Hansard -- Thursday, May 9, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 9 (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		3319

Second Reading of Bills		3319
	Office for Children and Youth Act (Bill 43) Hon. G. Plant V. Anderson J. MacPhail
	Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 46) Hon. G. Plant J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		3328
	Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3331
	Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 44) Hon. K. Whittred

B. Kerr: I'd like to introduce a very special group today. There are a number of children from Lakewood Elementary School, and they are accompanied by their teachers, Krista Leaky and Robin Reston.

There's a very special member in that group, who I'm sure is going to be taking particular interest in the proceedings today, and that is Trevor Shepherd. Trevor is the grandson of our Clerk, George MacMinn. I'll ask the House to make everybody feel very welcome.

The purpose of Bill 43, the Office for Children and Youth Act, is to establish a child and youth officer who will provide support to children, youth and their families in obtaining relevant services and will provide independent observations and advice to government about the state of services provided or funded by government to children and youth.

The creation of this new office will eliminate overlap that currently exists in respect of the provision of services to children, and it implements the decisions of the core services review with respect to the office of the children's commissioner as it currently exists.

I do want to take this opportunity to thank Jane Morley for her work in undertaking a review of the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the children's commissioner and related positions. Her review formed the basis of the recommendations to government and has been largely accepted by government.

The new office will provide systemic advocacy by assisting children, youth and families to become effective self-advocates by promoting the establishment of advocacy services in communities. One of the provisions of the bill, which sets out the responsibilities of this office, provides that in extraordinary circumstances the officer may also provide individual advocacy. Monitoring — that is, the monitoring function that the officer will have — will include file reviews of specific programs identified in cooperation with ministries, as well as compliance with service standards and delivery of services under the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Adoption Act.

The officer will conduct investigations at the request of the Attorney General and facilitate child-focused research. Under the new model, which the bill will bring into effect…. Actually, I should restate that, because what I'm speaking of here as the new model is the new model across government for the representation and protection of the interests of children, youth and families — in particular, children and youth in families who are in receipt of services provided or funded by government.

Under this model, the office of the ombudsman will continue to investigate complaints about administrative practices and services provided by public bodies. The office of the coroner will continue to review child fatalities, and the public guardian and trustee will investigate injuries to children in care to determine whether legal action is warranted. Across government there will be responsibilities, including responsibilities provided by the office of the ombudsman, the office of the coroner, the public guardian and trustee and the office for children and youth — all there to act as oversight and advocacy and to review procedures in place to protect children and youth.

The government's larger objective is to work towards building public confidence in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which is, after all, the ministry responsible for delivering most of these services. As we can build, through appropriate oversight and advocacy, public confidence in the ministry as being the body primarily responsible for delivering these services and for ensuring that they are doing their job appropriately, we are going to be protecting and serving the best interests of all children and youth at risk in British Columbia.

In my work in the community over many years one of the difficulties is that there was no central location or integrating principle so often, as it seemed, between the different varieties of government ministries who had to deal with children and youth and families in the province. As long as programs were going along well and needs were being met, then all was well. However, in many circumstances the activities of one ministry, though well intentioned and well planned, may have run into conflict with the attempts of other ministries, and there was no way to deal with the problem when it arose.

Inevitably, it has been my experience that with particular issues you would go to one ministry, and they would say: "No, that belongs to the other ministry." You would go to the other ministry, and, no, that belongs to the one you just came from. On one specific case I remember, I had to say to the two ministries: "Well, it's the responsibility of government, and

you ministries get together and solve the problem, or I'll go to the media." The problem was very quickly solved, once they realized the necessity of coming together to do it and that it couldn't be solved separately from one ministry and the other.

Many attempts have been made to try and resolve that problem, but in the process what we did was add new persons and new divisions and created more complex circumstances. Even when we had the child advocate, the powers in the act which were to be given to that new advocate were never brought into place. So the work that she did was hampered.

I see the opportunity in this act to bring together all of these concerns and to have an overview on behalf of all of government of how we are responding to the needs and opportunities of children, youth and families. I think the coordination, the integration and the overview are very important.

I commend the minister and the government for bringing together the coordination, an opportunity if you like, and in the final analysis a place where you can go to get direction, oversight and opportunity to respond to children and youth. I'd like to commend the minister for this act and look forward to its implementation, because I see it developing a number of things.

It develops within the community the opportunity for communities to take responsibility. It gives them the privilege to do that. It also has the opportunity that where individual attention is needed for a particular circumstance, there is a place to go. Also, it's undertaking to be proactive in developing education and opportunity, so that the people involved can be self-advocates and have the resources and the information to do so.

I very briefly want to thank the minister and commend the directions and opportunities of this particular act.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I just may note that if indeed I extend the regular time, it will be as designated speaker.

I'm a little taken aback by the member for Vancouver-Langara in some way suggesting that this is a step forward. What this legislation does…. The legislation that's being discussed today — which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was introduced just yesterday…. I've barely had a chance to read the legislation, let alone do the research necessary, but it was extremely important to me, so I spent a bit of time doing that.

This legislation repeals two other acts that we're going to spend some time examining. It repeals the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act and the Children's Commission Act, and this is what we have left. It's a sorry, sorry, very poor third or fourth cousin to those two acts.

The question, I guess, that members of this Legislature have to ask themselves is: how are children and youth better off with this legislation, and how did we get here? Last summer the Attorney General and I engaged in debate where he introduced an amendment that extended the term of the child, youth and family advocate for a period of up to 12 months.

At that time, upon close questioning, I asked him his intentions. Throughout all of that, the Attorney General suggested that his government was doing everything to ensure that the job of protecting kids at risk, kids in care, and ensuring that there is proper accountability for those who have statutory authority over those kids is what he was going to move toward. He even referenced the fact that he wanted to ensure that we have the best possible system for protecting the interests of kids in care.

I was looking through the legislation to see where possibly I could turn to this legislation and see what this Liberal government's definition of "best interests of the child" is. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? It's nowhere in the bill. It's not even mentioned. It's not even there that the overriding concern should be what's in the best interests of the child. I thought: well, is that a step backward, or is it merely carrying on what was in place before?

Here's what the previous child, youth and family advocate's responsibilities were. "The office of the child, youth and family advocate is established to ensure that the rights and interests of children, youths and their families relating to designated services are protected and advanced and that their views are heard and considered." That's gone.

Next, the advocate was "to ensure that children, youths and their families have access to fair, responsive and appropriate complaint and review processes at all stages in the provision of designated services" — that's gone — "to provide information and advice to the government and communities about the availability, effectiveness, responsiveness and relevance of designated services to children, youths and their families; to promote and coordinate in communities the establishment of advocacy services for children, youths and their families." Then lastly, the advocate was "to perform any other functions assigned to the advocate by an enactment." That's what's being repealed. All those are gone. How is that a step forward for children or youths in this province?

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the advocate reported directly to the Legislature. The advocate was responsible not to the Attorney General, not to the government of the day but to the Legislature. The term of the advocate was long enough so that her or his term would span the electoral cycle and could not become an election football.

Where are we today? Well, that independent officer is gone. It's replaced with a person who reports to the Attorney General. It's replaced with a person whose annual report, while required, has to go to the Attorney General, and then he will release that report as soon as is practicable. In children's lives this Liberal government may have a different definition of what is practicable than what is in the best interest of the child.

I'm just taken aback by those that say this is a step forward. It took us a long time in this province to really determine what improvements we could make to the services to children and youth and their families. It has been a painful process. For me personally it has been a process filled with anguish and failure and then sometimes success, but a lot of failure.

There have been times in this Legislature when I was on the other side of the House, and I was being grilled about circumstances facing children by the now-government, and I knew they were right. They were asking questions where I had no defence. A child's life had been adversely impacted because the community and government had let that child down.

It was under those circumstances that our government of the day said we can no longer leave children and youth at risk solely to the government of the day and that there must be an advocate in place to represent the best interests of that child. The opposition of the day supported that and supported the independence of that. There were others who called for it as well.

We don't hear the government talking much more about the Gove report. Some of the new members of the Legislature may not even remember the work that Judge Gove did around children at risk in this province. Judge Gove was appointed to investigate the tragic circumstances of the very short life of Matthew Vaudreuil and his death, even while Matthew and his mom were receiving services from the community and the then Ministry of Social Services.

Judge Gove made a series of recommendations that the then government of the day and the then opposition, now government, relied on heavily. Sometimes his recommendations were used as a shield, and sometimes they were used as a sword. Nevertheless, Mr. Gove's recommendations were respected and were on the mark.

Here's what Mr. Gove had to say about the role of the advocate. He recommended that the advocate for children and youth be strengthened, not eliminated. He said: "Children who are affected by the administrative decisions need easy access to independent advocacy, especially when their interests and the interests of their parents and other caregivers differ." Mr. Gove said to strengthen the advocate, not eliminate it.

What happened during the estimates? The Minister of Children and Family Development said he expected services that children need and in terms of advocacy will in fact be enhanced — he was commenting on future changes — by the ability of the social workers to address their needs from the context of the personal contact and relationship that they have developed with our children in care.

We should have sat up and taken notice, I guess. The Minister of Children and Family Development was somehow suggesting then that there was no need for independent advocacy.

I'm kind of curious as to what's changed. How is it that the world has changed so much since the Gove report, since the unbelievable debates we used to have in this chamber and the sense of failure that I felt as the minister responsible? Have there been huge successes since then? Have we somehow made the lives of our children who are at risk better in this province?

Well, I think probably the answer to that is no. I don't claim that as a partisan victory; I claim it as a sense of what we all have to admit as failure and move to strive to do a better job. Yet here we are today taking away from children and youth and families an independent voice and turning the responsibility for any protection of interests over to this government and this government alone.

We also have the repeal of the children's commissioner. I guess maybe, to give him the benefit of the doubt, somehow that's why the member for Vancouver-Langara thinks that this may be a good thing — that somehow duplication will be eliminated. Well, isn't it interesting that this government chooses to eliminate duplication on the side of taking away independence and closing the services to within government? How is that possibly strengthening through elimination of duplication?

Was there duplication? Are the strengths of those two acts somehow now being reflected in this new legislation? Well, sadly, the answer to that again is no. Here's the Children's Commission Act that's being repealed. What was the commission to do? Well, unlike this legislation, it had guiding principles. There are no guiding principles in this new act. What are the guiding principles that are being eliminated for the Children's Commission? I read from the Children's Commission Act:

Those are the principles by which the children's commissioner had to guide himself or herself. Those

are gone. I'm just wondering: what Liberal MLA can tell me that that's a step forward for children in this province?

I asked to see the debate that the Attorney General and I engaged in around the amendment to extend the office of the child, youth and family advocate for a year. I wanted to go through what hint we had that these changes might come. I described at that time — for those that weren't here — the process we went through to establish the child, youth and family advocate, because I remember the Attorney General wasn't an MLA at the time. I said to the Attorney General:

I took comfort from those remarks. I took the silence of the government in moving forward to repeal the two pieces of legislation that are now being repealed as a sign of comfort as well.

The Attorney General at the time — I also believe this was last summer — said:

Then yesterday we had this piece of legislation introduced, and, frankly, there's been so much flurry of activity by this government that pretty much everybody overlooked the change. Not overlooked it — I apologize. I apologize to the members in this House, and I apologize to the media for suggesting they overlooked it. But it didn't spring up as something that should capture our attention the way massive other changes that are being introduced should capture our attention. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I think this is such a step backward that it will go down on the record of this government as being one of the biggest mistakes they have made.

I predict that as our society and our communities in British Columbia struggle to protect our children, children will fall through the cracks, and there will be no voice to represent the outrage when that happens. There will be no independent advocate to speak with a clear voice, one of passion and compassion, but an objective voice about the harm done to that future child. There will be no voice of independence who will say: "Here's where the community could have improved. Here's where the government let us down. Here's where the parents were at fault." There will be no voice to do that. Instead, we may have to wait until the report is made to the government, and the government then decides to release the report.

I actually had greater hope from the Attorney General in this area. The core review itself was interesting. The core review was done of the Children's Commission, and this is the review upon which the Attorney General is relying to do away with the advocate and the Children's Commission and to replace those two bodies with a child and youth officer that reports directly to the Attorney General.

I'll just read some sections, if I may. I accept that some may say that I should read the entire report into the record. I have done my best to fairly précis the core review, but I would welcome some logic from the government to show where I'm wrong in précising this. It's entitled "Individual Advocacy In The Complaints Process." It's from the core services review of the children's commissioner.

Then Ms. Morley goes on to comment on the child and youth advocate that is being eliminated today. She said that instead of providing individual advocacy services through regional offices, the advocate has seen her role as enabling and building the capacity of children to advocate for themselves and of families, social workers, foster parents and community advocates on behalf of the children for whom they are responsible.

What do we have to replace that? We have an act that appoints an officer. The officer isn't reporting to the Ministry of Children and Family Development — that's true — but it is reporting to the Attorney General. There's no independence.

I looked for the word "advocacy" in the bill. Maybe I'm too close to this and I've missed it. I'm sorry — there it is: "…in extraordinary circumstances, advocate on behalf of individual children and youth to ensure that their views are heard and considered." That's the only time it's mentioned. One has to have….

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. The Attorney General is correct: "…promote and coordinate in communities the establishment of advocacy services for children, youth and their families." That's amongst a whole series of other sections that require the child and youth officer to provide information, to monitor the delivery of services, to provide advice to government and communities and to comment publicly on matters affecting children and youth. In fact, the officer is called an officer now, the child and youth officer. It's not even called an advocate.

I'm sure the government probably thinks they're doing the best. I don't know why they think that. I actually have no idea why they think that. I can't even bring myself to suggest ill intent here, but I can bring myself to say this is a mistake. It's a step backward. For all of us who think that the most important role government and communities can play is to at least give every child a fighting chance regardless of their circumstances, this is a step backward. The opposition will be voting against it.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 43. The Attorney General closes the debate.

Hon. G. Plant: I respect the long experience that the opposition leader has with this issue, with the challenges government is faced with when it comes to assuming responsibility for the protection of children at risk. I certainly respect what she says, speaking from her long personal experience of how difficult it is for government to meet those challenges.

This bill, I believe, does in fact represent a step forward in terms of giving government the tools it needs to provide the oversight, the advocacy, the monitoring, the advice, the information that is needed to ensure that children and youth who are at risk, who are receiving services from government, have some measure of comfort that their interests are being taken care of.

One of the things that is a challenge for people, I'm sure, is to wrap their heads around this fact. If you have three people doing the same thing, you're not necessarily better off. You're better off if one person has the tools they need to do the job that needs to be done. When we looked across government at the range of services government provides to children and youth at risk, there was overlap and duplication. Overlap and duplication don't improve service. They confuse it; they dilute it. As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara knows from personal experience, they make it harder to know where to turn if you're trying to get help on behalf of a young person.

What this bill does, building on the report that was done for government, is that it says there are some important tasks and functions that need to be discharged, and we should attempt to ensure that there is not any unnecessary overlap or duplication in respect of those. We should consolidate and merge, where appropriate, those functions and see if we can find a way to deliver the services government needs to deliver with the most effective use of resources and in a way that is most accessible to the public.

The public needs to be told that the office we are seeking to create here is not the only service available for children and youth. Fundamentally, it is the Ministry of Children and Family Development that has the responsibilities we're talking about. What we are looking at here in this bill is something that stands outside that ministry and that acts, in effect, as sort of a watchdog and speaks on behalf of the interests of children and youth at risk, but this office is not the only agency outside the ministry that will continue to provide services in some circumstances.

In my first remarks I spoke about the continuing and important functions of the ombudsman in relation to the kinds of services that are provided to children at risk. The ombudsman is not just by law an independent officer of this Legislature but also, by long tradition, is assertive of that independence. That is, the ombudsman isn't just independent because someone opening up the statute books behind me here would see that the ombudsman is defined as independent. The ombudsman is also independent because a succession of ombudsmen, people holding the office, have worked hard to assert that independence and built a strong public culture around respecting that independence.

True independence, in my view, requires both of those elements — that is, that some measure of independence be enshrined in statute, which this bill does. It takes the responsibilities for oversight in relation to advocacy and monitoring, and it puts them outside and independent of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, so there is that structural independence that's created here.

There is also kind of a functional issue of independence. That is the extent to which the people who hold these offices actually build a culture of independence.

This bill reaffirms, in effect, the continuing important role of the office of the ombudsman. The office of the ombudsman has the function and responsibility of investigating complaints about administrative practices and services provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The office of the coroner is unaffected by anything in this bill. In fact, the office of the coroner will continue to review child fatalities. I don't think anyone in this Legislature could credibly claim that coroners are not independent. Coroners have a long tradition of independence.

The public guardian and trustee will continue to have — and will have over time, I think, greater — responsibilities. In particular, the office of the public guardian and trustee will have the responsibility to investigate injuries to children in care to determine whether legal action is warranted. Again, the office of the public guardian and trustee has a long tradition of independence from government.

This office that we're creating here — yes, I say — is independent in all of the ways that independence is important.

We are indeed doing away with an office called the children's commissioner, which the member has spent less time speaking about. As the member knows, it was an office that her government created, and it reported to the Attorney General. That office is being done away with, as is the child, youth and family advocate.

The best of both of those offices and the parts that don't overlap with any other service are being merged, brought into this bill and will become part of the responsibilities of the child and youth officer. That's forward progress: to move beyond unnecessary duplication and overlap towards a more coherent, integrated model of service delivery. In this case, it's a model of service delivery for a function that requires a degree of independence and in fact will have that degree of independence.

The officer that we're speaking about will have the ability to make reports. In fact, the officer will have the obligation to report on the work of the office, and the Attorney General will be required to lay those annual reports before the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable.

I understand the member's concern about timeliness. When we look at the work of the Children's Commission, for example, we find that the work done by the Children's Commission in terms of investigating the issues of concern to the member is work that takes a long time and often doesn't happen until some years after the event. I think there is ample opportunity in the structure we are creating here to ensure that the interests of children and youth get attention when it is needed. That will become a matter of public knowledge and, in fact, will become a matter of report to this Legislative Assembly.

The member spoke about the important functions of the child, youth and family advocate and also the children's commissioner. She did not — and I can understand why — spend very much time outlining the functions of the child and youth officer. People looking at this bill and then at the Children's Commission Act and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act will see that we have brought from those two pieces of legislation into this legislation those important functions and responsibilities. In fact, we have brought into this legislation the recognition that all of what service delivery means in the context of child, family and community service is set out in sections 2 and 3 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Those sections are brought into this bill.

What the office that is being created by this bill will do is monitor the delivery of services in relation to the requirements of the Child, Family and Community Service Act and, in particular, the requirements that children are entitled to be protected from abuse, neglect and harm or threat of harm; the requirement that a family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children, and the responsibility for the protection of children rests primarily with the parents; and the other important guiding principles that are part of the Child, Family and Community Service Act that are expressly recognized here in Bill 43 as being part of the functions and the responsibilities of the child and youth officer.

We did have a debate about these issues last summer, and everything I said in that debate last summer foreshadowed everything we are doing in this bill and is in fact consistent with everything we are doing in this bill. Yes, the bill was tabled yesterday, but it gives effect to the recommendations of the Morley report that have been available to the public for months. In fact, those recommendations were approved by cabinet at

an open cabinet meeting weeks and weeks ago. I forget when it was, but these issues and our general intended direction have been a matter of public discussion for many weeks now. Now we bring the details into the Legislature.

I welcome the opposition member's scrutiny of these provisions from the perspective that she brings, which is the important need to ensure that government is held to account for the services that it provides to children and youth. Government can be held to account by passionate opposition from the opposition members. We did that when we were in opposition, and I expect no less from this member when she sits in opposition, and we will get no less.

This bill protects the best interests of children and youth. This bill ensures that all of what the former government did to protect the best interests of children and youth in terms of the institutions and all those values that those institutions represented are represented in this structure that we are putting in place, which has about it the important element of bringing together, merging and simplifying functions.

At one point the member said that all of the functions of the child, youth and family advocate are gone. I invite people to read the functions of the child, youth and family advocate from that act and then read the functions of the child and youth officer. The child and youth officer is to provide support to children, youth and their families in obtaining relevant services and to provide independent observations and advice to government about the state of services provided or funded by government to children and youth in British Columbia, including the full range of those services — not just child, family and community services but early childhood development and care services, mental health services for children and youth, addiction services for children and youth, youth justice services and services for youth and young adults during transition to adulthood.

Those are all within the scope of the functions and responsibilities of the child and youth officer. For the purpose of carrying out those functions, this officer may provide information and advice to children, youth and families about how to effectively access services that meet their needs. They provide information and advice to children, youth and their families about how to become effective self-advocates with respect to the rights of children and youth in care under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

In extraordinary circumstances they may advocate on behalf of individual children and youth to ensure that views are heard and considered; to promote and coordinate in communities the establishment of advocacy services for children, youth and their families; to monitor the delivery of services in relation to the requirements of the Child, Family and Community Service Act and in particular the guiding principles that inform the provision of those services under that act; to monitor the delivery of services provided to children in relation to the relevant service delivery standards; and to provide advice to government and communities about the effectiveness and responsiveness and relevance of those services to tell government whether its services are working, whether they're effective, whether they are in fact responsive and whether they're relevant. Those are all important tasks for the office that we propose to create in this legislation.

Here's that last one: for the purpose of carrying out his or her functions, the child and youth officer may "comment publicly on matters affecting children and youth." That is surely an important element of this idea of independence. What is meant by the idea of independence is in part the fact that someone will speak out publicly from a position of knowledge, understanding and experience and say: "It is my job to be sure that government is doing its job to protect the interests of children and youth, and here is what I have to say to the public on those matters." The public will hear what the child and youth officer has to say about those matters.

Those reports and statements will be brought into this Legislature by members of the opposition, by private members who will use those statements to hold government to account here in this Legislature for the extent to which it has successes or failures in discharging its functions.

It's a hugely challenging responsibility that the Minister of Children and Family Development has. It has to be remembered that in our system of democracy, the responsibility to ensure that the children and youth who are in care or at risk are in fact being looked after is fundamentally a responsibility of the minister who is responsible for children and family development.

What we're talking about putting in place here and what has existed in the past are oversight mechanisms to create voices to speak to the public and government about the extent to which the minister and his ministry do their job adequately. Over the long haul, we must surely all be committed to this goal: that the minister and the ministry have to work to continue to build public confidence in the work they do. If that happens and as that happens, and I may say — I am confident — when that happens, the public will be better served, and the public will think that they are better served.

Along the way this government has created and will continue to support the existence of mechanisms, processes and structures that will ensure that the minister can be held to account for the success or failure of the discharge of those responsibilities. The ombudsman, the coroner, the public guardian and trustee, the child and youth officer and members of this Legislature will all be able to hold government and the minister to account for the work they do.

I am confident that this bill will give members of the opposition and the public the tools it needs to ensure that the Children and Family Development ministry is appropriately and continuously held to account, from a position of independence, for the success or the failure of its activities.

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

Bill 43, Office for Children and Youth Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Plant: Bill 46 amends section 2 of the Lobbyists Registration Act to include an exemption for employees….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will members please make their way quietly so we may hear the Attorney.

Hon. G. Plant: Actually, why don't I start where I should have started. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act that contains provisions amending several statutes for which the Attorney General is responsible, and I will now provide an overview of those amendments.

Section 2 of the Lobbyists Registration Act is amended to include an exemption for employees of bodies representing boards and councils such as municipal councils, regional district boards, improvement district boards, school district boards or other local government authorities. The act already exempts members and staff of these boards and councils.

In practical terms, to use an illustration, the act already contains an exemption for employees of municipal councils, but the act as drafted omitted to extend that exemption to people who work for the umbrella organizations that represent municipal councils such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities or the regional municipal associations. What we're doing in this bill is extending the exemption to ensure that it will apply to the people who work for those umbrella organizations.

The amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act also include a correction to an oversight in the original drafting that has been identified as part of the work being done to implement this act, which is expected to happen later this year. A reference in the bill as originally enacted was omitted to a regulation-making power in section 11 of the act. It is amended to add the necessary reference.

There are amendments to the Offence Act here which are intended to streamline the hearing of violation ticket disputes, primarily traffic tickets. These amendments will allow a person to dispute a fine amount or request time to pay by allowing them to apply through the court in writing for a decision by a justice.

In effect, if you were to take the analogy of a larger criminal process, a Criminal Code sort of process, what these amendments do is where someone wants to admit that they committed the offence but wishes to speak to sentence, they will no longer be required to attend in person for that purpose. They will instead be permitted to speak to sentence in writing, that is, by making a submission to the court for decision by a justice. The kinds of issues that are specifically contemplated here are someone wanting to dispute a fine amount or request time to pay the fine.

The amendments to the Offence Act will also allow enforcement officers to submit their evidence in writing, as opposed to appearing in person. The goal again here, as with all of these amendments to the Offence Act, is to streamline the adjudicate process by reducing the need for the unnecessary appearances, particularly in relation to the facts that are seldom seriously disputed. More generally, as I've said, the provisions will allow enforcement officers to submit their evidence in writing, as opposed to appearing in person.

These amendments will also provide for a reduced fine if the defendant pleads guilty and pays the fine within 30 days. There are, of course, many people who currently choose not to pay their fine, dispute the amount and the fact of the allegation of the offence and then put the state to the burden of proof in a court process that costs money. Our goal is to see if we can encourage people who are so motivated to do this, to pay their fine by paying a reduced fine within 30 days. We think that we can in fact reduce the burden on our court system by creating this reduced fine opportunity.

This is something that is part of our political culture, if you will, in the context of municipal violations and parking tickets and so on, but it has not been part of the way in which we have been allowed to deal with Motor Vehicle Act and other provincial violation tickets disputes. This bill will give government that tool.

There are also two amendments being made to the Provincial Court Act to ensure that complex legal issues, such as applications under the Constitutional Question Act, are not heard in traffic court but would instead be heard by a Provincial Court judge. The goal here is to clarify the authority, particularly of the judicial justices of the peace — judicial officers who hear matters in traffic court — to ensure that if we're talking about a constitutional issue, it's only disposed of or heard by a provincial court judge.

There will be opportunities under the Offence Act provisions to expand the use of video conferencing in telephone appearances. They are also important changes, because they assist us as we move towards a broader conception of what it means to provide justice services by eliminating the need for unnecessary in-person attendances in court.

There are also amendments to the Provincial Court Act that are necessary to implement the pension recommendations of the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee. These amendments set out in legislation the special features of the pension plan arrangements for Provincial Court judges, to the extent that they are in any respect different from the pension arrangements that exist for regular pension plan members.

Let me outline the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee pension recommendations. They are as follows. A judge with a spouse should be entitled to a joint life and last survivor pension. A single judge should be entitled to receive a life pension with a ten-year guarantee. The pension accrual rate for judges should be 3 percent per year, excluding the Canada Pension Plan offset. The judges' contribution rate should be set as 7 percent of their full salary. Judges should be entitled to accrue a pension of up to 70 percent of their best three-year average salary.

These recommendations were part of the report of the Judicial Compensation Committee in 2001. That report was laid before the Legislature in accordance with statutory procedures for that purpose in the Provincial Court Act. The report itself has been approved as a result of the application of those procedures, but the implementation of the report requires legislative change. Those legislative changes are the ones that I'm speaking about in this bill.

There are also amendments to the Sheriff Act. These amendments will provide sheriffs with clear legislative authority to screen for and seize weapons from individuals entering courthouse facilities. These amendments will not change the current screening practices at any courthouse in the province. Screening of court participants now only occurs for high-risk and high-profile trials. Nothing is expected to change as a result of the introduction of these amendments.

There is an exception to this practice, however. That's at the Vancouver provincial courthouse on Main Street, where there has been a permanent screening station in place since 1995.

In addition, these amendments will provide the necessary legislative authority for sheriffs to deny access to people who refuse to be screened and to evict persons from the courthouse who pose a safety threat to occupants of the building. Again, my understanding is that nothing of significance is intended to change as a result of these amendments, but I am told that there was a court challenge in another province or some other part of Canada to the functions and responsibilities of sheriffs. Issues arose with respect to whether sheriffs did in fact have the authority to undertake this kind of screening activity. These amendments are introduced, therefore, to clarify that authority and to ensure that sheriffs have the authority to do that which they have been doing and that which I believe the public interest requires that they be permitted to do.

Mr. Speaker, the repeal of the Peace River residency requirement in the Supreme Court Act is at the request of the Hon. Chief Justice Donald Brenner of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice has informed government that he does not require a full-time judge based in Dawson Creek. In addition, the Chief Justice wants to avoid single-judge locations, to ensure that there is judicial discourse between judges servicing the same locations and to provide opportunities for local lawyers and litigants to have their cases heard by more than one judge. This residency requirement for the Peace River district was anomalous. The provisions in this bill are intended to remove that anomaly. I have to and want to emphasize that the Chief Justice has committed to maintain levels of service to the Peace River district.

J. MacPhail: As is the custom, the debate on these matters usually takes place at committee stage. I will be engaging in a thorough debate around a couple of points. One is the Offence Act. I will be exploring with the Attorney General this new method by which procedures for disputing traffic tickets will take place — how it works with the courts around the province; how one still gets to face one's accuser, the police officer, in a court of law; who bears the cost; and what costs are incurred and by whom in doing that. There are some concerns that, yes, this may be a cost-saving mechanism on one side of the legal equation — the policing

costs and municipal costs saved there — but what costs, if any, are imposed on citizens who wish to challenge traffic tickets?

I also wish to explore further the effect of the pension increases for judges and the effect of the increasing security in the courts, as well as to explore the implementation of the Lobbyists Registration Act. All of that will be explored at committee stage.

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

Bill 46, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; H. Long in the chair.

J. Kwan: I'm just going to get my files organized here, and then I'll be asking questions of the minister.

Let me put some facts on the record about section 2. Some 20 percent of disability level 2 applicants are granted disability level 1. As of February 2002 there were 7,043 people receiving disability level 1. Under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, persons with significant disabilities who are found to be not disabled enough for the Ontario Disability Support Program Act may well be required to participate in workfare as a condition of receiving income support.

While B.C. is not implementing workfare as has been done in Ontario, there will exist requirements to seek employment or training as well as limits to the amount of time a person can access regular income assistance. Someone who was previously receiving benefits under the category of disability level 1 may now be forced off income assistance altogether once their two-year time limit is up. They will go from $603 per month to $510 per month to perhaps nothing, all because they do not qualify under this new definition.

The B.C. Association for Community Living has also raised the concern that "neither the costs of having a disability nor the barriers to employment faced by people with developmental disabilities are recognized by this legislation."

Section 2(2)(b)(i) requires that a person seeking disability benefits demonstrate that their ability to perform daily living activities is directly and significantly restricted to the point that he or she can't manage on their own.

From a letter in the Times Colonist dated April 27, 2002, from the B.C. Brain Injury Association:

Let me just ask the minister this question: could the minister please define for us, under this section of the act, what "significantly restricts" means?

Hon. M. Coell: That would be in the opinion of the health professionals' assessment. Those professions that would be able to do that assessment would be the medical health practitioner, registered psychologist, registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse, occupational therapist, physical therapist or a social worker.

J. Kwan: The answer that the minister gave is not at all clear to indicate, within this act, what "significantly restricts" means. It is essential to get clarity on this matter, as it defines eligibility for people with disabilities.

I can understand and appreciate that the minister advises that it is up to the medical practitioner to decide what "significantly restricts" is, but it is not the medical practitioner who will approve whether or not the individual would qualify for disability benefits under this act. It is the ministry. Therefore, the intent of the ministry has to be clear. The intent of the minister has to be clear so that practitioners will be able to be guided in their work in making their diagnosis. The former act provided for that. It specifically stated that if a person's daily living activities were restricted beyond reasonable time limits for them to perform these activities, that qualified them to receive income assistance. That provision is now gone from this act.

What is the minister anticipating with the elimination of that phrase from this act, and what are the parameters which define "significantly restricts"?

Hon. M. Coell: One of the assessments will be the length of time that it takes a person to perform daily living activities. That would be one factor.

J. Kwan: What length of time will then be defined under this act as "significantly restricts" for one to perform daily living activities?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, the professional will use an assessment tool. The tool is under development by the ministry. It will be a similar approach to assessment used for home care.

J. Kwan: Again, the answer is not at all clear in terms of the definition of "significantly restricts." The minister says it would be the time that would be assessed.

Formerly, it was clearly defined as "within a reasonable time frame." Generally, a person will know what is reasonable and what's not. Here that provision is gone, so we have no idea to gauge…. The minister says that that work is being developed.

Let me just let the minister know about some of the concerns in the community. This is a letter to the Minister of Human Resources from the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied of Greater Vancouver: "By eliminating 'performing tasks within a reasonable period of time,' many people will not qualify for benefits. Thus, they will spend excessive amounts of time and energy performing daily living tasks, and will have no time and energy left to do anything else."

People from different communities are concerned, and we have no clarity from the minister to date with respect to what "significantly restricts" means. What does it mean? What is the time frame? Surely the minister must have something in mind.

Is it one hour for a person to get ready to go to work or go out to perform their daily living tasks? Is it two hours? Is it two and a half hours? What is it?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member, I think, thoroughly canvassed yesterday, activities of daily living are going to be defined in regulations. The example could be one hour; it could be four — as a part of the assessment done by the medical professional.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister is of no assistance. He just said it could be one hour; it could be four hours. I suppose it could even be ten hours for a person to perform their daily living activities.

That goes right to the point from the people who have written a letter to the minister, from the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied of Greater Vancouver. By eliminating the clause which reads "performing tasks within a reasonable period of time," many people would not qualify because there is no clear understanding of what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. People may well spend their entire day getting ready and performing their daily living tasks and have no energy left to do anything else. That is a great difficulty, I think, in this section of the act.

Let me just go to another area within this section of the act — section 2(3), which outlines what qualifies as a severe mental impairment under the proposed legislation. It uses the definition of a person with a mental disorder as prescribed under the Mental Health Act: "'person with a mental disorder' means a person who has a disorder of the mind that requires treatment and seriously impairs the person's ability (a) to react appropriately to the person's environment or (b) to associate with others."

The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities claims that "the person with a mental disorder" definition is extremely narrow and will eliminate people with clinical depression or anxiety disorders from receiving disability benefits.

The Mental Health Action Research and Advocacy Association of Greater Vancouver published its final report in February 2002, entitled Life Experiences of Consumer Single Mothers. This report documents the experiences of single mothers with mental health diagnoses. This report clearly shows the cyclical and episodic nature of mental health illness.

"For consumer mothers in this study, four live on less than $10,000 per year, and six have an income between $10,000 and $19,999 per year. Keeping body, mind and spirit alive and well is no mean feat on these low incomes. There's less money to act as a buffer or to provide them with the services they need. The Ministry of Human Resources provides a very minimal amount of financial support, and it's barely enough."

Consumer single mothers talking about surviving: "B.C. Benefits covers basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter and then only barely. The total is $786.42 per month for a single person. Consumer single mothers probably qualify for either disability 1 or disability 2, but whatever the designation may be, the allowable shelter portion of their welfare cheque is $325 for a single person."

Under the proposed legislation it will matter what their designation will be. If they should not qualify under the new definition proposed in this bill, they will see themselves receiving less money per month and will be subject to employment plans, reduction of crisis grants, perhaps the loss of extended medical coverage. Most importantly, they'll have a time limit looming over them during the two years they're allowed to receive assistance.

Hon. M. Coell: I was under the understanding that the member was reading from a letter, not a report.

J. Kwan: I read from the letter, and then I moved on to a report. This is the report from the Mental Health Action Research and Advocacy Association of Greater Vancouver. It published its final report in February 2002, entitled Life Experiences of Consumer Single Mothers. This report documents the experiences of single

mothers with mental health diagnoses. It clearly shows the cyclical and episodic nature of mental illness. I quoted a section from that report. That is the report I'm referring to.

Hon. M. Coell: I am not familiar with the report the member mentions, but I am very familiar with the episodic problems with mental illness.

J. Kwan: Well, then, what has the minister done to ensure that single mothers with mental health diagnoses continue to receive the support they need?

Hon. M. Coell: Based on discussions with advocacy groups, in the reference the member was making, we actually removed the reference to the Mental Health Act so that we're able to have a broad definition that will capture those with mental disorders. That would include single mothers. We did this on the advice of the B.C. Mental Health Association and the B.C. Association for Community Living.

J. Kwan: I have a list here with me. I understand a copy has been faxed to the minister, and we have now received a copy in the opposition's office. This list provides all the diagnoses that currently qualify for disability 2. These are the cases obtained from the database from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities from 1998 to the year 2001. I understand a copy has been sent to the minister as well as to the deputy.

They have asked for a response from the minister on these diagnoses. Will these people be able to continue to receive income assistance? They have not received a response to date.

I'm going to go through this list with the minister. Yesterday the minister said that there are two things that would be determining the qualification or eligibility of someone with a disability. One is the medical diagnosis, and the other is the issue around the need to perform daily living activities.

Let me just ask the question of item No. 1 on this list. Right now individuals on DB-2 are diagnosed with this particular disability: abdominal lesions. Would the persons with this diagnosis still qualify for disability under this new act?

Hon. M. Coell: I think what the member's asking is, basically, supposition without details, and I don't think it's appropriate that I would go through a list. It would be better for a medical practitioner to determine on a case-by-case basis who would be eligible.

J. Kwan: Well, medical practitioners have already gone through these on a case-by-case basis. These are the people who are now qualified for disability 2, and their cases, between the years of 1998 and 2001. They're currently already qualified. Medical practitioners already said that they're qualified. With the change of this act I want to understand from the minister whether or not it is the intent of the minister that with the change in the eligibility criteria relating to disabilities, these individuals would be qualified.

There is a long list of diagnoses here, and I've been asked by the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities to go through this list because they have faxed this information to the minister and to the deputy minister, and they have not received a response to date. This is now the time when we're debating eligibility for people with disabilities, and I would like to know whether or not such individuals with these diagnoses, who are now currently eligible for disability 2, would still qualify under the new act.

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry will not be requiring all DB-2 clients to reapply. For example, the ministry is working with the Ministry of Health Services mental health division and the Ministry of Children and Family Development to identify clients with mental health disorders who are receiving treatment and those who are developmentally delayed and living in group homes. These clients would clearly meet the new criteria, so they will not need to reapply. They will be advised that a review of their designation has indicated that they will meet the criteria and be moved onto continuous assistance.

Similarly, the ministry will be reviewing all client files to determine the extent of information already available. If there is significant information on a client's file to determine a client's eligibility based on the new criteria, their designation will be confirmed without the need to reapply or be reassessed.

J. Kwan: That is a very broad sort of definition, if you will, relating to disability eligibility. I want to actually get to the specifics because the questions in the broader community are from people who are faced with specific circumstances and with specific diagnoses. As I mentioned, they are people who are now on DB-2. They are people who have been diagnosed by medical practitioners, and they have been identified as individuals with disabilities and qualify for assistance under the former act. Now, with the change, I want to know specifically whether or not these individuals with these diagnoses will still be able to receive income assistance under the disability definition.

Let me just read a couple of other diagnoses onto the record: abdominal wall problems; acute anxiety disorder, depression, personality disorder; acute leukemia; acute osteoarthritis and depression; advanced hep C, depression and anxiety; advanced hep C, liver disease and depression; affective disorder, depression; affective disorder, depression, FM — I think that's a medical term for I'm not sure what; affective disorder, depression, head injury; affective disorder, hep C; agoraphobia; agoraphobia, depression, panic attacks; AIDS and dyslexia; alcoholism; alcoholism, drug abuse and depression; ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease; Alzheimer's; amputation of the right leg; amputation, personality disorder; amputee; amputee of left foot and heart disease; amputee, arthritis; amputee, chronic asthma, depression;

amputee, depression; amputee, diabetic, neuropathy; angina, Crohn's disease; angina, diabetes, clotted artery, right leg; angina, hypertension; angina, diabetes, high blood pressure; angina, type 2 diabetes; anxiety, panic, agoraphobia, epilepsy. Let me just stop there.

These are just some of the people, as I mentioned, who've been diagnosed and are qualified for DB-2. I'd like to know whether these people with these diagnoses would qualify for the continuous designation under Bill 27.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said before, it's not appropriate for me to go through case-by-case issues. What it'll be is that the medical practitioner will determine that on a case-by-case basis for individuals.

As I realize a member wishes to introduce a bill, I will move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

Hon. K. Whittred presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. K. Whittred: The Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act recognizes an adult's right to give or refuse consent to health care and establishes a legal framework for the giving or refusing of consent by a temporary substitute decision-maker, when an adult is incapable of communicating those wishes.

The legislation I am introducing today protects an adult's right to make their own health care decisions. It also streamlines the patient consent process — a process so complex that health care providers have diffi-culty complying and a process so cumbersome that delays to providing patient care can occur. This is just not acceptable, especially when court decisions have been very clear. We have a responsibility to ensure that the rights and wishes of patients are respected. That includes ensuring that patients will not be deprived of treatment they need and want or be forced to undergo procedures they have rejected.

Today, with this legislation, we are correcting difficulties that occurred when the previous government selectively proclaimed parts of the adult guardianship legislation package. That legislation package included the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, the Adult Guardianship Act, the Representation Agreement Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. This selective proclamation created operational difficulties within the health system and caused possible delays in necessary care for patients.

For example, distinctions between major and minor health care procedures were lost. Currently, if the patient is not capable of consent, a substitute decision-maker must be contacted every time the patient needs medication for a headache. With these amendments, consent can be given for a care plan that can last up to a year, saving time for medical and nursing staff and allowing patients to receive prompt treatment. That simply makes sense.

This bill also protects health care providers by imposing a legal obligation to comply with a patient's previously expressed instructions or wishes. This obligation would be in effect if the providers have reasonable grounds to believe that the patient, as a capable adult, had expressed their wish to reject a certain type of health care — for example, a blood transfusion or a life-supporting measure. This bill protects the health care provider in respecting those wishes if, for some reason, the substitute decision-maker refuses to act in the best interests of the patient.

Hon. K. Whittred: 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 44 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.


	YEAS — 52

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Weisbeck
Anderson	Orr	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Christensen	Krueger
Bray	Nijjar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Manhas

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan