kwan: Earlier in the discussion of section 4, "Board of Directors," the Attorney General said that the native community law offices and the community law offices shouldn't be on the board, because they receive funding from the board. Lawyers who are members of the Law Society also receive funding from the board, as some lawyers do legal aid work and receive funding for this work through government. So, the argument suggesting that receiving funding from the Legal Services Society creates a conflict only applies to the community and native community law offices and does not extend to Law Society members who receive government funding that provides for legal aid.

It's, quite frankly, a double standard that is being put forward by the government, similar to the Minister of Education's on the school planning council perspective. The minister had an illogical rationale on the notion of conflict, to whom it applies and at what stage. We see now the same argument being used here.

Quite frankly, what the change of this act does, in my view, is eliminate the ability of the communities, through the associations, to appoint members to the board and to prevent broader community representation on the board. One would have thought this was a step forward in the previous act, when it was brought about to ensure there was broader community representation. Now that is gone. That has been taken away, because the minister, under Bill 45, does not require the representation. In fact, that representation is specifically eliminated from the act.

Hon. G. Plant: Let me explain why I think there's no force to the member's critique.

My understanding is that you cannot be a member of the Law Society and a member of the legal aid board if you are in fact receiving any income from legal aid work. I think there may be a minimum threshold of $500 or $1,000 or $2,000 that you're allowed to do a year, but actually the people who are lawyers, on the Legal Services Society board, cannot for their income depend upon legal aid work. The spectre of conflict or a double standard that the member spoke about does not in fact exist.

J. Kwan: I just want to put on record that the composition of the executive committee has been changed from five members to three under this section. This change, of course, is necessitated by the reduction of the numbers of the board from 15 to nine. I just want to put this on record.

My colleague and I voted against the previous section and the reduction of the numbers of the representation and composition of the board. It follows that with that change, the executive committee would also need to reduce in size. However, because we have voted against the reduction of the board's size, if that change wasn't in place, then naturally we would not be in support of the executive committee. Because the previous section did pass with the majority of the government, we would not necessarily vote against this just because it is to be consistent with section 4.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise what prompted the government to introduce this section in the act? The previous act made no mention of preventing legal proceedings against the society. What type of legal proceedings is this legislation meant to prevent?

Hon. G. Plant: For the information of the member, the size of the executive committee is not limited to three under section 5. I don't understand what she was saying there. The section, quite literally read, does not limit the executive committee to three. It may make for an executive committee with three, but it could be the chair plus eight other directors.

Personal liability protection, section 8. This section protects the LSS board and staff as individuals acting within the scope of their duties and their powers under the act. It does not protect individuals whose actions are in bad faith, nor does it absolve the society of vicarious liability. It ensures that there are remedies available to a wronged party who may have a cause of action against the society. We think it will reduce the insurance costs of the society.

Generally speaking, this is pretty consistent with the provisions in at least some other provinces and how they deal with their legal aid plans. More importantly, it's also consistent with approaches taken through a number of agencies across government. The goal here is to ensure that any wrong done basically on behalf of or in the name of the society is a wrong for which the society should be held accountable.

J. Kwan: Would it include the prevention of legal proceedings against the society where the society has no capacity, no resources, to provide legal aid to people who are in need of legal aid? Would that prevent

Hon. G. Plant: I don't want to be taken as answering that question or not answering it. This section deals with a claim made against the executive director, a director, an officer, an employee or a trustee of the society. It does not deal with claims against the society.

J. Kwan: What type of legal proceedings, then, is the minister envisioning? Would it be personal liability issues? Is that the sole purpose of this section of the act on personal liabilities for individuals working with the society, like the executive director of the society as an example?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't know that this was put here as a result of any particular projection of any specific kind of risk. This was actually put in because it's consistent with many philosophies of corporate governments in the public sector and also in the private sector in some cases. If an agency does a wrong, that would be recognized as a legal wrong, and the agency should be held liable. If someone who's an employee of the agency is joined in the action, it usually doesn't help the plaintiff in any significant way to add those people.

More importantly, I think we have an obligation to ensure that when the people who work for public agencies like the Legal Services Society are, broadly speaking, acting within the scope or the intended scope of their duties, they should have some level of assurance that if someone were to commence an action for whatever reason, the person would, generally speaking, be required to sue the society. Of course there are exceptions to that. Those are provided in the subsections of section 8. I'm told that this general protection was in fact requested by the previous board.

J. Kwan: Section 9 deals with the objects of the society. In comparison to the previous act, there are substantive changes with respect to the objects of the society.

The previous act stipulated clearly that poverty law is to be provided by the society. That was a clearly stipulated object within the mandate of the Legal Services Society. However, with the change in this act, that object is no longer in place. It's now deleted. I think that is substantive in terms of the changes to the representation.

The previous act, in my view, set out a minimum level of service that the society was required to provide to British Columbians. Could the minister please advise why Bill 45 does not include a similar section outlining the society's minimum obligations?

Hon. G. Plant: The society has the objects stated in section 9, which are to assist low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems and facilitate access to justice for low-income individuals, to establish and administer an effective and efficient system for providing legal aid to low income individuals in British Columbia and to provide advice to the Attorney General respecting legal aid. It's to be guided by the principles set out in subsection (2).

When we look at the society from the perspective of government, it will be, I think, government's continuing expectation that the society be responsible for ensuring that people who would be entitled to legal representation as a result of the application of Charter principles would in fact be provided with that representation by the society.

In effect, the member is asking that the act state what I suppose could be described as a tautology. The obligation to fund arises in certain circumstances by virtue of the constitution as interpreted by the courts. The purpose of the society, in large measure, is to ensure that government has available an agency that will largely discharge that obligation on government's behalf.

J. Kwan: Bill 45 mentions only low income as a reason that an individual would qualify for legal aid services. The original act requires that individuals facing prison time, either through criminal or civil proceedings, be provided with legal aid. Does this mean, then, that legal aid is no longer accessible for people involved in legal proceedings where the penalty may be imprisonment?

Hon. G. Plant: The imprisonment test is a basic test, I'm told, across the country. I expect the society will fund legal aid requirements in circumstances where persons aren't charged with a criminal offence that could lead to the individual's imprisonment, subject to the other important criteria, including ability to pay and things like that.

Of course, as the member knows, the society as it now exists and as it was operating prior to the commencement of the current fiscal year did not, in fact, provide funding to all persons charged in criminal proceedings that could lead to the individual's imprisonment who were otherwise eligible. In fact, government itself directly funded legal aid to persons charged in criminal proceedings that could lead to their imprisonment, in some circumstances, through the process usually referred to as a Rowbotham application.

What we're trying to do here is in fact create a society that has broad objects and to work with the society to ensure that it understands and implements the obligations that lie on the government to provide service in the cases I've talked about, where the constitution as judicially interpreted requires that service be provided but also in a broader range of services. To some extent, government's ability to provide that broader range of services turns on the financial circumstances of government.

From the society's perspective, I think the society will always want to be in a position to try to use the dollars it has as efficiently as it can to reach as broad a range of clients and circumstances as is possible, subject to some of the limits that are provided for in other parts of the bill.

J. Kwan: The current Legal Services Society Act guaranteed individuals involved in domestic disputes access to legal services. Why doesn't Bill 45 guarantee legal aid access to individuals in domestic dispute situations?

Hon. G. Plant: We've taken the approach that the society is there as the vehicle to provide assistance, broadly speaking, to low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems and the other objects I've already quoted that are in section 9. The society, then, is set up with the capacity and the purpose and the objects of ensuring that it can do as much as it can possibly do within the financial circumstances that apply to it. In fact, the act goes a bit further than the old act by expanding the range of services that can be provided and in that respect, perhaps, expanding our conception of legal aid so that it embraces alternate dispute resolution. It embraces a broader range of justice reform initiatives that I think can assist in providing access to justice as a whole. Of course, in doing that, there is a need to be mindful of financial limitations.

The kinds of situations that the member refers to will always, I think, be a high priority for the Legal Services Society and in the three-year service plan for my ministry. What we contemplate will be available for funding for the Legal Services Society over three years…. We believe the society will, in fact, have the resources that will allow it to provide full coverage in domestic disputes where there is a risk of violence.

J. Kwan: Will an individual still be guaranteed legal aid if their legal problem threatens their livelihood and their ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for themselves or their dependents?

Hon. G. Plant: I expect that, to a very real extent, the answer to that question will turn on the availability of the dollars required to fund that service. As the member knows, because she and I have debated at some length in the estimates debate, I expect that over the next three years, in the service plan that has been approved, there will certainly be a much more limited access to civil legal aid.

Will an individual be guaranteed legal aid if the individual's legal problem threatens his or her family's physical or mental safety or health?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, it depends on the nature of the problem. Of course, it also depends on the terms of coverage that the society establishes for the services it intends to provide.

I think the society will have — it already does but is working on probably revising — in effect, its business plan, its plan of operations, the range of coverage that it expects it will be able to provide. While it will deal with applications for coverage on a case-by-case basis, I expect it will do so from the basis of certain broad principles.

To give an example in the mental health area, we expect the society will provide legal representation, at least at some review hearings, for clients who are involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act and also at some B.C. Review Board hearings for clients found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible for crimes because of a mental disorder. That might be the kind of thing that was formerly contemplated by the provisions of section 3 in the existing bill.

J. Kwan: Well, with all of the words of the minister, it comes down to this one issue. It is about resources. What we have seen this government do, of course, is cut legal aid funding substantively — 38.8 percent.

With that, we see the change in the act under the objects of the act. In the original act, the objects section included a description of the type of legal aid services that the society was obligated to provide for citizens. Bill 45 does not contain a similar section.

Let me just read into the record what the previous act said in this regard: "The society must ensure for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) that legal services are available for a qualifying individual who meets one or more of the following conditions: (a) is a defendant in criminal proceedings that could lead to the individual's imprisonment; (b) may be imprisoned or confined through civil proceedings; (c) is or may be a party to a proceeding respecting a domestic dispute that affects the individual's physical or mental safety or health or that of the individual's children; (d) has a legal problem that threatens (i) the individual's family's physical or mental safety or health, (ii) the individual's ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for himself or herself and the individual's dependents or (iii) the individual's livelihood."

This section is very important as it ensures that people in the aforementioned circumstances will be provided with access to legal aid services. The current legislation fails to clearly stipulate the minimum legal aid requirements.

Bill 45, section 21(2)(b), discusses a memorandum of understanding between the Legal Services Society and the Attorney General. It is possible that the obligatory legal aid services may be included in this memorandum. Even if this is the case, the obligatory legal aid services requirement would not be entrenched in the act.

In my own view, I don't think that will happen, because it is the same Attorney General who is cutting the resources to legal aid so that they can continue to provide these services. It's the same Attorney General who has cut 38.8 percent off the legal aid budget. So,

do I have any faith in the Attorney General coming forth with a memorandum of understanding and ensuring that legal aid services would be provided to all British Columbians who need it? The answer is no.

Further to that, if that is the intent of the government, why then would the government change this very important section of the act under Bill 45? Why would they do that? Why don't they just leave in place this section of the act, which is the objects of the society, which is essentially the mandate of the society? In my own view, the most important piece, of course, is making sure that legal aid services are provided to British Columbians who are in need. In the area of what is now termed as poverty law, that is completely erased from the objects of the act under Bill 45.

Mr. Chair, for that reason I will be voting against the changes as proposed under this act, Bill 45.

J. Kwan: Section 10, as I understand, gives the society the capacity of an individual; yet the original act gives the Legal Services Society the powers and capacity of a natural person. Could the minister please advise what the difference is between the capacity of an individual and the powers and capacity of a natural person?

Hon. G. Plant: This provision takes advantage of the opportunity presented by the fact that we're reforming the act to update the language. There is no substantive difference.

J. Kwan: Earlier we touched on the question around commercial activities that would be considered by the Legal Services Society inside and outside of B.C. The minister gave an example in terms of expertise that could be sold. Could the minister please advise what other types of commercial activities the government has in mind?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, actually, the government doesn't have these activities in mind. It's the society that does. It may perhaps involve selling literature or other kinds of intellectual properties developed over the course of the years and that it may continue to develop as it does its work.

Hon. G. Plant: There is the possibility they might do that. They might sell that kind of material to people who don't qualify for legal aid. Of course, there will also be a public legal information and education program available to ensure that people who do qualify for legal aid get access to information and education.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise where the act stipulates the selling of the materials — as an example, public legal education materials — to people who qualify and that they would not be charged?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm not sure if I understood the member's question. One of the ways in which the society will provide legal aid is by providing people with public legal education and information. The provision of that service to people who would not be able to afford to pay for the information is the kind of thing that I think the Legal Services Society should be doing. That's why this bill actually expressly contemplates that they'll do that very thing. If someone comes and needs some information about an issue that may relate to a potential legal problem they face, I think the society will be providing that information to them, particularly to those who would qualify on the basis of income levels, without requiring them to pay for it.

J. Kwan: What about in the instance where someone is not qualified for legal aid, not because of the financial criteria but because it's a service that legal aid no longer provides because of the lack of resources

from government to provide that legal aid service to that individual? Would they be charged for the legal education materials?

Hon. G. Plant: Let me illustrate what I think might happen here. I must admit that this is purely speculative, because it's up to the society. The society may decide that it has already developed materials that are pretty helpful in terms of informing people about what their rights are in some areas, and the society may decide to see if they can source opportunities to sell those materials in bookstores. At the same time, the society will be in the business of ensuring that it provides a program of legal aid.

As section 11 points out, the society is expressly empowered to provide legal aid by any method it considers appropriate including, without limiting this, the services enumerated in subparagraphs (a) through (e) of subsection (1), one of which is by providing public legal education and information.

J. Kwan: Section 10(3)(a) and (b) of the act stipulate that "the society must not engage in an activity unless it does so without using any of the funding provided to it by the government, or it does so in accordance with this act, the regulations and the memorandum of understanding referred to in section 21 and money for that activity is available within the budget approved by the Attorney General under section 18."

This is new in this act. Formerly, in the previous act it was not required that budgets be approved by the Attorney General in this way. This, in my view, is a direct interference by the government into the independence of the Legal Services Society. Now the work of the society must be approved by the Attorney General and within the budget which the Attorney has stipulated. Of course, we know the Attorney has cut the legal aid budget by 38.8 percent — or will be cutting it over the next three years. Therefore, the work of the Legal Services Society is going to be severely curtailed as a result of this government's interference in the Legal Services Society's work.

The section also touches on the government or the society, if you will, charging clients for legal aid. I have a fundamental problem with this from the point of view that the clients who will qualify for legal aid are people who are already faced with financial difficulties. That's why they're applying to legal aid when they're faced with a legal barrier. That's why they're applying to legal aid for legal representation. If they were able to pay for it themselves, they wouldn't qualify for legal aid. The current financial eligibility tests are already very stringent, yet it makes the provision under this section for the society to recover contributions from the client towards the cost of legal aid, so I would have difficulty with this section as well.

As I mentioned, people who are qualified for legal aid are already people who don't have financial resources elsewhere to provide for legal aid services. That's why they're there; that's why they're eligible. For the government to want to charge them and to recover costs from these clients — who are, in my view, the poorest of the poor — doesn't make any sense. It goes contrary, I think, to the purpose of legal aid, which is to provide legal aid services to the people who couldn't otherwise afford it.

Hon. G. Plant: Actually, what this scheme does is create the possibility for the society to expand the range of services it provides. I have lost track over the years of the number of lawyers I've talked to who say: "You know, there are cases that are sort of in between that point where clearly they meet the existing eligibility criteria and must be afforded full coverage without any attempt to recover and, on the other hand, at the other extreme, people who earn enough money to pay full freight for the legal services they require." There are many cases in a grey area in between, where people could in fact make some modest contribution towards the total cost of delivering the service they require but could not pay for all of it.

In fact, as the society evolves over the course of the next few years, my hope is that the society will look at this grey area and see whether there are situations where it could in fact provide some level of service to people who are probably above the income level that currently exists for eligibility thresholds and yet, of course, can't pay for all of the services. The society needs the tools to adjust to particular cases where it says: "You know, we think we can go half the distance with you. You put half; we'll put half." That way, there's access to justice for an individual who would not, on the conventional approach we follow traditionally, have access, because it's virtually all or nothing in the current model.

I think this is a great provision as we move forward, particularly when we look at subsection (3), which the member referred to a few minutes ago. Subsection (3) also opens up the ability of the society to become more creative in the work it does. It makes it clear that if the society is getting money from the province of British Columbia, it has to be accountable to the government of British Columbia for the money it spends.

I've heard the member make the independence argument without explaining it. It seems to me that it's critically important that if government is giving the amounts of money that it gives to the Legal Services Society, the society has to in some way be accountable to government for how it spends that money. I think it's perfectly legitimate that government, as the funder, be at the table in terms of talking about priorities not for the purpose the member thinks but rather for the opposite purpose of ensuring that in fact the society does meet the obligation of providing service to people who, particularly in cases that would be encompassed by Charter protection, are entitled to legal aid.

We want to be sure that for the dollars we're spending, the society is in fact providing that level of coverage which the constitution requires that it have. Yet, as

subsection (3) points out, the society will have a broader range of ability. It can do other things — that is, it can do and provide other services beyond those that are contemplated in the budget and the memorandum of understanding — if it does so without using the money provided to it by the government. It can go and raise money or obtain money from other sources and then use that to provide different kinds of legal aid services.

To come back to 10(1)(f), I think this is a great step forward in terms of empowering the society to become more creative, more flexible and, hopefully, over time to expand the range of services that it provides. In effect, the box from which the member asked her question is a box that's being transformed. These changes are not just about how we get by with less. They are about changing how we approach legal aid, expanding our conception of what legal aid services might be to include self-help kits, information, education and emphasis on alternate dispute resolution to ensure that the Legal Services Society can be at the cutting edge in Canada of exploring new and innovative ways of delivering legal aid services. Those include looking at and considering the possibility that in some cases a client may be able to make some contribution towards a matter that is urgently important to them, without being able to pay full freight.

If the society can find a way to make that happen so that they are enabling and empowering citizens to have access to justice through a contribution of some part of the cost of legal aid that's necessary, while ensuring that the client also provides some coverage, I think that's a great step forward. I think the member opposite should applaud it as a positive, constructive and forward-looking reform of how we do legal aid in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: We've just seen the House…. All the members on the government side rose up and passed section 9 of this bill. The reason why my colleague and I voted against section 9 is because it takes away a very basic objective of the society, and that is to provide legal services…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 and the livelihood of the individual.

The government just voted for eliminating this basic premise and mandate of the Legal Services Society, and now, under section 10, the Attorney General rises up and says: "It's a great thing for us to change how the Legal Services Society provides its services. It should start charging people." We just finished speaking about the issue of charging clients. Clients who are eligible for legal aid are the people who have very few financial resources, if any. That's why they qualify. Legal aid is provided to the people who couldn't otherwise afford it. But here we have a government saying: "Let's charge them. Maybe they can afford a little bit of it."

Maybe in a section later on it's going to move into making people put a lien on their house, just like social services. People who need government for assistance, if you should own a house so that you have safe, secure, perhaps affordable housing — maybe not affordable, depending on the mortgage that the person may have to pay…. If you own a home, you will now have to put a lien on it for any government support, whether it be income assistance or legal aid. Quite frankly, I have a problem with that. I do. I have a substantive problem with that.

Then for the Attorney General to say: "Well, under this act, for me to interfere in approving the budget under section 10(3)(b) is not violating the independence of the society…." With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I disagree, because we've seen what this government has done and what this Attorney General has done. When the former board of Legal Aid said to the government, when they were cutting 38.8 percent of the legal aid budget, that the board would not be able to meet its mandate — that is, to provide legal aid to the poorest of the poor — the action that this government took was to fire the board. Then the Attorney General put in their own trustee, with their own budget in place.

Now with the change of Bill 45 and this section, I think it just simply enables the government to more easily fire the board and say: "This is my agenda. This is the legal aid services budget that must be approved by me." Not by the board, which has been charged independently with the mandate to provide legal aid services. That takes away the independence of the society and allows for complete interference by the Attorney General in setting their own agenda. Their agenda in this instance, quite frankly, results in taking away legal services for the people who are in greatest need. It then puts forward the option to charge the clients for legal aid services — clients of the kind who don't have the financial means to get legal aid services elsewhere.

On that basis, I am not going to support this section of the act. It violates and interferes with the independence of the society and, quite frankly, puts at risk the clients who depend on legal aid by allowing this government to gouge them even further.

J. Kwan: Section 11(4) states: "The extent to which legal aid may be provided in relation to any legal problem is not to exceed the extent of legal and other services that a reasonable person of modest means would employ to resolve the problem."

Could the minister please advise: what does "modest means" mean? What kind of income would a person of modest means have?

Hon. G. Plant: Section 11(4), which is the subject of the member's question, parallels the common law test for the appropriate scope of legal aid coverage to be provided in any specific case — that is, the extent of services should not exceed what a reasonable person of modest means would employ to resolve their legal problem. This is quite familiar language in the universe of legal aid.

J. Kwan: While that explanation may mean something for the Attorney General, it doesn't mean anything to me. I'm sorry. I don't know what modest means have…. What does that mean — for a person to have modest means? Could the minister attach a number to it? Is there an income threshold that would apply? What does it mean? I'm sorry. I'm a layperson, and it doesn't make any sense to me.

Hon. G. Plant: What this subsection speaks to is this: the scope of legal aid coverage should not be infinite. That is, when the courts have recognized that in some circumstances the Crown has an obligation to fund the provision of legal aid services, they've also recognized that it's appropriate to put limits on the kind of service someone can expect to receive.

In some contexts — for example, in some commercial litigation where parties of extraordinary wealth are litigating — there can be no limit in some cases to the number of experts' reports called, the number of depositions taken, the length of examinations for discovery and the travel to foreign places to contact prospective witnesses. The dollars can go up to reach the sky.

For the vast majority of litigation matters, the clients are concerned to make sure that they only pay a certain amount — that they get only that which is absolutely necessary in the way of service. So when the state is in the business of funding the provision of legal aid, this kind of provision says that the state's obligation is to ensure that the kind of service, the extent of the service that's being provided, would not exceed the extent of service that someone who was acting reasonably, who didn't have a whole lot of money to spend on lawyers, would actually spend in order to resolve their legal problem.

I don't think there is any place you could turn to and find a calculation of what "modest means" means in this context, nor will the member find an absolutely concrete definition of what constitutes a reasonable person for this purpose. It's a yardstick against which to measure the extent of services provided that might have an impact on things like the decision of defence counsel in a legal aid–funded criminal case to conduct an endless voir dire as opposed to a voir dire that's focused and limited to the actual issues that have to be litigated. It engages, really, the issue of the scope of service.

J. Kwan: What the minister is suggesting is that if you are in need of legal aid and if you qualify, then the scope of services which you will be able to access will be limited. On the flip side, a person who has the financial resources would be able to seek experts, as an example, I suppose, and call them to testify on their behalf. In this instance, it may well be that if you are in need of legal services and you qualify for legal aid services, such expert services may not be available for you. That's what this clause stipulates.

It sets up a two-tier system for people who have the resources to access the full scope of legal advice and legal representation and legal services, but if you are an individual without the financial resources and you apply for legal aid, then you would not be afforded that full scope. It sounds to me like that's what this provision does. It takes away, in my view, equitable representation for British Columbians who need legal aid in a society where only the haves would be able to get access to full legal aid services. If you are a person who is deemed to be a have-not and you need legal advice and have gone to legal aid to seek that advice, under this provision of the act, the scope of legal services available to you would be curtailed.

That's what I heard from the minister, and that, in my view, is very disturbing. It sets up a two-tier system in our society. I thought that as a society we prided ourselves on ensuring equal access. That has been limited by the cuts in legal aid funding and with the changes in the scope of the act and the objects of the society under section 9, so that poor people who need poverty law services, as an example, would no longer be able to access legal aid representation because of restricted financial resources. Now we see in this provision a situation whereby the scope of legal aid ser-

vices would also be curtailed, even for an individual who is qualified for legal aid services.

Hon. G. Plant: I disagree with the member. This is the test that the courts apply, it's the test that the Legal Services Society of British Columbia has traditionally applied, and it's a test commonly applied across Canada. If a person was accused of a crime and in order to make full answer in defence they needed to hire an expert to give an opinion on a particular matter, then the way that legal aid coverage is provided now and will continue to be provided is that the expert would be retained.

That's what's happened; it's going to continue to happen. The reason it would continue to happen is because if you were a person of modest means charged with a criminal offence and you needed to make full answer in defence and in order to do so you needed an expert opinion, you'd hire the expert.

There's nothing here that's really new, frankly. As I say, this is a test applied by the courts. It's the principle that's been applied by the society traditionally, and it's a common principle applied by legal services societies all across the country.

J. Kwan: I know the minister would like to think that it does not limit the scope. When I first asked the question, he said on record in this House that it pertains to the limitation of the scope of the services being provided to clients who need legal aid. He actually just said that. Then he used the example in terms of needing to draw expert witnesses whereby the expert witnesses may not be available.

If you are a person who may be charged with whatever, and you need legal aid services — it could be a civil case; it could be a criminal case — because of this provision of the act on the issue around a reasonable person of modest means, it could well mean that the individual who's charged may face imprisonment and would not have the full extent of the legal services to defend himself or herself. If this act allows for that to happen, how does that address the issue of equal access to justice? It doesn't.

Then, in the entire act that is being talked about even with the people who are qualified, somewhere along the line their representation may be compromised because of financial barriers. That, in my view, is what this section of the act does. It compromises the individual's legal representation because of financial resources. Quite frankly, I would have great difficulty supporting this section of the act.

J. Kwan: This section of the bill allows the Legal Services Society to issue a certificate requiring the client to pay for legal aid services. Could the minister please advise under what circumstances a client would be required to pay for legal services?

Hon. G. Plant: Existing legal services policy provides a system for repayment of a range of legal aid costs when clients receive a cash settlement. These powers enable equivalent repayment processes where there is a settlement of property or where the client has a valuable non-saleable asset. The process in section 13 provides for quantification of a debt, opportunity for the client to challenge the amount of the debt and remedies for the society where there is no challenge of the amount.

The circumstances where this might arise include the circumstances, I think, that are contemplated by sections 14 and 15 and perhaps also section 16, which is really just about priority agreements. In practical terms, this will rarely happen in relation to any client who meets traditional eligibility criteria, because the client will simply not have the means to pay for the service provided.

J. Kwan: What criteria will be used to determine how much an individual is required to pay?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not sure if I understood the member's question, but if it was how it will be deter-

mined how much the society could charge a client in the circumstances where this obligation might arise, the answer is that the amount will be determined by the tariff rate paid by the society for the service provided.

J. Kwan: Is there a varying amount in terms of the tariff, or is it a set tariff for a particular service being provided? Could the minister please advise on the tariff issue?

Hon. G. Plant: The system of tariffs is marvellous in its ornateness and byzantine in its complexity.

J. Kwan: I think the Attorney General prides himself in providing answers that do not answer the questions. I think he actually delights in that. That's fine. We can continue on in this manner and prolong the debate.

I think if you talk to the general public and ask them about the tariff scale: what is the tariff scale for a particular service, and how much is it…? The minister is asking, through this bill — actually legislating — clients to pay for service when they've qualified for legal aid. I think the public has the right to know what kind of parameters we are talking about. The minister refuses to provide that answer, as though somehow that question is not relevant.

Hon. G. Plant: I'd be happy to see if I could obtain a copy of the existing tariff schedule of the society. In fact, it's on the Internet, available for the member. I'll go on the Internet, and if it's not available there to the member as it would be to me on the Internet, I'll make sure that the member gets a copy.

I wasn't intending to avoid the question. The tariff system is actually relatively complex. In the average case, as far as I know, the amounts that might be paid out seldom rise above $1,000 or $1,200 or $1,500. It is that tariff that would be the basis of the calculation of what fees might be recoverable from a client.

I should say that I expect the tariff system itself will be under review as part of the general work of the task force that the Law Society has initiated and that we are a part of. The society itself is looking at the tariff not just in criminal matters but also, I think, in family matters. We want to make sure we take advantage of every opportunity that might exist to use the dollars available in the most effective and efficient way possible.

J. Kwan: Well, I am not going to support this section of the act. This is consistent with my position that has been outlined under section 10, where it relates to recovering costs through client contributions. This section of the act simply allows for the government to do that — that is, to charge a client through a certificate procedure, to collect fees for legal aid services — so I'm not going to support this section of the act.

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate that, and I don't expect to change the member's mind, but I do know that this has been an issue that's been talked about for a long time. I think this proposal was recommended to us by the former board of the society and, in fact, on a number of occasions may have been recommended to the former government by the society. The society has been looking for this opportunity for some time — and not because it intends in any way to use the authority that is provided for inappropriately.

There are circumstance, however, where I think the public interest is not well served by providing legal aid to people who eventually come into possession of assets that would, had they had them in the right form at the right time, have allowed them to pay from their own resources for the legal services. I think that is just a basic principle.

I know the member and I disagree on that principle. My principle is this. If you don't have any ability to afford it, then you start to engage the interests of the Legal Services Society and you start to engage the public purse in its obligation to ensure that it contributes to providing access to justice. But if you've got the ability to pay for the service, you should pay for it. If you've got the ability to pay because you're sitting in a house with $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 or half a million dollars' worth of equity, then I think that in appropriate circumstances, the public interest requires that asset be made available for the purpose of ensuring that we don't provide service to you, with that equity, at the expense of the person who doesn't have the equity.

We are always going to be dealing with limited dollars and finite dollars. The question is: how do we make sure we reach the people who absolutely need to be reached? This legislation provides for the lien remedy. I think experience has shown — and it is entirely our intention as far as government is concerned — that liens, generally speaking, will not be enforced. The cost of enforcing liens, particularly in the circumstances of the application of these provisions, will probably not result in a recovery of the fees in any reasonable way and may well cause hardship in some cases. But experience in other jurisdictions does show that if the lien is there, then over a three-, four-, six- or seven-year period, when the house is sold or when the family member moves and realizes some value from the house, then there is in fact an incentive and an opportunity to ensure that the fees are repaid.

I know what the member is concerned about, and I have some sympathy for that concern, but the challenge is to make sure that what we're doing here is consistent with her concern. I think it's not. I think it responds to her concern, in fact, by ensuring that we do use scarce public dollars in a way that is appropriate and that reaches the broadest category of people. In some cases, if we provide service to people who could in fact, because of a windfall that no one expected or because they're sitting there in a family home that they don't want to sell but is worth a lot of money…. We need the ability to ensure, not for the protection of government but for the protection of the people who would not otherwise get the service, that we have the tools to recover the costs of providing service.

Legal aid is not a right that we are all entitled to without regard to our ability to pay. Legal aid only exists in the context of an inquiry into ability to pay. The member and I may disagree about that. That's fair enough. I'll tell you, I'll put that proposition on the table. We as citizens do not have an unlimited right of access to the public purse to have the government pay to solve all our legal problems. What we do have is this: in some limited situations where the interest of the state is being brought to bear on us in a very significant way or where hugely significant issues to us in our lives are at stake and we need advice and/or representation and we do not have any ability to pay for it, then the state's interest is engaged.

What this provision does and what this scheme does is ensure that the state has the tools available to protect that interest. I'm told that the usual experience is that 60 percent of these liens are paid out over a four-to-six-year period when the property is sold or remortgaged. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way to proceed, and it's a tool I think the society should have.

I'm told that when they were consulted in the autumn of 2000 by the society members of the Women's Access to Legal Services Coalition, that indicated that they were not opposed to women with interest in valuable assets being asked to pay for legal services. The society and other stakeholders apparently think it's important that the Legal Services Society be allowed to keep any funds recovered for use in supporting other legal aid clients, and that is exactly what this procedure is intended to do.

J. Kwan: The issue around access to legal aid and the limited government dollars that are available to provide for legal aid is dealt with on the issue around eligibility. Again, I say that only people who are qualified — eligible — to access legal aid financially will be able to access government support. If you do not have financial support to do that, you would not qualify for legal aid. If you had your own funds, you would not qualify. That is already a provision within access to legal aid.

J. Kwan: I hear the members clapping, saying: "Well, you know, we should charge people for legal aid. This provision of the act may well not be utilized, but we should just have the provision to allow for it." I hear the Attorney General suggesting there are people who have hundreds and thousands of dollars — maybe even millions of dollars — in equity, and if they have that kind of equity, they should have to pay for their legal aid services.

You know what? I remember when I was working at legal aid myself as a student, then subsequently as part-time staff and as a volunteer. We used to evaluate eligibility for people who were applying for legal aid. I processed applicants that came in to apply, filled out all the forms and did all that kind of stuff. If they did have equity, they oftentimes were not qualified for legal aid — save and except for the requirement for them to sell their house. It's true. People should not be required to sell their house. It should not be expected that people live in the streets because they're faced with legal challenges. They should not have to live in the streets.

Here the government is saying, in section 14, which we'll be debating: "Let's put a lien on their house." It may well be that it would force the individuals to become homeless if they have to move to another location to find a job, let's say. They may well sell their house, and it may mean, though, that they would want to find accommodation in another city.

Somehow this government thinks that's okay. They somehow think that it is okay, and you know what? I don't. I don't think it is okay. I don't think it is okay when you know that when people qualify for legal aid, they are at the end of their rope and don't have financial resources. That's why they're there to begin with. That's why they've applied for legal aid. That's why they've qualified for legal aid. If they had the money, they wouldn't be there.

I am not going to support this section. I am gravely concerned about it in terms of the limitations it places on the people.

J. Kwan: If the members of the House — Mr. Chair, I'll take your guidance — wish to rise up and speak to this matter, they could. They're entitled to do that. But I'm not going to support this section of the bill.

J. Kwan: On section 14, are clients supposed to liquidate all their assets so that they are qualified for legal aid services? Is that the intent of section 14?

Hon. G. Plant: Section 14 permits the society to register a lien against real property — that is, land — owned by a client or in which a client has an interest, in certain circumstances. The lien is intended to protect the society's right to recover fees in those limited class of cases that we were speaking about earlier.

J. Kwan: Well, I asked the minister the question whether or not clients are supposed to liquidate their assets, and the minister didn't answer this question. I suspect that the answer from the minister is yes — that people are supposed to liquidate their assets to the point where they are going to have a lien against their house in order to qualify for legal aid.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, if someone walks into a legal aid office covered in jewelry and says, "My income has shrivelled up and I need legal aid, because I've been charged with theft by a jewelry store," I think it's probably reasonable for the society to say: "Actually, you've got some assets, and you should cause those assets to be realized so that you can pay for a lawyer. If you sell all the jewels you're wearing, you'll have all the money you need to pay for a lawyer."

What section 14 is about is land. If the member has questions about land interests, that's what section 14 is about — registering a lien against land. The lien is intended to preserve the society's right to recover fees as against the equity in real property that may exist in particular cases.

The whole point of the lien is that the society doesn't want to require the applicant for legal aid to sell the land — say, the family house — before they can get legal aid coverage. The person comes in and wants legal aid coverage, and their only asset is some real property like the family home. The society says: "Well, what's the equity in the family home?" It turns out there may be all kinds of equity in the family home. The society says: "All right. Here's what we'll do. On your income, you would be eligible for legal aid. We'll provide coverage, but because you've got all kinds of money tied up in your house, we want the right to register a lien so that some day down the road, if you sell your house or if it's transferred in some other way, then we'll have an opportunity to recover from that equity the amount of the fees that represent the value of the service that we're providing you."

In many cases legal aid is, as the member herself has talked about, a service of last recourse. The existing eligibility criteria are pretty darn restrictive. If you have assets that can be readily liquidated or if you have cash in the bank, the society is going to say: "You don't get coverage on the traditional rules unless you make that cash or liquidate those assets in order to help pay for your lawyers."

One of the great things about the provisions we've already passed, which the member opposed, was that it will actually give the society the tools in some cases in the future to say: "Look, rather than the all or nothing, why don't we sit down and see if you can pay half, and we'll cover half. In that way you'll get representation. It won't be more than you can afford, but it will require some payment on your part. We'll also contribute." That's not really available to the society in the way the system works now. We've made that available to the society.

In section 14, which is part of part 3, we are also giving the society the ability to register a lien against land to secure its interest in fees in appropriate cases.

J. Kwan: Consistent with the other provisions that relate to requiring the clients to pay for the services…. As I mentioned, when people apply and qualify for legal aid, they are already at the end of their financial rope. It means that they don't have any other financial resources in order to gain the legal services that they're trying to obtain through legal services. That's why they're there to begin with.

Consistent with my position on that issue in principle, I am not going to support section 14 of this bill.

J. Kwan: This is again related to section 14. This section more specifically spells out that the individual may well lose their home in order to pay for a debt for legal aid services. It allows for the society to place a lien against the property of the individual. The property includes the client's home or even a manufactured home.

Such tactics, in my view, are contrary to the intent of the provision of legal aid services to individuals who are in the greatest need. Once again, I'll be voting against this section.

Hon. G. Plant: In case anybody was reading this, I think I might point out that actually section 15 is not about land. Section 15 is actually about personal property. One of the great things about section 15 is that it allows the society to impose a lien against personal property.

A lien, of course, doesn't require that the person has to get rid of the property. A lien filed against a house doesn't require the person who owns the house to sell it. It just is a record there that there's an interest — that the society has that interest — and that at some point, if someone wants to buy the house, the person who holds the lien may enforce it. Or the person who wants to buy the house may say to the seller: "I'm not buying this house until you discharge that lien."

The same is true for personal property under section 15. The great thing about that is we've already talked about the fact — and the member well knows — that the society may and traditionally often does say: "Well, you've got some personal property that's readily saleable. You sell it, because if you sell it, you could afford to pay for your lawyer." What this provision does is allow the society not to require the sale but in fact to impose a lien on the personal property — well, not a lien. It's really a security interest under the Personal Property Security Act, which actually deals largely with personal property.

Personal property, for the information of members, is different from real property. Real property is land interests. This section is about personal property, which is not land.

I think this section is a good development from the perspective of ensuring that the society can protect its right to recover fees in relation to the provision of services in a matter to a client who may have some personal property that's not readily saleable. Examples that are quite typical, which I understand are familiar experiences for the society, include manufactured homes and fishing boats.

J. Kwan: Section 18 allows the Attorney General to increase, in my view, his control over the budgeting of the Legal Services Society. Subsection (1) states that the Legal Services Society must provide the Attorney General with a budget by November 21 of each year. Subsection (2) states that if the Attorney General doesn't approve of the budget, he may require the society to prepare a revised budget. Subsection (3) states that the Legal Services Society must have the approval of the Attorney General.

This is, in my view, interference by the Attorney General in an independent society in the provision of legal aid. That's what this section of the act allows for: for the government directly to intervene in the independence of the budgeting process of the Legal Services Society board.

This bill gives the Legal Services Society the ability to engage in entrepreneurial activities to raise funds for the society. I'd like to ask the minister: does the minister then have the right to also approve or disapprove of the parts of the Legal Services Society budget that are funded through the Legal Services Society's own fundraising money?

Hon. G. Plant: My understanding is that the budget is related to the money they get from the provincial government.

The general purpose of section 18 is, in fact, to ensure that the society is accountable for the dollars it receives from the provincial government.

J. Kwan: I don't believe the approval process is such that it speaks to the accountability or lack thereof of the Legal Services Society board. I think that is a direct interference by the Attorney General in the independence and the independent operation of the Legal Services Society.

We've seen, as I mentioned earlier, that when the Attorney General disagreed with the former board on the issue around the allocation of resources or the lack of resources in providing for legal aid, he fired the board. This will allow for the minister to reject the budget outright, to interfere in terms of what money should be distributed to where, in what area in terms of providing for legal aid. I think that's a complete violation of the spirit of independence and the independence of the society that needs to be preserved.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General had to leave, so I'll be handling the bill for the rest of the duration.

I move the amendment standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman; in fact, it's not on the order paper. I believe it's in the hands of the Clerk, though.

J. Kwan: Section 21, in my view, further compromises the independence of the Legal Services Society Act by ensuring that the government has the upper hand in determining the priorities and spending practices of the Legal Services Society. If the Legal Services Society and the Attorney General reach an impasse in the negotiations for the memorandum of understanding, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can intervene and impose a settlement upon the society through the use of regulations. This means that the memorandum of understanding may be negotiated in bad faith as the Attorney General knows that if the Legal Services Society does not meet its demands, the cabinet can impose an agreement. Further, if the cabinet decides not to impose a settlement, the Attorney General can just fire the Legal Services Society board.

Hon. G. Collins: I think that's consistent with the comments that the member has made throughout this debate as I sat here and listened.

I would just add a very few words to what the Attorney General has already said. Just to reconfirm, at the end of the day it is our opinion that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the government of British Columbia, which provides the taxpayer-funded resources for this — has to have the ultimate determination There are mechanisms in place to try and come to a memorandum of understanding. Section 21 lays out the parameters for that negotiation, the content of it.

It would certainly be our hope that those memorandums of understanding could be entered into in such a way that everybody could be comfortable with it. That'll certainly be the intent. I do know that the Attorney General and his ministry will pursue those negotiations in good faith.

At the end of the day, the government has to be accountable for the funds. That's why this section is here. I understand that the member opposite doesn't agree with that. That's fair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 45, Legal Services Society Act, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 32; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

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

Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the orders of the day:

Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 7 standing in my name on the orders of the day:

J. Kwan: During second reading stage, I raised some points from the West Coast Environmental Law Association with respect to the changes in this act, particularly in section 7, which provides the definitions for this new act. It limits the remediation, security and monetary obligations of the owners of exploration sites and limits the liability of previous owners of these sites. It further limits the extent to which part 4 applies to advanced exploration sites. It limits the monetary and security obligations of owners of these sites and limits the liability of previous owners of these sites.

The issues around limiting the remediation, security and monetary obligations of owners of producing or past-producing minesites and limiting the liability of previous owners of these sites and further limiting the liability of owners of historic minesites are of great concern, I think, not only to West Coast Environmental Law but also to the broader public. It ought to be a great concern to the greater public.

The changes signal the beginning of a shift away from the Waste Management Act's liability regime, which holds current as well as past owners and operators potentially responsible for environmental contamination. Bill 32 reduces the environmental protection and has the potential to let polluters escape from their obligation to clean up polluted minesites and puts taxpayers on the hook for the costly cleanups.

The environmental groups want a mechanism of accountability, and I actually don't see the accountability mechanisms in this act. Could the minister please advise where the accountability mechanisms are in this legislation?

Hon. J. Murray: The member has raised two distinct issues. One is standards of environmental protection, and the other is liability.

This bill does not make any change to current standards of environmental protection. The change is that if a mine reclamation plan has been approved and the mine owners are following that approved plan, then my ministry will not step in and order duplicate remediation of core activities of mines.

This will not decrease environmental protection for several reasons. Under the Mines Act, mines are usually restored so they can be used for forestry or grassland. They are rarely restored for human uses. Therefore, the human health and environmental protection standards of the Waste Management Act do not typically apply to minesites with a Mines Act permit because the mines are being remediated to a different type of standard and a different land use. If the land use approved in the Mines Act changes, then Bill 32 does allow the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to issue remediation orders.

The Ministry of Energy and Mines does not operate independently with respect to applications for permits or other authorizations. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Energy and Mines work together to determine whether the proposed reclamation plan will comply either with the numerical standards of the contaminated-site regulation or with the risk-based standards of the regulation, depending on the proposed use of the property after the mine is closed.

Regional mine development review committees consisting of representatives from WLAP, DFO, other governmental agencies and first nations have been established in many regions throughout B.C. The chief inspector has also appointed public advisory committees to advise on mines that have significant public interest. Under the code, the chief inspector must take the recommendations of these committees into consideration before granting a permit.

If the reclamation of the mine is conducted in such a way as to leave pollutants on the site in excess of acceptable risks, the bill does not prevent the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection from issuing a pollution abatement order under section 31 of the Waste Management Act. Such an order may be made against the person who had possession, charge or control of the substance at the time it escaped or a person who caused or authorized the pollution. This power is only restricted in the bill for former owners of sites on which very minimal exploration activities were conducted.

An independent report that this amendment was based on stated that the ability to issue orders under sections 31 and 33 in the mining context are materially equivalent to the powers of the contaminated-sites regime. In fact, the independent report notes that the powers of section 33, which is pollution prevention under the Waste Management Act, go beyond the contaminated-sites powers as it allows the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to issue an order before contamination occurs.

Even if the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Energy and Mines approve of the reclamation, there will still be a final review by the local authority that has the responsibility to approve the proposed use.

That is the response to the environmental standards point that the member made. With respect to liability, until the criteria for transfer agreements are made by regulation — I mentioned in the discussion in second reading of Bill 32 that transfer agreements would need to be signed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection in order for the liability to change from the previous pre-amendment regulation — the ministry will not simply grant transfers freely but will rely upon the same criteria that it has been using in approving requests for indemnification under the Financial Ad-

ministration Act under the protocol agreement between Energy and Mines and Water, Land and Air Protection.

This protocol agreement requires an assessment that "at all times the receiving environment and human health is adequately protected." This includes an assessment of existing liability, technical issues and potential risks, requirements of a voluntary remediation agreement, existing security and the financial strength of the new owner. These are the ways that the public purse will be protected under the provisions of this amendment.

J. Kwan: Changes of this nature were considered by the previous government in the year 2000. At that time, the mining industry had raised concerns about the duplication of site inspection requirements and about the allocation of corporate liability for environmental impacts associated with mining exploration.

When these changes were initially proposed, environmental groups raised serious concerns about the importance of the liability regime and the need to ensure that the public does not bear the costs of cleaning up contamination from mining activities.

In response, at that time, a small group of environmental NGO representatives met with the representatives of the mining industry. The result was a joint submission to the government proposing measures that would address industry's need while maintaining environmental protection.

The suggestions that came from the joint submission that was agreed to by all the parties have been dropped in Bill 32. They are no longer in Bill 32. Bill 32 gives the industry its liability exemptions but drops, as I say, the accountability mechanisms that were a condition of support for the environmental organizations.

When the minister spoke about the issue in response to my question, her first statement on the issue around accountability mechanisms was that this is not part of the act. That's what she said. It's not part of this act. That is precisely the point: these accountability mechanisms are not in here. That was agreed to by the environmental groups as well as the mining industry. It needs to be here to ensure protection for the environment. It is very disappointing to see that.

As well, when we see the issue around remediation orders, etc., the minister talks about how there is some limited requirement on the government's side on remediation. However, by and large, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will no longer be able to issue remediation orders, particularly at active mines, save and except for limited circumstances such as at the request of the chief inspector of mines.

It severely limits the role which the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection should be playing in protecting our environment in this area. This bill does not do that. It significantly takes away the role the ministry used to play.

The other issue around liability is that on the liability for future contamination, it exempts previous owners who owned the site. Who will be on the hook then? The taxpayers will be on the hook. This bill also makes that significant change under this section of the act.

For the reasons that I have highlighted under second reading of this bill, and for the analysis that has been done…. I have to credit, actually, West Coast Environmental Law for having done that research and analysis. They've raised many, many questions on this matter. I see in this bill…. The answer that the minister has just given is unsatisfactory in addressing the issues around accountability and liability. For that reason, I'll be voting against this section of the act.

Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 12 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. J. Murray: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 32, Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendments.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 26; H. Long in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Coell: Hon. Chair, I had moved the amendment on the order paper for section 1 standing in my name. If you wanted to return to section 1, if there are any questions on it, that would be fine with me.

J. MacPhail: Section 1 is changing the definition of "authority" by substituting another person and putting in place a public officer. What's the purpose of this, please?

So this is changing section 1. All right. We're on section 1. We're changing the proposed definition of "dependent child" by deleting "a child who" and substituting "a child, other than a child who is 18 years of age and is a person with disabilities, who…."

Does a person have to be 18 years and have a disability, or can a person be just 18 years?

Hon. M. Coell: Someone who is 18 and has a disability is covered by the other act, Bill 27.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sorry. Perhaps the minister could actually explain what he's trying to do here.

Hon. M. Coell: In Bill 27 we reduced the age from 19 to 18. This is a consequential amendment in addressing that so that someone would receive assistance under their own name in the other act at 18. In this act assistance would start at 19.

J. MacPhail: So, nobody can receive assistance under Bill 26, Employment and Assistance Act, until they're 19. May I ask the minister…. There are changes occurring elsewhere in government, so I assume that's correct.

Hon. M. Coell: There will be certain circumstances where people under that age can receive income assistance. You're correct.

J. MacPhail: I assume that's under the situation where people have lived outside of their parents' home for two years prior to turning 19. Are those the circumstances?

J. MacPhail: Then let's just hear under what circumstances a person younger than 19 would be able to collect welfare.

Hon. M. Coell: To give a simple answer, it would not change under this legislation what is currently under B.C. Benefits.

J. MacPhail: The reason why this is important, Mr. Chair — it may seem out of order, but it's my recollec-

tion that…. No, I mean out of order, not out of order of asking the question but out of order of the bill. It seems to me that there's somewhere else where the minister has decreed that one has to live apart from his or her parents' home for two years before they can collect welfare. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Coell: I can address that more fully, I think, in section 8. Some examples that are in BC Benefits would also be in this act: persons who are under 19 years of age, persons who are fleeing an abusive relationship, persons who are pregnant or have a dependent child under 19, persons who hold a two-year diploma or bachelor degree or higher from a college or university but are still under 19, persons who were in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development when they turned 19 years of age.

J. MacPhail: So, those are circumstances under which one is eligible for welfare. What happens…? The government has made changes elsewhere so that a 17-year-old will now be assigned independent living as opposed to being a child in care. Does independent living really mean that they're eligible for welfare under those circumstances that the government has just mentioned now? That would be a person fleeing an abusive situation.

Hon. M. Coell: I think there's two issues here. One may be a Ministry of Children and Family Development issue regarding child welfare. The other, more direct question is: in this act if someone is under the age of 19 and their parents are unable or unwilling to support them, they would be eligible, along with those other lists that I went through for the member.

J. MacPhail: Because we're on the amendment now, Mr. Chair, I'm curious as to…. I'm trying figure out what the government is trying to achieve by this amendment.

What the government has struck down or struck out from the original bill, as I understand it, is a definition that says "a child who resides in the parent's place of residence for more than 50 percent of each month and relies on that parent for the necessities of life, and includes a child in circumstances prescribed under subsection (2)." That's all gone and is replaced with "a child, other than a child who is 18 years of age and is a person with disabilities." Is it now to read "'dependent child,' with respect to a parent, means a child who…?"

Hon. M. Coell: This really strictly refers to the fact that we reconsidered the age for persons with a disability from 19 to 18 under Bill 27 after discussions with mental health advocates.

I can read the dependent child, as it will be amended, if that would be helpful. It would say "dependent child with respect to a parent means a child, other than a child who is 18 years of age and is a person with disabilities, who resides in the parent's place of residence for more than 50 percent of each month and relies on the parent for the necessities of life and includes a child in circumstances prescribed under section 2."

Basically, what the amendment does is say that persons who are 18 years of age and persons with disabilities will be eligible under Bill 27. It's not too dissimilar to what's in BC Benefits now.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, you have to be 18 years of age and a person with a disability to be excluded?

Hon. M. Coell: To be included in Bill 27, you need to be 18 years of age and have a disability.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. My colleague and I are thrown off our stride just a little bit in starting here. It was our understanding that a different bill was to be debated in the House, so we have to rush in here and catch up with Bill 26. We were a little bit thrown off.

In section 1, under the interpretation of the act, the definition for applicant is expanded to include the entire family unit, which means the applicant's spouse, if that spouse is a dependent, and the applicant's adult dependents. Previously, the definition of applicant was restricted to the person applying for assistance. How will this expanded definition of an applicant impact families receiving income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: Currently, we add the adult dependent or spouse. This way we can include them in the definition, and we don't have to keep repeating it.

J. Kwan: In terms of eligibility for income assistance then, this added definition has no impact whatsoever on the issue around eligibility criteria?

Hon. M. Coell: It's just making the drafting more simple and shouldn't affect the eligibility of either.

J. Kwan: The definition of dependent child is added, as amended. It is defined as a child "who resides in the parent's place of residence for more than 50 percent of each month and relies on that parent for the necessities of life, and includes a child in circumstances prescribed under subsection (2)." Subsection (2) states: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe other circumstances in which a child is a dependent child of a parent for the purposes of this act."

This new definition allows for new shared parenting criteria as defined in a letter written by a Ministry of Human Resources family maintenance worker to someone who will see his monthly income assistance

reduced. The regulations recognize shared custody arrangements and provide assistance to both parents with documentation of a court order or court-registered agreement. The parent who has the children or child for at least 16 days of the month is eligible for full income assistance that includes the child or the children. The parent who has the children for at least 12 days a month is only eligible for shelter allowance for the children or the child. The parent who is not claiming the child as a dependent may receive the family bonus money from the other parent without it affecting his or her income assistance. Deductions are no longer being made.

These are excerpts from a letter written to the Premier from Art Lowe, dated April 11. Mr. Lowe is very concerned about how the new shared parenting criteria will affect his ability to care for his children and, most importantly, how his children will be impacted. In the letter:

What will the Minister of Human Resources be doing to ensure that parents do not suffer economic and emotional hardship because of the introduction of shared parenting?

Hon. M. Coell: In recent years, shared parenting situations have resulted in requests from both parents for assistance for the same child. We are going to continue to pay rent for both families, and this gives the ministry the regulatory authority to do that.

J. Kwan: Is it just the shelter portion that the ministry will continue to pay for? What about the living allowance portion?

Hon. M. Coell: It won't change from BC Benefits. BC Benefits and this legislation only pay the shelter portion, and the B.C. family bonus goes to the parent who has the larger share of custody.

J. Kwan: Is it only in the instance where it's shared custody that the ministry will pay for the shelter portion?

Hon. M. Coell: We'll actually now have the authority to do what we were doing before, and that's with the shared parenting. I gather that the authority wasn't in B.C. Benefits legislation, but that regulation was used to do the shared parenting and the costs for shelter. So we continue to do that.

J. Kwan: How is the ministry going to keep track of how many days the child will stay with which parent? According to the information we've received, if it's at least 12 days, then the parent is only eligible for the shelter portion. If it's 16 days or more, then it's full income assistance. How will the ministry get that information?

Hon. M. Coell: Maybe I can give an example. If you had a shared parenting where one person had 12 days, they would receive the shelter portion, and if the other person had 18 days, they would receive the shelter portion and the B.C. family bonus.

J. Kwan: But that's not my question. What if you have parents who, let's say, split the custody of the child evenly — let's just start with that — 15 days each? On that basis, then, that means both parents are only eligible for the shelter portion, because you have to have 16 days in order to qualify for full income assistance. That's one issue.

The original question I asked the minister was around how the ministry will keep track of how many days which parent has. How would you get that information to verify what they're eligible for?

Hon. M. Coell: Sorry if I didn't answer the question. We would rely, same as we do today, on self-disclosure for a couple that is sharing custody of a child.

The member asked if they both had 50-50 parenting. Well, then they would elect themselves, as they do now. One would be the primary parent even if they both had 15 days each. The primary parent would get the shelter and the family bonus, and the secondary parent would still get the shelter.

J. MacPhail: Where in the definitions would one turn to as a refugee to see that she is excluded from coverage?

Hon. M. Coell: Presently, with B.C. Benefits and this act, refugees are not eligible for IA, but we provide hardship. That hardship category is still in the legislation.

J. MacPhail: Well, all the reports say that refugees won't even be eligible for hardship assistance. Is that true? I'm trying to figure out where it defines what a refugee is, so that the government has some way of knowing when to exclude them from any coverage including hardship assistance.

Hon. M. Coell: That would be, as it is now, in regulations. We are having discussions with the federal government with regard to their responsibility for

refugees. It's our hope that we would see no gap between what we have in hardship regulations and the federal government if it were to take over its responsibility for refugees.

J. MacPhail: So, I'm looking for direction on where to discuss this. Is the minister suggesting it be discussed under section 5, then? Is the minister somehow saying that there is no change in support for refugees?

Hon. M. Coell: As in BC Benefits, the rules of eligibility for refugees are in regulations, and they would be in this act as well. So probably section 5, under hardship, would be an appropriate area to canvass that.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell us what happens, given the new definition of dependent child — that is, someone who is now under 18…? Why designate the difference between a dependent youth and a dependent child?

Hon. M. Coell: The dependent youth is really a subset. If you look at ages 16 to 18, if they're not in school, we're going to require that they have an employment plan. If they're in school, they're covered under the School Act under 16.

J. MacPhail: With a dependent youth who's not in school then, would the parent lose income assistance for that child?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the bottom line is that we're trying to encourage people to stay in school. If they're not in school and they're 16 to 18, we want them to have an employment plan, a plan for their future. There is a potential for a reduction, but that will be discretionary. As I think the member would know, there could be a number of reasons why someone isn't in school or isn't able to look for work between 16 and 18.

J. MacPhail: That discretion didn't exist before. Under the former act, a dependent child living in a parent's home was eligible to contribute toward income assistance. Really, the reason why the minister is adding this definition is to allow now for families to have less income assistance if the child isn't in school. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Coell: That's not correct, and maybe I can explain. A school-aged youth can contribute to the family income without a reduction now and also will in this act, if they're in school. If they're not in school, then it's part of the family income.

J. MacPhail: No, I understand that. Maybe the minister can tell me what the changes are here. The changes are that if a child who is between the ages of 16 and 18 is not in school and is not earning income, the parents still lose the ability to claim income assistance for that youth. Is that not correct? That's the new addition.

Hon. M. Coell: If the child doesn't have an employment plan, isn't attending school and is non-compliant, there is a potential for a reduction, but that's discretionary. As I said, there may be a number of other reasons why that child isn't able to have a plan or attend school.

J. MacPhail: I think where my colleague and I are very curious in all of these matters is that the government absolutely everywhere else is cutting red tape for every other individual in this province with a zeal like we've never seen before. All of a sudden, if you're a low-income, struggling family on welfare…. Believe you me, the number of those families is on the increase, and many of those families were working — lots in the forest industry — up until just months ago.

What does a family have to keep track of? If you're separated, you have to keep track of every hour of every day you have your child with you. Now, if you have a 16- or 17-year-old who isn't in school, you have to keep track of what their life is all about. You have to go in and report, I would assume. How is this reducing red tape?

Hon. M. Coell: I would disagree with the member in that an employment plan for a 16- or 17-year-old is very constructive. It assists youth to either attend school, get training, plan for work or obtain work. I think this is a very positive outcome for someone whose family is on income assistance, they're on income assistance, they're 16, and they decide they don't want to or are unable to complete school. I view this as very constructive.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sure the minister does, because he doesn't want it to seem as hard as it is. I'm sure he would like to appeal to all those families who have not yet in their lives been affected by having to be on income assistance. He wants to stand up and say: "Well, of course it's good for our children to be in school or to have an employment plan."

In the best of all possible worlds that's probably absolutely true, but we have huge changes going on in our school system right now. There are all sorts of cuts to programs now for children with special needs, all sorts of cuts to programs for children who may not be at the mainstream academic level and all sorts of cuts to apprenticeship programs and learning assistance programs.

You know, it all links up. It all comes together. So you're some welfare family just struggling to get by, your kid's learning assistance has been cut, and the kid can't go on. You know, I'm not making this up. This is happening as we speak. The 16-year-old is at home, and the government then says: "Well, let's get an em-

ployment plan." Gee, let me see. How will an employment plan work for a 16-year-old in a town where the adult male unemployment rate is approaching 20 percent? How will that work? Yet if the family can't jump through every single hoop that this government puts in place, the family, making the most meagre existence, will have their welfare reduced because that child is one that falls through the cracks. That is a real scenario. It's a scenario on the verge of occurring over and over in this province, and I say shame on the government.

Hon. M. Coell: Just a comment for the member. I think it's positive to do something and to work with someone who is 16 to 18. There may be areas of the province where the employment opportunities are not as good as others, and they wouldn't have a reduction. The ability here is to have a workplan and to be thinking about their future or to be in school. Why would we give up on someone who is 16 to 18 years old without at least trying to help them get an education or trying to help them get into a work situation or even a workplan where they could start planning for their future? I think it's very positive to actually encourage someone at 16, 17 and 18 rather than let them drift.

J. MacPhail: How many staff is the minister going to hire? We're on the definitions section, and the number of hoops people are having to jump through is on a huge rise. What's going to be the caseload for each FAW dealing with these circumstances? Will the minister be reducing the caseload so all of these new requirements will be able to be met speedily?

Hon. M. Coell: Just two comments. It's our desire to cut the regulations that are currently in BC Benefits by one-third. We have reduced the number of acts. I think the previous government had the same desire to see people work and did have programs that we have streamlined and, I think, will work better. They were pilot projects, and I think that the projects we'll roll out later this week will see tens of thousands of job placements in the coming years.

J. MacPhail: I don't believe the minister. I don't believe him at all. I don't think there will be jobs, and the fact that the minister's government has cut youth programs to the bone — not to the bone; cut them off completely — has taken away huge chunks of hope that any young people have in this province for getting a job and getting on the path. This government seems to be entirely willing to sacrifice our 16- and 17-year-olds just because they come from a poor family. That's exactly what's happening right now.

Just to be clear, the changes that were brought in through the 1990s that assisted people from welfare to work were a system of entitlement for youth to training and to a job. Until that was given, they were supported, and it worked.

The minister tries to make it out like: "Oh, we're just doing the same thing the previous government did." Wrong, absolutely wrong. This is a punitive, harsh, mean-spirited system that says: "You're out on your own. By the way, we're going to cut your parents off any support they may have because of you, Mr. Young Person. You'd better go out and get a job. By the way, forget training. Forget youth programs. We've ended all those." That's exactly what's going to happen.

I predict, with all of my best intentions on behalf of the poorest in this province, that this minister will see a huge rise in youth unemployment and homeless street kids directly as a result of Employment and Assistance. It isn't fearmongering. It is a prediction of what is almost, frankly, a reality.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member and I see the world very differently, obviously. I look at the 5,000 jobs we have in the job bank right now that are available for income assistance people. We have an economy that's created 27,000 jobs in the last three months in British Columbia. Every year in British Columbia 500,000 jobs change hands. What I would like to see is 16-, 17-, 18-year-old youth in British Columbia have an opportunity, a motivation and the ability to get jobs. I think this plan does just that.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'll tell you how I see the world. I see that our youth need as much support as possible, particularly if they come from low-income families.

This is punitive. This legislation is punitive like we've never seen before. That, combined with the fact that the government's moving children in care out of family care and putting them onto the streets to look after themselves when they're 17…. There's hundreds more children left abandoned by this government.

Perhaps the minister needs a dose of reality by going into towns around this province that are suffering economic hardship like we've never seen before. Perhaps the minister actually needs to open up those letters he's receiving from forestry workers now who are able-bodied, solid, upstanding citizens who have worked for years and are now requiring social assistance, let alone their 16- or 17-year-old.

Let me ask this, then. Has the minister made any initiatives or lobbied his colleague the Minister of Education at all to save every single learning assistance program at the high school level?

Hon. M. Coell: I believe that the package of support programs that this ministry is going to deliver will help people gain employment, whether they're young, middle-aged or older. I think the $300 million in employment programs that this ministry will spend over the next three years — the retooled program which will be announced later this week — will give great benefit to people who are on income assistance.

J. Kwan: With all due respect to the minister, I disagree. I'll give an example to the minister. This is a real example that happened in my office last week.

I'm recalling this off the top of my head; I don't have the case sheet in front of me. The individual is a person who's on DB-1. He, in fact, found himself a job, and he didn't need further training. The individual went and spoke with his worker to ask for assistance for transportation to get to the job. I believe the job, if memory serves me correctly, is in Maple Ridge. He also needed some tools to do his job. He went to the welfare office to ask for assistance. The welfare office told him no. With the changes of this act he was not qualified for assistance — a person who has found a job. The person was advised that he has to go through the training that the ministry's going to provide for him and that he would have to have the approval of the ministry in order to get assistance to work. It has to be an approved ministry job before he would get any assistance from the ministry.

I have to ask the minister: how does that make sense? Here you have an individual who's already found work, and he's not able to get to the worksite and not able to get the tools so that he could perform his job. He's being told by the welfare office: "I'm sorry, we can't help you." With the changes of this act, it actually doesn't help the people to get off income assistance.

On the employment plan that would apply, what would the minister advise this individual when he has already found a job?

Hon. M. Coell: We're redefining how those issues are being delivered. The job placement programs will have money in their programs to provide transportation, clothing, false teeth, tools. We're in the process of redefining those. They're in regulations in B.C. Benefits, and in the new program they will be part of the job placement programs.

J. Kwan: In this instance that I've referenced, the individual that came to my office doesn't need to go to a training program. He got offered a job. He went to the welfare office and said: "I need transportation money, I need some clothing, and I need some tools to get to my job in Maple Ridge." The FAW at the office said: "I'm sorry, with the change in the rules, you're not qualified to get transportation expenses and the tools for you to work at the worksite. What you must do is go to a training program."

The person doesn't need to go to a training program. The ministry can actually save that money. They don't have to waste that money. The individual already had a job. Under the previous act, the person was able to get some transportation money and money for tools so that he could get to his worksite. How does this make sense with the change of this act?

The minister says: "We're working on the regulations, and maybe that's just a hitch with the changing of the eligibility within the act." Well, then why would the minister push through Bill 26 and engage in this debate now when the regulation is not ready? Wouldn't it make sense for the minister to ensure that the regulations are clear so that you don't end up costing somebody a job and therefore keeping that person on income assistance longer? Or, alternatively, maybe as another hitch — maybe this is coming down the pike for this individual — the ministry later on decides that, gee, this person really should be working and is not. The job that he was able to obtain and had secured he ended up losing. Is he going to then risk penalties from the ministry because he lost a job that he couldn't get to because the minister refuses to provide transportation and the tools for him?

It doesn't make any sense. Why doesn't the minister work out the regulations before we debate this matter in this House?

Hon. M. Coell: I've made a commitment that we would work on the regulations as quickly as we can and hopefully have them in place this summer. I can remind the member that her government took a year to get the regulations done for B.C. Benefits. We're going to do that in a matter of months.

The question that she mentioned. We're in a transition period now, and that issue will be covered in regulations.

J. Kwan: As I understand, while the B.C. Benefits regulations were being developed, clients weren't cut off of income assistance.

How does that help this individual who has come to my office last week? How does it help while the regulations are being worked out? Great for you — through you, hon. Chair, to the minister. Good on you for doing that. That might help the minister a great deal, but you know what? It doesn't help the person who's likely going to lose his job. He's been offered a job. He can get off of income assistance. He just needs some support from the government to get there and to get the tools so that he could do the work. Maybe by summer — in August, I'm sure — the job won't be there anymore for this individual. How's that helpful?

If the whole purpose of the act is to move income assistance recipients to the worksite, here you have in this so-called transition period a situation created that is costing an income assistance recipient a job. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, the minister during estimates had actually first advised that the regulations would be provided when the bill was tabled. Then, later on, he said shortly after. Shortly after, I would have expected, and I thought maybe that's why there was a one-week lapse last week in terms of when the House was not sitting. It gave the minister some time to get those regulations in the House so that we can look at them, so that we can go through a proper debate with the regulations in conjunction with the bill. We haven't seen anything of such, and now the minister is saying: "Well, gee, maybe it will be ready some time in August." Meanwhile the ministry staff have already been told to implement the changes per this act effective April 1.

I'll give you another example. I nearly tore my hair out. I was so frustrated with this situation again last week when I happened to be in my office. A senior came in. I believe she was either 67 or 77 years old — an older senior. She was sponsored formerly by her daughter. She didn't even have to have income assistance. Sadly for this woman, her daughter unexpectedly died recently of cancer. She has no other relatives. She was forced to go on income assistance.

She sat in her building for days crying, grieving the loss of her daughter, the loss of support. The other seniors in the building saw her, and they didn't know what to do. They brought her case to a reverend — the reverend who runs the society as a part of the board members — and told him about the case.

This reverend took this woman to the welfare office to apply for income assistance. She was qualified. This was before April 1, because it happened, I believe, sometime in January or February. Again, I don't have the case sheets in front of me, so I'm just going by memory here. I believe it was January or February when she applied. She was qualified for income assistance. She had about $1,200 in the bank, not too many assets, so she was qualified for income assistance.

There was miscommunication because this woman doesn't speak English, and she didn't know about supports in terms of welfare. That's why this reverend assisted this woman. She was qualified, and she got a cheque.

Then, because of the miscommunication, she was under the impression that subsequent cheques would be deposited directly to her account. It wasn't. The cheque was held at the office, and she didn't know that she was supposed to go and pick it up. Nobody bothered to phone her to ask her: "What's happened to you? Why aren't you coming here to pick up the cheque? Have you got other sources of income elsewhere so that you no longer need to be supported anymore?" The ministry then closed her file.

The woman sat there and waited and waited, drawing more money from her account, cried some more. Then the reverend came in and said: "Now what's the problem?" Anyway, no cheques have been coming. She's been drawing down her savings to, I think, about $200. She finally came to my office with the reverend. She was beside herself and wanted some help.

I was furious. I really was. I was so upset because there was this woman sitting in my office, and she's grieving the loss of her daughter and crying. She has no idea how she was going to pay her May rent, because it was just at the end of April and she had $200 in her account. She was beside herself.

I phoned the welfare office and spoke with the FAW. The FAW: "Sorry. According to the act, under the new regulations that are supposed to be in effect for April 1, she's not allowed to have any assets more than $150 cash on hand, so the matter will have to wait until the supervisor comes back."

I said: "Where is the supervisor?" This has gone on, by the way, while I was away from the office, and my staff had been trying to deal with the matter. I was back — actually, it wasn't last week; it was the week before — on the Friday. I was furious, and I said: "Someone's got to make a decision. May 1 is coming, and this woman is faced with extreme pressures and hardships." She was qualified prior to April 1, before the changes, but the ministry had miscommunicated. Because of communication issues, she was cut off of income assistance. The file was closed.

So I said, "Okay, well then, I'm going to phone the minister's office," and I did phone the minister's office from my office. We didn't get to talk to the minister. I didn't even get to talk to the deputy or the assistant deputy. My staff…. We got sort of roped off to some other person, and there was a whole rigmarole about how she didn't qualify in telling us she had too many assets, because there was too much money in her account. I was furious about it. My office continued to pursue the matter until finally we did get hold of the supervisor the following week. Now the matter is being sorted out, as I understand.

I raise this as an example of how someone was cut off of income assistance — a senior, no less — with no other ability to support herself. Because of communication issues, because of the language barrier, she just sat there and cried and cried and cried until someone intervened and brought her to the office. Because I happened to be there, we picked up the phone and carried it on. If I wasn't there, my staff would do the same, as would my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings.

I raise that as an issue because the regulations are not in place. Even then, it's being punitively implemented right now as we speak, punitively for the people who otherwise would have been qualified. People are going to be suffering.

In this instance, I suppose, in a sad kind of way, the individual was lucky because we managed to deal with her case. There are many others in that situation who may not have gone to an MLA's office. In fact, I've got other cases — and I'll use some of those as we debate this matter in Bills 26 and 27 — from outside of my riding where constituents could not find their MLA to advocate for them. They're beside themselves, and they don't know what to do.

I have to ask the minister this question: why could the minister, even under the definitions section of this bill, not provide the answers that the opposition is asking — and not just us? By extension, through us many British Columbians are asking these questions in their own minds. The minister cannot answer these questions because the regulations are not in place.

Why, then, are we here debating this bill? It makes no sense whatsoever. The minister should step down the bill and bring in the regulations so that we the opposition can look at the regulations, so that the public can look at the regulations. Then we can come back into this House and debate the matter.

Hon. M. Coell: Any of the changes that were made in April were based on regulations based on the BC

J. Kwan: That is completely incorrect. I have the case…. This debate, I'm sure, will go on till tomorrow and the next day, because we'll have many questions here. I will get my staff to send me the information, to fax it over and to provide that information. That is absolutely untrue.

In the situation with this woman, she was cut off income assistance because she was told that she had too much money in her account. The cash-on-hand per supposedly these regulations that the minister says are going to be ready some time in August states that she's only allowed to have cash on hand of $150 — no more. For that reason, because she had exceeded that amount, she was cut off income assistance, and there was a problem with her eligibility.

So I know for a fact this is not true. I know for a fact that it is not true for the minister to suggest that the rules are still as per prior to the changes. I know for a fact that it's not true because I spoke with this person who is faced with the hardships that were caused by the ministry.

Hon. M. Coell: I suspect that the member did not understand. These are new regulations. They were deposited at the registrar of regulations in April. They were made under the BC Benefits Act — changes to the regulations under the BC Benefits Act. You can read them at the registrar of regulations.

J. Kwan: The minister is suggesting that the minister brought in the regulations under the previous name, the BC Benefits Act. The fact of the matter is that Bill 26 has not passed the House; neither has Bill 27, for that matter. Regulations, by the minister's own admission, have not been brought in. He doesn't even know what the regulations are. Yet, somehow the direction given to the FAWs is for them to implement the punitive side of this new act, Bill 26, as though the act had been passed and the regulations written and passed when in fact that has not been done, and nothing could be further from the truth. Under Bill 26, the Employment and Assistance Act, the fact of the matter is that the regulations are not done, but the implementation in penalizing people to be eligible for income assistance is being brought into place.

I have to ask the minister this question, then. The minister says: "Well, we know what we're going to do." There is, I suppose, an interim set of regulations. Well, if the interim set of regulations are in place and if the minister is going to follow through with the interim set of regulations, because those rules are being applied right now to people who are applying for income assistance and being rejected on the basis of these interim regulations, why then doesn't the minister table those interim regulations as though they were the regulations for Bill 26? Why doesn't he table that? Maybe that's the intent behind it anyway, all along.

If the minister has the regulations for Bill 26, then table them in this House so that we can review that information and engage in a proper discussion with the minister. If the minister doesn't have the regulations and those interim regulations are not to apply under Bill 26, then the minister should stand down Bill 26 and wait until the regulations are ready so that there's a proper debate in this House.

Hon. M. Coell: Just to remind the member that the previous government amended the GAIN Act in '96, then brought in legislation in '96 that carried their regulatory changes forward and then brought in their regulations in 1997.

J. MacPhail: This is really dangerous territory for the minister to get into — that somehow that he's got the holder of the corporate memory.

The difference between this Liberal extreme government and the previous government is that families, young people and children were held whole during the changes.

The point my colleague was making here previously is that because of the ineptness of all of this radical change — made solely to save money, by the way — this government is imposing punitive, harsh, lesser conditions on people without any legislative framework in place and without any regulatory framework in place.

This government shouldn't dare compare itself to changes that were made in the 1990s, which were hugely successful in moving people from welfare to work. It was a support system in the nineties, not a harsh punitive system where no one knows what the rules are. They can change just like that, but by gosh, it'll be the harshest regulation imposed. You can bet your boots on that.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I just want to note for the record, for all the Liberal MLAs, that my colleague and I have made arrangements that we will debate each clause but that at each clause, before we call a vote, all of the MLAs, who I know have lots of questions, would rise then and ask their questions.

J. MacPhail: Well, that was interesting, Mr. Chair. I know every MLA is getting questions on every single section of this legislation — not questions, but cases: real people with real problems. It was interesting that it went by just like that.

Section 2 of the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, a section that this government has scuppered, was the section that dealt with the Income Assistance Advisory Council. What's happened to that advisory council?

Hon. M. Coell: It had never met for a number of years and was defunct. This was a cleanup.

J. MacPhail: In fact, during the last changes for B.C. Benefits, the Income Assistance Advisory Council was very active. Let me just say what one of the members then in opposition, now a government member, the member for Vancouver-Langara, said about the Income Assistance Advisory Council. This was July of '96.

I mean, is it going to be up to my colleague and me to represent all those on income assistance? What advice is the minister seeking from income assistance recipients on anything these days?

Hon. M. Coell: The group that the member asks about only made two annual reports in the last five years. When their terms ran out, the previous government didn't reappoint them.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister answer my question? Is the minister working toward everything that happened in the 1990s? Is that what he's working toward? Gee, maybe he should have told the public that. Under no circumstances could this minister ever match any sort of strengthening of any social safety net of the 1990s.

Quit using as a defence, "We're only doing what the previous government did," because he's dead wrong on that. Tell me: how is he getting advice from income assistance recipients?

Hon. M. Coell: I think during estimates that question was canvassed by the other member of the opposition. I listed off about 40 or 50 groups that I had met with, from the Downtown Eastside Residents Association through Together Against Poverty. I can tell you that I met with a group of 20 single mothers in Vancouver on Friday and discussed issues affecting them in the downtown Vancouver area. I'll continue to meet with groups, as I have.

J. MacPhail: The difference is, though, that — as always — it's when this government feels like meeting with people that meetings occur. If the minister wakes up one morning and may not feel like talking to all of those people who he's greatly harmed by reducing their welfare, then the meeting doesn't occur. What's the formalization, and how does one get a meeting with the minister?

Hon. M. Coell: I have initiated meetings with groups. People write letters and ask for meetings. As I said, I went through that fairly lengthy list with the other member of the opposition during estimates. I find that to be satisfactory. As I said, I met with groups last week. I look forward to doing that in the future. I think that's part of being a member of government — being open and discussing issues with people.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister may recall that his home was picketed because he refused to meet with a particular group. If he's shaking his head, that was the media report. The Raging Grannies wanted a meeting with the minister and couldn't get it, so they showed up at his home.

The difference from the minister picking and choosing who he meets with and then our getting his version of the report is that the Income Assistance Advisory Council published reports, so it was the recipients' point of view of what the changes were. They also had support — financial resources — to publish their own point of view. Instead, income assistance recipients in this province have to rely on either begging to have a meeting with the minister or taking to protests or putting forward — as you can see, Mr. Chair — all their dire circumstances for my colleague and me to raise, because so far the Liberal MLAs are silent. That's the difference.

What resources is this government…? The other thing that this government has done is cut off all advocacy funding, so there are no resources available for people to speak up about the changes. What is the formal process for people on income assistance to either have input and publish that input or to advocate for change?

Hon. M. Coell: We have not cut any advocacy dollars at all. As a matter of fact, their contracts have been extended.

J. MacPhail: The only reason that occurred is because of protests. That's the only reason it occurred.

What is the formal process for income assistance recipients to give advice, where the minister will publicly reflect the advice that he has received?

Hon. M. Coell: The member may have noticed that I announced a round table for people with disabilities on income assistance last week. I may consider other formal mechanisms, but right now I've been initiating meetings and having people initiate meetings with me, and I'll continue to do so.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, no. I didn't notice the announcement. Perhaps the minister could actually tell what it is. There's pretty much a flurry coming out of his department. Is it for…? Perhaps the minister could recount the announcement.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I'm glad to answer that. The announcement was the strategy for people with

disabilities last week. It's $5.5 million — a 40 percent increase over the previous amount up to $18 million a year. We'll have a round table as part of that.

I think that during question period this afternoon I was asked about some of the issues regarding specialized services for people with disabilities. They will have everything from an increased earning exemption to continued medical benefits. If people on income assistance with disabilities go off income assistance, they take their medical benefits with them.

Technical aids, workplace accommodations, follow-up supports, a rapid reinstatement for people with disabilities back onto income assistance if they aren't able to continue with employment. I think it's the first time British Columbia has ever had a strategy for people with disabilities for employment, and I think it's going to be very positive and will help people who have barriers to employment to find that employment.

J. MacPhail: Well, the question was about people on income assistance. The announcement was about people with disabilities. People with income assistance are not included in that round table, so I was wondering whether I'd missed something.

For the minister to stand up and say, as this government is wont to do, that it's the first time it's ever been done…. It is not the first time it's ever been done. There was an office of people with disabilities that was fully funded and that worked with WCB, ICBC, the Coalition of People with Disabilities — a fully funded office. It wasn't the first time.

Frankly, it's always interesting to see how this government works. They make a big announcement cutting huge dollars — tens of millions — from people's services and then want to be blessed for being good kids because they restore a tiny bit of it and figure out that maybe they should start talking to people about the changes.

It's like five steps backwards and then a half-step forward, and everybody's supposed to cheer. Then the government somehow claims that for the very first time they're doing something wonderful. Well, it isn't the first time by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact the little piddly step that's taken forward for people with disabilities, while I'm sure everyone is a tiny bit relieved, doesn't nearly match what was in place before.

What if you don't have a disability? How do you get input into this government on changes to income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: The member asked about the office of disability issues. It's still part of the program and strategy for people with disabilities. The people and the funding are still there, if you want to go down the street and check.

J. MacPhail: Well, then why did the minister somehow suggest that his initiative was the first one ever? Isn't it a bit ironic that somehow he admits that something was in place for years, but he tries to claim that his initiative was the first ever? Where does one get input in a formal way into these changes if one is on income assistance and does not have a disability?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try once more for the member. I said we would be having a round table for people on income assistance with disabilities. I may expand that into the other areas. I'm not considering that today, but I continue to receive information through letters and through meetings. I will continue to initiate meetings. There are numbers of people who have requested meetings, and we will continue to see them.

J. MacPhail: Well, if it's at the whim of the minister for people on income assistance who don't have disabilities to have input, perhaps he could recount the outcome of his meeting with the — I think he said 20 — single moms in the downtown east side. Perhaps he could tell the whole world what that meeting was about. Perhaps he could just recount how the repeal of the Income Assistance Advisory Council is replaced with that kind of meeting.

J. MacPhail: What part of the meeting doesn't the minister want to reveal? What was the result of the consultation? If this is the forum….

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, the House Leader, as always, comes in here and tries to rule everything out of order. We're dealing with the repeal of the Income Assistance Advisory Council, and I'm asking what's replacing it.

The minister has said he's going to have meetings. What I want to know from the minister is this. He said his form of replacement of the Income Assistance Advisory Council would be individual meetings with him, and he named as an example…. He was the one that brought it up, not me. He named as an example that he was going to have to replace this with a group, I think he said, of single moms — 20 of them. What was the outcome of that meeting?

J. MacPhail: Was there something secret or confidential about the meeting that the minister can't reveal? Is this the kind of open and accountable government we have, where they throw away an advisory council and then the minister stands up and says: "Oh, but don't worry. I'll be meeting with individuals, and that's what I'm good about." That's the nature of the open and accountable government, eh? He brings up the meeting, and then he refuses to tell what it was.

Was the news bad that the minister received from the 20 or so single moms? Was it uncomfortable? The minister shakes his head. Let us know. What was the result? Did the meeting change his mind in any way? Were there some parts of the legislation which, on advice that he got, he felt good about?

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could say whether this meeting that he refuses to recount…. How would the public find out about the consultation of the minister, then? How will the public know when the minister is going to stand up next and make a different pronouncement? Will the minister be making public his record of meetings, his agenda, so that the rest of us…? Maybe we can't find out here in debate what it was he discussed, but perhaps the minister is going to post his schedule on the website so we would know when to attend those meetings. Is that the case?

How does the ordinary income assistance recipient get input into policy with this government?

J. Kwan: This is stunning. We have a situation where the opposition is trying to canvass from the minister questions around a bill that is being pushed through by government.

The minister advised that accompanying this bill would be the regulations. He first advised in the estimates process that the regulations would be introduced at the same time that the bill was to be introduced. Then he later revised that and said it would be shortly after — within weeks, one had assumed. Surely, when the bill was introduced in the House, in a couple of weeks' time the regulations would be ready. Then the minister advised that the regulations would not be ready until August.

Then in the questioning of the minister by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings around consultation — who did he consult with? — the minister answered: "Lots of groups, and we canvassed that in estimates." My colleague asked the question: "What was the result of one particular meeting — just to use as an example, the meeting with single moms?"

The minister said it was about 20 single moms whom he had met with. Presumably, the minister was seeking their opinions and thoughts and comments with respect to Bill 26 and particularly, one would think, given that the regulations are not ready, as the minister is trying to seek and consult with individuals in developing the regulations. Then you would think that it's appropriate for the minister to advise what took place in this meeting. What was discussed? What were the concerns? Were there any? Maybe there weren't any concerns, but maybe there were lots of concerns. What were they? Why is the minister being so secretive? What does he have to hide?

J. Kwan: The Minister of Finance, the House Leader, is saying that these questions are irrelevant. With all due respect, Mr. Chair, these questions are very relevant.

The act that is being proposed right here, right now, changes and impacts British Columbians who need government assistance. We're talking about the eligibility of a family unit, section 2 — who's eligible, who's not eligible and issues related to it.

Why would questions around the consultation process that the minister said he had engaged in and was inviting so that it could help him develop the regulations associated with Bill 26 not be relevant to this discussion?

How does it make sense that the minister in the New Era document — and I have it in here somewhere — claims that this is an open and accountable government. "Open, accountable, consultative" — there it is: The New Era for British Columbia: A Vision for Hope and Prosperity for the Next Decade and Beyond. It goes on to talk about openness, accountability, transparency — all of the words that the government likes to use. But in practice, when questioned about how these claims are materializing, we don't get any answers at all. The minister is just silent.

Earlier, in second reading debate, the member for Vancouver-Langara talked about how important it was in terms of the changes in this bill as it impacts British Columbians and how important it was that the government provide the regulations associated with the bill. To use the words of the member for Vancouver-Langara, it was like putting the gas in the engine so that the engine would run.

If we're to use the analogy that's been given by the member for Vancouver-Langara, there is no gas in this particular engine of Bill 26, because the regulations are not there. Given that the regulations are not there, we're canvassing questions from the minister to ask what input he received from the public on this matter. He's not even prepared to share that. How is that open, accountable and transparent? There it is — our vision. Item 9: "The most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada," it claims. Well, prove it. Prove it, and answer the question.

J. MacPhail: No, Mr. Chair, there are lots of questions on section 2. We're just hoping that at some point the minister will rise up and take part in the debate. He's showing incredible arrogance to all of the people on income assistance who require answers to these questions.

The minister tries to say that somehow the fact that he has completely scuppered public input through repeal of the Income Assistance Advisory

Council and replaced it with his own private meetings…. Somehow he won't answer questions on those meetings. He sits there. It is really quite unbelievable.

Let's see if we can ask a question that the minister may feel he could answer. It's about the new section 2. We know he doesn't actually care about input from people on income assistance, so let's see if he can answer these questions so that people on income assistance can understand what hoops they have to jump through.

Section 2 talks about eligibility of a family unit. Now, this is interesting. It would have been nice if this had actually been printed in the New Era document about who gets eligibility for welfare and in a family unit or not. What the act says is…. It's quite interesting; it's written sort of the same way as this government likes to write referendum questions. Let me just read it.

Hon. M. Coell: As with B.C. Benefits, eligibility will be defined in the regulations as well as through some rules in the act. Examples of that are job search requirements, which was the same in the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act.

J. MacPhail: Well, if the minister was satisfied with BC Benefits, why is this section changed substantially? What's the intent of the changes?

Hon. M. Coell: This new section is to be clearer. Each person in the family must be eligible.

Well, let me just read a section from a debate that's relevant to this section between the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the Minister of Children and Family Development.

"With the passage of Bill 17…." I'm reading now, and it's all relevant. Bill 17 was the changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said: "With the passage of Bill 17 and the eventual passage of Bills 26" — which we're now debating — "and 27, will there be any difference in terms of eligibility for support for people who will have interim custody of a child under this act?"

The Minister of Children and Family Development said: "There is no legislative link between this legislation and Bills 26 and 27. In that sense, the answer to the member's question is no."

Could the minister please explain what the new rules are now for children living in the home of a relative?

Hon. M. Coell: I believe the member is referring to the Ministry of Children and Family Development's program of kith and kin. They would still be eligible for income assistance, if low income. The portion paid for the child would then come from MCFD.

J. MacPhail: The Child in the Home of a Relative is a Human Resources program, is it not?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's a different program than you described during your initial comments.

J. MacPhail: No, it isn't. Sorry. If the minister misunderstood, it isn't. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Is the minister aware of the changes that have been announced to the Child in the Home of a Relative program as of April 1?

J. MacPhail: Well, it goes directly to the point that I'm asking the minister.

The Minister of Children and Family Development seemed to think that interim custody of a child going to a relative other than the parents wouldn't interfere

with income assistance. The changes to the Child in the Home of a Relative program do cut people off.

Where is it that relatives now would know that if they're doing what's best for the child, taking that child into their home, they may be completely on their own hook for doing so — which is a change; which is a cut?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try to explain a little clearer. The changes were contemplated for legal guardians. That option is being revisited with the Minister of Children and Family Development and myself. If someone is on income assistance, they are still eligible to have a child in their home. The only change was those people who became legal guardians. As I said, that issue is being revisited.

J. MacPhail: How would we know that issue is being revisited? Is it because we managed to ask the question, or was it publicized? Do relatives know that? People have actually been cut off the CIHR program. Has there been a letter sent out? Could we see a copy of the letter?

Hon. M. Coell: There's about 1,700 people that potentially could have been affected. I believe they've all either had personal contact, or for anyone that had changes made, they've all had their April-May cheque. The program is under review.

J. Kwan: Let me just get this straight. In the estimates process I asked the minister about the program with the children in the home of a relative. The minister advised that if you became a legal guardian of a child and you needed income assistance, unless the entire family unit qualifies for income assistance, that child is not entitled to receive support from the ministry. That's what the minister said during estimates. I raised a lot of concerns around that.

I said to the minister that by not providing the support to that child, the minister may well jeopardize that entire family unit on the issue around protection. If that entire family unit is compromised financially by having legal guardianship of one additional child, then why would the ministry do something like that? How does that make sense, especially in light of the fact that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is attempting to reduce the numbers of children who need government support?

The minister said: "Don't worry. Be happy. Everything is going to be fine." We questioned that issue, and the minister said: "We're going to proceed with it."

Now the minister is saying he's revisiting that issue. I suppose that's good news. Yet where does it say, then, in the legislation that the people who now have a child in the home of a relative and who need income assistance would actually requalify and continue to receive assistance from the government?

Quite frankly, you see, the word of this minister could change on a day-by-day basis. It goes again to the point that when questions were asked of the minister during the estimates process, he said: "Ask these questions during the legislation, when the legislation is tabled." Here we are asking questions when the legislation is tabled. We're also asking the questions that relate to the regulations that need to be accompanying this bill. Those regulations are not ready.

The minister is saying: "Don't worry. Be happy. We know what we're doing." We've just seen within weeks that the minister has changed his direction.

Where in the legislation does it say that for individuals with a child in the home of a relative, they'll be eligible to continue to receive income assistance? I want the assurance.

Hon. M. Coell: The program, Child in the Home of a Relative, is in regulations, was in regulations in BC Benefits. It will be in the new act, and we are reconsidering it with the Minister of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: Is the minister committing now that for families, for individuals to take on a child under the definition of a child in the home of a relative, they would now be able to collect income assistance for that child even if the family unit's not entitled to receive income assistance? Is he saying that now, and would that be part of the regulations when it surfaces?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I've answered that. The program is under review at this point.

J. Kwan: That's not good enough. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, that is not good enough because what the minister just tried to do is act and insinuate as though that policy's being changed and that children in the home of a relative will be able to get government assistance. Then, when we push the minister to commit to that in regulation, the minister says it is under review. That is not good enough.

How are people supposed to make decisions around whether or not they'll take on a child and be their legal guardian when they do not know whether or not they could get financial support for the child when they do not know, by the act itself? Would it jeopardize not only the child's well-being of whom they're going to be gaining legal guardianship? It may well jeopardize the entire family if there are other children involved — especially with the Minister of Children and Family Development's claim that the minister wants to see the number reduced of children who need foster parenting, who need government support. In fact, with this provision, which the minister would not commit to in ensuring that assistance would be provided to individuals who have a child in the home of a relative even if the entire family unit is not entitled to income assistance…. The minister

would not commit to making sure that support is available to them. How does it help the government's policies in the two different ministries?

J. MacPhail: It is unbelievable. I can't believe that the Liberal backbenchers aren't rising up and saying: "Why are we passing this legislation when we don't have any of these answers?"

Here's why this is important. We are about to vote on section 2, where section 2 says here that a family will qualify depending on the eligibility — if they meet the eligibility requirements. We know that this government, up until these very words we just heard now out of the minister, was planning on saying to families and had said to families: "All that working in the best interest of the child of one of your relatives — forget it. You're on your own. We're not going to support you. We're not only going to put that child at financial risk but maybe your own family for taking it in."

That was the policy up until we heard right now, based on section 2. So now at the whim of the minister…. Maybe he had a public meeting. Did he? Did he have a meeting with a bunch of people who were collecting the support — having a child in the home of a relative — and then he decided to change his mind?

But let's not ask him any questions about that, because he'll sit silent and say: "What business is it of yours? It's out of order that we actually tell you how we're going to define eligibility."

That's what we're trying to determine here. Does a person wake up every morning and wonder whether the minister has changed his mind about eligibility? I have the documents right here that say families aren't eligible if they have temporary custody or legal custody of a child of a relative. That's a change; that's a cut. Now the minister says, "Oh no, sorry, that program is under review," but he won't tell us how it's under review. He won't guarantee anything.

So we all just have to wait, except that we can't get our questions answered. All of those people to whom this government is going to say, to the children, "Sorry, you're out of foster care. Go find a relative," while the relatives who are low income have no idea what the policy is.

That's how this is relevant. I don't understand how one single person in this Legislature could pass this section without having an answer to that question — not one single person.

J. Kwan: There are a lot of eligibility questions related to this. It is stunning, because the MLAs from the government side who purport to say that they want to raise issues with the minister around concerns with this bill…. So far what they've done is sit silent. Not one of them rose in this House to ask one single question of the minister.

The Minister of Finance is sitting in his chair, saying: "You know, they got all their questions answered, so they don't have any concerns." You know what, hon. Chair? The minister himself doesn't even know what the regulations are. He says it's all under review. He doesn't know what the answers are, but that's good enough for the Liberal MLAs: "Have concerns but, hey, you know what? Whether or not those concerns are addressed — who cares?" That's what the MLAs are doing, quite frankly.

If what the Minister of Finance, the House Leader, says is true — they've all been briefed, and their questions have been answered — then if those questions have been answered and if, supposedly, these questions were asked by the government MLAs, when the opposition asked these questions, you would think that the minister would have the answers. But no, he does not have the answers. He's in this House. We have not heard the minister address this issue at all. We have not heard the minister provide the kind of support.

J. Kwan: Then the Minister of Finance says he did answer. He says it's all under review, which equates to the notion of "I don't know." The answer to your question is: "I don't know. We're looking at it. Whatever the answer is, it doesn't matter." That's what it means.

Actually, I have a list of "don't knows" from the minister — from the estimates process. When I asked the minister these questions, he said: "Ask me when the legislation is introduced." Then he says: "When the regulations are produced. They will be accompanying the legislation as we debate it — or shortly thereafter." Here we are debating Bill 26, the legislation that the minister told me to wait for when we were going through estimates and then to ask him these questions. Well, here we are asking those questions.

Did the minister provide the answers? No. His answer is: "Well, it's all in the review. We're looking at it. Oh well. Regulations are being drafted." But what are the regulations going to say? He doesn't know. That's satisfactory?

Hon. Chair, I find it stunning. As an MLA, if people say to you, "Please raise these concerns in the House on my behalf as your constituent," then the MLA says: "Oh yes, of course I will." But we have not heard one single MLA ask a question in this House. If what the Government House Leader says is true that all of those questions have been canvassed in a secret meeting with the minister and that all their concerns have been addressed…

The Chair: Order, members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: …then you'd think that there's an actual answer to the questions, other than to say: "I don't know." Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, it's not good enough.

I have a letter here from a constituent — not my own constituent but somebody from the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development's constituency, the member for Richmond East. I spoke with this young woman — again, I think it was last week — when I was in my riding. The individual had phoned the member for Richmond East, had written to the member for Richmond East, in trying to seek answers from the member.

I was advised by this individual that the member for Richmond East will not meet with her or answer her questions. In fact, she was advised that the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development would only meet with people who have questions relating to her ministry and that she would not meet with constituents. This is a constituent from Richmond East.

J. Kwan: Absolutely. The House Leader is saying: "Do you think that's true?" I spoke with the person myself. I spoke with this young woman. She was very upset.

I would remind the member that we are speaking in respect to section 2. Could the member please ensure her comments are relevant to the eligibility of a family unit.

J. Kwan: Yes, Mr. Chair, that's exactly what it is about: the eligibility of a family unit to receive income assistance. I want to set the stage by providing the House with how this woman tried to get answers from her MLA and was unable to do so. Supposedly, the Minister of Finance says, all the questions have been answered. Presumably, if a constituent phones a government MLA, he or she should be able to get the answers or a response from the government MLA.

The reality is that this young woman was not able to, so she phoned my office. She provided me with the information. I talked with her on the phone. I committed to her that I would raise her situation in this House and ask the minister her question.

This is the situation as it relates to eligibility of a family unit. This woman actually wrote a whole bunch of letters. The most recent one is dated April 16. It's addressed to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. She has also written a similar letter to the Minister of Human Resources. Let me just read the letter into the record.

This is the point as it relates to eligibility. I do not want to just ask the one piece but put the entire letter into context, so I'm going to finish reading the letter.

I spoke with this person. She has given me consent to read her letter into the record and put her case forward.

I want to ask this question on eligibility — section 2, eligibility of a family unit. This young woman and her child — she's a single mom — rent the basement suite. She's been told by her worker that come July 1, she's no longer going to get her shelter portion because she lives in the family home — in theory — but she has to pay rent for that family home, which covers, yes, hydro and the like. She has to pay $520 rent in her parents' home.

J. Kwan: Yes, her parents are charging her rent. That is the reality. Sometimes that happens.

In this instance, under the eligibility of a family unit — because the ministry is going to be cutting off her shelter portion — is it to say, then, that because she's living in her parents' home, she's no longer eligible? Is that not a redefinition of a family unit under this new act?

Hon. M. Coell: I can't comment on a specific case, but I can say that if she is charged rent and she has a

formal rent agreement with her parents and it's a suite, she is eligible for shelter.

J. Kwan: Well, I'll share the letter with the minister. In fact, a copy of the letter was written to the minister on this issue. The woman is being told by her FAW that come July 1, she's going to be cut off of the rent portion and that she may lose the entire rent amount for the suite which she is renting. Is the minister saying, then, that is wrong — that the FAW has given her the wrong information, that she would not be cut off her rent portion under the definition of eligibility of a family unit in this act?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, I can't comment on that specific case. But if she is in a suite in her parents' basement and she has a formal rent agreement for a self-contained suite, she would be eligible for financial shelter assistance.

J. Kwan: When the minister says that, it seems to me that the criterion for her to continue to receive the shelter portion is that she have a formal rent agreement. Can the minister advise what this formal rent agreement looks like? Is it just an agreement that says so-and-so is renting this suite for this amount of money? Is it a tenancy agreement that he's looking for or an intent-to-rent form that normally the ministry sends out with their clients to have signed? Is that what they're looking for? I think that information is already there with the ministry.

Hon. M. Coell: There is no change from BC Benefits to this. You would just have to show that you were paying rent.

J. Kwan: I take it, then, that just the rent receipt will suffice — or a cheque. If she writes a cheque and there's a returned cheque, then that will suffice in terms of her ability to continue to receive the shelter portion. The minister is advising that under the eligibility of a family unit, that would not change.

Would it still be the case if a person, then, is living in a roommate situation and they're sharing rental costs to reduce the housing costs? In a roommate situation, would the person be eligible under this section of the act?

Hon. M. Coell: If two people are roommates, they can split the rent and each get the maximum shelter of $325. I believe that's no change from the present system.

Hon. M. Coell: Up to a maximum of $325 — the same as it is now. But they need to be roommates; they're not in a dependent relationship.

J. MacPhail: Of course, Mr. Chair, as you know, this section deals with the eligibility of the family unit. Of course this is a very wide-ranging section that's extremely important to the thousands of people who see their lives being changed by this legislation. I want to ask about the Child in the Home of a Relative review, because I want to put on record what I understand the situation to be now that the minister is reversing himself on. There are changes to the Child in the Home of a Relative program so that legal guardians…. This is the way it was before we just heard the minister stand up and say he was changing his mind. This is how it was as of April 1 with the new rules.

Changes to the Child in the Home of a Relative program: legal guardians or anyone who has entered into a written agreement with the director, as has been described under section 8 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, would no longer be eligible for Child in the Home of a Relative funding. That's where a child is in need of protection and is being placed in the home of a relative where the relative may not have the resources available to support the child, but it's in the best interests of the child to be placed with that relative. There used to be support for that family. That family may have no extra room for the child. It may not have the ability to feed an extra child, but it's in the best interests of the child to be placed in that home of a relative.

They used to get support. Now, as of April 1, that was cut off. Now this is what the minister is saying is under review. This program directly impacts families with very little disposable income who have to take on not only the extra emotional responsibilities which they're more than willing to do if caring for the child but also the financial responsibilities.

We were told up until this time — the minister rose up about half an hour ago — that if there was no concern expressed to the Ministry of Children and Family Development about the protection of that child, no funding would now be available for these families. That policy change directly and negatively impacted children.

The reason why this is important, as my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has pointed out, is that there is a huge sea change in how we're protecting children in this province. Thousands will no longer be taken into care when they're in need of protective custody. They'll be put elsewhere. We're not sure where, but maybe we had a hint of it from the Minister of Children and Family Development when he said: "Time and time again research tells us that the safety and well-being of children are better secured by promoting family and community capacity. In our ministry this means we will strive to keep children with their families where possible by putting the necessary supports in place."

I guess the government figured out just the same way that they're working at cross purposes with all of those big cabinet members at the cabinet table. All those Health ministers don't know what's going on. The Minister of Human Resources didn't know what was going on with the Minister of Children and Family Development, because at the same time that the Minister of Children and Family Development said we were going to give supports to the families to take in those

children in need of protective custody, the Minister of Human Resources was cutting them off. Now that program is under review, we learned today.

Could the minister tell us when the results of the review will be completed? Has he had any discussions with the Minister of Children and Family Development about slowing down or changing the placement of children in the home of a relative until this policy is finalized?

Here's why. Somehow this government thinks it's fine, that people should be happy that the policy is under review. And what are they asking questions for? Well, what possible interest is it to the child? How is it possibly in the best interests of a child to be placed in the home of a relative now, where the relative has the financial support to look after the child and then two months later finds out that they're cut off? How is that possibly in the best interests of the child?

Hon. M. Coell: We've had some initial meetings — the Minister of Children and Family Development, myself and our staff. We've asked staff to bring back some options by the end of June.

J. MacPhail: What are the interim steps? Families who now are taking in children of relatives — what are the guarantees they have for continuing support?

J. MacPhail: Policy is under review, so I would assume there will be an announcement. Maybe the minister could tell us when he's planning on having the review completed.

What happens to families who are now making decisions, both financial and emotional, to support the children of relatives? Will they be grandparented?

Hon. M. Coell: If someone is a guardian and applies at this point, they are receiving CIHR.

J. MacPhail: I'm asking the minister: what is the guarantee of continued support? People are making decisions about whether they can support a child of a relative now based on…. I know it's hard for some of these Liberal MLAs to understand this, but some families actually need the extra financial support, so they're making decisions. Will they be guaranteed continued support even if the minister changes his policy? In other words, will the regulation change, if it's negative — to cut people off support — be prospective rather than retrospective?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the best I can do is this: the program is under review at this point.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I have many questions in this area, so noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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


	YEAS — 61

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	Locke	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 61

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	Locke	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 55

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Santori	Barisoff	Nettleton
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Murray	Plant	Collins
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney

	[ Page 3201 ]

Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Johnston	Bennett	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	Locke
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 57

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	Santori	Barisoff
Nettleton	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Murray	Plant
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Johnston	Bennett
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
Locke	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 55

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Cheema	Hansen
Santori	Barisoff	Nettleton
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Murray	Plant	Collins
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Bennett	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	Locke	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	[ Page 3205 ]

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 53

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Hansen	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Wilson
Lee	Thorpe	Murray
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Bennett
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
Locke	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan