Hansard -- Monday, October 28, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 9, No. 9 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		4075

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		4075
	Contributions of Roy Mah R. Lee Arthritis awareness W. McMahon Sumas Energy 2 project R. Hawes

Oral Questions		4077
	Health care wait-lists and waiting times J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Transfer of patient in long-term care case J. MacPhail Hon. K. Whittred Government spending on health care advertising B. Belsey Hon. C. Hansen Management of Forests recreation sites W. McMahon Hon. M. de Jong Iris House mental health facility P. Bell Hon. G. Cheema

Tabling Documents		4080
	Provincial health officer's annual report, 2001: The Health and Well-being of Aboriginal People in British Columbia

Second Reading of Bills		4080
	Community Services Interim Authorities Act (Bill 65) (continued) V. Anderson J. Bray J. Kwan Hon. G. Hogg

Tributes		4094
	Ochi Day anniversary J. Kwan

Committee of the Whole House		4094
	Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant D. Hayer J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills		4108
	Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64)

Second Reading of Bills		4108
	Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 66) Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		4113
	Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 63) Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me today to introduce and welcome a number of Thai parliamentarians here on a study tour. They are Mr. Pichet Pattanachote, Senator; Mr. Chirmsak Pinthong, Senator; Mr. Nirand Phitakwatchara, Senator; Mr. Charoen Kanthawongs, Member of Parliament; and Mr. Prasang Mongkolsiri, Member of Parliament. Also part of the tour are Mrs. Suthai Phitakwatchara, Mr. Takerng Somsup, Dr. Vanchai Vatanasapt, Mr. Supanat Permpoonwiwat, Mr. Craig Kowalik and Mr. Pitchya Sookmark.

There are also a number of members from Royal Roads University. I see Dr. Jim Bayer up there and another member — is it Nancy? Nancy. I'd like all the members to please welcome these very distinguished guests to our House today.

Hon. C. Hansen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce several constituents who have joined us today. Enrico and Aline Dobrzensky and their son Dominic are in the gallery today. They are joined by a German exchange student who is staying with them, Martin Simon. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: I have two groups of guests to introduce. Earlier today I had the opportunity to meet a group of judges and senior officials from the Supreme People's Court of China to discuss, among other things, court facilities and courthouses.

I'd like to introduce these people and welcome them to British Columbia, to Victoria and, more specifically, to the Legislative Assembly. They are Mr. Cen, Judge Sun, Mr. Guo, Judge Lin, Judge Li, Judge Han, Mr. Chai and Mr. He. They are joined and escorted by Marie Burgher, who is an executive assistant with the public policy options project, and Naiwan Liu, who is the person who made the conversation possible — their interpreter. I hope that the House will please make this group of people very welcome.

S. Brice: In the gallery today is Lady Mary-Ann Guilsen, who is visiting Victoria from Montreal. She is accompanied by her sons Michael and Bob Cunningham, who are both in business in Vancouver. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: The second group of people that I would like to introduce and welcome to the Legislature are Australian public servants with specific responsibilities in respect of aboriginal issues. We're joined today by Philippa Horner, who is the most senior person in the government of the Commonwealth of Australia for native title issues. Apparently she advises the Attorney General.

We are also joined by Geoff Dickie, who is the executive director of native title services in the state of Queensland, and John Bednarek, who is manager of negotiations in the native title services.

These people were here in British Columbia attending a conference on aboriginal issues. We also had a good discussion this morning. I'm sure that they would be looking forward to the festivities on the floor of the House, and I ask that all members please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today we have two very special people I'd like to recognize in the House: Sherry and Reinhard Bohnenkamp. Sherry has been the constituency assistant in Richmond Centre for almost ten years now, first serving with Doug Symons and latterly working together with myself. I know she does a fantastic job for all the residents of Richmond Centre. May the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: I just wanted to ask the House to welcome three guests I have here today: my wife Wendy, who's visiting again, as well as my Auntie Eileen and my Uncle Norm, who were here a number of years ago, but they're here visiting today. I ask the House to make them welcome.

R. Lee: I recently had the privilege of attending the "50 Years of Stories from Chinatown" event in Vancouver presented by the Asian Canadian Writers' Workshop. The event celebrated the contributions and achievements of authors Wayson Choy, Paul Yee and Roy Mah to the Chinese Canadian community.

The organizers paid special tribute to Mr. Roy Mah, who was presented with the inaugural Community Builder Award. Mr. Mah is founder and publisher of Chinatown News, which was Canada's longest running English language news magazine for the Chinese community. Starting in 1951, the magazine ran for more than 40 years until it stopped printing in 1995.

Many in the Chinese Canadian community view Mr. Mah as being responsible for helping to grow and nurture the Chinese and Asian Canadian community for writers.

Mr. Mah has enriched our lives in many other ways. Born in Edmonton in 1918, he led more than 100 Chinese Canadian soldiers in Malaysia and Singapore during World War II and was awarded many medals for his heroism. Upon his return to Canada Mr. Mah was part of a strong group of community leaders who argued that if Chinese men can fight for Canada, they

had earned the right to vote in their own country. The leaders of the day agreed, and Chinese Canadians received the right to vote in 1947.

A few years later, Mr. Mah launched the Chinatown News. Only five years later, Douglas Jung became the first Chinese Canadian to be elected as a Member of Parliament.

Though it's a comparatively short history of political life in Canada, I think we are seeing increased involvement of Chinese Canadians at all levels of government. This can only be good for the strength of our country.

[Through the Chinatown News, Mr. Mah has helped bring Chinese Canadians closer to Canadian culture and in so doing was a catalyst for many Chinese Canadians entering politics municipally, provincially and federally.]

I would like the House to please join me in congratulating and thanking Mr. Roy Mah, who is visiting the House today with his wife, for his contributions to our province and our communities.

W. McMahon: This year in June, I was asked to support a friend and constituent as she prepared for the single largest personal challenge of her life. For the first time ever, she had entered a marathon. She began to prepare for her 42-kilometre walk. To do this, she knew she would be challenging both her physical and her mental endurance like she had never challenged herself before.

She was doing this for personal reasons. She was doing this to honour her sister who, for 20 years, has suffered from arthritis. I was interested to learn that there are more than 100 forms of arthritis and conditions that affect the joints, the surrounding tissues and other connective tissues. Most forms of arthritis can cause significant disability and loss of quality of life. Some forms can even be fatal.

One in seven people in B.C. has some form of arthritis, or one in every three families. In the next 16 years as the baby-boomers move through the medical system, hundreds of thousands of new cases of arthritis will be diagnosed. This is why the government has implemented the chronic disease management strategy: to help people manage their illnesses effectively and efficiently.

We don't often hear from people with arthritis, and living with arthritis can be tough. Today, October 28, 2002, Thora Casey from the great community of Invermere, British Columbia, undertook to walk 42 kilometres as a member of the Arthritis Society, B.C. and Yukon Division Joints in Motion team, in Dublin, Ireland. She tells me that her sister Beverley has an incredibly positive attitude and keeps herself fit physically, which are two of the challenges a person with arthritis faces.

At least 80 percent of the money raised through Joints in Motion is allocated to arthritis research and service programs for the benefit of those suffering from the disease. Thora is pleased to have the opportunity to honour her sister and other members of her family, and many friends, co-workers and acquaintances who suffer from some type of arthritis.

I know she was inspired as she focused on her goal. I know she was challenged, and I know Thora was successful. I just heard about a half hour ago that Thora completed the Dublin marathon. It's certainly a worthwhile cause, and Thora has made a difference.

R. Hawes: The National Energy Board wrapped up its hearings last week on a preliminary motion from the owners of the Sumas, Washington, SE2 plant. The motion proposed that the environmental scope of the hearings be limited only to the effects of the power line connecting the plant into the B.C. grid.

They argued that the environmental impacts of the plant, which in itself will add about three tonnes of additional pollution to an already stressed Fraser Valley airshed every day, had been adequately heard in the United States at the EFSEC hearings. The government of Alberta took the traditional position that the scope of the NEB should always be limited to transmission infrastructure, and it supported the SE2 plant in this motion.

All provinces guard their constitutional authority and oppose any expansion of the NEB into provincial jurisdiction. Traditionally, this has been the path British Columbia followed, but not this time. We made a new-era commitment to oppose the SE2, the Sumas power plant, and we're delivering on that promise. I want my constituents and the residents of the Fraser Valley to know that after weighing all the information and recommendations, the government directed our lawyers to argue in favour of expanding the scope of the NEB hearings in this unique situation.

The fact is that our government, through the leadership of the Premier and the ministers and MLAs throughout the Fraser Valley, decided that the health of Fraser Valley people is more important than the traditional constitutional position taken by the provinces. For those of us who live in the Fraser Valley, this is an important decision, and the impacts are enormous. This is the right decision to make, and I'm proud of the leadership we've shown on this issue. Now we will await the NEB's decision, and we'll see if they were listening to us.

In closing, I want my constituents to know that contrary to what they might have read in some newspapers, MLAs have never been muzzled on this issue — or on any other issue, for that matter. We are free to speak our minds in the best interests of our constituents, because we live in the new era of openness that includes free votes in the House and the freedom for all of us as MLAs to speak in favour of our constituents.

J. Kwan: Last April the Minister of Health Planning restructured health care. Since that announcement, new figures show that the number of people on wait-lists has grown to more than 68,000 British Columbians. Can the Minister of Health Planning explain why, after she restructured health care, more British Columbians are now on the wait-lists?

Hon. C. Hansen: Once again I will invite the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to have a briefing on the difference between Health Planning and Health Services. In fact, it was I who announced the changes in April.

We indicated at the time that there were going to be some pressures on the wait-lists. Clearly, we had some job actions last summer that set us back significantly when it came to giving timely access to surgery, and we also had job actions by physicians in the province earlier this year. We are now putting in place the kinds of structures that will allow us to deal with the wait-lists in the health care system in a very meaningful way in the months and years to come.

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

J. Kwan: There are four ministers of health across the way. If the other ministers are not really doing their work and health planning restructuring was Health Planning's responsibility, if there's no need for all these ministers…. Well then, just have one.

It's not only the number of people on the wait-lists that's growing. It's the amount of time that people are spending on the wait-lists that is also increasing. According to the government's own figures, wait times have increased in 13 out of 16 categories since the Liberals' restructured health plan has been put in place. Cataract surgery is up 25 percent. Orthopedic surgery is up by 13 percent. Vascular surgery is up by 35 percent. These numbers are an indictment of the Liberals' health care restructuring, and these numbers, by the way, came after the issues the Minister of Health Services has raised. Will the minister stand in this House and explain to British Columbians why in the new era they're spending more time on wait-lists?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll be pleased to explain to this House. The reason is because we had a decade with a government that did not train enough nurses in this province to properly staff our operating rooms. We had a decade in British Columbia where the previous government actually started…

Hon. C. Hansen: …to reduce the number of nurses in training instead of increasing it. What we have done since we took office is make sure we have 1,266 additional nurses in training in British Columbia. We've got nurses in specialty training so that they can be in the operating rooms, so that we can actually start to deal with some of these challenges instead of the decade of denial that we had in the 1990s.

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

J. Kwan: The health care system is being run into the ground by the Liberal government. That's why the wait-lists have gone up. In the last two weeks we have seen that what passes for emergency care is a broken phone outside a locked emergency door.

J. Kwan: …wasting money on spin workshops. We've seen patients dying, waiting for treatment in emergency rooms. Now, according to the government's own figures, we see that the wait-lists and wait times are on the rise. Again, will the minister stand in this House and admit that as a result of his failed reorganization of the health care system, British Columbians are spending more time waiting for their surgery?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the exact opposite is what's happening. Instead of trying to manage a health care system on a day-to-day basis, which we saw from the previous administration, we're actually putting in place some orderly changes that are going to allow us to give better access to care in the months and the years to come. Clearly, we inherited some big challenges that were left over from the previous government. I wish there were quick fixes. I wish I could snap my fingers and make wait-lists drop after a decade of mismanagement in the health care system, but at least this government is…

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, if members are going to ask questions, at least have the courtesy to listen to the answer, please.

J. MacPhail: Well, here's one for the minister responsible for long-term care. If the government's doing such a good job in putting our health care system on a sustainable footing, I'd like them to make that case, that argument, to Edward Laitenen. In March Mr. Laitenen was forced to leave his extended care bed at Shuswap General Hospital. He was transferred by ambulance 108 kilometres to Queen Victoria Hospital in Revelstoke. After three weeks in Revelstoke, Mr. Laitenen was transferred back to Shuswap General to his extended care, again by ambulance. A week later Mr. Laitenen was moved for a third time. This time, the ambulance took him across the street to Bastion Place. To the minister of long-term care: is this any way to treat a citizen in long-term care — to move him three times in the space of four weeks?

J. MacPhail: Well, there's another aspect to this case that's very significant. Mr. Laitenen is 84 years old. He's quite ill. He's not rich. He and his wife live on a fixed pension. They have trouble enough paying for their medications. Two weeks ago, seven months after the ordeal, Mr. Laitenen's wife was very concerned and upset to find two bills from the government arriving at her door charging her an ambulance fee for moving her husband around like a piece of luggage. I have the bills here — two bills. She's expecting a third. Mr. Laitenen did not want to be moved. He did not agree to an individualized care plan that the Liberals promised every senior in this province. He was shuffled around because of this government's cuts to care beds in this community.

Again to the minister of long-term care: is this any way to treat a sick 84-year-old man — to move him around against his will three times in four weeks and then charge him for the privilege? Will she do the right thing and pay his ambulance bill?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, the minister has taken the question on notice. She may answer if she wishes.

Hon. K. Whittred: I would invite the member to send me the details, and I would be happy to look into this situation.

B. Belsey: I would like to ask a question, a publicly written question submitted by Gary Coons, president of the Prince Rupert District Teachers Association, to the Minister of Health Services. Although the Premier clearly stated the government would not put available dollars into advertising, how much has the government spent on health advertising?

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess just to correct one of the assumptions in the question, the commitment that the Premier made prior to the election is that we would not be engaging in the kind of political advertising we saw by the previous administration. To answer the specific question, I can tell the member, and his constituent through the member, that when it comes to dollars spent of the budget of the Ministry of Health Services, there has not been any money spent on paid advertising. I can report that out of the budget for the public affairs bureau — which I fully understand comes from the same source, and that's the taxpayers of British Columbia — there have been the following amounts disbursed to date: the total ad creative and production component is $198,500, and the total ad buy cost is $416,000.

B. Belsey: I would like to ask a follow-up question of my own of the Minister of Health Services. There has been a campaign of misinformation…

B. Belsey: …designed to scare people into believing that the resources they need do not exist. Can the Minister of Health Services tell my constituents in this House what resources are being directed into providing quality health care for British Columbians?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll tell you, one of the things that we're not doing out of the Health budget is sending money into advertising. Just to put that into perspective, in the ten years the previous government was in office, they spent $42.5 million out of the Health budget on advertising.

Hon. C. Hansen: To answer the specific question of the member, we have in fact added $1.1 billion into the Health budget in British Columbia, increasing it from the $9.3 billion that was in place when the previous government was kicked out to $10.4 billion that's there today.

W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Following the Ministry of Forests decision to withdraw from the management and maintenance of Forests recreation sites, several groups in my constituency have expressed an interest in operating these sites. These sites are important to my community…

W. McMahon: …but there is a concern that they are simply going to close. Can the Minister of Forests tell me if, to date, any groups have been successful in taking over the comanagement of recreation sites?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and to the member for the question because, in fact, out of a challenge has emerged a tremendously good-news story. That relates to the fact that across this province, people — community groups, non-profits — are getting involved in the management of our recreation infrastructure.

In the riding of Kamloops–North Thompson, in Clearwater, four developmentally disabled adults are now earning a paycheque because they're involved in managing rec sites. In Burns Lake, in the Chilcotin area, people are getting involved.

There is a wealth of opportunity out there. We have an incredibly valuable recreation and trail infrastructure in place in British Columbia, and now people across this province are going to be helping with and be involved in the comanagement of that infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has a supplementary question.

W. McMahon: The Forests recreation sites in my constituency are very important to residents, both for economic reasons and for quality of life. I have personally heard from numerous families and numerous tourists who have enjoyed visiting these sites for years.

Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order, please, so that we may hear the question.

W. McMahon: Can the Minister of Forests tell me how groups can keep these sites open by becoming involved in the comanagement of Forests recreation sites?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, happily…. I talked about a few areas of the province, but the area that this hon. member hails from has already got some tremendous examples of how comanagement and participation by community groups can work — whether it's the Nordic ski club or whether it's the Revelstoke snowmobile association, who are already involved in comanaging the trail system in place.

What I want to tell this member and, through her, British Columbians and all members of the House is that a request for proposals has been extended. Community groups are invited to contact the ministry, contact local offices and make a proposal. Right across this province we are going to build on the existing recreational infrastructure with the help of community groups of the sort I've mentioned and the sort that are already involved right across British Columbia.

P. Bell: A few months ago I had the opportunity to open Iris House in Prince George, along with the Minister of State for Mental Health and my Prince George colleagues. Iris House is a great facility that deals with intensive care for individuals with mental illness. To help cope with the increased demand for this type of facility, this government's committed to adding additional beds to Iris House.

I'm wondering if the Minister of State for Mental Health could update my constituents on the status of this and when it will be completed.

Hon. G. Cheema: Iris House is a part of our $263 million commitment to mental health. It provides a more appropriate, homelike environment for patients who are in institutional care at Riverview Hospital. I am pleased to say that we are now in the process of nearly doubling the capacity of Iris House with a $1.1 million expansion. We are in the construction phase of this expansion, and we expect this project to open in March. In addition to providing improved care for patients, this facility will improve the northern health authority's capacity to provide care for patients in the future, and this is great news for mental health in this province.

Mr. Speaker: May we have some order, please, so that we can hear what the Clerk has to say.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I have the honour to present the report on the health of British Columbians, provincial health officer's annual report 2001, entitled The Health and Well-being of Aboriginal People in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 65. We'll just pause for a moment while members make their way elsewhere quickly and quietly.

Hon. members, please make your way to where you're going quickly, so we may continue the second reading debate on Bill 65 with the member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to get up and speak in favour of the Community Services Interim Authorities Act, Bill 65. This begins to bring into reality a vision which many people in our community have had for a long time. The process is underway to begin to transfer many of the services in our community that have been provided strictly through government regulation and development to the community itself so that families and those who are part of the services can share together in their planning and development over the years to come.

The Community Services Interim Authorities Act begins the process of transferring services to the community to be undertaken by the community for the people of the community. It's a process which will find a culmination in new authorities and new services being presented on April 1, 2003. Over this interim time this bill provides the mechanism in order to begin to set those processes in place.

So that all might understand, particularly those who are listening throughout the province, community services means the following types of services, which will be available to be transferred so that community participation can bring these services closer to home, to the people where they live in their own communities: adoption services, services related to early childhood development, services to assist families in caring for their children, services for children and youth with special needs to assist them to live in their own communities, mental health services for children and youth in their own communities, support services for youth in crisis in their own communities, child protection and guardianship services in their own communities, services for youth in conflict with the law in their own community, services for adults with developmental disabilities to assist them to live in their communities and other services that may be deemed appropriate as these are transferred from Children and Family Development.

This is a very significant change in the way services are provided in the community. It has come about by the Minister of Children and Family Development having brought together numerous agencies from across the province which have been working in these fields, many of them independently, and want interaction and community correlation with each other. Now that these services are being moved to the community, these groups have come together in an interactive process to plan, to prepare and to make possible this transition.

I simply want to commend the government and all the agency members and the family members who have come together in this way to make this very important process possible and feasible. We look forward to the completion of it on April 1, 2003, as the interim process is completed and the ongoing process is established.

J. Bray: I am also very pleased to stand up in support of this bill, the Community Services Interim Authorities Act. This bill represents the start of one of the most amazing transformations that any government in any province has seen, and that is a recognition of the strength and the value of the community and the strength of the value of the community as it pertains to families and to children.

My colleague mentioned the various areas that this bill covers with respect to community services, and I would like to just focus on one, if I may. That is service to assist families in caring for their children. Often we talk about the term "it takes a village to raise a family." Well, this government and the Minister of Children and Family Development have recognized that what has often gotten in the way of that being a realization is the great dichotomy between the community, the village, and the supports that government provides to those communities. At times the government's involvement has seemed to be at odds with the community, out of step with the community, butting heads with the community. The reality is that families, families in crisis and families in need, often bear the brunt of that.

This act — which starts the process of transferring all of those services away from a centralized government model out to those who know those families best, which are the communities, a community-up process — means that for the government, the staff that we provide in that, the social workers and the resource workers will actually be working with the community to achieve those common goals rather than at times being seen as an interloper in that process. It will be able to support communities to make the best decisions for families and children, as well as adults with devel-

opmental disabilities and others that community services provide for, to make sure that the community meets those unique needs in those unique settings around the province.

I am particularly pleased this act makes it very clear that it is a process of design that the community is involved with. In fact, I was very impressed, during the minister's comments opening debate, by the number of different groups who have come together in positive support of this initiative. In other words, it is not an initiative that's in isolation of government alone. It is really the community coming together around this province, seeing this vision, and everybody sharing this vision and moving forward. This act ensures that over the next several months, as these community plans are developed and the way in which services will be delivered, the community will all be working together to ensure that delivery is not just a continuation of services but an improvement of services.

As somebody who has worked in the community of social service field all my life, I also know that for those who work for government in the Ministry of Children and Family Development — who have tremendous skills and abilities in the area of family services, child protection and resource work and who are caring and compassionate people who have ended up spending far too much time behind computers and actually doing administrative work — this is starting to set the course. They will be able to be back out in the field actually practising what they studied for, which is services to families, services to children, services to people with developmental disabilities. They will be able to focus their attention in concert with the community to help families and individuals in each of those communities.

I am particularly excited that on Vancouver Island, the committee working in the various areas of administration and policy and legislation is working tremendously cooperatively. I am just so excited that I see this new way of delivering services as not just being a leader in Canada but, really, being at the cutting edge and leading the world. The minister spoke during his comments about the recognition this plan is now receiving internationally. I think it's a testament that the recognition is not just of government but of the community assets we currently have that are going to be able to come together to ensure we improve services.

The other area I see this act is starting to lay out, too, is that communities will start to be able to ensure that as they work together, they find the kind of efficiencies that focus efforts not on paperwork and administration between government and agencies but that they can devote more of their energy to actually ensuring they're delivering services because they'll be working together to develop those plans.

I know the minister has heard me several times in estimates talk about the rather complicated contracting process between government and community services and the amount of time and effort agencies have to focus on satisfying the paper-craving that government sometimes develops. By moving things all to the community — decision-making as well as service delivery — it will greatly reduce all of that work which did nothing to actually serve children but served other needs.

The Community Services Interim Authorities Act sets out the process by which communities will maximize their efforts and government will maximize their efforts. The beneficiaries will be children and families and people with developmental disabilities.

I look forward to seeing the final plans in the spring. I commend the minister for his work, and I know that constituents in my riding who are involved in those areas are very excited and are working very hard to make sure this vision becomes a reality.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, just to advise you, I'm also the designated speaker on this issue.

J. Kwan: I'd like to first congratulate the minister for getting this bill to this House. I know the minister has been working on this process for a long, long time. That said, I also wish to take this opportunity to raise some concerns about this legislation, and I'd like to share those concerns with members of this House.

I understand from the minister's statements in first reading that the intention of the act is to have "real participation and influence by communities in the delivery of services." I think there's a real fear growing in communities that having participation and influence is all too often a code word for downloading of costs and responsibilities to the communities, and all too often these additional burdens come with insufficient funding and support from government.

I'm hoping the minister can reassure the House and the people in the community that this is, in fact, not the case. However, since the election…. I've been around long enough to sometimes perhaps get a little bit cynical around the actions of government. When government says it's protecting the most vulnerable, we see actions to the contrary. We see program cuts that are hurting and gutting the heart and the spirit of communities. We've seen that in education, with school boards taking the heat for stresses caused by underfunding that this Minister of Education, this government, have brought about. This government is very comfortable in saying: "It wasn't us who cut the program; it was the school trustees. So don't blame us; blame somebody else."

Well, it was this government that brought about those program cuts and the underfunding that caused the stress in the community. It is this government that's ultimately responsible for the devastating cuts that are taking place across the board in this province. We just saw it in health care. We see the crisis that's being created by this government in health care. You can try to avoid responsibility, but I see through it, and I suspect the public is seeing through it as well. I just want to let

I hope the minister understands, and I think that the minister does understand, that the lives of children and their families are too important to play politics with. They're too important to take a risk of reducing programs at their expense. It is the lives of children that are at stake and the futures of their families that are at stake.

I hope the minister understands that and understands that the restructuring…. While on the one hand, we can look to see how we can improve the system, how we can allow for true responsibility for the community but with sufficient support to ensure they have the tools to get the job done, to make sure that funding is not eroded…. I hope that will become reality and that, along with this piece of legislation, sufficient funding will also come from the government.

To look back, though, in terms of reviewing what the ministry has done to date, what this government has done to date, we hear stories from the public, stories in the media that have been reported about what some of the impacts of the cuts are, and it's directly in this ministry.

Let me just quote from the Creston Valley Advance. This was an article published on July 11, 2002. I won't read the entire article, because it is long. I'll just read parts of it so that we get the idea of what we're talking about:

It's just one example in terms of the cutback of programs that's caused by government underfunding.

The cuts, of course, are not just in one small community in one part of the province. They are throughout the province in very many different communities. There are a series of articles that put these issues out for contemplation and for the public's information and, hopefully, to bring the issues to the government and have the government address their concerns. So far, though, we have not seen that the government reacted in any way, shape or form to the concerns. In fact, just this past weekend in Penticton, the Premier rose up in the Liberal Party's convention to say they're going to stay the course. They're simply not going to listen to the public with respect to their concerns. I hope that's not the case here with this minister.

J. Kwan: You know, the member is saying I should have been there. No, actually, I was busy out talking to people as opposed to being locked in a room talking to only people that the Liberal government wants to talk to. I want to talk to people who don't have access to the government. That's what we've seen to date, because MLA offices are locked. People are not able to get in to access the MLAs or the cabinet ministers to raise their concerns. That's what the opposition members were doing this weekend.

We now know it's being cut by 23 percent. Still, 23 percent is a significant impact on the overall delivery of programs.

"'Cutbacks of this extent will restrict CVACL and other service providers from delivering our present level of residential care, day program support and early

A similar issue has been raised in Nanaimo in yet another article. It talks about the concern of the targeted number of layoffs of staff, the inability of the community to cope and, ultimately, for the community, who depends on these services, to suffer. In the Vancouver Sun, closer to home, are more issues around problems around wait-lists. Individual letters written to us around these concerns, too, indicate the same issue.

Time and time and time again there is a theme that emerges as we look at these letters and these editorials. It is the cutting of the program, of the funding and what will ultimately happen. There won't be sufficient resources to provide for the programs that are needed. While we're restructuring, we can look at ways of how we can do things differently, but the government and the minister must be aware that the tools for people to do their work must be available. You cannot cut back and say: "Here it is. Here's your responsibility, community. Go to it, and go do a good job of it." When the tools are not there, they can't do their work. That's the reality, and that's what I'm concerned about.

The Vancouver Sun put forward a story last November that has some very interesting statistics. The ministry supports community living for about 8,700 adults with developmental disabilities. Approximately 75 percent, or roughly $1 billion, of the ministry's funding is spent in the area of community living. The statistics obtained by the Vancouver Sun through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act show that in June there were about 12,000 children and youths receiving services from the ministry's special needs health programs, but 14,500 were on this wait-list. In the story this minister said that the government has dealt with the wait-lists by spreading services thinly among children and youths, and now 6,867 remain on the wait-lists, but acknowledged that only two-thirds of the children and youths receiving ministry aid are getting minimum support.

I wonder how this new community governance model will address these issues of wait-lists. I hear about innovation, the goal of improving outcomes and participation. But what of wait-lists in the community? It is all very well and good if the service model has been revamped, but if you're still on a wait-list waiting for that service, these changes won't do you much good. The reality is we're seeing another 23 percent reduction in the minister's budget.

Earlier today, thanks to the minister — who actually, amongst few ministers, offers briefings to the opposition around the status of change that's going on within the ministry — I met with the minister's staff. They were very good in providing information and

answering questions. The issue that I raised with the staff is that when the minister is faced with the cuts in his ministry, what will happen? Will those cuts then correspond and be transferred to the community who's to deliver these services that have been given to the community? The answer was yes.

We know that the transfer of service cuts is going to take place. It is a three-year budget that the minister has put forward. In the budget it says that next year there will be a 23 percent funding reduction. There'll be a 22 percent staffing reduction, and those will simply transfer onto the community. Caution around the restructuring needs to be raised at this point. It's not just about the authority that we need to be careful. It's also the funding and the tools associated with it and what tools are given to the community.

As well, I asked the question: aside from the funding, who will be monitoring the progress for the community in terms of what's going on? The answer from the ministry staff was very simple: the minister. The problem is that the minister himself has to bring forward these service cuts. Quite frankly, it puts the minister in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, I'm sure the minister, in his own heart, doesn't want to bring forward these program cuts, but yet he is forced to. He has to. He has to do the bidding of the government. He has to do the bidding of the Premier. So they are off-loaded.

It is the minister who will ultimately say: "Hey, look at what we're doing and how well we're doing it." We see this in question period every day. You ask a legitimate question on what's going on. As an example, how can wait-lists for the Ministry of Health have increased? The minister's own website shows the categories of surgery have increased significantly. Not just the number of people on the wait-list has increased, but also the amount of time has increased.

This is all under the auspices of the government's restructuring plan. Supposedly, it's going according to plan, yet the northern health authority has come forward to say they cannot meet the objectives that have been laid out. They cannot meet the target that's been laid out. They're going to have to go through more cuts in health care in order to achieve that. Then in the House, when asked that question, the Minister of Health Services gets up and says they're doing a great job, everything's on target, they're moving forward, and this is what has to be done.

Are we going to hear the same thing from this minister when the issues arise? I anticipate they may well arise, because the budget is targeted to be cut by 23 percent. How can you have the watchdog function of how things are going — if the community is getting enough resources to do their job — being monitored by the government?

I further asked the question: will there by a public reporting of what's going on? The steering committees, as I understand it, will be putting together reports to the minister. But that's to the minister. There's been no commitment to date whether or not those reports will be made public. I would assert that those reports must be made public, not through an FOI process that's lengthy and that could delay the immediacy of knowing what is going on — for British Columbians to know what's going on and to monitor fairly and accurately what is going on with all the changes within the ministry. It is incumbent on the minister to make that decision and to respond in this House, to say, "Yes, I will make the report open and accessible to the public immediately," and therefore really support the notion of transparency within government, not this other notion within the new-era agenda where everybody says that they're open and transparent within the Liberal government. What we've seen to date is for the government to bring forward more obstacles to accessing information, to create more committees that say they're even exempted from the FOI process. That, in my view, is not open and transparent government.

I hope the minister will commit today, in this House, that all the reporting that is sent to the minister from the steering committee on the restructuring, on the progress and on what's going on is in fact made public for all British Columbians to assess and to make a determination whether or not progress has been made.

In the minister's second reading statements, the minister claimed that "the introduction of this legislation marks an important step in meeting two new-era commitments: to stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring that has drained resources from children and family…." It is interesting for the minister to claim that starting the most extensive restructuring and downsizing ever undertaken for this ministry somehow complies with the pre-election promise to stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring.

As far as I can tell, the minister has yet to produce a shred of evidence that any cuts, much less a 23 percent cut, can be introduced without seriously eroding the services to vulnerable children, individuals and families. Many of the families I've spoken to remain as skeptical as they were a year ago. I read off some of the news media reports in terms of the concerns and what the impacts are in the community as a result of budget cuts.

In second reading, the minister stated: "The feedback, comments and consensus from the core services review process were that the current systems were both dysfunctional and unsustainable over the long term. Further, there was a strong consensus that regional and

community-based models of governance are the preferred option for more effective and more efficient service delivery."

As far as I can see, most of the submissions did not argue that services were unsustainable. They argued that services were underfunded. Further, there was no consensus on the model that the ministry is proposing. That model is based on one out of hundreds of competing submissions to the core review process. That submission was, incidentally, the only one that supported the minister's agenda of 23 percent cuts.

We can see, even by submissions received by the ministry, that there is manipulation of the information, manipulating it to actually sell and support the government's own agenda of cost-cutting exercise. The question that I raise again is: how do we know that there is indeed progress, that there are indeed enough resources for the communities that take on this responsibility to do the work that is required of them, when in fact the community groups in their own submissions to government say that it's not an issue about sustainability?

In fact, when I talk to people, most people say to me that investing in our children is too important for people to actually cut its programs. That ultimate goal of investing in children for our future is the ultimate goal. Therefore the investment is worth it. That's what they say to me. They don't sit around and say, "Well, gee, this is unsustainable," as the government often says about all services, whether it be health care, education, and now children and family services. They say the contrary. They say we need to invest in it as opposed to taking away.

Yet what we see in government's actions is the opposite direction from what many British Columbians say. This is the caution I raised earlier around the watchdog function.

It's not that I don't trust the minister. I think the minister has his heart in the right place. I'm sure of that. I know some of the work the minister did before he got elected to his position now. I know the minister, before this time, wanted to advocate for a positive change, not to cut services and reduce services, but he is required to do the government's bidding. He is required to do the Premier's bidding of cutting funding to programs, thereby hurting the very people he is mandated to protect and provide services to. That is the reality we now see.

The minister went on to say in his second reading: "Hundreds of community leaders have since begun to contribute their knowledge, ideas, time and energy as we try to reinvent governance in these areas of social service. Their wisdom has been gathered and has been focused."

Well, from the information I've received, hundreds of community leaders who offered their time and expertise felt they have been completely shut out of the process. They believe it was because they would not endorse the government's predetermined agenda of the 23 percent cut.

I want to be very clear here. The issue is not necessarily about the governance model in terms of a change to give the responsibility to the community. I want to be clear that that's not necessarily the issue. The issue is the resources that need to accompany that work and that responsibility. Many people have said time and again that they are not endorsing a 23 percent cut from the government's budget for children and family services.

The minister in his second reading went on to say: "By and large, people tend to distrust change." The people I've spoken with and had contact with are not necessarily opposed to change. In fact, they want to see change. People see the need for a change, and I see the need for change in some cases as well. Where the distrust comes in about the restructuring process is that it is predetermined and driven by the government's need to implement arbitrary and unreasonable budget-reduction targets.

What is driving the model for change is not what is needed to make it better necessarily, but rather, it's what the bottom line is. If that is the reason that drives the need for change, that's where people have issues. That's where I have an issue. It cannot be a bottom-line exercise when we're dealing with children and families who are at risk and who need an investment from government so that they, too, can have a future and their quality of life can be improved.

There's distrust that the minister has never seriously considered, I believe, alternatives besides the plan that the government came up with a year ago. Now, perhaps the minister has considered it and has been unable to convince his own government to make changes. At the end of the day, the same prevails: those cuts are taking place, and the community is getting hurt by them.

That message somewhere…. I don't know who can deliver it to the Premier or to the Minister of Finance, but it has to be delivered, and it has to be listened to. That is the issue that needs to be focused on as well.

Many families think every step of the process has been governed by the requirement that either you buy into the minister's predetermined plan or you're left out in the cold. We see that. We see that amongst different ministers. "If you don't agree with me, if you don't agree with what we're proposing, then there's no need for consultation." That's the pattern, the trend, of this government when it comes to that.

Then the ministers often would say: "It's not that we haven't consulted; it's simply because they don't agree with our suggested change." Well, if the majority of British Columbians don't agree with your suggested change, there's a problem. I would venture to say there is a problem. You cannot say you consulted with people, when the majority of people don't agree with you, and then you just shut out the people who want to bring forward different opinions for consideration. It's not because they want to harm the government in any way, shape or form. It's not because they want to harm the system of the delivery of services in any way, shape

or form. On the contrary, they want to actually advance those things. They want to bring in a positive suggestion. Some of it may require that government deviate from the original and only agenda, the bottom line.

Sometimes it requires that. That's what is needed, I think, to see this interim set of approaches in delivering services so that the children and families who are in need of greater services and protection have those kinds of resources; so that the ears of government are actually open to them, to receiving different information, not just on the issue around delivery-of-service models. The resources need to be there so that they can in fact deliver those services in an adequate and successful manner.

The issue, though, around consultation does arise in this debate around this bill. The minister advised that there was plenty of consultation. He said:

Well, some of the feedback I've been receiving is that the transition steering committee's consultation consisted of a series of information sessions held as they were drafting or after they had already submitted their draft report. In communities like Nanaimo, where families turned out in large numbers to express serious concerns, I've been told that none of those concerns were reflected in the report, which claims sweeping support for all their proposals.

The undoubtedly pricey video conferences were held in October after the steering committee had already submitted its report to the ministry. How can the minister possibly include that as part of the consultation? It's after the fact. He received the information after the fact. Then to say that you have consulted…. The report had already been put in and forwarded. There's a problem with the process around that, a problem with consultation.

The ministry had clearly already written the draft legislation even before getting the draft report, so what was the point of even pretending to be consulting? If legislation is already drafted and you haven't yet received the report — never mind that the report was sent first, and then you went out and had the video conferencing — how does that add up to consultation? Where is the real input? How is it reflected? How is it reflected in all the different stages that are essential for true consultation to take place?

Now, some ministers in the Liberal government have made this argument: "Consultation means what we want to move forward on, and people can comment about it afterwards." It's not good enough. That's not really how consultation works.

How consultation really works is that you go and ask people without a predetermined agenda. You say to people: "We do have some ideas, and here they are. What do you think about that? How do we improve upon it?" Then you take that input and incorporate it into the changes that you want to move forward.

That, in my view, in all my years working in the community, having been an elected official, is what constitutes consultation — not the other way around. It doesn't work when you have legislation already in place, and then the report comes out afterwards, and you say: "Oh, by the by, here's the report. The report has already been submitted. We went out and talked to people, but none of those comments are included in any of these things." That does not amount to consultation. It surely does not amount to true consultation, if anybody has any understanding of what consultation really means.

The minister stated: "The changes to this legislation will create a more stable system of services for children, families and adults with developmental disabilities. It will bring the capacity for decision-making closer to the community, providing faster and more direct responses to the needs of vulnerable people."

Some families worry that these changes will instead give families the dirty job of implementing the minister's budget cuts for him, therefore providing the minister with political insulation from the devastating impacts that could result from these cuts. The changes may give families the impossible task of having to choose between cutting services that affect their own loved ones or choosing cuts that will affect other families.

We see that, and I predict that in the Ministry of Education as these cuts are now taking place across our province, as we see schools being closed, as we see classroom sizes increasing, as we see special needs children not getting the services they need, as we see teachers having to make a difficult decision: do they spend time with Johnny or Annie? Who needs more support at this moment? How do they make the decision and determine who needs one-on-one support whereas the other children don't? That is what's happening right now across the province in the area of education.

I hope this will not happen in this ministry, really, and I pray that it doesn't. I'm not normally a religious person, but God forbid it should happen. The risks are too high for the people who depend on these services, who do sometimes…. I think some of them do. There's truth to it. The electorate did have an election. There was an election, and they voted the Liberal government in. They wanted to see change, but change that they were promised, where they said they would not cut services to British Columbians, where they said they will in fact protect the most marginalized, the most vulnerable in our community. Deliver that promise. Deliver that promise is what the opposition is asking for.

There is nothing that would make me happier than if the minister and this government would deliver that promise and not hurt the people as I do see now, where all of their programs, many of their programs, are taking place in our community; where people are being hurt; where children, families, seniors, individuals — young or old, irrespective, across the board — are getting hurt by this government's programs. And then for the Premier to say, "I'm staying the course. You guys are just making noise out there, and you know what? People elected us for change…."

People did elect this government for change, but not the changes this government is doing. Let's be clear about that. If the government changes course, the opposition will be the first to applaud the government, to say: "Good on you for recognizing what needs to be done and for doing what you promised to do." That's what we want, and that's what British Columbians want as well.

I raised the issue around the cuts, but so far the minister has not addressed this in his comments. I also found the sections of bill that refer to donations interesting — very interesting. We already know that this government's move towards cost-cutting has meant more and more people having to pay out of their own pockets. It is overt, actually; it's quite blatant. The government is saying to you: "Fewer services for you, but you have to pay more." We see that. We see that in the Ministry of Health. We see it in health services delivery, where MSP premiums have gone up. Pharmacare is going up, actually, in a week's time or so for people. We see that services are being cut off in terms of coverage from MSP.

We see these things and these changes taking place. Costs to communities, individuals and families have actually gone up, but services have actually decreased. We haven't really heard from the government in terms of how the minister's going to address these issues, yet we see in the bill that there's a section that talks about…. Well, there's a way for you to get more money, for you to make more money. Section 12(1) reads: "An interim authority may solicit and accept donations from any person or source for the use of the interim authority." Section 12(2): "In addition to soliciting and accepting donations under subsection (1), an interim authority, with the minister's prior approval, may solicit and accept donations for purposes related to the provision of community services or administrative services by or on behalf of a new authority."

Is this going to let the government off the hook to say: "Yes, we've cut 23 percent, but we gave you the authority to manage your resources. We gave you more flexibility"? Where have we heard that? In the area of education, from the Minister of Education, "We gave you the authority to manage your resources; we gave you the authority to go and make more money," and all of those kinds of things. In the meantime, the Minister of Education knows very well that she's hurting education, or she should know very well. If she's pretending not to acknowledge it, she should know that very well.

We see the same kind of theory and the same kind of approach being applied here under this bill. I hope it is not an approach from the government to say to the community groups: "I've given you flexibility to go and manage the service cuts, to manage the resources so that you should be able to deliver the mandate that is now required of you, even with less money." I hope that is not the intent here. I hope it's not the intent of government to say to the community groups….

I worked for non-profits for many, many years before I became a politician, and we spent a lot of time looking for donations and so on. Luckily for me — in the position I was in and working with the particular non-profit that I was involved with, dealing with low-income individuals, tenants rights and housing needs and human rights and so on — core funding for the organization for these key positions was never in question. I hope that we will now not see a translation of this clause under 12(1) and (2) to say to these organizations — and now with a 23 percent reduction in services and budgets, it means that core funding from government in some of these programs will be eroded — therefore: "You must exercise this section's options to go out and find moneys and donations."

I hope the minister will stand up in this House and guarantee that core funding for these authorities will be stable and maintained, that he would be able to do that. I hope this bill does not mean that the interim authorities will have to try to raise funds on their own in order to provide for core services. If they have to do that, they will have very little time to mind and be able to deliver the mandate they're meant to do. I do want to say it is true that non-profits often use fundraising to raise money, but these funds are often used to supplement what they're getting from government, to increase and to enhance what it is that they're doing. Fundraising should not be required to replace government funding. That is the issue I want to raise with the minister.

In talking with community advocates and parents, I've been made very aware of some deep concerns in the community around how this whole restructuring process has taken place. The report of the minister's transition steering committee — the TSC, as it is called — has not yet been made public, but it appears that the next stage of detailed operational and financial planning for the ministry restructuring and cuts is already underway, based on agreements reached between the minister and the transition steering committee.

When will this transition committee report be made public? The latest I've heard is that the final revised report was presented to the minister over the past weekend. Yet again I find myself asking the government why they're not introducing this report before they introduce legislation or at least introduce it at the same time so that the information could be shared and reviewed by British Columbians, so that we can assess

what the steering committee had in fact said to the government and what the concerns might or might not be. Or have they been addressed?

Who will be on the board of the interim authority? The bill makes it very clear that the minister can hand-pick his own appointees. I've spoken to parents and advocate about how they feel about the representation in the restructuring process so far. What I'm hearing is that there are some grave concerns about the steps the minister has taken during this restructuring process and about the structure of the transition steering committee. The biggest concern has been whether the steering committee has been truly representative of parents and community members or whether it just serves as a hand-picked board to recommend the cuts and restructuring that the minister already has in mind.

I really hope this is not the case, but I've been given some information that raises these issues — a whole bunch of letters, in fact, that the opposition has received. I'll put some of these on record, and I hope the minister will respond to these. I hope the minister will say, "Don't worry. It will be representative, and here's how we will do it," and illustrate how he will actually make sure that is in fact the case and not just pay lip service to the notion of consultation, as I know some other ministers have done. I hope the minister will respond to some of these letters.

Here's one letter from an individual, and it reads as follows. It's addressed to the minister.

Now, the letter goes on to highlight some of the concerns they have, and the minister has this letter already. I would ask the minister to please take a look at this and respond to this individual.

Here's another letter, again addressed to the minister. It's very recent, actually. In fact, this letter is from October 21, 2002. Parts of the letter read as follows:

It is a lengthy letter, which again raises a whole range of issues that have been brought to the minister's attention, and I hope the minister will respond to this letter too.

It's not necessarily disagreeing with the need for a new governance model, but there's concern around the budget constraints, what is in the report and what information is available so that people can evaluate it and then determine what that new model should look like.

There seems to be a theme that emerges from many of these letters. Yes, some actually say outright: "I'm very concerned. Here's how I feel that I or people I know have not been consulted." Many of the letters also say, though, that yes, we know there's a need for change, but here are some underlying core foundational issues that have been put in front of these groups to try to meet these challenges. Much of it centres around the funding, what the intent of the government is and why the government and the minister don't make that information public and available so that people can assess and make a determination and therefore comment on these proposed changes so that we can truly create cohesiveness in terms of trying to

change the system in a way that can be positive and minimize the confrontation and dissension that can exist and, perhaps most important of all, minimize the distrust that exists in our broader community.

Here's another letter. This is actually a very recent letter. It just came in on October 23. I'll just read a couple of paragraphs from the letter.

Just three more letters here that I want to put some information from onto the record, around people's concerns. This one, again, came in on October 23. Just to highlight some of the concerns that have been raised, the letter reads:

Actually, there are many bullets in terms of what some of the concerns are, and I've only just highlighted a couple for the flavour of the debate for the minister's information and this House's information.

Here's another letter with respect to concerns around changes. Parts of the letter from this individual read as follows:

The people who are writing these letters…. The point I want to make is that they've heard the minister's second reading debate. They have now seen some of the changes that have been proposed, and they still have some of the concerns.

There's a final letter from somebody from Maple Ridge, actually, who essentially raised similar points to all the others around the notion of potentially putting in place income testing to make it more difficult for people to qualify to get the support they need, the concern around the ministry's budget cuts in terms of the ability for the community to deliver the services they need and also the issue around consultation and perhaps the lack thereof in terms of true consultation.

I won't read all of the letters. Many of these letters were copied to the opposition, but they were also written to the minister. I expect that the minister would have these letters, and I would hope that the minister would address them.

As I said, I raise these letters in this House to illustrate the points that are flawed with the process to date, not necessarily to say that people don't want to see change. That is not it at all. You see that from the flavour of the letters I've read onto the record. Rather, people want to make sure how the changes take place and, after the changes are in place, that the future, in terms of resources, is provided for so that the delivery of the services is actually in place so people at the end — the families and the children, the elders and so on — would not be hurt.

It would be interesting to see who is to be appointed to the board of this interim authority and if the board will be truly representative of those impacted by these changes. I hope that it will.

The minister did put out a paper on community living services last October. From a scan of the minister's website, I saw there were plenty of responses. I did pick up on some of the themes throughout the responses, and I would like to flag some of those from the Web for the House.

There must be, above all, adequate funding for services. This is not currently the case. The ministry must commit to providing adequate funding. Many indi-

viduals and families are currently sitting on wait-lists for services. This needs to be addressed. Provincewide standards need to be in place regarding the availability of services.

Many adults with developmental disabilities do not have family support. This government must not lose sight of that when restructuring. Families should not be relied upon to replace the role of government services. I hope that the minister has taken these issues to heart and that he'll manage the restructuring in addressing these issues as well.

Before I close, I'd like to ask what the role of the aboriginal authorities is in this bill. We have been contacted by a few representatives in the aboriginal community who are concerned about the lack of specifics around aboriginal authorities in this bill. I note that the original MOU that was signed by the previous government by Chief Ed John, who was the minister then, brought about changes — changes that need to actually ensure the aboriginal community has full say in terms of how these issues around children and families are addressed. That was done.

I know that the minister was very anxious to see the continuation of that MOU. I understand that the minister actually sought out Chief Ed John and met with him and others to look for ways of how to renew and revitalize the MOU since the election. I'm glad that the MOU has been renewed, and I'm glad to see it is being revitalized.

I know the government says that addressing the aboriginal issues — the dismal statistics that are out there around aboriginal children and families, whether it be educational outcomes, health outcomes, being in conflict with the law, substance misuse situations that take place in the family, education outcomes in terms of completion of high school or advancement into post-secondary education…. Disproportionately, the aboriginal community takes the brunt of it, and yet they are less than, I think, 3 percent of our population.

There's something wrong with this picture. Make no mistake about it. There's something wrong with this picture when the statistics tell us so. I know that Chief Ed John had taken the leadership to address these issues prior to becoming part of the previous government, and he had brought forward in that capacity the MOU. I applaud the minister by putting aside partisan politics and seeking out Chief Ed John and others to say: how do we advance with respect to this?

What is signed and agreed to under the MOU…. There are some key purposes around this front, and I would like to just put that onto the record, because the MOU also required the government to address not just the purposes but also the funding issue as well.

First, on the issue around the purposes of the MOU. I quote directly from the MOU:

Subsection 1.3 then states that the joint dialogue and decision-making process will be carried out through the minister's joint aboriginal management committee, which is established in section 2 and is composed of representatives of the parties, aboriginal service delivery agencies, and co-chaired by the Minister of Children and Family Development and an aboriginal representative.

Then it goes on to list all of the different groups that are involved. So the purpose, as I understand — and the intent really is the basis of the purpose — is a good one. Make no mistake about it. We want to see joint decision-making, we want to see shared responsibility, and we want to see the aboriginal community really taking the lead on a lot of these issues and advising the minister accordingly in terms of what is the right thing to do, with the goal of ultimately reducing the number of children in care.

Part and parcel of that agenda, of course, goes not just to dealing with the children who are now in care but also to preventative actions — how to prevent the children from coming into care to begin with. This morning, as I mentioned earlier, we had the lucky opportunity, as the minister had offered, for his staff to meet with the opposition. I met with the ministry staff on that, and I asked about preventative actions and about the other ministries' involvement.

Having been in government, I know how it works. It's not just one minister working in a silo by themselves, but rather you see it across ministries in terms of some of the influences and impacts of other government decisions that ultimately impact on the outcomes of your mandate. I can just see from this government now where some of the ministries that do have influences…. With the Ministry of Health Services, health outcomes are tied hand in hand with the issue around apprehension and the prevention of apprehension, as an example.

We see the Human Resources ministry is also very much related and tied to advancing the mandate of this ministry's goal. Yet we see Human Resources putting forward some very regressive policies that would actually hurt children and families even more, particularly

those who are low-income and addressing the issue of poverty. That's something the Ministry of Human Resources has not taken up, but those issues impact the outcome of this ministry — absolutely, without a doubt.

How would those preventative needs be met across government? I ask the staff that question. Will they be contributing? How will they be contributing? Will they contribute finances, resources, programming with the ministry? The only assurance I got from the ministry staff is that there would be dialogue, maybe sharing of the information.

Well, that's all very great, well and fine, but at the end of the day, having been in government, I know how it all works. You also need the resources and commitment from the other ministries to share in the responsibility in order to facilitate your end goal. If one or two or three pieces of those interministerial components don't come into play, then your job is made that much more difficult. The reality of yielding and achieving the goal that you've set out to achieve, the mandate that the minister has within his ministry, is made that much more difficult, if not impossible.

I look forward to hearing the minister advise this House that, in fact, there will be commitments from other ministries that have influences on the ultimate outcome of this ministry's mandate, and that they will not just contribute by having a dialogue with the minister but will contribute their ministries' financial resources, as well, to make sure that the end goal is achieved.

On the issue around funding. Under the MOU, under section 3, the Minister of Children and Family Development will substitute annual allocations by Treasury Board, provide adequate funding to support all of the activities of the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee and its technical working groups, including the establishment of an independent aboriginal provincial secretariat and reimbursement for expenses in accordance with government financial police. Section 3.2 says the Ministry of Children and Family Development will provide adequate funding for the implementation of activities and action plans intended to achieve the purposes of this referendum, subject to annual allocations by Treasury Board. Here's what the funding section says under the MOU.

One of the things that I hope the minister will entertain in terms of the funding section of this MOU is for the steering committee for the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee to put forward a needs budget — not a budget determined by Treasury Board that says: "Here's how much you've got, and here's how much you've got to work with." Rather, assess the situation, truly understand what the real needs are, and then make a plan towards achieving and meeting the basis of the needs. On that basis, then, we can have a real opportunity here to actually achieve the goals that I think we all share in this House. It is very much determined by whether or not the government is prepared to invest resources in it.

I hope that at some point in time, perhaps, we can see a change somewhere along the line in the legislation that talks about adequate funding that is determined by Treasury Board, as opposed to that of a needs budget to be determined by the people who have been asked to take on that responsibility. Work and develop a plan on that basis — not with predetermined conditions of government that say, "Here are the parameters in which you can work," but broader than that: "Here's the mandate which you must achieve. Tell us what you need in order to achieve it. Map out a long-term and a short-term plan for us to get there."

I'm not saying that we'll do this all in one day. I'm not saying: "Hey, you know what? Let's go to the bank and just break it open and see what will happen." I'm not saying that at all. I'm talking about truly assessing what the real needs are and then mapping out a plan that could achieve that end goal over time. I think British Columbians will commit to that, and I hope that this government will as well.

We see in this legislation, Bill 65, that there is very little mention of the aboriginal authorities. I understand that there is a lot of work to be done. I really do appreciate that. Make no mistake about it. It's not easy to implement change, and it's not easy to plan what all the changes are. But if the aboriginal community is a priority of this government, to reduce the dismal statistics that we now know, then make sure that it is on the agenda for change. Make sure that progress does take place.

I was hoping that in this interim bill, there would be specific pieces identified in addressing the aboriginal communities and their authorities. In this piece of legislation, we don't see that yet. We haven't seen that; it's not there. I hope the government will double its efforts in achieving that goal. I hope the government will open up the funding mandate to the community groups for that. I hope that when the community groups put forward their reports to government, they are immediately made available to the public for their review.

At this time I want to put on the record that this bill itself, as mentioned, is silent on the aboriginal authorities. Instead of legislating the aboriginal authorities at this time, the government has chosen to introduce a bill that, in the words of the minister, moves us closer to our goal of improving outcomes for aboriginal children and families. The bill also foreshadows the creation of five regional aboriginal authorities, moving closer to and foreshadowing promises — change.

It's nice — it's change — but I hope that change comes sooner rather than later. As I mentioned, I was hoping those changes would be here now because it is a priority of government, but it isn't. Given that it is a preliminary step of a larger restructuring exercise, I do wish the minister the best in the decisions he will have to make as part of these changes.

As I researched this bill and the restructuring process, many of the questions have come to light about the inclusiveness of the restructuring and whether the community was widely represented. I

hope the minister keeps these concerns in his mind as he proceeds. I worry about the restructuring that has its basis the need for planning for the implementation of a 23 percent cut behind the scenes — a cut in funding of 23 percent, a 22 percent cut in staffing — and what the ramifications are. I hope the minister would have thought that through, as well, before the cuts are put in place. I hope, in fact, the decision will be reversed so that we don't see these cuts, come the next budget in February of next year. I hope we don't see the cuts in staffing. I hope we see a needs budget from the community on all of these fronts.

The services, I fear, though, will be impacted. The opposition will be watching very closely, along with the public. I feel there is a responsibility from the opposition side to share these concerns that have been brought to us. I don't want to leave the minister with the impression that we're against change. We're not. We want to see change.

I want to acknowledge that in the previous government when we were in government, we didn't do everything right. We could have done better; we should have done better. I acknowledge that. This is not about resisting change. It's about making changes in a way that will realize the goals we've all set out and the hopes for a positive direction — the hopes and dreams the families have for their children, their family and our community.

I hope that can be materialized in such a way that is realistic for the community to deliver and that does not compromise the community further in having to make decisions about who should have support and who shouldn't. Community groups should not have to choose who is more worthy or what service is more worthy.

The minister, I hope, will not put that position onto the community groups so that they're saddled with such a dilemma. I hope the minister will not turn around and say that. Those service cuts are perhaps inevitable, as the budget cuts may be inevitable. When they are realized, I hope the minister does not rise up in this House and say: "I didn't do that. We gave that authority to the community groups, and they did it themselves. It was their choice." I really hope the minister does not do that but that he takes on the responsibility to go back and challenge his own government on such issues when they arise.

On that note, I'm looking forward to third reading debate on this bill. Then we will have questions for the minister on a clause-by-clause basis. I'm really looking forward to the minister's response and, in particular, to the reassurances that the minister can give to the people who have raised their concerns through the opposition, to the opposition and, as well, reassurance to the community that the funding issue will not jeopardize the ultimate outcome and that we will not see the 23 percent budget reduction next year for this ministry and this work.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, closing second reading debate, the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. G. Hogg: Thank you to the members who spoke to this bill, and thank you to the opposition for their comments with respect to this item. There are a couple of items I'd like to add to the record with respect to those.

Firstly, with respect to the issue of the aboriginal memorandum of understanding which was recently referenced, there was a comment that we re-signed the memorandum of understanding. Just to correct the record, the memorandum of understanding which was talked about with respect to the last government was a memorandum of understanding that talked about forming an organization or a group of aboriginal leaders that would be able to make recommendations to the minister — an advisory group.

The memorandum of understanding which the Premier signed is dramatically different than that. The memorandum of understanding which this government has entered into is a comanagement group. It's not about an advisory role but is about the delegation of responsibility within the framework of this ministry to allow for the provision of decision-making.

I should point out that this piece of legislation is not a piece of legislation which allows for the provision of services. It's not moving towards service provision. That would come with a piece of legislation that we hope to introduce at a later point in time.

So often government introduces legislation and says, somehow, to the community, to the world, to the people of the province: "Make this legislation work." We're taking a different tack with this. We're introducing legislation that serves notice that government is serious about moving to a different form of governance, a different type of model for service delivery. We're creating a legal entity with this legislation. We're creating a process by which this planning can take place to move to permanent legislation.

We're being very respectful in the development of the legislation so that it can reflect the needs, the public policy. Too often legislation isn't a servant of public policy or social policy. We want to be sure, through this piece of legislation, that it is in fact responsive to and is a part of ensuring that we'll be able to move forward the social policy, the public policy, that we've talked about and want to bring into existence.

The aboriginal memorandum of understanding does exactly that. It moves us into comanagement, and it allows the aboriginal leaders to be participants in the development of a piece of legislation which will move the governance towards the authorities. There isn't intent to have those entrenched within this piece of legislation, only to be facilitated in a cooperative process to allow us to get to that.

I recognize that through the processes of change, there is uncertainty that happens. There are challenges: challenges with respect to services; challenges with respect to organizational culture; and, as the member has appropriately put, challenges with respect to the issues of budget and budget targets that we have to work with and have to reach through the ongoing

processes of our service plans. We intend to do that. We intend to work forward in a process that is respectful within the framework that we have to deal with.

The hon. member has made reference that things can be different and that we can look at better processes and better ways of delivery. If we would take the budgetary issues out of it, as artificial as that would be, I believe that the structure we're talking about and the plans we're moving to are structures and plans which will allow us to have the very best structure, framework or model for service delivery that we possibly can — a model which is respectful of communities and recognizes, as so many of the researchers and practitioners across the world have said, the value of the social capital that exists within the context of communities.

Development is building that capacity up in ways that will allow communities to make decisions and will ensure that the decisions made are made as close as possible to the people who are most vulnerable and need to receive those services. There's a principle contained within that, which says that the best decisions possible are the decisions made closest to where the service needs to be provided. It's the principle of subsidiarity as it is applied to governance models, and that's a principle which we've looked at and are trying to project throughout this whole process.

The member made reference to the report and why the report hasn't been made public. I haven't received the report in its final form yet. I'm hoping to receive that later today. This is the report with respect to community living. I hope to receive that report today. As soon as we get that report, it will be posted on our ministry website. There's no secrecy in this. It has been a very open and transparent process, and it must remain such.

We also have to do due diligence with that, because there will be people who are concerned and who didn't have a chance to comment with respect to that. We want them to have the opportunity to comment on it. There will be people who don't believe that it is the right way, the best way to go, despite the fact that there are lots of people who are saying it is — as I made reference to in my second reading speech earlier, people around the world who are passing comment on that.

At the same time, we want to make sure that our due diligence is done when that report is received and that people do have the opportunity to speak to and comment on it from around the province. We're looking at methods and processes to do that. Certainly, we want to ensure that we have the best information and that we do an educational process with respect to this, so people get a grasp and an understanding of the issues that are put forward. That report, contrary to the comments, has not yet been received and, when it is received, will be made public to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate in it.

Hon. Speaker, I look forward to the opportunity of discussing these matters in fuller detail as we move into the committee stage. I should also comment that there was one reference made by an hon. member earlier with respect to the closure of the Endicott Centre in the Creston Valley — that that represented some closure or some change in service provision. I should point out that was an institution, and part of the institutional process we've moved to is to deinstitutionalize, to provide new opportunities for the developmentally disabled that are community-based and that allow them to move into greater and fuller participation with respect to the opportunities that exist within our society.

Yes, we were closing that facility. We were deinstitutionalizing, which has been part of the direction and focus that the last government had and indeed the government had before them, and part of a legacy that this province and the people of this province should be very proud of — the fact that we have indeed led much of the world in deinstitutionalizing for the developmentally disabled.

I just wanted to correct that part of the record, as well, to point out that that is part of the process. I'm sure it is something that all members would be pleased was taking place as we move more and more to a community-based model of service delivery.

In closing, again, this interim legislation is legislation which establishes a principle. It shows that government is serious about wanting to move forward with respect to the ideas coming out of an exhaustive consultation process. It creates a legal entity that starts functioning in that. It's not moving into service provision. That is part of something which will come about with further pieces of legislation. This is a transition that allows us to move into a model to delegate some authority before it is entrenched in legislation. It allows us to delegate some of that authority, and it allows there to be an interaction, a respectful partnership in the development of a piece of legislation that will come forward in the future, a piece of legislation that will be responsive to the development of a consultative process of public policy development, legislation which will reflect the best interests of public policy and social policy as we move forward.

Hon. G. Hogg: I move that Bill 65 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at a sitting after today.

Bill 65, Community Services Interim Authorities 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.

J. Kwan: This actually just got walked in while I was debating Bill 65, second reading. A constituent of mine who has brought this information advises that today is the sixty-second anniversary of the Ochi Day, when Greece did the right thing and stood up to the Nazis after ten European countries offered no resistance. The Greeks handed the Allies the first victory of the war. The Greeks delayed the Germans enough to cause them to lose the war. The war was won on the mountains of Albania just as much as on the beaches of Normandy. My constituent Stathi Rallis has asked me to introduce this information in the House for the members' information.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 64; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The Chair: Members, we're going to have a recess for ten minutes until we get started on the next bill.

J. Kwan: Section 11 deals with, in the act, sections 25(2) and 25(3). These are being removed and replaced with subsection (2). The subsection that is being deleted, which allowed for the consideration of the nature of the proceedings and the adequacy of the remedies available in other proceedings in the circumstances before a complaint is deferred, it seems to me, is an important subsection. Yet it's being removed. Could the minister please advise why?

Hon. G. Plant: We have section 11, which repeals two subsections of section 25 and substitutes for those two subsections a power that is expressed in the following terms: "If at any time after a complaint is filed, a member or panel determines that another proceeding is capable of appropriately dealing with the substance of a complaint, the member or panel may defer consideration of the complaint until the outcome of the other proceeding."

This is a power to defer. The fundamental issue in any attempt to seek the exercise of this power is whether there is another proceeding capable of appropriately dealing with the substance of the complaint. Our view is that that test is sufficient to ensure that the power is exercised in a case-by-case way in accordance with the principles and purposes of the code. It may well be that the panel members will consider the facts and factors that are now referred to in subsection (3), but we did not think it was necessary to tie the hands of a panel or a tribunal member with those specific criteria.

J. Kwan: The suggestion that the panel, in making this decision, must also consider remedies available in other proceedings in the circumstances…. It appears to me that it doesn't tie the hands of the panel in making decisions, but rather simply says that you must take into consideration all the other aspects, especially those proceedings that might be available in other circumstances, before you make your decision. There's nothing that binds the decision, but rather it simply says you must consider these other components as well. It seems to me that would be a wise and appropriate approach, so I fail to understand why the minister would say it actually binds the panel. I don't believe it does.

Hon. G. Plant: The subsection that is being eliminated requires the commissioner of investigation and mediation to consider all relevant factors, including the two specifically enumerated relevant factors. That is an obligation that now exists and rests on a commissioner of investigation and mediation who is considering whether or not to defer a matter within the scope of section 25(2) and (3). I think that was the sense in which I intended the obligation I referred to last time.

What I think this does in its amended form is, first of all, move the authority that was in the section in the hands of a commissioner of investigation and mediation into the tribunal. That's the first thing it does. The second thing it does is ensure that power can be exercised at any time after a complaint is filed. Then the third thing it does is express the principle or the test pretty broadly and pretty generally.

All the member of the panel has to determine is that another proceeding is capable of appropriately dealing with the substance of the complaint. If that determination is made, then the member or panel has the power to defer further consideration of the complaint until the outcome of the other proceeding. That's what we're doing here.

J. Kwan: Section 12 deals with sections 26 to 30. These sections, of course, are being repealed and are to be replaced by sections 27.1, 27.2, 27.3, 27.4, 27.5, 27.6 and 30. Could the minister please advise why these sections were introduced to this bill?

Hon. G. Plant: The sections that are before us now include a section which creates the power to dismiss a complaint; a section dealing with the assignment of

complaints, which is an internal organizational provision; a section that deals with evidence, 27.2; and a section that gives the tribunal the power to make rules respecting its practice and procedure, 27.3. Section 27.4 is a discontinuance provision, section 27.5 is a dismissal for failure to pursue a complaint, section 27.6 ensures that a member or a person engaged or retained under section 33 has the power to assist the parties to a complaint to achieve a settlement, and then section 30 is an enforcement provision.

These are concerned with processes as much as anything. They are there to ensure that the chair and/or the member or the panel dealing with a complaint has powers and authorities to set up rules and procedures and deal with matters in a way that will assist, I hope, their speedy resolution.

When we get to it, I have an amendment proposed to what will be section 27.1. I hope that amendment is in the hands of the member. I think it is. I'm certainly in your hands, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to go along with whatever procedure works for you and for the other members. It may be convenient to deal with each of these provisions one at a time and to start with section 27 and then deal with that and then 27.1. Again, I'm in your hands. The members may have some general questions before we get to the provisions on a one-at-a-time basis anyway.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I'll just ask you if you would like to deal with section 27 before we deal with the amendment. Or would you prefer it be all-inclusive?

J. Kwan: Actually, I could go either way. I have questions that are general in terms of the entire section, because some pieces are being reduced, and I would like to ask some questions around that. Then there will be some specific questions.

The Chair: Let's deal with the amendment first, then, and then it can be all-inclusive.

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Chairman, I direct members' attention to 27.1, which is the section entitled "Assignment of complaints." We wish to amend subsection (1) of that proposed section, and I move the amendment to that section standing in my name in the materials before you. I'll read it for the record. Section 27.1(1) will be reworded to read as follows:

That would be the restated section 27.1(1). The restatement is simply to clarify the authority that the chair has and to make certain that the expression of this authority does not intrude upon the decision-making independence of a member or panel to whom a complaint is assigned.

J. Kwan: In my amendment it talks about section 27.1, and then under that it goes on to talk about section 15, by deleting 31.1, and the responsibilities of 31.1 to be replaced with the paragraph in the amendment sheet.

Just for clarification from you, Mr. Chair, are we also then debating or asking questions relative to the amendment to 31.1, or is it just 27.1 at this time?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm happy to deal with the two amendments one at a time. We'll deal with the first one now and then the other one when it arises in the context of section 15 of the bill, if that is acceptable.

The Chair: That's the way I'd like to handle it, please. Thank you. Just do 27.1.

J. Kwan: We see in the old bill — Bill 53 — the introduction of a new section, which was section 28.1, entitled "Review of dismissal." That still applies under 64. That section is being repealed — 28.1, under section 12. Could the minister please advise why?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I think it's fair to say that some of the work being done in section 12 involves bringing things together, because we are streamlining the process and giving powers that formerly would have been powers of the commission or the commissioner of investigation and mediation. Those powers are moving to be the powers of members or panels — members of the tribunal.

I'm not quite sure I understand the member's question. Is she asking why section 28 is being eliminated?

J. Kwan: In Bill 53, under section 12, we saw the introduction of a new section, 28.1, entitled "Review of dismissal." That section is no longer part of 64, and that's the question: why is that?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes, Bill 53 had a section 12 that had a proposal to introduce a section that would have become 28.1. The general intent of that provision was to give a party who was unhappy with the dismissal of a complaint the right to apply to the chair of the tribunal to have that decision reviewed. This is one of the provisions that we looked at and listened to people's comments about.

When I looked at this from the perspective of the general themes and intent of the administrative justice

project, it seemed to us that the need for an internal review was not sufficiently strong to warrant its inclusion. People who are unhappy that their complaints have been dismissed will have the same rights that people…. Well, people who are unhappy with the dismissal of their complaints under the processes that gave rise to section 28.1 will still have the right to judicial review of those decisions. This is simply an attempt to ensure that the process is as clean and straightforward as possible.

J. Kwan: If I understood the Attorney General, there are no process or steps that have been eliminated. But when the minister says it's been streamlined, does he mean that the process to review the dismissal is now gone and that's part of the streamlining exercise, or is that incorporated in another aspect and therefore there's still a two-step to the review of the dismissal?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the authority that may have existed under the existing act, I'm told, may never have been proclaimed. We have kept things as straightforward and simple as possible. People who are aggrieved by the dismissal of a complaint under what will be the new section 27 will still have the right to seek judicial review, and that, I think, is a better way to achieve the purposes of this act rather than decree an internal review mechanism.

D. Hayer: I have a question under the same section. I know the Attorney General has tried to make it clear that British Columbians will still have full opportunity to bring their concerns forward under the Human Rights Code. However, some of my constituents are expressing worries that some of the opportunities to do so will be lost. Section 12 may seem to them to have such an effect on it. Would the Attorney General please comment on their fears?

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the member's question, and I know of his longstanding interest in the subject. He and I have talked about this initiative on a number of occasions. This section now before us, section 12, I think is consistent with a move forward to a new approach that is simpler, that is more straightforward, and that will in fact do a better job of protecting human rights than the existing process. Obviously, the details of these provisions are a little bit more complex, perhaps, than some folks might want.

From my perspective, the virtue of these provisions in section 12 is that they make clearer the authorities that we want the members of the Human Rights Tribunal to have in order to make a direct-access model work as effectively and efficiently as possible. I know the member himself is interested in the whole of the scheme and all the ways in which it will operate, and I certainly appreciate his interest in that, but I think that section 12 is an important and useful part of the scheme if we want it to achieve its overall purposes.

J. Kwan: Just on this section, it's actually too bad, because in reading Bill 53, one of the sections that I think was positive in terms of allowing for this intermediate step in terms of the review of dismissals…. I think that would have been actually helpful, and it's too bad the government's decided not to include that under Bill 64.

J. Kwan: Just moving into another area here, 27.3 allows for the tribunal to make rules respecting the practice and procedures of resolving complaints. What supports will be available to complainants and respondents when faced with prehearing conferences, prehearing examinations, swearing of oaths or affidavits, etc.?

Hon. G. Plant: The clinic that I spoke about in second reading debate will be available to assist complainants and respondents in relation to their process obligations in dealing with human rights complaints.

J. Kwan: I know that the minister is fond of referring to second reading debate. However, with respect to that, I would like to canvass a question now in third reading debate. Would the minister kindly answer the question without saying: "Go and read second reading debate."

Hon. G. Plant: There will be a clinic in place. The clinic will be available to provide information and advice to those who need it. That is by definition those who could not afford to help themselves or provide that advice to themselves.

The clinic model will also provide for representation, again on a needs basis, where people actually need lawyers. I know that people would read subsection (2), for example, of 27.3, and see it as a code of process that could look pretty legalistic. If you're willing to read it objectively and without too much concern about that, I actually think that these authorities are pretty straightforward.

It's good that the tribunal will have the power to hold prehearing conferences — that is to say, to bring the parties together to talk about the claim and the issues before the formal hearing. Sometimes a discussion of issues relating to a complaint, and a discussion that has about it the possibility or the goal of simplifying or disposing of issues, can help the parties achieve resolution by agreement or by negotiation without the need for a full hearing.

That's just one example. That's 27.3(2)(i). I think it's a good step forward to ensure that the tribunal can hold conferences. But since the tribunal is going to have that authority, it's also useful to at least give the tribunal the ability or the power to make rules around how it would do that and when it would do that, so that the tribunal sets some expectations for itself on the part of the public. Sometimes those expectations will take the form of time limits or requirements about how a document might be filed or things like that. If the tribunal has a bit of a set of rules around these things, then I think we as government can monitor the work of

the tribunal to make sure it is acting in a way that is appropriately accountable. Members of the public who are complainants or respondents will also get a chance to see how this process works.

But for those for whom access to this kind of information requires a little bit of help and who can't afford the price of getting a bit of advice, the clinic is intended to be there to help them get that sort of advice.

Let me just say another thing, though, about how that might work. I know that in many of these claims, the parties come to these processes with pretty highly polarized positions. I'm also hopeful, and I have some reason for hope, that we can change a bit of that. A prehearing conference is a couple of words with lots of syllables in them. But in fact it may be an occasion for a tribunal member or some employee of the tribunal to get together with the complainant and the respondent in person to have a conversation about whether and how to move the complaint forward in the most efficient way possible.

Lawyers and legislators need to call those things something, so we call them prehearing conferences. I think that's reasonable. But in the real world they can be fairly straightforward undertakings, and I think that's the goal we're working towards here. Somewhat similar things can probably be said about most of the rest of these particular process requirements.

J. Kwan: The minister talked about the availability of advice, that advice will be provided to the respondents or to the complainants. Is that the same as representation? My understanding is that it isn't, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe advice includes representation for the respondents as well as the complainants. Please clarify.

Hon. G. Plant: I thought I had spoken in my last answer or the one before that about information, advice and representation. Those can be distinct processes, and they are all provided for in the clinic model that we intend to put in place.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, then, when one goes to the tribunal, a person will actually get not just advice but representation as well?

The minister talked about information and so on. I appreciate that because, generally speaking, you get information in all of those kinds of things, but the key issue here is about representation. Even advice is not good enough. In the answer, when I asked the minister specifically around this question, I actually didn't hear the piece around representation. I see the ministry staff actually nodding to say that representation would be in place, and if I'm wrong on that, I will move onto another area. It's good to hear that at least representation would be in place because that is a critical distinction between advice versus representation.

Actually, I'm sorry. I do have another question related to the issue around representation. In this instance, with the change in the bill, we have actually received e-mail and information from people, again, who know the system well and who have advised that the concern, of course, is that the resources available may well be very challenged, because now the representation is being provided to both the claimant and the respondent. Before, the respondent may not necessarily actually get representation. They would get advice but not necessarily representation.

Given that is a broadening of availability of representation to both the claimants and the respondents from the resourcing point of view, has the minister no qualms whatsoever that with the increase in workload and the increase in demand for resources, there would be sufficient capacity to provide adequate representation for all who need it? Will there be some sort of a means test or some sort of an eligibility test for a person to have to go through in order to qualify to access representation?

Hon. G. Plant: I would observe that one of the features of the former system, at least until recently, was that complainants were not subject to a means test. All complainants had access to legal aid.

We expect the availability of representation for complainants and respondents in the new model will in fact be subject to some form of a means test. We are still working on the details of that, but I think we have the resources we need to put in place a program and a process that will give people the help they need, at least those who need that help. I also would say that in this context it is important to recognize that one of our objectives is to move more cases, to have more cases resolved by way of settlement, by way of agreement, early in the process so that we don't make the call on the legal representation, which the former system tended to do.

Is money an issue? Money is always an issue. Money was an issue for the former government in the former process. Money will continue to be an issue. The challenge is how to get the best value for the dollars available. We think we will be able to put in place dollars that will in fact put in place not just the information, not just the advice, but also access to representation for those who need it at a time when they need it.

J. Kwan: That's interesting. I don't believe that in second reading stage the minister actually talked about the need for a means test in his statements. It's actually an interesting revelation, because that's a key component to it. Who will qualify, who won't qualify, and what would the minister determine to be someone who needs assistance? That remains silent at this point in terms of that information. Nobody knows what that means, whereas formerly, as the minister had identified, people were able to get access to the information. Perhaps pursuing the advocacy of human rights overrides the issue around financing.

The other piece, of course, under the previous system is such that there was an investigative procedure

that preceded the tribunal cases. Also, mediation was utilized in the tribunal procedures as well. Those efforts to try to de-escalate, to take the issue away from an adversarial role, were adopted by the previous commission. Of course, the investigative procedures actually eliminated some 50 percent — 48.8 percent — of the cases. That's also significant to note in terms of caseload and then determining what would proceed and what wouldn't proceed — not necessarily to simply weed out cases but, rather, to go through a process of investigating the merits of the case and determining the procedure that needs to be moved forward on. That is significant to note.

It is somewhat worrisome, actually, truth be told, around the criteria that the government would put in place on eligibility. I don't know what it means. I don't know what it will look like. So far to date, what we've seen with this government, what they have done around eligibility on a variety of fronts including legal aid, has been very restrictive and narrow. I've heard members of the public argue that what the government has in fact done is limit access to justice for many British Columbians. So this actually is a red flag for the opposition. We must be ever vigilant, and the community be vigilant, in terms of what kind of criteria the government and the Attorney General will bring forward.

On another section of section 27.3. A particularly objectionable section that was in Bill 53 was the ability for the tribunal to make mediation mandatory. That section has been the focus of much attention. In fact, one could easily say that the analysis of this section has been scathing. This section provides the tribunal with the power to make mediation mandatory, a proposition that has been interpreted as punitive and coercive. The element has not been removed, however, from Bill 64. This element has not been removed from Bill 64. It continues to exist in section 27.3(2)(h). Why did the Attorney General disregard the concerns the communities and the public have about the practice of mandatory mediation?

Hon. G. Plant: The more that mediation is studied, the more research that is done — and I must say there has been a lot of research done — the more we learn that mediation is an extraordinarily successful tool to achieve early and effective and fair and lasting dispute resolution. I think that would be as true for human rights as for any other category of disputes, particularly civil disputes. That's what we're talking about here.

I think it's essential, if we want the human rights tribunal to have a set of authorities that allows it to make rules that will assist in resolving disputes early and in an effective way, that we give the tribunal the power to make rules respecting mediation and other dispute resolution processes, including — without limitation — rules that would permit or require mediation of a complaint, whether the mediation is provided by a member of the tribunal or by someone appointed or engaged or retained by the tribunal.

There's a number of different ways in which rules can provide for mediation to become a requirement. This provision of section 27.3 is drafted in a way that is intended to give the tribunal the broadest authority to make the rules they believe will work for the tribunal in hearing the cases and the matters that come before it.

J. Kwan: The previous commission that was cancelled by this government just last week did adopt mediation and dispute resolution approaches. In fact, the information we have received indicates that some 30 percent of the cases were settled or withdrawn as a result of mediation. The commission had also just completed an early mediation pilot project where 67 percent of the mediation attempts resulted in a settlement or withdrawal of the case. So I'm not disputing the merits of mediation or dispute resolution. No, I'm not.

Where I take issue with this section of the act is that it allows for the tribunal to require mediation. That is what is at issue. Making it an option, making it available and trying to facilitate mediation are important, but to require it is another matter. To say that you must use mediation in this instance, whether or not the parties are ready to do so, is another story. Mediation is usually most successful when you have both parties wanting to come to the table, but not when you have, perhaps, a party that may not want to but somehow is made to. I'm not quite sure whether or not that would actually achieve the end goal.

West Coast LEAF states that while mediation can be a very effective tool in many circumstances, it must be voluntary by nature and is best used where an ongoing relationship is expected. Mandatory mediation defeats the purpose and ignores genuine power imbalances that exist between most complainants and respondents.

Section 35(1.1)(g), of course, does not make mediation mandatory, but it is a very explicit statement allowing the tribunal to do so. This is now under section 27.3(2)(h), which allows for that option as well. It's a concern to simply say that you have to have mediation or to allow for that. I think it goes beyond giving tools to the tribunal, but rather, saying to the tribunal that if you potentially adopt this option…. There are, in my view, potentially greater problems than good.

If the government has gone into Bill 53 and taken out, substantively, the required mandatory mediation but yet has left this in under Bill 64, isn't that contradictory? If the government doesn't accept the mandatory mediation requirement but yet leaves it in as an option for the tribunal to choose, isn't that contradictory to the government's actions?

Hon. G. Plant: Mostly, what's happened here is that we've reorganized the authorities so the general authority that was originally intended by section 15 of Bill 53 is now going to be found in the provision that's now before us.

With respect to the larger issue raised by the member, you know, I have to say that in some respect I understand where she's coming from. When she was in power as government, her government brought forward some proposed changes to rule-making power — I think they were in the Supreme Court rules — that were intended to permit a form of mandatory mediation. It's sort of one option. If one party asks for mediation, then there's a requirement that there be mediation.

I was interested in that initiative. I was the critic responsible for it, so I spent some time talking to people. I heard from lawyers a variety of arguments. I heard some strong support for the initiative that her government was bringing forward. I also heard many lawyers say pretty much what she has just said now — that you shouldn't impose mediation; you should allow the parties to define and create for themselves what they want to mediate.

I actually can't remember how I voted at the end of the day on that section. I think I may have acceded to the argument that the government was making — that it was better to put in place a form of mandatory mediation, knowing it was going to be test-driven on the basis of a number of pilot projects. But what I can say, having watched those projects and others in the time since that was before this Legislature and having seen all kinds of evidence to support this, is that I have become more convinced, rather than less, that the view she has expressed is the wrong view.

The evidence actually is pretty clear. Even when you drag two parties to mediation against their will, there is a good chance that once they're there, they will realize they should work hard to find an appropriate resolution, and they do. The incidence of settlement, for good reasons, is still pretty high. The fact is that if you just leave mediation out there as a purely passive option, it often doesn't get picked up in cases where it ought to.

We've made some progress as a profession — the profession that I used to be a full-time member of, the legal profession. We've made great strides in changing our approach to these things, but I still think there's a role for the Legislature and a role for courts and tribunals in making sure we put a framework in place that ensures that people will in fact be exposed to the option of mediation.

The issue of power imbalance. I have to admit that the first time I heard the argument some years ago, I found it superficially attractive. I am concerned about power balances in relationships. I am concerned about power imbalances in litigation or in dispute resolution. However, I am convinced that that is a red-herring argument in this context. The reason it is a red-herring argument is because it misconceives the mediation process. Mediation is not just about bringing two people into a room and then leaving them to their own devices, hoping they will come to a resolution of the matter. That isn't what mediation is about.

Mediation is conducted in many ways, but one way that mediation is conducted ensures that power imbalances and those issues are isolated. They are isolated, sometimes, because people are down the hall from each other or in the next building, and they have lots of opportunity to think about what would be a reasonable outcome for them, to hear what the other party thinks would be a reasonable outcome and then, in a perfectly calm, perfectly neutral and unpressured environment, to think about whether or not the proposal that has been made is close enough to what they would think is a reasonable outcome that they could move a little bit further towards that middle point and then actually achieve agreement.

I hear the member's concern. I hear it from the vantage point of someone who, half a dozen years ago, would have made some of the same arguments myself from time to time. But the objective evidence indicates that to the extent I used to hold that view, I was wrong. Mediation should be encouraged in every way possible, even in circumstances like those contemplated by this proposed amendment, which is to say that in particular times and places there should be rules that require us at least to be exposed to mediation as a possible way of resolving our disputes.

I know the discussion continues out there, but I also know that those who are conducting objective investigation into this are discovering increasingly the value of mediation. Indeed, the member herself speaks to that when she points to the success that she says the former commission enjoyed on the occasions when it pursued mediation. Surely that evidence and those statistics are all we need to try to find ways to use mediation more rather than less. That's what this subparagraph is about.

J. Kwan: The suggestion that mediation has achieved some successes, and therefore we should force it and require it to be used and make it mandatory, not an option, is where I think the Attorney General has crossed the line.

Yes, mediation can work; no doubt about it. We should encourage it to make it work whenever we can; no doubt about that too. But you cannot, in my belief, Mr. Chair, through you to the Attorney General, extend it a step to say that you must have mandatory mediation or be required to have it, even though you may not want to for whatever reason.

It could be a power imbalance. The Attorney General says: "I don't accept that as an argument." But if there is a long-term relationship to which one has to build a point afterwards, and if you are required to go to the table for mediation, you may not feel that's the most appropriate move for you. But you're required to do so, and I think that causes a problem for the person who's unwilling to go to the table for their own reasons.

It's not just Ms. Shelagh Day or West Coast LEAF that have that concern about the possibility of making mediation mandatory. The B.C. Association of Social Workers raised some concerns about the possibility of making mediation mandatory. In their submission they state that the requirement to make mediation mandatory is objectionable for at least two reasons. Firstly, all of the literature on mediation suggests that it is only workable as a dispute resolution process if it is entered into voluntarily by both parties. Secondly, there are clearly disputes in which mediation is not appropriate — i.e., a situation in which both parties have vastly different recollections of the events surrounding the complaint and need their day in court.

It's vastly different to say: "Here's an option, and here's what you're required to…." Under the Human Rights Code, it actually puts it forward as an option, not as a requirement as it is now under section 23(2)(h). In addition, section 18 of Bill 53 allows a tribunal to award costs against a complainant if they refuse to participate in the mandatory mediation process. How does the Attorney General respond to these arguments?

Hon. G. Plant: Section 19 of the bill amends section 37 of the act. Subsection (4) of that will provide that the member or panel may award costs in two circumstances, one of which is "…against a party who contravenes a rule under section 27.3(2) or an order under section 27.3(3)." Section 27.3(2) has a list of rule-making authorities — 12 separate subparagraphs — and the sanction of costs would be available for someone who did not obey an order of the tribunal or contravened…. Rather, it would be available against someone who contravened one of those rules, and conceivably that would be someone who declined to obey a rule that was a rule with respect to a mediation or other dispute resolution processes. I think that to make sure the tribunal has the authority to ensure that its rules are not just written but are in fact followed by complainants and respondents, it is a useful tool to have to use the sanction of costs to encourage compliant behaviour.

J. Kwan: Well, I think that to impose penalties, if you will — sanctions, as the minister calls them — to require a mandatory mediation process where a person refuses to participate only adds to the issues that others have raised, whether it be West Coast LEAF, Ms. Shelagh Day or the B.C. Association of Social Workers, on issues around trauma, the issues around imbalances and so on, particularly pertaining to human rights issues. I go back to this argument in terms of its fundamentalness of what we need to do as a society to move forward: not only address cases on a case-by-case basis but on a broader scope than that — from a societal perspective, what we've got to do in advancing that. This just simply adds to the intimidation the government has now imposed on people with respect to the requirement for mandatory mediation processes.

The changes that have been brought about, suggested by the Attorney General, are varied in their many fronts. Does the Attorney General see a change in the type of mediation services the Human Rights Tribunal currently provides?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, we are looking at putting in place the best possible mediation processes and making sure the tribunal is established in a way that can support those. I think the clinic will also be there to provide the information, the advice and, where necessary, representation in relation to mediation to those who need it.

J. Kwan: How many staff members will be responsible for mediating complaints at the tribunal level?

Hon. G. Plant: We don't have an exact answer to that question, because the first step, as I said in the last debate, is to determine whether or not the Legislature will give us this framework. We are well advanced down the road towards building the new framework, but we don't have the details of how many mediators or tribunal members would be responsible for mediation or exactly who would be hired to carry out that responsibility.

J. Kwan: Well, the Attorney General doesn't know what the budget is. He doesn't know what the new model would exactly look like. He doesn't know how many staff will be doing mediation complaints. Yet he says that mediation is essential and is in fact a provision that the government is comfortable enough with to make it a requirement for mediation.

You know, it's really quite astounding. How could it be that you have these great, grand plans to uproot, really, the foundation of human rights investigations and human rights complaints and commissions — how it is being done in British Columbia — and all of a sudden all these changes are forthcoming and the minister cannot answer these questions and doesn't know what it would look like? Does the minister have any notion of how many cases the Attorney General would like to see settled by mediation? Is there a percentage, a target which the minister has established in his own mind?

J. Kwan: He doesn't know how many staff would be doing mediation. He doesn't know what the procedures would really look like. He doesn't know how the representation is going to be. He doesn't know what the budget is going to be. Now he doesn't know what the targets might be in terms of mediation, yet he speaks highly of it. In fact, he would go so far as to make it mandatory in one of the provisions under section 27.3(2)(h).

It's astounding. One is tempted to ask the question of the minister: what does he know? What does he envision under this new act, other than perhaps saving a whole whack of money for the minister and the government and then not promoting human rights acceptance in the broader society?

The Human Rights Review stated that approximately 70 to 80 percent of the complaints filed with the Human Rights Commission were referred to early mediation. Will the early mediation pilot projects begun by the commission be continued by the tribunal?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, what I expect is that the tribunal will have studied the results of this project, which I know has been studied, and learn from it to ensure that whatever its strengths were are incorporated into the approach taken to mediation by the tribunal under this bill.

J. Kwan: What staff would be available to continue this project, then? Does the minister know what kind of staff allocation would be put forward in terms of advancing mediation initiatives?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I've answered that question in general terms. I recognize that my answer is unsatisfactory for the member opposite. She wishes we were standing here debating something where I already had in place a fully functioning alternative system with exact FTE counts and budgets, line by line, for how many telephones are going to be in individual offices and the job descriptions already written for each of the people.

Recognizing that the member herself doesn't respect this fact — or, rather, disagrees with it — my take on this is that we are debating here a structure, an institutional framework. We're debating here authorities, powers and responsibilities. If the Legislature is of the view that the government should have these authorities, powers and responsibilities, then we will continue to work towards implementation.

Certainly, as we get closer to implementation, we will develop those details that she is interested in. It may be entirely possible, for example, that at some point down the road we could offer her a technical briefing on the very issues she's asking about. I'd certainly be delighted to offer that. I can't answer that question now because there is no answer now.

J. Kwan: Well, what I'm trying to get at is this. It's very disturbing for the minister to rise up in this House debating substantive changes — an eradication, if you will — to the Human Rights Code by eliminating the commission, eliminating the investigative powers and mandatorily requiring mediation as a requirement, not as an option, for complainants. When I ask the question, "What are the minister's plans, and what does it all look like?" I'm not asking for how many phones there are going to be. I'm asking specifically — even in a ballpark number, let's just say: what is the projected budget for this? Formerly there was the commission's budget. Is that budget going to be transferred into the tribunal's work? What does the minister anticipate in terms of the increasing workload? What does it all look like?

He's actually saying that this will somehow be more cost-efficient, that it will actually save more money, that it will actually provide for the need to monitor and enforce human rights in British Columbia. Yet when you ask these questions that are relative to these changes under this bill, the minister has no answers. That is what is at issue here. It's very concerning for the minister to have no answers with respect to these key components.

I understand that the minister doesn't have the answers. Perhaps he's just too busy dealing with complaints from his own colleagues who have concerns about having confidence in this Attorney General. One may actually venture to say: is it any wonder that one would have issues around having confidence in the Attorney General, who couldn't answer half the questions being posed to him and yet is bringing forward these sweeping changes?

Hon. G. Plant: Before we get to that, I want to make one thing clear that perhaps wasn't stated as clearly or as accurately as it ought to have been by the member opposite in her last remarks. This bill does not impose mandatory mediation. It does not require mediation. What it does do is provide for the tribunal to make rules respecting practice and procedure. Those rules, if made by the tribunal, may be rules that deal with mediation, and they may include rules that would permit or require mediation of a complaint.

What we're doing is giving rule-making power to the tribunal. We're not saying here on the floor of the Legislature that every complaint must be mediated, but we are saying here on the floor of the Legislature that the tribunal, which is a body that has expertise in dispute resolution, should have the ability to make rules about that subject.

Section 27.5 was the focus of the last part of the member's comments, and that reads as follows: "If, under the rules, a party has been given notice requiring the party to diligently pursue a complaint and the party fails to act on the notice within the time allowed, then on the request of another party or on its own initiative, a member or panel may dismiss the complaint." That's the wording.

Stale-dated complaints are the bane of all dispute resolution processes, whether they are processes that take place in the superior courts of the provinces of Canada or processes that involve the adjudication of the entitlement to the return of a security deposit in a residential tenancy matter. Stale-dated complaints are also a concern for people who want a human rights adjudicative process to operate fairly, affordably, efficiently and effectively.

I think one of the conditions in the social contract, if you will, under which we as citizens say we want governments to operate agencies like a human rights tribunal is that we agree that if we are subject to a complaint, if we're a complainant or a respondent in a human rights matter, we should cooperate to the extent of our ability to do so with the need to move towards resolution of that complaint in a timely way.

What this does is ensure that the tribunal, acting either through one single member or as a panel, has the power to dismiss a complaint that has not been prosecuted or pursued diligently. The member or the panel will, when called upon to exercise that authority, do so in a manner, I am certain, that is consistent with the purposes of the code and the general rules around fair process, giving people an opportunity to do the best they can to work within their processes. But if they don't diligently pursue a complaint, if they do nothing to respond or if they don't even respond to a request from the tribunal that they start to diligently pursue the complaint, then I think it's appropriate that the member or the panel at least have the power to dismiss that complaint.

J. Kwan: Just back to 27.3(2)(h).The minister says, "Well, we're only giving it as a tool to the tribunal to require mandatory mediation," and that is what the act says. The trouble is that it opens up the whole notion of allowing for mandatory mediation to begin with.

The second issue I want to raise with the minister is that there are now financial penalties if a person refuses. It isn't just to say, "Here's mandatory mediation available to you, " but rather: "If you don't take it, you're going to have to pay for it." That's quite different from what it used to be under the old Human Rights Code, which facilitates mediation as an option for settling a dispute.

Section 27.6 allows for the tribunal to assist parties to complain through mediation or other dispute resolution. Actually, before I go to section 27.6…. I'm jumping ahead of myself here.

On section 27.5. The minister talked about stale-dated complaints and so on, and therefore this would allow for the dismissal of those complaints altogether. The only trouble is that in the previous section, which we debated last week, the Attorney General and this government shortened the length of time in which a person can file a complaint from 12 months to six months. Again, it imposes such a huge onus on the complainants to act swiftly, really, to act in the manner which the government may wish to see and that may include, as an example, the tribunal imposing mandatory mediation. If you refuse to do so, you may be faced with a penalty in terms of costs.

It's just a tremendous onus. Everything is now in the complainant's court to say: "Act now and within a time period" — a shortened time period — "otherwise you're going to lose your right to file a complaint and, not only that, have your case dismissed as well."

Moving to section 27.6, which allows the tribunal to assist parties to a complaint through mediation or other dispute resolution processes, would this be paying for advocates and legal representation? Is that the intent?

Hon. G. Plant: Section 27.6 reads as follows: "A member or a person appointed, engaged or retained under section 33 may assist the parties to a complaint, through mediation or any other dispute resolution process, to achieve a settlement." This, again, is an enabling, empowering provision that ensures that a member of the tribunal or a person appointed, engaged or retained under section 33 has the power to assist the parties to achieve a settlement.

That process will all be established by and paid for by the tribunal. The mediator, for example, would be paid for by the tribunal. Then there's the issue of whether the complainant and the respondent might require advice and/or representation in participating in those processes, and what I've said before, I think, applies to these processes as well.

Just to be clear, when this section talks about mediation, it's the same kind of mediation that the other sections we've been dealing with are talking about. This is just about making sure that the tribunal, either the members themselves or people appointed or retained by them, has the power to assist the parties to a complaint through mediation or any other dispute resolution to achieve a settlement.

J. Kwan: Would the provision of assisting parties to settle also be determined on the basis of a means test or some sort of criteria? Or would people who enter into or who may be required to enter mediation settlements be automatically provided with representation?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't want to miss the point of the member's question. This is about whether the tribunal has the power to put in place processes to help people reach a settlement. If mediation is the process used in a particular case, then as I've said, the mediator would be paid for by the tribunal. We're talking here about what it is the tribunal can do and giving it the ability to help parties reach a settlement.

If I've missed something in the member's question, I invite her to ask it again so I get it. We've gone over the mediation ground a number of times. I thought I had answered the question with respect to the clinic and mediation. If there's something else the member needs to know, I'd be happy to try to answer it.

J. Kwan: In this section where it ties into mediation, under section 27.6 it talks about: "A member or a per-

son appointed, engaged or retained under section 33 may assist the parties to a complaint, through mediation or any other dispute resolution process, to achieve a settlement."

The question is this. I understand that the minister said earlier that a means test would be required for a person to determine whether or not to go through the process of a complaint, for both the complainant and the respondent, and to see whether or not they're eligible to receive representation, not just advice but representation as well. In this instance, there's a separate clause that talks about providing assistance. My interest is whether or not, when a person is required or is going through mediation or other dispute resolution processes, that where a person could be appointed…. Is that to the complainant or the respondent, or is that for the tribunal? It sounds like it is actually for the tribunal to do the work, but not for the respondent.

The question is around representation for the respondent. If there is representation for the respondent or the complainant, is there a means test associated with it as well? Or is it that once you're appointed a representative from the start of the case, you get that same representation all the way through, whether or not you go through a mediation process?

Hon. G. Plant: I think I get where the member's question starts. It starts from the fact that we're using the word "assist" in this section, 27.6.

This isn't about legal aid. This section's got nothing to do with legal aid. This section is about the power that the tribunal has. It's about giving the power to the tribunal proactively to help parties settle their complaints. It's about making sure that tribunal members have that power and also that people appointed or retained under section 33 of the act, who may not themselves be tribunal members, also have the power.

The tribunal could hire somebody who is a consultant with expertise in resolving workplace discrimination issues, and that person would be a staff member in all likelihood, working for the tribunal. That person would hear about or be assigned responsibility for a complaint, where someone says: "There's a problem in my worksite. The manager doesn't respect people. He has a tendency to say things that amount to discrimination, and I think that my human rights are being violated." The tribunal may say: "Well, why don't we send this staff person out to the worksite to spend an afternoon talking to people and see if we can find out what the problem is here and make the problem go away?"

This section is about ensuring that…. It's part of the package, but it's a part that helps ensure that the tribunal has the authority to do that.

J. Kwan: For the reasons I stated earlier in terms of the concerns with some of the changes in section 27 particularly, the opposition, of course, will not be supporting the Attorney General in making these changes in particular reference to the mandatory mediation requirement and the imposition of a penalty if you don't accept the requirement of a mediation as set out by the tribunal. Those are very concerning for the public. They're very concerning for the opposition, and for that reason we will not be supporting this section of the bill.

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the member's view and the fact that it's different. Before we move along, I want to respond to her choice of terms in one respect. Most of the rest of what she said, I think, has been fairly fully debated, but I haven't taken issue with her characterization of costs as penalties.

Costs are not penalties, in my view. Costs invariably — maybe not always, but almost always — are about making sure that one party to a litigious process, which has been put out of pocket a certain amount of money and been required to do something they might not have had to do but for the failure on the part of the other party to do what they were required to do, gets reimbursed for the expense they've undertaken. Costs are usually about reimbursing for expenses. Costs are often a reimbursement that is significantly less than the actual cost that's been incurred by the failure to obey the rules.

Of course, the precise dimensions of this costs regime are there to be established by the tribunal, but I would be very surprised if the tribunal were able to use the sanction of costs as a tool for imposing huge financial obligations on parties in circumstances where that could not be very, very strongly correlated to significant cost impositions on either the tribunal or the other parties flowing from non-compliance. In many of these cases, the costs that we're talking about, in the scheme of the millions of dollars it will cost the government to operate this institution, are probably going to be very, very minor indeed. They may indeed be significant to the parties who will be involved in these complaints, but of course, those parties will always have the ability to avoid exposing themselves to the sanction of costs if they follow the rules the tribunal sets up for them.

Now, I know the member disagrees with the principle that costs should be available as a sanction for non-compliance with the rules, and I expect her, on that basis, to vote against section 12. But I did want to say that my own view is that it's very unlikely that this part of the costs sanction will be used in a manner that the member is concerned about.

J. Kwan: Just a quick comment. I know the Attorney General would like to distinguish the difference around imposition of costs and whether or not that's a penalty, and if one party goes to this extent, does that mean the other party should be allowed not to engage? And if they don't engage, shouldn't they then be responsible for the costs associated? But you know what? You can sort of dress it up however you want, but if you really just stuck it all down, just looked at the issue, the fact of the matter is to say that you're required to engage in mediation if the tribunal deems it to be appropriate. Therefore, you're required to, and if you refuse to, you could actually have your case dismissed. As well, you could actually have costs imposed on you,

and that translates into a penalty. Anyway, we can prolong this debate at length, but I have other urgent needs at the moment, so I won't and simply will see to it that…. Mr. Chair, I guess you will call the vote.

J. MacPhail: Section 14 amends the original act that deals with the appointment of the Human Rights Tribunal members. I'm wondering if the Attorney General could outline the intention of this change.

Hon. G. Plant: The change to subsection (1) will remove the distinction between full- and part-time members and remove any limitation on the number of members. The deletion of the limit on the number of members will enable the government to appoint tribunal members as required to deal with the caseload as that load varies over time. One member will be designated as chair, and I am advised it will become possible to appoint a replacement for a member who is temporarily absent.

J. MacPhail: The minister can actually repeat the last phrase when I'm on my next question. I just had trouble hearing it.

Given that there's what I would interpret as greater flexibility in appointing tribunal members with that explanation, will there be any time limits to the appointment of tribunal members?

Hon. G. Plant: The provision in the bill is that members hold office for a term of up to five years, so five years would be the maximum.

I think, for the benefit of the member, what I had said earlier was in reference to subsection (4), which provides that if a tribunal member is absent or incapacitated, the government can appoint a temporary substitute member to act during the absence or incapacity.

J. MacPhail: So how will the appointment process take place now? Who appoints? What's the method by which…? Is there a list kept? Will there be a range of five-year appointments and then two-year appointments? What's the plan?

Hon. G. Plant: The appointments will be by cabinet. They are OIC appointments, and the intention is to follow processes that ensure we identify the best possible candidates. Recently the tribunal undertook a public process advertising for tribunal members. We in government receive applications, examine them and discuss them frankly with the tribunal chair, because we want to make sure that we find people that can do this job. Then if we think we've found them, cabinet will appoint them.

J. MacPhail: There are two ways of making appointments, even with cabinet making appointments. One is to appoint a chair and then have the chair make recommendations to cabinet, or there is where cabinet appoints all of them without recommendations from the chair. Does the Attorney General know which one will be in existence?

Hon. G. Plant: That is an issue that is being examined by the administrative justice project. In this particular case, the proposal before the House is that the appointment be by cabinet. As a matter of practice, I think it's likely that the minister responsible for this act would at least communicate with the tribunal chair, but that's not required by the act. The goal, of course, is to use a merit-based process to ensure that we have the best-qualified candidates.

J. MacPhail: I think some people may look at the Human Rights Tribunal not different but perhaps more…. There are broader criteria that include merit. For instance, the UN's Paris principles stipulate that a human rights tribunal must have a "diverse membership," so how will the cabinet appointment process guarantee a diverse membership?

Hon. G. Plant: I think if you apply a merit-based process and if you encourage all qualified people to apply, then you will find that you get not only a highly qualified tribunal but also a tribunal composed of people that are representative of the diversity which is British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Gosh, the Attorney General has just wiped out years and years and years of struggle around that issue of diversity, suggesting somehow that merit alone leads to diversity. Actually, that statement is very astonishing in wiping out years of human rights achievements.

Why was section 31(5), where it allows for a reappointment of members…? Why was that eliminated?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, just so that members of the House understand this, the first part of the member opposite's comments a minute ago were as inaccurate as the second part. We're not eliminating section 31(5).

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Could the…? I'm absolutely fine to be corrected. Perhaps the minister…. Was it under Bill 53, then, that it was to be eliminated and you restored it?

Hon. G. Plant: For the benefit of the member, I would draw her attention to section 14, which is the bill that we have in front of us.

I guess maybe there's a change. Actually, on this particular occasion I think I may have misspoken myself. You're quite right.

Hon. G. Plant: No, I apologize for having said that. I was distracted by the member's temporary distraction on another issue.

Hon. G. Plant: I apologize for having misstated the effect of this subsection. I'll take the member's question and have a look at it here.

Hon. G. Plant: Yes, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to have another look at it, and I'm certainly willing to continue this look. I had misread section 31(5) of the existing act. Subsection (5) of the existing act says: "A member of the tribunal is eligible to be reappointed for one additional term of five years."

That is a limit on reappointment. My view is that by removing the limit on reappointment, we have permitted reappointment for more than one term. I assume that's what the member thinks we should be doing. That is the intention here — that is, to move from a situation where we had a limit on reappointment to a situation where there is no limit on reappointment. Without a limit on reappointment, we think we have the power to reappoint.

Hon. G. Plant: I was just thinking back on that last exchange. On section 15, I have an amendment which I'd like to move.

The effect of that amendment, Mr. Chair, is to remove a proposed subsection (2), which would have read: "The chair may change an allocation of work under this section or any assignment or designation by the chair under this code." I think the intention here is the same as the intention in respect of the change to section 12 of the bill to 27.1 of the act, which is to ensure that we protect the adjudicative independence of tribunal members.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have those figures in mind already in terms of what the rate would be for the chair and then for its respective members?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the tribunal has a chair now, and we're not expecting that that will change. These issues will be examined as we move forward to implement the new scheme.

J. Kwan: Section 17 repeals sections 34, 35 and 36 of the code. In the substance of sections 34, 35 and 36 found in the new sections added by section 12 of the bill…. Is the substance of sections 35 and 36 founded in section 12 of Bill 64?

Hon. G. Plant: It might be an overstatement to answer yes, because there are some changes made. Certainly, the sort of broad rule-making issue that was dealt with in the former section 35 is now going to be replaced by the rule-making authority in section 12 of the bill, but there are some additional elements that include some of the provisions we have looked at and some that we have not, which are part of the whole procedural framework here.

J. Kwan: I hesitate to ask, but I think I'll ask anyway. The Attorney General says there are some pieces that differ in terms of the changes under section 12 of the bill. Is there anything substantive in terms of where it may differ — for section 12 to replace sections 34, 35 and 36? I'm trying to go through this quickly. I mean, I can canvass it slowly, but if the minister will just simply highlight for us in this House if there are substantive changes, that would be appreciated. If there are no substantive changes, then we can move on.

Hon. G. Plant: I'd hate to end up in a situation where the member and I ended up disagreeing about what was substantive and what wasn't. I'd be delighted to provide a technical briefing to the member so that she can see for herself the extent to which the powers are the same, the extent to which the amendments or changes are merely technical, and then determine if there are any that are significant.

It is the case that we are trying — and this is part of the work of the administrative justice project — to make sure that rule-making authority is clear and extensive. We also have some specific and special rules

around things like enforcement of settlements and confidentiality. I'm not sure whether there's an overlap there between section 17, which we have in front of us now, section 12, which we looked at, and some of the other provisions. As I say, I'd be happy to give the member a technical briefing with staff so that she can make the decision for herself.

J. Kwan: The way I read the bill, I actually don't see substantive changes. Given that the minister has made an offer to provide a technical briefing, of course the opposition will accept that offer.

For notification for future for the minister, it would be most helpful if the minister made that offer prior to the debate of the bill. That would be very, very helpful. I think that in past practices with previous governments, there was always an attempt to do such, to provide briefings for opposition members. It is scarcely the case now. It is only on the odd occasion where the opposition is lucky enough to get a briefing before a bill is debated. Perhaps the minister can keep that in mind for future reference. When new bills are being introduced, before we debate a matter in the House, it would be useful for us to receive that technical briefing.

I'll simply move on to another section, then. I'm ready to have the vote on section 17.

Hon. G. Plant: Before we move on, let me just say this for the benefit of the member, and I encourage her to pass this comment along to her caucus colleague. She asked about briefings. I make that commitment as a standing offer for all legislation that is introduced — at least, for legislation for which I'm the minister responsible. She should consider that on any occasion where we have introduced a bill, I would be quite prepared to make staff available to explain it in the format that I'm sure she is familiar with, to see if we can deal with the technical issues and save the important policy and political issues for this floor.

J. Kwan: A new section was added, protecting a member of the panel of the tribunal as laid out under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act. The question to the minister is: why was the addition of this section necessary?

Hon. G. Plant: This is a restatement of the authority or provisions that, in the current act, are in section 34(3).

J. Kwan: Section 19 refers to section 37 of the code, which is to be amended by repealing and replacing subsections (3) to (6). Section 37(4)(b) is problematic. It allows the tribunal to award costs against a party if they contravene any of the rules under sections 27.3(2) or section 27.3(3). These subsections lay out the rules respecting the provisions of evidence and the general practice and procedures for finding resolution to a complaint.

Section 37(4)(b), of course, has many complications. Should a person refuse mandatory mediation for whatever reason, they could be faced with having to pay. My question is: how does this encourage people to come forward with a human rights complaint when there is a good chance they could be fined, as an example? Does the minister foresee or anticipate that people would perhaps be prevented or discouraged from coming forward with a complaint?

J. Kwan: The minister was swift in answering that. I don't know how he can come to that conclusion so readily. Many people in the broader community have raised that as an issue and as a concern. While the minister doesn't know a lot of the answers in terms of what the budget might be, what the new process might look like and so on, he can definitively come out and say no, this would not impact people's inclination to file a complaint, given that this is a potential fine that they may face. The opposition disagrees with the minister's perspective on that.

Under section 27.3, which is legalistic, it is foreseeable that an unrepresented party could be ordered to pay costs simply because they were late in filing a response to a letter. What protection will there be for unrepresented parties?

Hon. G. Plant: To remind the member, we debated section 27.3 at some length some time ago. The sanction of costs is a sanction that will be made available to a member or the panel under section 37(4). The member or panel may award costs against a party to a complaint who has engaged in improper conduct during the course of the complaint, and without limiting that power, the member or panel may award costs against a party who contravenes a rule under section 27.3(2) or the orders that might be made under section 27.3(3).

One of the reasons why I wanted to read those words at some length was to highlight the fact that the power to award costs is discretionary. That is, it's not imposed in a way that is inflexible, arbitrary or mandatory. What we're talking about here is a power that the member or the panel will have. They will exercise that power — I think they will be called upon to exercise that power — in the manner in which discretionary powers are often, if not invariably exercised, which is how to achieve the best balancing of all the interests, the fairest result, in the circumstances. I think it is appropriate to give the tribunal this power so that it has a tool it can use to ensure that people do, in fact, comply with the rules that they make for their procedure.

J. Kwan: Section 37. One of the issues that has been raised particularly, again from the community, is that

section 37 also addresses the remedies section of the code. Under the old code any party could apply for modification, but under Bill 64 now any party or person can apply to modify the order. Why was that change necessary? What is the change meant to address?

Hon. G. Plant: If the member is pursuing the issue of the power to modify, I think that's in section 38. I may have missed the way in which it arises in section 37. Is the member saying that we should move on to the next provision of the bill?

J. Kwan: Actually, under the old code — if you look at the old code — section 37 talks about remedies. The substantive change, of course, now is that the old code is being amended and repealed, and the substitution is replaced. I'm comparing the new code versus the old code in terms of remedies.

Hon. G. Plant: If the member is looking at the existing Human Rights Code, section 37(1) is the power to dismiss. Section 37(2) gives a set of things that happen if a member or the panel determines that the complaint is justified. I think the member is right to describe those as remedial. Those continue. We are not making changes to 37(1) or 37(2).

J. Kwan: Noting the time, I only have a few more questions, and I thought we might be able to squeeze them in before the dinner break — the whole bill. I only have about four or five questions, really, for the rest of the bill.

J. Kwan: Is that all right? I was just trying to sort of push through before the dinner break.

Okay, then section 20, sections 38, 38.1 and 39 are repealed and replaced with a new section — 38, 39 and 39.1. Section 38 talks about the tribunal being able to modify an order made under section 37, which is the remedy section of the code. Perhaps this is where the confusion came in when I asked the question earlier around remedies under 37. Under the code any party could apply for modification. Bill 64 now says that any party or person can apply to modify the order. Why was that change necessary, and what is the change meant to address?

Hon. G. Plant: The reference to "a person designated in the order" is new. It's there to ensure that cases that raise issues of systemic discrimination — for example, where the tribunal has made an order that is against somebody other than a party — are engaged in a way that allows that person to apply to the member or the panel to modify the order. We have expanded the reach of these proceedings a bit to make sure we encompass systemic and other multiparty sort of complaints, I guess. And we want to make sure somebody who may not have actually been a party but may have been designated in the order has the ability to apply to have the order modified on the basis that is set out in this provision.

J. Kwan: Section 23 refers to sections 42(2) and (3) of the code, which are being repealed and replaced. Could the minister please advise…? Perhaps the minister may not have the answer. It seems that for any question relating to budget items, the minister does not have the answer. Does the minister know what the budget will be for special programs or activities?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the primary focus of the amendment before the House is to recognize that the current provision around special programs creates duties or responsibilities for the chief commissioner or the deputy chief commissioner. Those offices will no longer exist. We had a discussion about whether it would be appropriate to give that power to the minister or to the tribunal. Our view is that it should not be a power that the minister has, so we have left it with the member or panel. There is, at this point, no specific budget associated with that authority.

J. Kwan: Section 27 deals with the supplement to the Human Rights Code, which is being repealed. Will there be a new supplement that would be produced and, if so, when?

Hon. G. Plant: The supplement is a term used to describe provisions of an act which have been passed in the assembly but never proclaimed. They are there in the statute books, but they've never been brought into force or effect. There were some provisions in the code — we've actually maybe talked about one of them, 28.1 — that were enacted but never brought into force. What this section does is really procedural as much as anything else. It repeals the supplement.

The hope that every minister has, who stands up and seeks approval by the House for a piece of legislation, is that all the provisions of this legislation will in fact be proclaimed and will not be left to languish in a supplement. I have no plans at the moment to assign

J. Kwan: Section 30 refers to the act being brought into force by regulation. Could the minister please advise when the regulations will be available? Is there a time line?

Hon. G. Plant: This section is concerned less with regulations than with the fact that the bill will come into force by regulation, so the issue raised here is perhaps more than anything the issue of when the legislation will come into force.

I don't think there are any other regulations that are contemplated. This is simply the legislative drafter's technique for deferring the proclamation of a bill until all of the supporting infrastructure is in place and cabinet decides to announce that the bill is now in force. In this case, as I've said before, my goal and my hope is that that will be in the early part of the next calendar year.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 64, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

This bill is intended to provide openness, transparency and accountability to public sector executive compensation. In the area of compensation practices, public sector employers will be required to have compensation plans in place and approved by the Minister of Finance. No increase in compensation will be allowed unless it complies with these previously approved compensation plans.

This requirement will be, for the first time, enforceable by law. Also enforceable by law will be the appropriate use of vacation and sick leave. All future exempt employee contracts will require that unused vacation leave can only be used or paid out in the employment year immediately following the year in which it is earned. Furthermore, the payout and use of accumulated sick leave in all future exempt employee compensation contracts will be prohibited for any purpose other than sick leave.

This means we will have control of executive compensation as people come in the front door. At the same time, we are taking measures to control executive compensation as employees go out the back door. In the area of severance, the public has made it clear that it wants fair and realistic limits upon severance payments. The upper limit is being reduced from the previous limit of 24 months to 18 months. These limits will not apply to those employees on definite term contracts until contracts are changed or renewed.

This bill will also address the questionable practice of paying retiring allowances to people who have been let go. All future contracts will be required to ensure that an employee that is entitled to severance at termination must not also receive a retiring allowance. The only exception to this rule will be when the Minister of Finance approves a labour adjustment strategy and wants to ensure that people are treated in a just and humane manner. In such cases, it might be appropriate to provide a retiring allowance to a person who is being let go.

All public sector employers and executive employees will need to know that this government is very serious about the enforcement of this act. Any money or benefit that exceeds the amount permitted under the employment compensation standards will be a debt repayable to government. That means that all senior executive employees will need to make sure their compensation is in compliance in order to avoid incurring a bill from the government.

The legislation will provide new tools for employers to prevent the practice of collecting of severance after being re-employed in the public sector. Public sector employers like school districts or hospitals will

now be able to get former employees who are receiving severance payments and who are re-employed in the public sector to pay back any outstanding severance. In the past, only the provincial government was able to recoup severances from re-employed workers. This change provides a real financial incentive for employers to make sure double-dipping does not occur. The public expects nothing less.

This bill will also ensure that taxpayers can hold both government and public sector employers accountable for their compensation practices. For the first time, all public sector employers will be required to make copies of contracts for senior employees available for public inspection during normal business hours. We will be passing regulations designating that senior employees will be defined as those earning more than $125,000 per year.

Government will also be monitoring compliance. Public sector employers will be legally required to provide the government all the terms and conditions of the compensation for those same senior employees. The Minister of Finance will have the power to declare all or part of a contract void if an employer fails to comply with the filing requirements.

These measures are balanced and fair. B.C.'s public sector employers will still have the flexibility they need to recruit and retain the kind of leadership needed to provide efficient and effective services to the citizens of B.C. At the same time, it provides government with new tools to ensure that those compensation plans are appropriate.

Finally, the people of the province will be able to hold their elected representatives accountable for ensuring that executive compensation practices are fair and responsible.

J. MacPhail: In the scope of things that are happening in this province, the radical change and the extreme agenda, people would probably predict that I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about this legislation.

With the breaking of contracts for tens of thousands of workers by the stroke of a legislative pen; with the breaking of the contracts for doctors, school teachers, health care workers, nurses; with the breaking of a commercial contract with the Working Opportunity Fund by this very minister, a legally constituted Working Opportunity Fund venture capital fund, the breaking of a commercial contract, one might wonder: "Well, why bother wasting your energy on this?"

I want to make a few points in that context. Because of the radical changes this government has introduced — extreme, never before seen — our public service is a fragile group, as is our public sector a fragile group right now.

Why is it that this government is introducing this legislation? I was the minister responsible back in 1997 and introduced changes to the Public Sector Employers Act to deal with the issue of severance and when severance would be paid. The reason why I introduced and passed that legislation was because there was a controversy around health care dollars being spent on severance. The public was outraged that…. I think it was a case of up to about $500,000 being spent on severance for a person who had lost…. I won't even assign blame. This was a senior, senior executive in the health care sector in 1997.

The reason the public was outraged was because they thought the dollars could have been better spent on health care. I met with various people in the health care sector, and I met with some citizens about it. I said: "What makes you so upset?" At the time there were also stories in the private sector about people making huge compensation — huge compensation. There were many opportunities for people leaving the public sector to go into the private sector. You may recall that there was a huge boom going on at that time in the high-tech sector.

What they said back to me was that it was an unnecessary expenditure of dollars. It wasn't even the amount, although the amount really galled them. It was that there would be any amount spent on severance.

We did a survey. I took those concerns very seriously. After a few months, several weeks, of examining the issue and looking at all of the circumstances that exist across the country in the public sector, we approached it this way.

I'll add just one other caveat here. The other group that we talked to was the actual public servants who were delivering the services themselves. We did that consultation through the Public Sector Employers Council.

In order to address the public's concern that any dollar should be properly spent — and if it's a waste to pay severance, it's a waste whether it be $10, $10,000 or $500,000 — here's what we did.

We put limits on when severance would be paid out. There was also a limit on how much severance should be paid, but we put limits on when it should be paid out, because that was what the public was so upset about. We said that if there's another job in the public service for which this person is qualified and can serve out her working notice, then she must be reassigned to that job. Of course, we were dealing with senior managers who had a wealth of expertise and often a range of wealth of experience — not only expertise but experience in different fields. For instance, in government, deputy ministers are often transferred from ministry to ministry, and the head of one Crown corporation sometimes becomes the head of another Crown corporation because of that valuable experience. So we put limits on when severance could be paid out.

We actually said that the concept of constructive dismissal, a legal concept that says — it's always one that's surprised me — if you change my duties a little bit from what you originally assigned me, that's constructive dismissal, and I have a legal case against you…. We said sorry. We legislated against constructive dismissal being a legal argument upon which ex-

ecutives could rely. We said: "You will get working notice, and if for some reason we cannot provide appropriate work, then we will pay severance."

At the time the then opposition, now the government, criticized us upside, inside. It would be very interesting. I'm sure the minister hasn't done this, but it would be very…. He should do this in preparation for committee stage debate. It would go a lot more smoothly if he informs himself, because a lot of my questions will arise from what the opposition said at the time. My question will be: what's changed between then and now?

The criticism at the time began with "it's too little too late," but it was all about lack of value being applied to the public service. They characterized it as closing the barn door after the horse had left, but in the end — and I accept that this is a strategy of political parties in this Legislature — they voted in favour of the act. It passed, and it became law. There were very substantial strictures in when severance could be paid out, how much could be paid out, but there was no leeway. There wasn't the flexibility for political interference such as there is in this bill now.

The reason why this government is introducing this legislation now is because this government, now that they're no longer in opposition, chose to ignore the law of the land that was passed in 1997. They ignored the law in existence when it came to severance agreements they had reached with senior public servants — expensive severance arrangements that have been paid out in the first 17 months of this government's existence.

I'm going to give you some examples. Pat Zanon was the head of the South Fraser Valley regional health board, and I'm reluctant to raise the issue of Pat Zanon because I have known her professionally for years — only professionally. She had a wealth of experience in the health care sector that was unmatched. She tackled some pretty substantial challenges in her time not only with Langley Hospital but then with the South Fraser Valley regional health board and was working in the transition from the last government to this government. She worked incredibly to deliver health care services even in challenging times.

I use Ms. Zanon's circumstances only to prove the point that, really, she is the first person who got targeted by this government and took a lot of, I think…. There was a lot of dismay about the amount of money that was paid out to Ms. Zanon, as if it was somehow illegitimate. Of course, with her two and a half decades of experience, expertise and well-recognized success in the public service, this government summarily fired her in December of 2001. They summarily fired her.

They didn't have to pay the severance. There was absolutely no necessity to pay out one cent of severance to Pat Zanon. She had a wealth of expertise. The system was crying out for expertise. In fact, there were vacancies and chaos created by vacancies amongst heads of the newly created regional health boards of this government. They could have easily used her expertise, even in transition. They could have applied the law and said: "Well, Ms. Zanon, we're giving you working notice, but you have the expertise to do this job, this job, this job, so we're reassigning you, but we'll be reassigning you for the term of your contract."

The government hid behind the fact that it was the bad NDP who signed an unreasonable contract. Balderdash. That contract was well within the law, well within reasonable terms, well within the legislation supported by both sides of the House, and Ms. Zanon was doing a good job. Yet this government wanted to put other people at the head of that regional health board, so they fired her.

Did they have to pay one cent? No. It was because of their wishes to put their own person in charge. Actually, they couldn't even find their own person to put in charge. It changed several times for that health board and led to chaos. Yet there wasn't a requirement to pay one red cent. In fact, I would suggest, as a personal aside, that those inside the system would say it was to the detriment of the health care system that Ms. Zanon was fired. The health care system is worse off, and the taxpayers had to pay out $700,000.

What about Japp Tuinman? My apologies for perhaps not being able to say his name correctly. He was the head of the Open Learning Agency. It's the same situation. The government's got an agenda at the Open Learning Agency. They want to privatize it and sell it off. They fired the head of the agency, Mr. Tuinman. They paid him $430,000. They didn't have to pay him one cent. He's got a wealth of experience, was doing a good job and could have stayed there.

How about the $300,000 payment that this government made to the former Deputy Minister of Health Planning, John Tegenfeldt? That's one that they can't blame on anyone but themselves — nobody. It wasn't the decade of decline. It wasn't fast ferries. It was Skeena Cellulose. I know that message box that everyone's been given. I've seen the little sheet. No matter what you do, no matter what challenge you make, blame it on a decade of decline and fast ferries, and hopefully, you'll get off the hook.

That message box, of which people are getting extremely tired…. In fact, if you look at the mistakes and the misuse of tax dollars already by this government, they'll probably stop invoking any of those factors when they understand it's on their own record that they're going to have to run in the next election.

Mr. Tegenfeldt stands out as a clear example. Three months after he was hired by this government…. By the way, Mr. Tegenfeldt also has a wealth of expertise, experience and credibility, but he got into a fight with the Deputy Minister of Health Planning, and he was fired. After three months of work he got $300,000. Was it because there were bad laws in place? No. Was it because this government ignored the laws in place? Yes, absolutely.

Here's another one that only this government has responsibility for: $850,000 payment to Dennis Truss when he left the B.C. Buildings Corporation — another longtime public servant. Nobody could challenge his

expertise or his experience. All because of this government. They wanted to put their own people in charge.

This one was particularly galling to me, and the Minister of Labour's own community is directly affected by this huge mistake. There was a $300,000 payment made to the former head of the Vancouver Island health authority, Grant Roberge. This government restructured the health authorities so that they amalgamated, mushed together, all of the health authorities on Vancouver Island to make them into one. But they still had a job that was exactly equivalent to the work that Mr. Roberge was doing prior to the amalgamation. There was still a person in charge of his region within the larger region. There was lots of work that Mr. Roberge could have done — should have done — in reassignment. In fact, there was a desperate cry for expertise in that area of the mid-Vancouver Island health services. But no, this government let him go with $300,000 in his pocket.

There we have it — this government not dealing with the issue of whether severance pay should be paid and not dealing with the issue of how we keep expertise, valued corporate memory, valued experience in our public service even when there is a change in government.

None of these people was partisan. Not one of them was partisan. Not one of them was a political appointee. Some of them were order-in-council-appointees, and others weren't. But most of them had served across several government tenures. In fact, I don't know anyone that hadn't done that. All of them had done that. Yet this government, in its haste to put its own people in charge and to bring about their radical, extreme agenda, fired them and paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars.

How does this legislation address that concern? Well, it doesn't. It doesn't at all. Again, it slams the barn door shut after the horses have left. In fact, it doesn't deal…. Nobody has stood up and said: "We're going to enforce the legislation. Now we see the error of our ways and the waste of tax dollars. We're going to enforce the legislation that was in existence." No, they're not going to do that. They've put some window dressing on here that takes away maybe some benefits from very hard-working middle and upper management public servants who, frankly, are slogging their guts out these days on behalf of this government. What they did was, mid-agreement with these public servants, take away some of the benefits upon which they may rely, which may get them through the days of these terribly tough times within the public service.

Tomorrow 800 forestry workers are going to be fired. It's going to be tough. Middle and upper management is going to have to do that work. What does this government do to recognize that tough work they're doing on behalf of this government? They take away some of their hard-earned benefits midstream. However, I guess that's the way this government recognizes commitment, experience, dedication and loyalty.

What doesn't this bill cover? Well, it doesn't cover agreements that are already made. There's no retroactivity to it, and I have to say thank God. However, there was no hesitation for this government to gut contracts in place for lower-paid workers. They didn't consider the legal challenges and back off from that. Less than a year ago we were in here destroying agreements reached between all health care workers, teachers, college instructors and doctors — didn't hesitate to rip up those contracts. But if this government had made it retroactive, their own hand-picked executives would be caught by this legislation. Andrew Wilkinson, the former president of the B.C. Liberal Party, now a deputy minister in this government — he would have been caught by this legislation.

The head of ICBC. He was appointed as the chair, but the CEO of ICBC didn't like what this government was doing, so he's off now. Nick Geer isn't captured by this — a good man, by the way. He's not captured by this. Larry Bell, the man who ran the transition for this Liberal government, the political appointee, partisan appointee — he's not captured by this legislation.

It turns out that the firing of the extremely well-respected head of the B.C. Ferries is not captured by this as well. Perhaps it would have been tougher to actually get Mr. Lingwood to be the upstanding, straight-up civil servant he is, who kept his mouth shut, if he had been captured by this legislation before the Minister of Transportation summarily fired him two weeks ago. Timing is everything. If the government were serious about this, would they not know that they were going to fire Mr. Lingwood? Perhaps they could have saved the government hundreds of thousands of dollars by introducing this legislation to capture that appointment. But they didn't, because, again, it would have brought to attention that there was no reason in the world for changing leadership at the B.C. Ferries Corporation — none. If it had been $1 of severance, it would have been a waste of money.

The politics of this government would have been a waste of money, so whatever sweetheart deals they've cut with their own political appointees — deals that they cut despite the law that was in existence since 1997 — are now to stay forever. It's not likely that we'll see what deals were cut with those who will be excluded from this act, because this act doesn't cover everyone.

A little piece of this legislation, as always with this government, gets slipped through. We're getting more and more like the Senate of the United States, where there will be a gigantic omnibus bill dealing with the social security system, and there will be a slip-in for protecting some company in Georgia in the omnibus bill. That's what this Legislature's getting like. This bill will allow the Premier and the cabinet to exclude certain positions from the application of the act. Do we know who that would be? Do we know why that's in existence? Once again, the spirit of openness and transparency has become a myth under this government.

Why should the deal that's been struck between the Premier and Martyn Brown be kept secret? Why should the deal that's been struck between the Premier

and Lara Dauphinee or their successors be exempt from this legislation? They're paid as senior managers. Both of them, I think, make more than $125,000 a year. Why are they exempt? Why shouldn't they have the same scrutiny as Deputy Minister Ken Dobell or Deputy Minister Brenda Eaton or whoever will follow them? That might outrage, but maybe this government's saying: "Well, we actually don't want the public to see what we're paying our political appointees."

This bill also changes what have been for a long time the working conditions of excluded employees. The government tries to give it a negative taint, a dirty smell — accumulated vacation and accumulated sick leave. What I say is that there is a history to these compensation methods that has allowed our public service to be one of the best in all of Canada. Despite this government's tarnishing of the public service for the last ten years when they were in opposition and now that they're in government, our public service — the second-leanest in the country — is incredibly well regarded worldwide.

Every day or at least every week, we have ministers standing up with pride with foreign dignitaries visiting British Columbia to learn from our public service. From all over the world they come here to learn from our public service. Yet when this government gets caught out doing their dirty political work of firing people that shouldn't be fired, do they bring in a piece of legislation that deals with the problem? No, they attack the very people who have served them loyally and well and have served every government loyally and well. At a time when the government is encouraging many to leave the public service, it is curious to say the least that it would move to change the terms of employment for middle and upper managers without consulting them. And believe you me, Mr. Speaker, this government did not consult them.

As we've seen with so much of the legislation of this government, power is being consolidated within the office of the minister. I'm sure that will make our public servants feel calm and satisfied, knowing that their future rests within the hands of a minister amongst a government who has ravaged the public service in the most partisan, destructive way we have seen in decades.

Well, I think we are going to have a very, very discouraged public service over the coming weeks. The same people that are now having their benefits taken away, their compensation radically altered, are also facing the challenges of a substantially reduced pension if they retire. Every public servant, every retiree, is waking up across the province to monthly cheques that are $100 or $150 less per month than what they thought they had been guaranteed. Public servants are now having to shuffle and reconsider retirement after decades of service because of the downloading of costs by this Liberal government from what used to be taxpayer-funded health care services, which are now being transferred by making individuals pay for it out of their own pockets. Pensions are being reduced. Why? Because MSP premiums have been increased by 50 percent by this government. Pharmacare costs have been hugely offloaded onto extended health benefits programs. And of course, there's been the third layoffs in this public service, so the base by which people contribute to the pension plan has been decimated.

Well, I must say in conclusion that whatever this government does to public servants, it is always an attack — always. Whether it be on reducing your potential pension plan — and for retirees, of your pension plan now — or whether it be this government shifting, after all of the hard work done by these middle and upper managers, and saying: "Sorry; in order to get the political monkey off our backs, which we put there, we're going to attack you, public servants. You're going to pay the price…." That's why I care. That's why this bill is important. That's why it will be an even more greatly fragile public service that we will face over the coming weeks and months when stability and certainty and thoughtful leadership are so necessary. I'm very sad about that.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is not an attack on senior executive positions in government today. This bill was brought in some time ago. There's an amendment brought by the former Speaker here just now back in 1997, I think it was. Basically, what we're doing is working off of that piece and strengthening it.

The member was quite correct in saying there's no retroactivity to this. There isn't retroactivity to it in the sense that we're going back in regards to vacation pay. We've said as a result of the day this legislation was brought in, vacation pay will still continue to be paid. It will not be accruable past the next year when one was to take it, and it would be paid out. It's paid out; it's just not paid out 25 years from now. It's paid out at the completion of the second year.

Sick leave was meant to be there as a benefit to people who find themselves ill, quite frankly. It's as simple as that. You have a hard-working public sector of very good people in government. From time to time we all find ourselves under the weather. What was provided for in each of the compensation plans through government, and has been for some time prior to this government taking over, was sick leave benefits. What had been the practice in some instances was that sick leave benefit was accruable and cashable at the end of one's time with government, either when they retired or if they were let go. We're making it very clear that that's no longer part of the package.

For those that already have an accrued amount of sick leave, the line is drawn. Over the course of the next three years, there will be programs they'll be able to work out individually to see that paid out. But going forward from this point forward, sick leave isn't seen as a cashable benefit. It's accruable to the point that if you are healthy and well and, over a number of years, you don't need to use your sick leave days, and then

you find yourself in the future with some illness, those days are there for you to use. But at the time of departure, be it either through retirement or a severance, that's not a cashable benefit.

I'm not going to go back and start talking about individual cases. That's not what the purpose of this legislation is. It's to bring transparency and clarity to how contracts are put together. It's made it clear that when contracts exceed the terms, they must be approved by Treasury Board through the Minister of Finance. That must be done at the time those contracts are brought in. If you're earning more than $125,000 a year and you have signed a deal, it's now incumbent upon both the employee and the employer to make sure the deal that might be beyond the framework that's put in place here is approved by Treasury Board. Then we have a complete circle in making sure everybody knows the terms and conditions.

The aspect of severance is just simply that we took a look at the grids that were there, the Nemetz, the common law practices, and looked across government throughout Canada and found that probably the fair and balanced way was to reduce it from the 24 months that had been in existence to make it 18 months in regards to severance. Some people would argue it should be 12. Some people would say, as the former speaker was mentioning, that perhaps the whole issue of severance ought to be dealt with and eliminated completely, but there is the basis of common law out there.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, it was difficult to fully appreciate just absolutely everything that was said, but I was trying to listen carefully. Once you stopped on the three examples of things that had gone wrong in the past ten years, I was disappointed with the rest of the remarks, because there were many more examples that we could have alluded to.

At any rate, what this bill is doing is trying to bring fairness and clarity to the aspect of making sure that our public sector group is treated well and fairly here in this province, as they would be in any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Hon. G. Bruce: 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 66, Public Sector Employers 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 63; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Bruce: Before we start, I'll just make a couple of introductions. I have with me a number of staff members: my deputy minister, Mr. Lee Doney; Mr. Dan Perran, who's the policy adviser to the minister on this particular piece of legislation; and Leigh Sherdon, who's the director of the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal implementation team.

J. MacPhail: I just have a procedural question for the minister. The Workers Compensation Act is being amended. The original act is 119 pages. The legislation that we're dealing with right now is 32 pages. When I did my own redline version amalgamating the two, it's now 89 pages.

I must commend my staff for having done the redline version. We have spent a lot of time examining this legislation, but it is extremely complex, and there are some substantial changes here.

My question is this, just to start: what is the time frame between passage of third reading and implementing the legislation? What opportunities are there for people to have input as the legislation is implemented?

I ask this question here because in doing our research, being the small but hardy band that we are, we have to rely on getting assistance from other people. Organizations that deal with this thing every day have been overwhelmed by the legislation, the legislative changes. Yes, there was a piece of legislation that had been on the books, but there are changes even from there. If the minister could just outline for me how this is going to be implemented and with whose assistance.

Hon. G. Bruce: I quite appreciate the complexity of the legislation, the difficulty of reviewing it all and the challenge that it presents for everybody. As you know, we've been at work on this for quite some time. The bill that was initially tabled in the spring…. For the most part this Bill 63, which replaced that bill, is pretty much the same, but clearly there are some adjustments.

The intention of government would be that the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal would take effect on February 28, 2003. Prior to that, there will be pieces of the legislation which will be proclaimed and brought into effect to allow us an orderly transition. I quite appreciate that with what we have here in the restructuring and reorganization of the workers compensation system in its entirety, there may be, as I move through this, the need to come back and revisit certain sections.

We're trying to do this in a manner that is thoughtful and will provide a better workers compensation system for everybody, so where there are clearly errors or omissions or changes that need to be brought about, I will be revisiting them. It is my intention to move ahead now, but like I say, if there are things that need reflection, then I'm quite prepared to look at that.

J. MacPhail: Just one additional question in this area: what work, if any, is being done with the employees of the Workers Compensation Board on transitional matters?

Hon. G. Bruce: We are working with the two unions involved, the BCGEU and the CEU. They will be the unions of record in the transition that takes place to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

The whole point of this is to try and bring about…. I mean, apart from the employees and that change, we're dealing with an organization here that is to provide service to injured workers. The whole transition — and it's a very large one — we're trying to do in the most orderly way possible so that people on the front lines are looked after. That's required, of course, for the people who are working in the system so they can look after those people that are on the front lines.

J. MacPhail: And when will the individuals who are in charge of governing the Workers Compensation Board be appointed? I assume there are changes there.

Hon. G. Bruce: That's correct. The bill we brought in, in the spring — I think it was Bill 48 — dealt with governance. There will be a new board of directors appointed. I'm currently in a short-listing of who those people will be, and it's my hope that within the next several weeks I will be able to announce who those people are. It's not a question of being coy. It's a matter of being able to meet with people, work it through and speak with them. I'm actively doing that right now.

From many different groups and organizations, both labour and employers, I have asked for names and suggestions of people they think would be good individuals to serve as directors of the WCB. As I mentioned, it's my hope to be able to make those appointments within the next several weeks.

J. MacPhail: This section deletes section 11 of the Workers Compensation Act. This section 11 previously applied that: "Where an action based on a disability caused by an occupational disease, personal injury or death is brought, the board must, on request by the court or by any party to the action, determine any matter that is relevant to the action and within its competence under this act." In other words, people could redirect through certification of the court for the board to re-examine a matter. Why was this section repealed, and what are the ramifications of the change?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is part of the reorganization. You'll actually find this part in section 257 in the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, where this same responsibility would be housed in the external appeal body as opposed to the board level, as it stands right now.

J. MacPhail: So the full rights and responsibilities under the previous section 11 are transferred fully?

J. MacPhail: I have questions on sections 3, 4, 5 and 6, Mr. Chair, just for your information.

Section 3 changes section 24 of the original act. It replaces the term "review" under the old act with, now, the word "reconsideration." Perhaps for those of us who are lay people, what does this mean for claimants?

Hon. G. Bruce: I can appreciate the comments of the member opposite. You get into review, reconsideration, reopenings — the three Rs. What we are attempting to do here is to provide consistency with the definition of reconsider and review. This has no impact on the claimants. This provides what we think is a clearer definition through the act as to what the terms are in both these in the issue of reconsideration.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me ask this: when will people know what the change from review to reconsideration means in terms of their rights, and how will that be communicated?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, in section 24(9) the word "review" was used when in fact it should have been "reconsideration." All we're doing is making sure that as it flows, the term "reconsideration" as it is used for the act should be used there in subsection (9). We're striking out "review" and substituting the word "reconsideration," which more clearly defines what this part of the act was all about.

It's not changing the basis of this. It is just adding clarity. The words review and reconsideration get bandied about. We're trying to add clarity through the act as we go.

J. MacPhail: Just out of curiosity, how does one find out that there was that error? How did that come about? Maybe that could guide me on how the whole bill was drafted. Did we stand up and say: "Oh my God. Who the heck used 'review' when they should have been using 'reconsider'?"

Hon. G. Bruce: Your categorization of that was pretty much it. It is an old, old bill, as you're very much

aware. We have an internal review, which is how we've rebuilt this. We now have the board decision with an internal review, and then we have, as we're setting up here, the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. We didn't want confusion in anybody's mind as to what review meant. What we're talking about is a review of the internal review. It really is nothing more than that.

J. MacPhail: I certainly appreciate the minister's candour. It does highlight how confusing this bill will be in the debate. My great hope is that given my ability to examine the changes in a very rudimentary fashion, the minister will tread carefully in implementing the changes in this legislation.

On section 4, which amends section 37 of the original legislation, these classes outlined in this amendment refer to classes of services, such as primary resource manufacturing, public services — classes of services of delivery of either production or goods or service. In the previous act, the board already had some discretion to create or rearrange classes of work. From that flowed classes of employees. Can the minister explain the necessity for this change?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is clearly about classes of employers, not employees, strictly for assessment purposes. This allows a new section 96(2) to limit the right to a review or appeal classification. Matters to protect the actuarial integrity of the accident fund is what we're attempting to do in all of this. Again, I understand the difficulty in trying to bring…. As you read those sections, if you read the whole section of subclass of subclass of subclass, it can become quite confusing. But I am told and believe — as I understand that we're going through here — this will add clarity to those that understand the detail of how we go about developing rate classes and rate groups so there's fairness and balance in them.

J. MacPhail: I understand this is the basis upon which assessments will be made for employers. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Just for the public, assessments are the basis on which employers determine how much they pay to Workers Compensation to ensure the health and safety of their workforce and to pay for people who are injured or to pay into a fund for injured or ill workers. What consultation has there been? Well, let me ask this, flowing from section 4: have the new classes or subclasses been agreed upon?

Hon. G. Bruce: The assessment rates don't change as a result of this bill. What this does is limit to where the employers down at their level…. It's not the grouping or the classification of what it is they can appeal. You're absolutely right in regards to the determination of assessments. You have groupings of business out there, whether it's forestry or whether it's construction, and then you'll have groupings within that. Then it comes down to an actuarial experience of how safe or unsafe or the number of accidents that may have occurred in one particular sector or another. Then rates are drawn from that.

We're not changing those rates. What we're dealing with here is limiting where and how far an employer can appeal through an action to WCAT in respect to their assessments.

J. MacPhail: Let me give the minister a practical example. Perhaps he can just say this has nothing to do with this legislation. I sit on a legislative committee with several other Liberal MLAs. It's called the Select Standing Committee on Finance, prebudget consultation. When we were in Prince George, the head of the Northern B.C. Construction Association advised us that the construction industry assessment for 2003 was going to go up 20 percent.

You know, the direction was supposed to be, promised to be, in the opposite direction by this government. That's their tax bill; that's their tax rate. How did that come about? Did it have anything to do with changing this legislation? How does one get assessed a 20 percent increase?

Hon. G. Bruce: This has nothing to do with that which you've just mentioned, in respect to their rates. What this is talking about is to what level an employer can appeal their rates or their assessments. What you heard was a different discussion relative to the overall assessment rates of WCB.

J. MacPhail: Section 5 of this act changes the original section 55 of the legislation. We now have a situation where the board will consider an application under the equivalent of this section in respect of death or disablement from occupational disease. In those circumstances, the board may reconsider the application, but the board must apply subsection (3.2) of this section in that reconsideration.

Just for the public watching, it's too bad — well, I'm relieved — that the World Series is over, because I'm sure we would have been a competition for the World Series on this scintillating debate.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. I agree. I'm relieved that we're not competing with the World Series.

I think what this is saying is that those qualifications will guide the determination of an application made since July of 1974. What are the ramifications of this change? Can the minister just clarify this?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is clarifying again the terminology of reconsideration. This subsection allows the WCB to reconsider refusal to accept the claim based on the occupational disease when the science changes, as you were mentioning, to provide evidence that a disease is caused by work, allowing the disease to be now recognized as an occupational disease.

Where we were talking earlier about the words "review" and "reconsideration," trying to be consistent as we move through the act, this is clarifying that this is a reconsideration.

Hon. G. Bruce: This defines this as a reconsideration and allows a reconsideration.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to spend a few moments on this because it deals with the medical review panels. As I understand it, this section, section 6, repeals all reference to medical review panels.

Now, the government of the day hired a man named Allan Winter to review direction and make recommendations to this government for change in the Workers Compensation Act. I have heard it said that Mr. Winter's recommendation was used as a guide in drafting this legislation. I'm just going to assume that. If it's not the case, then the minister can tell me that upon my first question.

Step 1 of the Winter report was to abolish the medical review panel, and that's what this does. Yet there were several other steps in the Winter report. For instance, let me just read from that report. The medical review panel should be replaced and would become part of the external appeal tribunal. "Access to the medical review panel would only be available in those cases where a valid appeal has been commenced with the appeal tribunal."

Actually, the Winter report goes on. There's a substantial set of recommendations from Mr. Winter: recommendations 62 through 70. Wait, let me see. No, we've got way more than that. Recommendations 62 through 84 — 22 recommendations dealing with the medical review panel from the Winter report. As far as I can tell, so far, there was just one recommendation accepted from the Winter report by this government, and that is to abolish the medical review panel. What happened?

Hon. G. Bruce: Without going through every section of the Winter report, I believe Mr. Winter was recommending that we maintain a separate medical review panel within the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. We're not doing that by this. We are maintaining the right of the appeal tribunal to be able to access where they need medical evidence or medical assistance. We're also providing with that an extended list of those they could call upon to get that information. It isn't specific to every term of what Winter recommended. It flows fairly closely to that. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe it flows fairly closely to the royal commission.

J. MacPhail: This is a substantial portion of the Winter recommendations. I'm just curious as to why these particular 21 recommendations out of the 22 were not followed. Perhaps I could seek clarification from the minister, so that I'm debating this at the appropriate time. Where is it in the appeal process? Is it in section 249 that we discuss the replacement of this?

Perhaps the minister could take this opportunity to explain why we have no medical review panel, and we've changed it to the health professional assistance inside the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's quite clear. With this section what we're doing is trying to bring all the levels of appeal together under the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, not in an effort to limit but in an effort to get a timely and quality decision.

As the member well knows, some people have been left in the appeal process for five to seven years. It can be a long, long process, which can be very trying and difficult for people. You get this person saying that and that person saying another.

We're streamlining the process so that, first of all, in the internal review, the board has made a decision. The person doesn't feel that decision was the correct one. They go to that internal review. Again, it'll be a different body of people than who gave the first decision. It would be more informal so that there can be a timely reaction or a timely reconsideration, or review, of that. Then finding that that decision isn't one that the individual, be it the business, the employer or the employee…. In this instance, on the medical review panel,

it would more than likely be an employee. You would then go to the arm's-length Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, which is not within the workers compensation system. They then would review that decision and have in that the medical expertise if they need it. The injured worker brings other evidence to bear, medical evidence. You would have, then, medical people that would be able to assist in determining the impact or the causal effect of whatever it is they were presenting. It's not meant to limit; it's meant to encourage a resolution.

J. MacPhail: One of the questions I'll be asking under section 249 will be: how can new medical evidence be presented under the new process?

While I'm on the question of reports, the Winter report…. There was also a Hunt report. Where's that at? When will that be made public?

Hon. G. Bruce: The member asked me earlier about the governance side and when a new board would be appointed. I have held the Hunt report, its service delivery. My intention is that as the new board of directors is appointed, they will be given the Hunt report. The Hunt report will be made available to anybody that wishes to read through it and follow through with it. That will be given to the board of directors to follow through and bring about the implementation recommendations of the Hunt report. As I mentioned, I am hopeful to have that new board appointed in the next several weeks.

J. MacPhail: This section collapses three levels of appeal into two now. Perhaps this a time when we can talk about the change in the appeal process. We are a jurisdiction that had three levels of appeal. One was an external first level, an internal second level review. I'm sorry, I'm using…. I know people who spend their lives on these. It was a second-level internal appeal and then a binding medical review panel. Now that's been collapsed into two levels of appeal, one being an internal first level and an external second level. This section deletes the third level of appeal. How is it that injured workers are better served by this collapse of the appeal process?

Hon. G. Bruce: As the member has mentioned, this is really the guts of the changes here. As was stated, what we've done is moved to the internal review to be the first review so that the decision that is made by the board…. There can be a timely…. We've brought in time lines of how long, first of all, one has to make that appeal and, more importantly, when they've made that case for an appeal or submitted an appeal, how long it is before that appeal is heard so that they can get on with their lives and a decision is rendered.

We're trying to make the first one because we believe that some of those issues that are brought forward may resolve the appeal process right there. We're trying to develop it so that it will be informal to a certain extent. It's the internal review first. Hopefully, as we move through this with the new board and the Hunt report, it will kind of have the more user-friendly application applied here so that one can get through in a timely way.

If it was that you were still unhappy or thought that it required a completely different body to hear your appeal, it would go to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, this being the external group. Now, it used to be that you had the medical review panel, and at any time through the process you could always flip to the medical review panel. The whole thing became a fair maze and labyrinth of where I go — off here, there or wherever — and confusing for people. It wasn't timely. I think one of the things we'll be asking of the new board is to work diligently on bringing first-time quality decisions, so that we can get a better first decision.

In each of the instances of review, be it the internal review or the appeal tribunal, both will be required to report back to the board if there seem to be inconsistencies. We want consistency of decision-making taking place here. They are required to adhere to the policy of the board. They can't make decisions outside the policy of the board, but if they're finding that, in fact, there are changes that the board needs to re-address not on the individual case but in respect to the policy, they can send that back to the board and require the board to look at it. The board, in the end, makes that final decision relative to policy. There is still the ability for medical evidence to be heard and the appropriate use of medical people, but the decision is binding and final when one gets to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

On average, right now it takes about 35 or 36 months for a person to go through the appeal process. As I mentioned, there are those that have been there longer for whatever reasons — five, seven years. It's our hope that through this process we can reduce that time frame from 35 months virtually in half down to, we hope, 15 or 17 months. Actually, as the member, I know, would know this, it's said time and again that the quicker one can get back into the workplace, properly healed and with whatever physiotherapy one may need or whatever, the more beneficial it is for everybody, particularly that individual. That's why we're also building in time lines.

We're also trying to be prudent. There are situations that people find themselves in where they hear a decision, and they need some time to think about it. Maybe they need some time to gather other evidence they didn't quite have at their fingertips at that point. We've tried to leave within there time frames that allow for all of that to be taken into consideration without leaving it so wide-open that it just goes on and on. The intent of all of this is to build quality and timely

decisions from the perspective of the injured worker, or it could be from the perspective of an employer on an assessment basis and not to have a prolonged appeal process.

I think we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14,000 to 15,000 appeals before the board right now. I believe that with these changes, we can reduce that number of appeals substantially in a year. There are about 178,000 or 180,000 applications a year through the Workers Compensation Board, so it does have a very large case file that it looks after in many instances in a timely way. It's more this appeal process which can be long and very frustrating for people that find themselves in that system. We're hopeful these changes will improve how people are treated through the appeal process.

J. MacPhail: What feedback did the minister get from injured workers on this change? The bill has been sitting out in the public for review for a few months, but there are some changes between the original bill and this bill. What concerns or kudos did the government receive on this change, and how was that feedback taken into account in the redrafting of the bill?

Hon. G. Bruce: What we've brought about here is consistent with virtually what Winter was talking about, what the royal commission was talking about, I think — what's done in Ontario. I've had injured workers say to me that they've found the appeal process almost more debilitating than the very injury they received. I've had other injured workers tell me that they would like me just to abolish the entire workers compensation system. In respect to that, I've also had other advocate groups who don't like the idea that we're going from three appeals to two appeals. In some instances, there would be those that would like to see four appeals or even more.

This comes back down to the fact that where we're approaching this is that we want to try, first of all, to get quality decisions in a timely manner. There are few people, if any at all, who, having received an injury at the workplace, want to sit around and not get back to work. Sometimes you've got situations where, because of the initial decision, there then becomes a debate as to whether it is a Workers Compensation…. Should it be covered by Workers Compensation or should it be disallowed, and should it then be under the medical systems plan or should it be the employer?

The fact of the matter is: the most important thing to do initially is to get that worker back to work. That requires a quality decision and a timely decision. Knowing we're dealing with human beings here, as the member well knows, to try and write legislation and the rest can be very difficult for every eventuality that may occur out there. So you're trying to make sure that there's a balanced approach in how one can then take their case when they don't think they were treated fairly.

Often, as again I'm sure the member knows, when you deal with people that have been in the appeal process for so long, the actual injury is almost forgotten about. It's how they've been treated or not treated, or it's how this system took so long or they weren't looked after properly in the initial phase of the training. You almost end up dealing with the process as opposed to the reality of what faced them because of that very long appeal process they find themselves in.

The test in this will be, of course, that on reflection…. And it won't be everybody. I'm not naïve to think that by the changes we're making here in all aspects of the workers compensation system, everybody 100 percent will cheer and applaud for it. But I am hopeful and will be diligent as we continue to move through here that the majority of people that find themselves in the workers compensation system — and then, as this legislation deals with the appeal process — will, on balance, say: "I got a decision. I may not have gotten the decision I liked, but I got a decision. It was actually fair at the end of the day. More than that, it was timely, and I got back and got on with my life."

We will be diligent in watching this, but clearly, as the member would know, there would be those that would say: "Look, we're not happy with the fact that you're going from three appeals to two appeals. We're not happy where the medical review panel was there and that at any time during the process you could zip back." We've done a flow chart, and it's a labyrinth of lines going back and forth — when one person can go over here to medical review or internal review or back to the board and re-appealing or reconsidering.

When one gets into that system too long, their life can be totally engulfed with trying to deal with the workers compensation system. Then you're not actually helping these people get back into a productive life and back to work again. So it will be incumbent upon me as minister to make sure that as these changes are made, people are, through the decision-making process initially and then through the appeal process, treated fairly and in a timely manner.

J. MacPhail: Arising from that, I have two questions. How will, specifically, reconsideration or revision of evidence work under this new model? Actually, it's one question or two questions, three parts. Will the injured worker be able to present new evidence? Then, are the rights the same under this bill as the previous bill, to present new evidence, or do injured workers now have fewer opportunities to present new evidence?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm going to answer your first question, and then if you would do me the favour of just filling me in on your second question so that I can review it and then reconsider it and reply to it. First of all, the reconsideration is meant initially for those that are adjudicating. They could reconsider any issue that's come forward in which it's clear from the internal review that they need to look at it again.

There is a grandfather of issues for reconsideration, which we were talking about in the earlier section: sec-

tion 24. In respect to a reconsideration, the board has 75 days for a reconsideration and then 23 days — in which time, if there's still not a happy decision with that — for it to go to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. It doesn't preclude the injured worker from waiting for a reconsideration in the internal review, and their time runs out, and then they miss their opportunity to go to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. They can go directly to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

What we're trying to do is have those first undertakings done internally and in an informal way to, hopefully, eliminate any misunderstandings. That's why there's the stagger of the 75 days and then the 23 days to go to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. At the end of the whole process, though, if I've got this correct, one can have one reconsideration. That reconsideration can be launched at any time within any period. It can be launched at any time, any period, but it's a one-time reconsideration to WCAT, the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

J. MacPhail: My second question on this was: are the rights for reconsideration under this bill the same as the previous legislation, or do injured workers have fewer opportunities or rights to bring new evidence forward now?

To be clear, you can't take the new evidence back to the board. That decision is made. But you can bring new evidence to the internal review, and you can bring new evidence to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, the arm's-length organization. The evidence must be material to the case, but I believe that the rights are similar to what they are now, if not the same.

J. MacPhail: This section adds that each director, other than the chair and the president, holds office for a term of up to three years, as set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. By saying "a term up to three years," does the minister suggest that a term will ever be set at less than three years?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is purely consequential. We took out the mention of the chief appeal commissioner, because it would no longer be relevant, and then rewrote the section. All of these sections, 9 to 11, are really consequential changes that eliminate the current appeal division now that we've put the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal in place.

J. MacPhail: This section makes changes to section 96 of the original act. It repeals subsections (2) through (8) and substitutes a section that permits at any time, on its own initiative or on application, the board — and I assume that means the Workers Compensation Board — to reopen a matter that has been previously decided by the board or an officer or employee of the board under this part if, since the decision was made in that matter, there has been a significant change in a worker's medical condition that the board has previously decided was compensable, or there has been a recurrence of a worker's injury.

My question is: who will provide this information to the board? Who can bring this information forward to the board? Who can bring this information forward regarding the significant change in medical condition or recurrence of injury?

Hon. G. Bruce: It can be the injured worker or their representative or advocate.

Hon. G. Bruce: What would happen here is that the employee could ask for the reopening. The employer may appeal the decision that's granted in that respect.

Hon. G. Bruce: No, this doesn't pertain to the 15 months. The 15 months is a time line we're looking at to render a first decision, but a reopening may take place four or five years later when a person's condition is deteriorating or what have you. There would be the first decision that was made, and that's fine. Everybody carries on with their lives. The injured worker may find that the actual injury or occupational disease, as the case may be, is causing greater implications and apply or appeal for a reopening. That's got nothing to do specifically with the 15 months.

J. MacPhail: A simple yes would have done. Just kidding. I'm just kidding. Going on, Chair, going on.

The next subsection of this clause says that if the board determines that the circumstances in those conditions, whether there be a recurrence or a significant change, "justify a change in a previous decision respecting compensation or rehabilitation, the board may make a new decision that varies the previous decision or order." Are there any time lines on reaching that decision?

J. MacPhail: Subsection (4) carries on to say: "Despite subsection (1), the board may, on its own initiative, reconsider a decision or order that a board or an officer or employee of the board has made under this part." Then that is qualified under subsection (5) to say

that despite that ability, "the board may not reconsider a decision or order if (a) more than 75 days have elapsed since that decision or order was made."

Let me ask this: what if the significant change in or recurrence of the worker's injury is outside the 75-day window? What happens — is the worker out of luck?

Hon. G. Bruce: Subsection (5) replies to challenging an old decision, whereas the first part was dealing with a new decision.

J. MacPhail: Subsection (8) goes on to say that: "The board may establish practices and procedures for carrying out its responsibilities under the act, including specifying time periods within which certain steps must be taken and the consequences for failing to comply with those time periods." What does the minister have in mind in terms of time periods that will be set? What has he got in mind for the consequences for failing to comply?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is pointed at the board of directors, which, by policy, can build time lines into any number of different situations of reconsiderations or reopenings to build a time line pattern so that we get the timeliness built into the process for the decision-making.

Hon. G. Bruce: The consequences speak more to the parties, both of whom could be involved in this in getting their evidence to the board. The consequence may be that if you didn't get it in, in the prescribed time frame, then the decision may be made without that information or that it may not be carried further forward. Those consequences are really from the standpoint of trying to move that process along.

J. MacPhail: This amendment deletes the current act's section that says legal precedent is not binding, and it replaces it with a section that's entitled "Board decision-making." What the new section 99 says is that the board must:

My question is on section 99(2), where it says that the board must make its decisions based on merits and justice of the case, but in so doing, the board must apply a policy of the board of directors that is applicable in that case. Can the minister clarify how that will work?

Hon. G. Bruce: What we're doing here is making it very clear. Unfortunately, you get these words being used twice. You get "Board" and board, and you get reconsideration, reviews and reopenings and the like.

Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal must, in the determinations, pay attention to the policy of the Workers Compensation Board, and they must be consistent with a policy that's set. By our belief of that, we will get better quality decisions made. As I was mentioning, there still then is a reporting process.

If the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal is finding that they're having difficulty dealing with that policy in their determinations of the board, then those matters can flow back to the board for the board to review its policies. But the board's policies are final. All of the adjudication must be undertaken in the context of the policies that were set by the board.

It would be hoped that if there were inconsistencies in this, the board would look closely at their decision, at the policies they put in place, and may effect a change. But, ultimately, the board determines the policies.

J. MacPhail: What will be the requirement to publish the policies of the board?

Hon. G. Bruce: I would expect and require that the board make their policies public. There's nothing untoward in this respect. Of course, under the act, the regulations are all required — really to apply more to occupational health and safety — to be published. The other thing is that as decisions are made and based on the consistency of the policy, the interpretation of that policy would be reflected in the decisions that are made by the board or WCAT, as the case may be. It would be good practice, and, virtually, the board would be making their policies public.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I ask this is because there are two parts to that section. One is that the decision has to be made on the merits and justice of a case. In any case, everything has to be decided according to board policy.

There could be a situation where there's breakthrough medical evidence that would influence the outcome of a decision based on merits and justice of a case, but the board policies haven't caught up to that. What happens in a case like that? If there's a conflict between merit and justice and board policy, just by virtue of timing in terms of breakthrough evidence, what prevails?

Hon. G. Bruce: Kind of in the pristine of a decision that's made by the board and then goes to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal…. There is inconsistency in the application. The Workers Compensation

Appeal Tribunal can put it back to the board for the board to review that policy, and the board has 90 days to reflect on that and either offer a change or stand by its own policy. More to the example of what you brought forward there, where there's new evidence and perhaps the board's policies are lagging that new evidence, it would be expected that they would review that and bring forward a new decision.

Again, as we were mentioning to begin with, we're dealing with individual situations. The board policy…. As they develop policy, we would hope that within that policy there would be a degree of discretion. At the same time, we're trying to bring consistency into the decision-making process, knowing full well that other things become evident, particularly in occupational disease. What we didn't know of today, we may know of two or three years from now, or whenever that time may occur.

We think there's enough room. I understand what you're concerned about. I'm confident that in the process we have here, the board would act in a diligent and thoughtful manner in respect to that type of evidence being presented and would reflect on their policy and make sure that if it was lagging because of the example that was offered, they would update that policy.

J. MacPhail: Just for the benefit of the House, I've got questions on 23 and 28, and then I suggest we adjourn, because I have a substantial number of questions on the actual new appeal tribunal — just for the House Leader to consider that.

J. MacPhail: This one is different. This repeals the section of dealing with notices and service. It's not about the question I asked previously about publishing policies of the board. This section that's now gone deals with notices that the board is empowered or required to give to an employer or worker under this part. The section said it had to be in writing and it had to be served either personally or by mail. Then it lists when it would be deemed to be served. I assume what this section was dealing with were notices for a worker or an employer to change practices or to participate in a process or to provide evidence. That section's repealed. What replaces it?

Hon. G. Bruce: Pretty much, but it does expand the ability to use electronic means for notice.

J. MacPhail: This deals with an old section, section 196 of the act, which dealt with administrative penalties. The old section is repealed and replaced with a new section 196(2), which states that an administrative penalty that is greater than $500,000 must not be imposed under this section. A company will get an administrative penalty only if "(a) the employer has failed to take sufficient precautions for the prevention of work-related injuries or illnesses, (b) the employer has not complied with this part, the regulations or an applicable order, or (c) the employer's workplace or working conditions are not safe."

There was no maximum penalty in the previous legislation, so we now have a maximum set. Why is that?

Hon. G. Bruce: In fact, it was there, but it was in 196(6)(b), and it was an amount of $530,426.89. That was kind of an inflation factor that had been rounded up over the period of time, so just for point of ease, we rounded it to $500,000.

J. MacPhail: Under 196, the new subsection (3) states: "An administrative penalty must not be imposed under this section if an employer exercised due diligence to prevent the circumstance described in subsection (1)." Due diligence is determined by whom, and is it challengeable?

Hon. G. Bruce: Due diligence would be that evidence presented by the employer. It is appealable by the employee or employee's advocate or injured workers advocate.

J. MacPhail: Section 33 starts part 4, which is a brand-new section, "Appeals." I have probably as many questions on this as we've had already, which is about an hour and a half of work.

With the agreement of the House Leader, I would 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.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY