Hansard -- Thursday, May 1, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 14 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6427

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6428
	Power production facility in Gold River R. Visser Telephone counselling service for abused youth S. Orr Asian Heritage Month R. Lee

Oral Questions		6429
	Privatization of B.C. Rail J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Committee report on labour relations issues H. Bloy Hon. G. Bruce SARS and safety of blood supply T. Bhullar Hon. C. Hansen Drug costs and Pharmacare program R. Sultan Hon. C. Hansen Transfer of Riverview Hospital resident J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Crown prosecution policy in spousal abuse cases S. Orr Hon. L. Stephens

Committee of Supply		6431
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations (continued) L. Mayencourt Hon. G. Plant T. Christensen

Second Reading of Bills		6446
	Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Bill 31) Hon. G. Plant Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act (Bill 32) Hon. G. Plant

Hon. G. Plant: I am delighted to introduce to this assembly this afternoon two senior law advisers from the office of the Premier of Eastern Cape province in South Africa. Mr. Joseph Lukwago-Mugerwa, who is the chief state law adviser, and Mr. Msingathi Mlisana, who is the principal state law adviser, are here for a two-week study visit.

In 1996 Eastern Cape province and British Columbia signed an agreement on cooperation in governments. Under the aegis of the Canada–South Africa provincial twinning project, study and work exchanges are funded by the Canadian International Development Agency and administered by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. This partnership has been an enriching experience for both provinces.

In the next two weeks our guests will study best practices and share innovative solutions in the development of legislation. They will observe the roles and structure of cabinet operations and the legal services branch in the preparation of legislation and the delivery of legal advisory service to government.

I hope all members will join me in welcoming to this House and to British Columbia our very distinguished guests from the Eastern Cape province and wish them a very productive and enjoyable stay.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to introduce today members of the B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers Association. First, we have some representatives from the association board. Brian McCristall is the board president from the Tri-City News. Let's hear it for Brian. Peter Kvarnstrom is the past president from Madison Publishing. Joyce Carlson is here from the Powell River Peak. Tony Richards is here from the Gulf Islands Driftwood, Derrick Chamberlain is representing the VanNet members papers, Rick O'Connor is from the Metro Valley Newspaper Group. David Black is also with us here today in the Legislature. As well, they brought with them some of their staff members: Elena Dunn, George Affleck and Trena White.

We all know how important our community newspapers are in this province in informing the public and letting them know about what's taking place and providing them with critical information. I hope the House will make all of these representatives of the B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers Association welcome.

S. Orr: The member for Delta South and I, just about 20 minutes ago, stumbled across an absolutely wonderful group of people that were visiting here today. There are about 54 of them. Most of them are high school students, grades 10 to 12, and they've travelled all the way here from Ardrossan Junior Senior High School in Ardrossan, Alberta, where they say they've left frigid temperatures. They're sitting outside playing beautiful music to our flowers. We were very, very pleased to come across them. They are travelling here with their music director, Dr. James Montgomery. I think some of them may even be in here, so I would really like the House to make them very welcome.

R. Masi: It's my pleasure today to introduce Laurae McNally to the House. Laurae is a longtime serving school trustee from Surrey and a very good friend of the students, teachers and school administrators in Surrey. I might add that on the weekend Laurae was honoured by the B.C. School Trustees Association for 18 years' service as a trustee at their convention in Kamloops. Would the House please make Laurae welcome.

R. Hawes: I have a copy of a proclamation signed by the Lieutenant-Governor and witnessed by the Attorney General that proclaims May as Hepatitis C Awareness Month, and today, May 1, is Hepatitis C Awareness Day. Hepatitis C is a preventable disease that causes huge anguish to its victims and a huge expense to the health care system. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who would work to both increase awareness and advocate on behalf of its victims.

Today in the gallery we have Marjorie Harris, president of HepCURE B.C., and her daughter Heather Harris; Bill Buckels, vice-president of HepCURE B.C.; Joan King, president of HepCBC; and Dr. David Mazoff, editor of HCV Advocate. Could the House please make them welcome.

H. Long: Today in the House I have three people I'd like to introduce. The first I'd like to introduce is the LA to four members here in the Legislature, Spencer Sproule; secondly, Allison Nassichuk, a young lady from Powell River who now lives in Victoria and I think is going to university here; and thirdly, Carolyn Butula, who comes from Powell River. We have a few things in common, Carolyn and I. First off, she's 18, going to be 19 in the next few days. The common thing is that we both went through air cadets — at different times in our lives, of course — both receiving our wings while we were in air cadets. As well, Carolyn also sits on the committee for the municipal council in Powell River — one of the youngest in the province at 18 years old to sit on committee for a municipal government. She has a lot to give to our community and has been a real leader in the air cadets so far. The only difference between us is 45 years between our licences. I want you to welcome them all here today.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, and it would be interesting to know what the height comparisons are.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome back to the Legislature one of our previous staff in the caucus, Sarah Hilbert-West, who was our caucus research director. She left us to have Hannah Hilbert-West, who is

a bouncing three months, and both of them are joining us here today. Would the House please welcome them.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 very energetic grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy school in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Rick Bath, as well as many parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany them and help them here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

V. Roddick: Just to complement my colleague from Victoria-Hillside, this wonderful band is now in the House — from half an hour north of Edmonton — so would the House please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, and it's nice to see the member for Surrey-Whalley back with us today.

R. Visser: Almost two years ago this government was elected to return a sense of hope and opportunity to the people of this province, and that, by any measure, has been no small task. But yesterday another step in brightening our future has been taken, and while it may seem small in the context of the province, I can assure you there's one town on northern Vancouver Island that feels a sense of hope and opportunity in a way they could not have imagined five months ago.

I do not need to tell anybody in this House about the difficulties faced by Gold River, but yesterday the Premier, government members, Mayor Dave Lewis, council, Chief Maquinna and elders, councillors and other community leaders were invited to meet the principals of Green Island Energy and be introduced to their project — a project where they intend to transform the Bowater pulp mill site into a biomass-fuelled independent power production facility, with the first phase starting this summer and growing over the next few years to 250 megawatts.

This is a good-news story about a small, resilient town on the west coast of this nation whose people have never given up. It's about a government who's created an investment climate that embraces entrepreneurialism in the energy field and allows people to build a sustainable future in the heartlands of B.C.

It's about some investors who are global in their scope, in their reach and, most importantly, in their thinking. They have chosen British Columbia and Gold River because it's a place where opportunity now exists. I want to thank those folks — David Kingston Industrials from Idaho Falls, Idaho; Jewel, one of the world's most popular singer-songwriters; her mother, Lenedra Carroll; and the other investors from B.C. and the United States. I want to thank them for seeing the future in Gold River, but most importantly, for seeing that hope and opportunity are alive and well in British Columbia again.

S. Orr: Something very important is happening this Sunday — that's May 9 — and it starts at 9 in the morning. It's actually starting at the Canadian Forces Base in Esquimalt. It's the Bell Walk for Kids.

This pledge-driven event raises money for the Kids' Help Phone. The Kids' Help Phone is Canada's only national, bilingual, 24-hour toll-free service. It's a confidential, anonymous phone counselling service for troubled and abused children and youth.

Some believe that child abuse only exists in the fringes of our society, and this is absolutely not true. They come from all walks of life. These poor kids, who are both emotionally and physically abused, go through hell every day, and their cycles of abuse are fuelled by silence. Thanks to the Kids' Help Phone, that silence can be broken. The Kids' Help Phone line answers approximately 1,000 calls and on-line questions every day. Kids call for all the reasons that we, as responsible adults, worry about for them: physical, sexual and emotional abuse, loneliness, depression, school-related problems, family pregnancy, health, sexuality, alcohol and substance abuse, separation, divorce issues and — worst of all — suicide.

The Kids' Help Phone service is a great example of a public-private partnership funded almost entirely by corporate sponsors and corporate individuals. It receives no core funding from government or the United Way. The Bell Walk for Kids is happening because of dedicated volunteers like Laura Muise and Rob Dennison. For all the kids they are helping and our community, I want to thank them for all their hard work.

R. Lee: As we enter the month of May, I rise today to mark an important occasion, the beginning of Asian Heritage Month. This is the month for us to recognize and celebrate the long and rich history of Asian Canadians and their contributions to British Columbia as well as to Canada as a whole.

Since the inaugural Asian Heritage Month celebration in Toronto in 1993, cities across Canada, including Vancouver, have been holding annual festivals during the month of May to recognize Asian heritage in Canada. In December 2001, the month of May was officially designated Asian Heritage Month after Senator Vivienne Poy introduced a motion in the Canadian Senate in May 2001.

Asians came to Canada over a century ago, like the English and French pioneers. Asian Canadians, from our Chinese railroad workers to our Japanese fishermen to today's Asian Canadians working in different professions, contributed to Canada's economic, social

and cultural development. I'm extremely pleased to see we have this opportunity to celebrate the beauty and wisdom of various Asian cultures through many exciting ExplorASIAN 2003 arts and culture events held during Asian Heritage Month in Vancouver.

As we celebrate Asian Heritage Month, let's remind ourselves that we can only benefit fully from our rich heritage if we can respect one another's culture and learn from our differences.

J. MacPhail: The opposition has come into possession of an internal Ministry of Transportation memo which discusses the implication of what it calls the BCR initiative. The memo raises a number of interesting points about the impending transfer of B.C. Rail to the private sector.

First, the memo clearly states — in fact, it asserts — that any prospective private sector operator will be abandoning existing rail lines. Now, nowhere in the Premier's constantly changing position on B.C. Rail has there been any such acknowledgment. In fact, British Columbians who actually believe the Premier's promise to not sell B.C. Rail now deserve to know the government's real plans about abandoning northern communities.

Rather than British Columbians depending on further leaked documents, can the Minister of Transportation tell this House today what lines actually will be abandoned in her secret plan to sell off B.C. Rail?

Hon. J. Reid: In working through a process we've been very diligent about with communities, part of that is developing an RFP that will bring confidence to the process. There is legislation, federal legislation, that governs railways. Part of that legislation discusses, among many topics, the topic the member raised.

It's our responsibility to look at all the facets, all the different opportunities, and make sure that through the consultation process we're engaged in, the communities have the confidence moving forward that there is going to be an integrated rail service, that there will be an excellent rail service, that there will be a long-term rail service for the communities and industries of British Columbia, because there will be renewed investment into those rail services.

In that consultation we have a mayors council meeting this coming Monday, and a shippers council meeting this coming Tuesday. Just because these are technicalities that exist in the federal legislation, we have to be aware of them. There is nothing untoward about this.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure what the minister means about federal technicalities. This leaked document is a very intensely, densely written document about the privatization of B.C. Rail and the abandonment of rail lines. Despite the minister's assurances that tearing up the tracks between North Vancouver and Squamish is not on the table, her own ministry officials contemplate that the new owner of B.C. Rail assets will abandon precisely that line.

Here it is. Can the minister tell the House what British Columbians should believe — the spin from the Premier's office that says nothing will change or the words of her own officials, who say the polar opposite of what the Premier and this minister are saying?

Hon. J. Reid: We are being very careful, very diligent, in working through a process. The decisions have not been made, because we are working in consultation with communities, with shippers, on an RFP process, and this is a transparent process. There is nothing wrong in having a discussion and making sure that people have confidence in being able to discuss this.

There is an example where coal used to be a huge portion of B.C. Rail's business. That is no longer the case. We have to know how those things would be dealt with in the future. That is part of a good business case, something I know this member is not too aware of.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister herself isn't in the loop, because abandoning rail lines isn't the only revelation of this government's real B.C. Rail policy contained in this leaked document. The document also reveals that the government anticipates receiving just $200 million for all of the assets of B.C. Rail. Now, B.C. Rail made a profit of almost $77 million last fiscal year, confirmed by the Minister of Finance, and it's projecting profits — projecting it's going to make profits of $120 million over the next three years alone. So let's see what the good business practice is. That's almost as much as the government will earn from the proceeds of this fire sale as well as performing a public asset public service.

Can the minister explain why giving away a profitable company that benefits all taxpayers to Liberal campaign backers is a better idea than maintaining a profitable Crown corporation in public hands, like the Premier promised he would?

Hon. J. Reid: If this member was really looking at B.C. Rail and the challenges facing the Crown corporation, she would realize and remember, from years accumulated, that B.C. Rail is carrying half a billion dollars' worth of debt right now. That puts a tremendous pressure on this railway, particularly for infrastructure….

Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. members. We will continue when we can hear the answer to the question.

Mr. Speaker: If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to put questions to the minister, let us at least have the courtesy of listening to the reply.

Hon. J. Reid: When we consider the debt load of B.C. Rail and the necessity for ongoing investment…. Investment into infrastructure is a huge part of a rail business and a huge component of a successful railway in the future that will provide transportation for the industries, which provides the lifeblood for those communities. When we look at the entire picture, getting an operator that will take this railway forward to greater investments, greater success and long-term continuity is what's good for this province.

H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. There were a number of issues brought forward by stakeholders that were not addressed in last year's Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. Under section 3 of the act, the minister appointed a committee that would provide individuals and groups with the ability to bring concerns forward.

To the Minister of Skills Development and Labour: can you tell me the status of this committee and what the findings are?

Hon. G. Bruce: The report will be released today. It's the first of the phase that we're going through in reviewing those 14 issues which had been presented. Just to remind the House, when we were working on code changes, the B.C. Federation of Labour had asked that a certain number of these changes be looked at through the eyes of a section 3 committee, which is a committee of representatives that would hear from other participants and the stakeholders and give their views as to the changes that may or may not be necessary in making sure that there's balance in our Labour Code.

Today, with that report that's released…. It's well written, and I would encourage all members to have a review of it. It gives a cross-view of what's taking place throughout Canada and other jurisdictions. It provides for some discussion relative to what the community had to say. From that, I'll be discussing it with colleagues within the precincts and deciding whether or not further recommendations or further issues ought to be put back to the section 3 committee for recommendations.

T. Bhullar: The question is to the Minister of Health. Given the outbreak of SARS, can he assure this House that the blood supply does not contain this pathogen and that we not make the same mistake as we did with hep C and HIV?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is absolutely no evidence that SARS can be transmitted through the blood system. The reason for that is that it is an airborne transmission, as we have seen. The science basically indicates there is virtually no likelihood that it could adapt or mutate in a way that could put the blood supply at risk.

Just to be on the safe side, the Canadian Blood Services has introduced new screening measures so that anybody who has been in a SARS-infected area is actually encouraged to hold back on their donation of blood until such time as they've passed a 14-day period. So I am very confident that our blood system in Canada continues to be one of the safest and the best in the world.

R. Sultan: My question is to the Minister of Health Services also. Today the Fair Pharmacare program comes into effect. It will go a long way to controlling the escalating costs of the program while keeping it fair for all British Columbians. Up to now, the Pharmacare costs have been going up about 14 percent a year, doubling every five or six years. We all know that in the long run, that rate of increase can't continue. So to the Minister of Health Services: what other measures is the government taking to control these skyrocketing Pharmacare costs to keep the program affordable for us and for future generations?

Hon. C. Hansen: In February when I announced the details of the new Fair Pharmacare program, I indicated at that time that we were pursuing other measures, as well, that would help us to make sure the Pharmacare system in British Columbia is first of all fair to all British Columbians based on their ability to pay but, in addition to that, that we bring in measures to keep costs down not just for the Pharmacare budget but also for individual British Columbian families through the portion that they pay for out of their family budgets.

We have been looking at a range of options. There is one that we are announcing today. As the member may know, there are three programs under Pharmacare. One is the reference drug program. The other is the low-cost alternative program, and the third one is the limited coverage drug program. Under the limited coverage drug program, the most expensive category we have is called proton pump inhibitors, where it has been rising at a rate of 25 percent a year in our costs to the point where we now spend $35 million a year.

There is a new medication that has come available, which is known as rabeprazole or also known as Pariet,

because that will be the more common name that consumers get used to. We have agreed to make that particular product the first-line product for proton pump inhibitors. The good news is that it is equally as effective as the other proton pump inhibitors on the market, but it is a saving of about 40 percent. Over the next three years alone, we will save the Pharmacare budget and the taxpayers of British Columbia $42 million and a significant, if not equal, amount for what families would be expected to pay out of their own pockets.

J. MacPhail: I have a question that's very time-sensitive. The Minister of Health Services, the Minister for Long Term Care and the Minister of State for Mental Health were informed of a very serious situation that is about to unfold at Riverview Hospital. Two elderly patients who have lived together at Riverview for most of their lives are scheduled to be separated very soon. They are siblings. One of them is being transferred to Kamloops, where they will have no outside support from family or friends. Their next of kin, Geraldine Mercer, is desperate to stop this from happening and has written to the ministers to ask them to take immediate action. This separation of family members is cruel, and it must be investigated and stopped.

Will the Minister of State for Long Term Care work with her colleagues today to commit to investigate this serious matter and report back to this House before action is taken to move an elderly brother and sister, who have lived together for the better part of 40 years, to different facilities?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the absence of the Minister of State for Mental Health, I have been certainly briefed on this particular matter earlier today. It is my understanding that the transfer has been delayed and that a review is being undertaken on this matter.

S. Orr: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I understand that there is a new policy in place addressing the choices that Crown counsel has when dealing with spousal assault cases. Prior to this change, Crown counsel had little flexibility when dealing with spouses that were being abused and could offer no alternative solutions in the best interests of the victims.

Can the minister explain how this new policy helps women who face spousal assault situations?

Hon. L. Stephens: I'm very pleased to support the Attorney General's new initiatives. I believe that the new policy will do a much better job of keeping women safe in situations of domestic violence. It's a change in prosecution policy that's designed to help prosecutors do a better job. Our priority has always been — and continues to be — the safety of women, holding abusers accountable and finding justice responses appropriate to each case. Even though we have a pro-charge policy, too many were resulting in a stay of proceedings. Offenders were not being held to account, and women did not see justice being done or feel they were being protected.

It's always preferable to obtain a criminal conviction, but these policy changes allow for alternative remedies that will increase protection for women. For example, Crown counsel will now be able to consider the use of a section 810 recognizance or peace bond, where there is insufficient evidence to begin or continue a prosecution. Some appropriate low-risk cases may be suitable for alternative measures, which will provide a formal record of the incident sanction and/or an opportunity for restorative justice intervention. If the offender does not substantially complete the alternative measures program, he can be prosecuted for the original offence.

The new policy places emphasis on victim safety and on finding justice responses appropriate for each case.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to bring to your attention that starting today, we have six new tour guides who will be working for the Legislative Assembly for the summer months. For the first time in many years, the parliament buildings will be open for the summer schedule of seven days a week, including statutory holidays, effective this May long weekend.

The tour guides are post-secondary students who will welcome and provide tours to thousands of visitors. In total, the tour office will be offering tours in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Mandarin, Japanese and Cantonese. I would like to introduce in the gallery today Andrew Kwasnica, Jean Lomas, Nicole Boulet, Lianna Chu, Jennifer Ford and Celine Anderson. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Attorney General.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
(continued)

L. Mayencourt: I want to begin by sharing with the House that a few weeks back I had the opportunity to be with the Attorney General for the opening of the Human Rights Tribunal in my constituency of Vancouver-Burrard. It was a very positive and upbeat event in which a lot of people who are committed to the notion of providing human rights in our province, in an affordable and accessible way, got together to celebrate the rebirth, if you will, of this new entity.

I want to ask a few questions of the Attorney General about some of the issues that have come up in the community. There has been a fair bit of controversy in my community — which tends to have a lot of individuals from the gay and lesbian community and multicultural communities — which has concerns about the new human rights process and how that's going to be delivered in British Columbia and how we will ensure that people have people advocating on behalf of them, providing legal services and so on.

I wonder if the Attorney General could please go through the new model for this House and touch on the general setup of the Human Rights Tribunal and how they're going to fulfil their mandate.

Hon. G. Plant: I think we have put in place not only something that is new and innovative but something that I think will become a role model for how we can deal with human rights issues — essentially discrimination issues — in Canada.

The new model takes and responds to the evidence that we obtained over the course of a year and more of work, study and consultation. It was a long process of asking people what was working and what wasn't with the old model. We realized that we had reached the point where the problems with the old model were not simply problems of administration or fine-tuning; they were structural problems.

What we decided to do was take apart a structure that had three different statutory agencies. One of the agencies had three distinct statutory officers. It created kind of a confusing welter of interlocking authorities and responsibilities. We've essentially streamlined it into one — the Human Rights Tribunal.

The tribunal has been the agency that adjudicated those complaints that were referred to it by the old commission. What we've put in place now is a direct-access model. For the first time in Canada, I think, people who believe that they have been the victims of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code of British Columbia can have direct access to a tribunal that will be seized of the matter — a lawyer's expression, I guess — will take the complaint and will deal with it in a way that ensures that it is dealt with fairly, efficiently and effectively.

The complaints will be filed with the tribunal. There will be staff in the tribunal that will have the ability to help people who believe they have a complaint and determine whether it is, in fact, a matter that belongs with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. With the assistance of a clinic that is also established and funded under this model, people will have the ability to move their issues forward while the tribunal attempts to assist the parties to resolve their disputes in whatever is the best way for an individual case.

For many cases, I believe the best way to deal with a human rights issue is not through a traditional litigation model, but rather it is to look for opportunities for mediation, for other forms of dispute resolution. I think there's a significant number of complaints that are properly described as human rights complaints, which fundamentally can be dealt with by an apology, particularly if the apology were offered sincerely and soon in the process.

What often happens when traditional processes are used to resolve these kinds of issues is that the parties get entrenched in their positions over time. The longer the matter is left there, the harder it is to get them to a table where they can discuss what the problem is and sort out how to fix it. What I'm hoping is that the people who have responsibility for administering this new model will seize the opportunity to achieve early resolution of those cases that can be resolved in an early way — and ought to be resolved in an early way — that is fair and effective and that actually helps heal a broken relationship or build a constructive new relationship to minimize the risk that discrimination will occur.

There are, of course, some cases that require adjudication, and the model that we've put in place will ensure that those cases ultimately come before a tribunal officer to be adjudicated. And there is funding there for legal aid to assist the people who satisfy a means test to ensure that they get access to legal advice and representation if they need it.

That's a pretty high-level overview of something that we've certainly talked about at some length in this chamber. The new model, I think, was up and running a few weeks ago, and obviously everybody in British Columbia who is interested in and committed to the cause of removing the scourge of discrimination from our society will watch with interest as the tribunal takes up its new responsibilities.

L. Mayencourt: I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder if the minister could please describe for this House…. He's mentioned that part of the challenge he was facing with this particular entity was the structure of the Human Rights Commission, the tribunal, etc. I wonder if he would please pick a couple of provinces in Canada that have a similar structure to the one that we have now adopted and if we could compare it to other jurisdictions. I'm not exactly sure how they

have broken out the three different responsibilities of our former system and how they've managed that within those provinces. Could he speak to that, please?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, every province has, in some respects, its own system for dealing with discrimination claims, and our system, before these legislative changes that were enacted last year, was similar in some respects to some jurisdictions and different.

The new system that we have in place is a new model. As I said a minute ago, it is an innovative model. There is no other model in Canada that is exactly like this. That's why I think that other jurisdictions in Canada are going to be looking at what we are doing to see if this actually will do a better job of providing the victims of discrimination with access to a useful forum and tribunal for resolving their disputes and also helping to encourage a climate in society that recognizes that discrimination is wrong.

There has been some talk about direct access models. I think there was a report done for the Canadian Human Rights Commission or for the government of Canada about the Canadian Human Rights Commission that included a recommendation about implementing a direct access model. But really, we've done all that work. We did all that work two years ago and a year ago. That work is past us.

We extensively debated those issues when the legislation came forward last year, and I think we also probably debated those issues to some extent in the estimates debate last year. The argument about whether there is or is not a case for change is over. It's history. We have changed the way we do things, and our challenge and our opportunity now is to make this new system be the best that it can possibly be.

L. Mayencourt: I'm not attempting to argue that over again. I think there was a good debate on those items. I'm merely trying to highlight it for my community and perhaps for other communities that have raised concerns about this.

With that in mind, I just want to continue on in a couple of other areas. The Attorney General has spoken a little bit about the other jurisdictions. This is a new model. The key to it, I guess, is this direct access model, and I certainly do support that. How do people in British Columbia find out about the direct access? How do they encounter this as a private citizen that feels they have been discriminated against? How are they to learn about that?

Hon. G. Plant: At one level and in simple terms, I suppose, all that has changed is that instead of phoning or writing the Human Rights Commission, now they phone or write the Human Rights Tribunal. We are working as government to develop some tools to expand the ways in which people could learn that fact — that is, the brochures and providing information to MLAs and government agents so that when their constituents call with questions about these issues, the people in MLA offices and government agent offices will know where to direct those folks who have these issues.

The tribunal itself will be doing work to make sure that its existence and its responsibilities are well known across the province. There will be, I suppose, other things that will be done and perhaps other things that could be done. But really, we spent a lot of time, I think, trying to talk in public forums like this one about these changes, and it's up and running.

The tribunal's offices are in Vancouver, as the former commission's offices primarily were, and I think there's a 1-800 number, which I don't have with me. I think there's a way for pretty well everybody to contact the tribunal and explain their circumstances and then find out if they've got an issue they should be pursuing or not.

L. Mayencourt: As a matter of fact, one of the ways I felt we could provide more information in my community is to get some training from the Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal is very close to my constituency office. It's less than two blocks away, so we've taken that opportunity. Sometime next week we will visit at the tribunal and have some greater introductions so that my CAs will have the opportunity to inform our constituents who have concerns about it.

I just want to ask a very simple question. It's the name. We've called it the Human Rights Tribunal, and I am often stopped on the streets and asked why we don't have a Human Rights Commission any longer. I think that in people's minds in our community, the name was important. You know, we're doing our very best to find a way to communicate to them that what we're talking about really is the services, but I wonder about the name and why we chose Human Rights Tribunal as opposed to Human Rights Commission.

Hon. G. Plant: As the member knows, there has been a Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia for a number of years. It was one of the three statutory agencies that used to exist. The commission no longer exists, although some of its responsibilities have been moved to the tribunal. But there were some things the commission did that were a significant part of its workload, which are not being done anymore. The commission received complaints and then undertook investigations of those complaints.

Our view is that the process was part of the problem with protecting human rights in British Columbia rather than part of the solution to protecting human rights. Our view was that the institution which was the commission had for a number of reasons simply broken, and it could not be fixed. What we have done is take the tribunal with its central responsibilities around adjudication and expanded its functions to ensure that it has the ability to use the widest possible array of dispute resolution techniques to manage in the best possible way the cases that come in.

The member raises an interesting question. I suppose it's a variation on the age-old question: what's in a

name? What I can say about that is that I've been doing this just long enough to realize that transition is difficult for everybody who is used to the status quo in some way or another. The transition is difficult because it requires that people learn new words, new names. It requires that people learn how to use new institutions.

I think these institutions we created here are better institutions than the ones that existed before. I think the ones that existed before were not doing a good job. I think that over time — it may be three weeks; it may be six months; it may be two years, but sooner or later — people will stop asking the member why we don't have a commission anymore, and they'll, with any luck, be stopping him on the street and thanking him for having supported a restructuring that led to this new tribunal.

L. Mayencourt: I share that hope, and I actually believe that is going to be what does happen. So I thank the Attorney General for that.

The Attorney General mentioned the clinic. In other words, an individual who feels they've been discriminated against comes into the Human Rights Tribunal and has access to a clinic, which, I suppose, is going to allow them to try and work through the issues they need to work through to find more speedy resolution.

The clinic — is that going to be located in the same building as the Human Rights Tribunal? I guess what I'm really getting at is: what if I'm in Prince George and need to access the human rights clinic?

Hon. G. Plant: The clinic is not in the same place as the tribunal. At some point I think it's necessary to realize that what we're calling a clinic is something that's not a government agency. It's a service being provided by people with whom government has a contract, and those people need to be, in some respects, independent of the tribunal, and the tribunal needs to be independent of them.

The question the member asks about — what if you're in Prince George — is a good question, because one of the distinguishing characteristics of the former system was its complete and utter failure to do anything in respect of human rights protection outside the lower mainland or southern Vancouver Island. The new system, I hope, will do a better job. Obviously, when you're trying to manage something in a way that is affordable, particularly in times of fiscal restraint, we don't have the resources, and I'm not certain that there would be the justified need in any event to establish a set of tribunal offices in every city in British Columbia.

The tribunal, I think, is committed to the challenge of expanding the range of its services. I'm hopeful that using technology, they'll be able to make some improvements on that. I think the tribunal recognizes that the historic experience of the commission was that it did not get much business, frankly, from rural British Columbia. That's hard to figure, because I don't think discrimination is any more or less a problem in urban British Columbia than it is in the heartlands of British Columbia. We have some work to do to make sure the people in Prince George will feel they have reasonable access to a tribunal and to clinic services that will work for them.

L. Mayencourt: I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General on the issue of the clinics. Am I to take it that these clinics, in effect, because they are subcontracted to another agency…? Perhaps I should get more clarification on the AG's point on how those clinics are going to be managed. Is this part of the contract with Community Legal Assistance Society? It is? In effect, their services are located throughout the province. Is that correct? If that's the case, does that mean if a clinic is needed in Prince George or Kitkatla, the clinic could, in effect, go to that community?

Hon. G. Plant: I am advised that the services CLAS — the Community Legal Assistance Society — is providing for the purposes of this contract are centrally located in Vancouver. The contractual relationship, the funding relationship, is between the Community Legal Assistance Society and the government of British Columbia directly, and my ministry.

L. Mayencourt: Is it conceivable that these clinics will be offered in other regions of the province as need arises?

Hon. G. Plant: The short answer to the member's question is no, probably not in the foreseeable future.

We're using the term "clinic," and that's probably the right term, but I'm not sure if the member is using it in the same sense that I am. We're talking about a service that's going to be provided to people, and they are going to have to…. I think they'll get referred to it by the tribunal, in appropriate cases, and then they'll have to call up. If they are able to get to the office, then that's great; and if it's too far away, they'll have to deal with these issues by telephone, fax or some other way.

I don't think it's going to be like a poverty law clinic where there are ten lawyers sitting around, all waiting for someone to come in and use their services. I don't think it's going to be like that. It is a funded service that we are supporting from my ministry to ensure people who need information, advice and in some cases representation, who can't afford to pay for it themselves, will get that from the service providers we've talked about.

L. Mayencourt: Okay. I think that clears up the issue of the clinic for me. I would expect that individuals who have a problem could do that through the Internet, could do it via fax, via the toll-free number.

The idea behind the clinic is to try and resolve as many of these potential conflicts between two individuals or between an organization and an individual in as speedy a fashion as possible, using whatever tools are available to them. Does the Attorney General have some targets for the number or percentage of complaints that are dealt with successfully through the

clinic model as opposed to going to court? Do you have some sort of idea of how many of these complaints can be resolved through that function as opposed to, I guess, litigation?

Hon. G. Plant: We don't have yet, at least in my ministry, any specific targets that represent our expectations of what we hope will be the numbers of cases that will be resolved through alternate dispute resolution as opposed to requiring a full hearing in front of a Human Rights Tribunal officer. But that, I know, is an important issue for the tribunal. They're committed to try to resolve as many cases as they can through ADR techniques, and so we'll be monitoring and watching what they actually achieve in that respect.

Another component of the Human Rights Tribunal that is very important is the education component, and there are specific groups within the province that are more susceptible to discriminatory actions — obviously, the gay and lesbian community, people from different cultures, different countries. I wonder if the Attorney General could speak to the issue of how education might be offered to the multicultural community, as an example. What kinds of materials is he working with for groups such as MOSAIC and SUCCESS and other groups that provide services to the multicultural community, the immigrant community?

Hon. G. Plant: One of the features of the arrangements that were put in place a month ago is that we have an arrangement with the B.C. Human Rights Coalition under which they will offer preventive education and training programs through this clinic we've talked about. The Human Rights Coalition will continue to do the work that it has done successfully for many years in raising awareness about these issues and also helping employers and others learn about what's required to avoid committing acts of discrimination and to become more respectful employers.

Some of the other organizations that the member refers to, like MOSAIC or SUCCESS or other organizations that service multicultural communities and vulnerable communities like the gay and lesbian community…. I expect those organizations will invest some time in studying the new processes and work with the tribunal, to some extent, and with CLAS and the coalition to get up to speed on the changes and what they mean. Then we'll help do the outreach to their own association members to ensure the work is done.

I think government has a responsibility in the area of education, but frankly, we don't have a monopoly. Again, one of the things that the former commission did not do as good a job of as I had hoped it would is the sort of day-to-day business of giving people — employers, business owners, potential groups of vulnerable people — the kind of practical advice and information they need to understand their rights and responsibilities. The commission spent a lot of time investigating larger systemic societal issues, but frankly, I think they invested that energy at the expense of doing the real on-the-ground work that can help make a real difference in ordinary people's lives.

One of the groups that filled that gap, frankly, over the last number of years by doing work around the community to help people understand these things was the Human Rights Coalition. We're going to continue to use that expertise in helping us get this new model up and running.

B. Locke: I would like to introduce into the gallery today about 60 students from Green Timbers Elementary School and their parents and teachers, Lisa McCreedy and Wendy Kaland. They are a group of children who are very energetic and happy to be here in the capital city. They enjoyed visiting the museum. Would the House please make them very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: I join in welcoming this group of young people here. Perhaps that's a good way, with all of these young people here in the gallery, to talk for a few minutes about the Human Rights Tribunal and how it relates to children. Is it going to be through an organization like the Human Rights Coalition that we would reach into the schools in British Columbia to teach children about our human rights legislation and about what we value in terms of protecting people from discriminatory actions?

Hon. G. Plant: I think, fundamentally, the issue the member now addresses is an education curriculum issue for the Ministry of Education and for school boards around British Columbia. Again, I don't think any of us should assume more responsibility or less than is appropriate, and all of us can do things in our own way to help.

Our focus is on trying to get this system — this new institution, this reconfigured institution — up and running. In our service plan one of the performance measures we have relates to the implementation of a human rights education program. The program plan is supposed to have been completed in the last fiscal year. In the current fiscal year we are going to be developing priority education and training materials, and in the years to come we're going to continue to have performance expectations and measures in relation to making sure that this new institution works.

In terms of the larger responsibility for raising awareness on the part of young people and people throughout society, I think we all have a role to play. I

know that the issue is of importance to the Education minister. I think there already are curriculum tools in place.

It's a good thing to be interested in. I encourage the member to follow up with the Minister of Education in relation to what specifically can be done in the schools.

L. Mayencourt: Yes, I most certainly will take that up with the Minister of Education. One of the things we've done over the last little while is have a safe schools task force that's toured the province. We met with a lot of kids, and we've talked to a lot of them about some of the issues they're facing. Every once in a while I heard stuff, and I went: well, these kids don't seem to know that the Human Rights Code applies to them, as well, as citizens — that they're protected by it. I think that's something we need to make sure we bring a greater awareness about to their parents, to their teachers, to their school boards and to whomever — that the laws of British Columbia do apply to all British Columbians, regardless of their age.

The Attorney General has talked a little bit about the way that legal assistance might be offered to someone who feels they have been discriminated against. I assume that what they'll go through first is they'll come through a clinic process where they might try to find some way of resolving the problem. I agree with the Attorney General that sometimes a lot of these problems can be solved with a simple and sincere apology.

I wonder if the Attorney General could please tell us what we have set aside to provide legal assistance services to individuals in British Columbia who have come forward to the tribunal. He has mentioned that assistance is available to those British Columbians who — I think the words are — cannot afford…. I assume there is some form of means test for that legal assistance. Could he speak to what defines someone who cannot afford to provide their own legal assistance with that particular complaint?

Hon. G. Plant: Sorry. I thought I caught the member's question, but I'm wondering if he could just repeat it so I don't waste time pretending to answer something that he is not interested in hearing.

L. Mayencourt: My question relates to the issue of legal assistance to an individual who has come forward with a human rights complaint. That individual, I would assume, would approach the Human Rights Tribunal — correct me if I'm wrong — and probably be referred to a clinic, in the nature of which he has described the process. Assuming they were not able to resolve that issue with the assistance of the clinic, they might go further along in the process and stand before a tribunal, speak their truth about their situation and have some resolution.

Now, in some cases individuals will require legal assistance to do that. The Attorney has mentioned there are legal services available to those individuals who cannot afford to provide those on their own, so there must be some sort of means test or some sort of definition of where an individual would qualify for the legal assistance. Could the Attorney please give me some sense if there's a level — an income level or disposable income level — and, if he could, let me know what that is?

Hon. G. Plant: The means test is under consideration and under development. I think, fundamentally, it's going to be as much as anything a matter for those providing the service, although I'm sure government will continue to be pretty integrally involved in the discussion.

L. Mayencourt: I assume, then, that the provider of the legal services — which I assume is the Community Legal Assistance Society — will make some determination on a case-by-case basis, and after a period of time I would imagine that a pattern would emerge. Is the Attorney contemplating setting some guidelines for CLAS with respect to providing legal services to perhaps low-income or mid-income people with exorbitant medical bills or what have you?

Hon. G. Plant: The member's question is a fair question. I have to say that we've talked about legal advice and assistance being available through the clinic to complainants and respondents who qualify for publicly funded help to conduct their cases. We pretty deliberately talked about those who would qualify for publicly funded help, and that certainly suggests the development of a means test. But as part of the continued examination of that issue, we are looking at…. There are a lot of practical questions about how you do the work to determine and apply means tests, and sometimes the questions you have to ask are difficult. Sometimes you have to do the work to make sure you can be certain of the answers you receive.

Government has a lot of experience — certainly at second hand — in watching the Legal Services Society, as the deliverer of legal aid in British Columbia, try to administer the implementation of means tests and eligibility criteria in a way that is affordable, effective and fair. We might actually get to a point where we're not having to be as disciplined or rigorous about these things. We're working on seeing what we can do to get this service offered in a way that spends the most possible energy helping the people who need help and the least amount of unnecessary energy asking people to bring in their income tax returns. So that's underway.

The issue for respondents is a challenge, because sometimes respondents can afford to defend themselves and sometimes the costs associated with doing that are pretty extensive. We're still actually not certain how respondents are going to be represented by the clinic in the way that we thought originally. Some of that is still being worked on.

I'm pretty committed to ensuring that the playing field should be as level as possible for people within the limits of the resources that we have and making the

best use of those resources — the most effective use of those resources. The fact is that the precise dimensions of how all that will play out are not, as of today, all fully settled.

L. Mayencourt: Also on the topic of legal assistance, I would imagine — as a matter of fact, I can think of a couple of cases I've heard about that have gone to the tribunal in the past — a complainant might, in fact, have money to provide for their own legal assistance, but it does create a real hardship for them. Actually, I'll just use an example, and I'm not asking the Attorney to comment on a specific case.

A couple of weeks ago there was a headline about an individual in the lower mainland who went to the commission over the issue of access to gender reassignment surgery. This individual mortgaged their home. The costs were enormous. They wanted the Medical Services Plan to kick in and provide for some services. At the same time that the person may have been able to access funds of their own to defend themselves at the tribunal, they were also moving forward with their operation, which meant they were spending a lot of the money that they'd mortgaged their home to pay for.

There are going to be incidents where an individual may, in fact, have money to pay for their own legal assistance, but it creates a very great hardship not only to them but also to their family. I'm kind of wondering, when we're looking at that: if there is a great public benefit in that case going forward and the complainant is not really able or willing to fund that themselves, will the tribunal, through CLAS, be allowed to move that forward? I think there was a sense that there was a systemic discrimination within British Columbia that was worth pursuing. I wonder if that would be a factor in deciding whether someone would receive that legal assistance. Sorry for being so long-winded on that one.

Hon. G. Plant: I respect the member's desire to try to keep distinct an individual case from the general proposition. Unfortunately, having asked the question the way he did, it's kind of hard for me to answer it in a way that won't be interpreted by somebody as a comment on the individual case.

The fact is that these are difficult issues and these things are, in terms of their detailed application, still being worked on. The fact is that no matter what state of completion we get with respect to the arrangements for how the clinics will operate, the advice that'll be provided and the way in which decisions will be made about whether or not to provide legal representation — and no matter what level of detail we reach in those discussions and arrangements — there will still be difficult issues. There are today and there always are difficult issues.

The question of to what extent the state has the responsibility to fund people who bring forward legal issues is an issue that is much bigger than its application in the context of human rights, but it is important in the context of its application in human rights. It's fair to say that if we are looking at people who can afford to pay for the cost of litigation, they're going to continue to be asked to pay the cost of litigation in British Columbia. That's so, whether it's a criminal matter, a family matter, a poverty law matter or whatever it is.

Legal aid has not been available in British Columbia for a long time for anybody who could afford to pay for a lawyer. Legal aid is a source of legal representation of last resort. The extent to which different organizations apply those principles successfully on a case-by-case basis is something that we could also discuss, but the general principle is that if you've got the means, you are supposed to pay for the issue yourself.

I get it that that becomes a challenging question in the context of what the member is describing as a systemic case or a case that raises public interest issues or a test case, whatever the box is that we're trying to put the case into. But I'll tell you that my own view is that even in those cases, if you can afford to pay for your own legal advice, you should. There are a couple of reasons for that. One is the simple fact of affordability, and the member knows of what I speak. The fact is real, and it is present, and it is not going away. The second reason has to do with the way in which economics plays a part in making people reasonable litigants. The fact is that if you're not paying your way in trial or court or mediation or any other proceeding, there is much less incentive to be reasonable, because you don't pay for the consequences of your unreasonableness.

That's just a basic fact of human behaviour that has operated on law and judicial processes for as long as those processes have been around. It doesn't necessarily mean they're easy answers to the application of those principles to specific cases, but it is important — at least for me — to put on the table, if you will, some of my thoughts about the principles that we ought to apply in dealing with those cases.

I get that for many people, human rights issues raise important systemic issues. I suspect that many, many people believe their human rights issues are systemic in nature. Frankly, that belief and managing the implementation of that belief has been one of the reasons why we have had processes that have been unmanageable, unaffordable and unwieldy, that have encouraged division and adversariality, and that have led to cases taking decades instead of weeks and months.

The reality is that not every case of discrimination does, in fact, engage society in the deepest consideration of its most fundamental issues. Some do; most don't. Finding the line between them is a big challenge, and determining what the role of government is in ensuring the playing field is level so that the parties to the most difficult cases get to argue their positions fairly is also a tough question.

I think there's somebody out there who would probably describe that as one of my famous equivocations, but there you have it.

L. Mayencourt: I thank the Attorney General for his answer and for his thoughts on that matter. I'd like to

ask a question about the role of the Human Rights Tribunal with respect to advocacy. Is that a role for the tribunal, and if it is, how is that manifested? I would put resources to that.

Hon. G. Plant: Fundamentally, the tribunal is an independent adjudicative agency, a decision-maker, and it has been given some significant new authority to help it and encourage it to help the parties to human rights issues resolve their disputes earlier and less confrontationally than has been the case in some past experiences. At the end of the day, the Human Rights Tribunal is not an advocacy organization. It's a decision-maker, and it has to be independent in its decision-making.

L. Mayencourt: I accept the answer. I am going to ask the Attorney if we can…. This is going to step just a tiny bit over the line of the estimates process, but is the advocacy role then to rest with an agency like the Human Rights Coalition? If that is the case, is that part of the allocation of his budget dollars towards the Human Rights Coalition? Is that where that's coming in?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm not certain where the member would draw the line between what I would call education and what I might call advocacy. I think education is an important function, and we've talked about the extent to which the different actors here — me as minister, the coalition, the tribunal — have a role to play in educating the public about the existence of the tribunal and about the rights and remedies available under the code and the opportunities to ensure that complaints of discrimination are dealt with fairly.

There is a particular statutory responsibility that I, as the Attorney General and minister responsible for human rights, now have in relation to education. I can imagine there might be times when that starts to look a little bit like advocacy, but I don't think that government…. Well, as I understand the question the member asks, the fact is that our communities are filled with advocates. They are effective; they're forceful. Some of them sit in this chamber. They do their job to advocate for human rights here in this chamber, and others do it in other parts of our community.

I hope that work will continue, but I think as government our fundamental responsibility is to put in place an institution that can help people resolve complaints of discrimination in a way that's fair, effective, efficient, affordable and accessible. Our main priority right now is to help the tribunal do just that.

L. Mayencourt: I want to thank you very much. As I said, I had the pleasure of being with you and the other folks at the announcement of the tribunal. I do see it as positive. I see it as a way for people to access human rights at a very grass-roots level and to be able to receive some support from government as needed. I think it's a positive, and I think that human rights are accessible in British Columbia. I'm glad to be part of that change.

In conclusion, I just wanted to also say, for other members of this House and for the general public, that I think it is very important for all of us to become aware of this new process — of the way it's going to unfold in British Columbia. I know that it's constantly evolving. As I said earlier, my office will be visiting with the tribunal to get a better understanding of that so we can provide that direct service to our constituents. I would just encourage other members to do that. I thank the minister and most especially the tribunal for extending that courtesy to my office.

T. Christensen: I did have a few questions around the Human Rights Tribunal, but my friend from Vancouver-Burrard has very thoroughly canvassed a number of the issues there.

The only question I will ask — because I'm not sure if it has been asked in respect of the tribunal — is: given that it's a relatively new and developing entity, does it currently have a service plan, or will it be expected to produce a service plan?

Hon. G. Plant: Technically, the Human Rights Tribunal is an agency within my ministry, and therefore my ministry's service plan encompasses the service plan objectives that are related to the work of the Human Rights Tribunal.

The new act contains processes, I'm certain, for accountability, but we don't yet have a separate document or a separate plan for the tribunal for the current fiscal year that I think would meet the definition of the member's question.

T. Christensen: Is that something you anticipate over this next year — either the tribunal or the ministry developing a service plan that will specify some performance measures for what we expect from the tribunal in terms of timeliness of decision-making, responsiveness to complaints, perhaps part of its education function — the things we expect it to be doing?

Hon. G. Plant: The tribunal will be expected to report and will report on its activities.

T. Christensen: I should just get a bit more clarification in my own mind. In its reporting there's an opportunity that it can essentially give us a review of what it's been doing. But are we going to have specific measurements so that on a year-to-year basis we can set objectives — or the tribunal can set objectives on its own, given its resources — that we can measure on a year-to-year basis to, hopefully, see that improvements, however those may be categorized, are being made year over year?

Hon. G. Plant: I think the answer to the member's question, in general terms, is that the agencies of the government of British Columbia are part of the gov-

ernment of British Columbia, and we're all expected to work forward together in terms of the commitment to have service plans.

There are specific statutory obligations and functions that the tribunal has in terms of reporting. I expect those will be fulfilled. We will be monitoring, as a ministry, what the tribunal does in fulfilling its responsibilities and spending the money that is allotted to it by this Legislature. There will be, I hope, performance goals and expectations established, recognizing that this is, in some respects, a demand-driven business so there are limits to or qualifications on the kinds of ways in which an agency like this can report. But I am certain that the tools will exist for the member to look both prospectively and retrospectively at the work of the tribunal in the manner that I think is contemplated by his question.

Certainly, I agree we need to be careful that we don't measure the success of a tribunal, any tribunal, based on the number of cases put before it. Ideally, particularly when it comes to complaints of discrimination, I would hope that the number of complaints actually goes down over time as we better educate the public — whether they be employers or landlords or anybody else providing a service — that they shouldn't be discriminating and on what in fact constitutes discrimination.

I know that, certainly from my own experience and in reading about the commission over the second half of the last decade, one of the consistent complaints was that where somebody found themselves having to deal with the commission, it took a number of years to come to any resolution.

That's sort of what I'm getting at — that certainly there are some goals that the government has established in moving toward this new model of dealing with complaints under the Human Rights Code. Hopefully, we'll have some concrete measures by which we can determine whether this new model is better performing over the previous model. I don't need a response to that, but that's sort of the gist of where I hope to see we are perhaps a year from now, when we're going through next year's estimates process.

I'm going to switch back into some of the specifics of the Attorney General's service plan. Looking at justice services, it seems pretty clear there that in ensuring that people coming in contact with the justice system in the province get good service and that they receive protection from crime and its socioeconomic consequences, one of the strategies that is being embraced quite thoroughly by the Attorney General's ministry is to try and increase the number of disputes settled through processes such as the court mediation program, facilitative planning meetings, other alternative dispute resolutions or intermediary processes before something actually gets to trial.

Perhaps in the context of the civil and family justice system, the Attorney General could review some of the steps being taken along the lines of those strategies as set out in the service plan.

Hon. G. Plant: There's a range of initiatives: the notice-to-mediate process, the court mediation practicum program, the British Columbia Mediator Roster Society. ADR advice to government provided by the dispute resolution office is part of the general theme of the member's questions, because, of course, government is a party to a number of lawsuits. Those are some of the things we are doing in the dispute resolution reform business.

There are also some things that are happening in the family law area, specifically, that I think are relatively new and relevant — the family justice registry pilot project. Parenting-after-separation, of course, has been around — at least as a pilot project — for nearly a decade, but it has been expanded provincewide. There are some pilot projects funded by the Legal Services Society and the family justice services division of the ministry.

One project, in particular, that is pretty interesting is a family advice lawyer project to provide up to three hours of free legal advice to low-income parents experiencing separation or divorce. This service is apparently available in Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Surrey, Terrace, Vancouver and Victoria, and this builds on a pilot project in Kelowna last year. I think that's largely being done under the aegis of the Legal Services Society. We're doing lots of work with LSS to try to look for opportunities to use limited dollars in ways that will encourage people to resolve disputes earlier. That's a list of some initiatives.

T. Christensen: I note that one of the performance measures that the service plan sets out is a pretty dramatic increase in the number of qualified mediators on the B.C. mediation roster, from about 120 in '01-02 to 180 in '02-03, and then increasing year over year. Have we reached that goal for what was this last year, and do you anticipate any difficulty in reaching those future goals?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the question was asked yesterday. As a result of that, we went back and looked again, and I'm told the number on the roster now is about 190.

T. Christensen: So you're ahead of schedule, which is always good. Actually, what constitutes a qualified mediator for the purposes of the B.C. mediation roster?

Hon. G. Plant: I think you need to have had at least 80 hours of training. You need to have participated in or mediated ten supervised mediations. You need to have insurance, and you need to know how the civil justice system works — which, if you're a lawyer,

T. Christensen: I want to switch to the general legal issue of child custody and access, because I've certainly had a number of inquiries at my constituency office, and I suspect other members have. There's been a good deal of attention at the federal level over the last few years around custody and access laws and, I think it's fair to say, a general perception that they often don't work well. At the same time, there's a good deal of debate and disagreement on whether there's something that might work better. Certainly, anybody who's ever had to deal with a child-in-custody case, whether personally or through some involvement in the legal system, can agree that these can often be the most difficult things we expect our legal system to try and deal with.

Firstly, are there any current provincial initiatives looking at law reform around custody and access?

Hon. G. Plant: We have been working with the federal government as part of the work they have done that has led to the recent introduction of proposed changes to the Divorce Act. I think it's also fair to say that we don't yet have a firm position, necessarily, on what has been proposed by the federal government. I certainly agree with a lot of what the member says about the status quo. We don't have underway right now any active initiative to reform the Family Relations Act in relation to these issues, because I think most of our energy has been devoted to listening to, learning about, participating in and helping the federal initiative.

T. Christensen: The Attorney General referenced the federal initiative, and obviously in the areas of family law we've got to be working very closely with them, given the sort of shared jurisdiction. Will the province get to the point where it has a formal response to the federal initiative and, if so, when do you anticipate being in that position?

Hon. G. Plant: To some extent the federal government leads the parade here. It may be that if the changes that have been introduced to the Divorce Act are passed, we may have work that has to be done in British Columbia one way or the other. In the meantime I suppose one way of answering the member's question is to invite him to offer me, or government, his views on what he thinks about the federal proposals.

I think the old labels and the old structure have produced some real challenges. They do tend to produce a kind of proprietary approach on the part of parents to issues of custody and access. Goodness knows, there's a landscape littered with pain and hurt and sorrow and dysfunctional relationships. Almost anything that tries to move away from bright-line distinctions based on rights toward something like collaborative, shared, mutually responsible, mutually recognized obligations toward children and members of the family unit…. Almost anything in that regard I am inclined to think is an improvement on the status quo. We don't have a firm position on this yet.

To argue, just for a moment, the other side of the coin, I do sometimes wonder how much of this is just inherent in the psychology, the emotion, the financial consequences of family breakup. It doesn't really matter what labels we attach as lawyers or lawmakers to these things; we're still going to have the same stress, the same challenges. It may only be a matter of time before shared parenting, or whatever this year's term is, acquires some of its own baggage that isn't all that helpful.

I don't think that's my view. I think that's too cynical a view. There is a role for the law here, but I sure hope people start to realize that the law is actually not necessarily the right paradigm or framework within which to sort out how to make sense of the relationships and obligations in families that have broken apart. There is definitely stuff we have to do to make sure that the law is right, that people have some sense of obligation and all of that.

Anyway, enough of that. It's a pretty important topic, and if the member or any member in this chamber has views — it doesn't have to be right now — we could pursue those issues. I think they're worth pursuing, and I would welcome their input.

T. Christensen: I thank the Attorney General for his comments and for that invitation. I expect that's certainly something I will take him up on when I can find some time to try and organize my thoughts a bit better around the whole issue. I do agree that it's extremely complex. The reality is that a change in terminology certainly doesn't fix anything. Ultimately, I suspect the best fix is when individual parents, in relation to their individual children, are going to recognize clearly that it's in the best interests of the child to have a relationship with both parents, and they're able to put that thought and fact ahead of all else that may be happening between the parents.

What I do want to comment on…. I know there are some initiatives that certainly the provincial government has undertaken in the past and continues, which try to assist parents in getting over the dispute between them and focus on their shared-parenting obligation, regardless of who has custody and who may have access. I know that last year's annual report for the Attorney General highlighted the establishment of a website and a toll-free inquiry line to provide information on resolving family disputes, including custody disputes. Can the Attorney comment on what sort of uptake we've seen — whether it's the number of hits on the website or calls to the inquiry line — and whether it's a service that is being well utilized?

Hon. G. Plant: We're not certain if we actually have the number of hits on the website. What I can tell you is that we think this is successful enough that the work

is now being done to develop a special website for kids alone, so they can go and get information about the way these issues may affect them directly in their lives. I think that's a project that's getting some federal money, as was the case with the other project. I understand that the work to develop this additional tool is underway.

T. Christensen: I understand, as well — I thought I had a note about it, but I can't find it — that within court registries around the province or in some locations, there are certainly programs offered and in some cases programs mandatory for parents. I think parenting-after-separation is the name of one of them. Can the Attorney General comment on what's available in respect to those types of services?

Hon. G. Plant: I have some information about the main program that I think the member is referring to. It's parenting-after-separation, which is a program that began as a pilot project in 1994 and was later expanded provincewide. There is a three-hour free session that the parents attend separately where they learn about the impact of separation on children and adults, the range of dispute resolution options that are available to them and the services that are available through government and in the community. Also, they learn how the child support guidelines work.

I'm told that parenting-after-separation sessions in English are available in 26 communities throughout the province, and there are specialized parenting-after-separation sessions delivered in Cantonese, Mandarin, Punjabi and Hindi in a number of lower mainland locations.

The member may know that in ten Provincial Court registries, it is mandatory to attend a parenting-after-separation session. This was started as a pilot project in 1998, and it's since then been expanded. It's mandatory to attend parenting-after-separation in Burnaby, New Westminster, Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Prince George, Abbotsford, Victoria, Nanaimo and Kamloops. The parenting-after-separation is, I suppose, the service that is best known in this regard.

T. Christensen: Given that there's a track record of registries where there's mandatory attendance, as well as a greater number of registries where the attendance is up to the participants, has there been any ability to track the outcome of the mandatory one and whether it's making a difference? Is it something that, if it is making a difference, the Attorney contemplates expanding to other registries?

Hon. G. Plant: There are very high levels of satisfaction reported by the participants in these programs. One of the main reasons why we have not necessarily moved forward to expand beyond the ten mandatory communities is that outside the bigger towns, it's hard to design a cost-effective business plan for delivering the service in a mandatory way. That has been the rationale behind where we are now. I think, probably, the service is reaching quite a lot of people in the communities where it's not mandatory, and we might not actually be able to affordably reach a whole lot more people in those communities than we do now.

T. Christensen: In looking at the business case for it, does the ministry try to look at the relationship or try to look…? Presumably they do. How successful is the ministry in looking at the relationship between the fact that people are required to go through the shared parenting or the parenting-after-separation program and a lower rate of disputed custody hearings? If parents are going through the program, are they better able to come to some agreement about the custody and access?

Hon. G. Plant: It's apparently very hard to track the actual cases to provide a number that would meet the member's interests. We do hear anecdotally, for example, from family justice counsellors that people who have been in the parenting-after-separation program are much more likely to try to mediate their disputes. We think, in fact, that is what happens — that people who take this program are more likely to at least try to mediate their disputes.

As the member knows, if you introduce people to the possibility of mediation, you are bound to get a good success rate in terms of resolving disputes by mediation, and in some areas of life where you require parties to mediate, the success rate of that is pretty high too.

T. Christensen: I note that one of the strategies under justice services is — in terms of encouraging greater public use of out-of-court resolution options — to conduct court-ordered assessments in child custody cases and enforce maintenance orders. Has the ministry contemplated any performance measures in terms of the timeliness of those assessments? It's been some time since I spent any time in family law court, but my recollection is that it was often a complaint and that it was difficult to get those assessments in a timely manner.

Hon. G. Plant: One of the challenges ever-present in relation to this issue has been the issue of public resources. There has probably never been enough public money dedicated to this. I think there are a couple hundred of these done a year. It's an interesting question — what to do about that situation. We do try to have the ones that we have control over done at the front end of the dispute. The court, of course, has the power to order these assessments, and we have much less ability to control when those orders are made. It probably doesn't lend itself well to the kind of performance measure that the member is talking about.

T. Christensen: Ideally, in any of these programs — whether they be court-ordered assessments or whether

they be the parenting-after-separation efforts at mediation that we'd like to encourage by putting public resources into — the end goal would be to avoid a judge having to make a decision as to whether a child is going to be with mom or dad and to try and avoid the parents fighting to the bitter end.

Are we able to measure statistically whether we're having any success or how we're doing in terms of the public resources spent in avoiding that ultimate battle? Can we see over time that where these programs are available, for example…? We can see how many divorce actions are started that have children somewhere involved in those proceedings. Can we tell that in registries where more services are available, there's a greater percentage of those divorce actions that don't ultimately have the judge having to decide about custody? Do we have any research around that to know whether we're in fact getting value that's measurable in terms of a decrease in the use of court time?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm told there has been some research done with respect to the rule five family court project that was sponsored by the federal government, I believe, and that there has been an interim report done in relation to that research that has some pretty positive information in it. I think we are getting close to the conclusion of the preparation of that report, and I'm told that when it's done, it will be made public. That will hopefully provide some information of the kind that the member is interested in.

The member, of course, will know that it's hard to measure what in many ways is sort of a multiple moving target. If you make it easier for people to resolve their disputes in a non-confrontational way, you may find that some people are willing to come to the justice system who aren't even willing to come to it now, and vice versa. There is some work being done, and I hope we'll be in a position to provide the member with that information in the near future.

R. Sultan: I would like to reintroduce to the House two persons who really need no introduction because they're well known in these corridors. First, there's Peter Kains, one of my constituents, a distinguished businessperson from the North Shore who I've previously introduced to this House. He's accompanied by Gerald Strongman, a former MLA, a very prominent art collector in British Columbia, a philanthropist, former head of the president's council and ex-chairman of B.C. Rail. Would the House please make them both welcome.

J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to introduce grade 10 students from Templeton Secondary. As I say when I talk to them directly, it's the coolest, best high school in British Columbia. Now, when Van Tech comes, I say the same thing. We'll say it's one of the two coolest high schools in all of British Columbia. We had a great meeting in the rotunda where there were some very astute questions asked. I predict that at least half of them will be sitting in these seats within the next ten years. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Christensen: Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I don't have an introduction to make.

I'm going to switch from custody and access issues, which I think all of us can agree are some of the most difficult ones to deal with, to another area that is difficult. But because it deals with dollars for the most part, the legal system seems to be able to better deal with it. That's maintenance payments and specifically FMEP. I guess the first question there is: what are we seeing in terms of the caseload for FMEP? Is it increasing, decreasing, or is it remaining pretty steady?

Hon. G. Plant: There's usually a table that tracks the caseload over time. I don't think it's been updated for this year, but that may be a piece of work we should do. I'm pretty sure the table will show us that the caseload is growing over time. It certainly was showing that until recently.

In the year 2001-02, which is the last year for which I appear to have this number, the B.C. family maintenance enforcement program collected over $140 million for families. The program dealt with almost 54,000 cases during that year, and the amount collected was 79 percent of the total amount due. The cost of collection was about 10 cents per dollar collected, which is a reduction from 14 cents five years ago and half the cost of ten years ago.

T. Christensen: I understand that in respect of child support in Kelowna, there's a pilot project where essentially a child support officer works with parents to understand the federal child support guidelines and then to try and calculate and negotiate support.

Can the Attorney General provide any information on how that program seems to be working? Are the folks who go through that program and come to some agreement…? Are we finding there's better compliance then with payments being on time?

Hon. G. Plant: There is, I'm told, one child support guidelines worker, or whatever the actual title is, in Kelowna doing work that I think meets the description the member gave. I am told that work is very successful. It helps resolve these issues. There are at present no resources to permit the widespread expansion of that program, but we think it's a good idea. When and if we can find the resources, it's the kind of thing we might do more of.

T. Christensen: Has that particular worker been doing it long enough that there's a track record so we know whether it is, in fact, resulting in greater long-term compliance? Or are we finding people can agree for a few months, but then all of a sudden the payments stop and we're essentially back to square one in terms of FMEP having to do a bunch of work?

Hon. G. Plant: We have not done that research. The research that has been done into the issue, broadly speaking, shows us pretty convincingly that where parties agree to an obligation, they are much more likely to discharge it than when the obligation is imposed on them by court order, for example.

T. Christensen: I'm going to switch just briefly to the Legal Services Society and their service plan and just some general questions around legal aid. It's no secret that there's had to be some pretty difficult decisions there and a significant reduction in the overall budget to the Legal Services Society. Perhaps the Attorney General can start by putting that in some context, because certainly my experience has been that, really, over the last 15 years we've seen a dwindling legal aid budget and significant reductions in both eligibility and coverage right through the last decade.

What I found when I was practising is that you had a portion of our population that's pretty well off that could afford legal services and a portion at very, very low income who were provided some services through the Legal Services Society, and then the vast majority of us in the middle — and heaven forbid that we ever needed to retain a lawyer.

Perhaps the Attorney can start with some comments on what has happened around legal aid over the last decade and how we can address that in a broader context of perhaps making legal services more affordable overall or the system more affordable.

Hon. G. Plant: A decade ago or so in British Columbia the mandate of the Legal Services Society expanded broadly, and some funding commitments were made by government that caused the budget for legal aid to expand enormously and, I suggest, unsustainably, particularly given the overall ability of government to support a rapidly expanding cost associated with the provision of this service.

Legal aid has been under stress for a long time. I actually think you could probably say with a certain measure of objectivity and fairness that legal aid has been under stress in one way or another since the idea was first created. One of the things that has contributed to the stresses in British Columbia has been that over the last decade, the federal government, which used to be a 50 percent partner in sharing those costs that it acknowledges it has responsibility for, has drifted down to today, where it's about a 26 percent contributor.

I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but the cumulative total and the cumulative impact of that failure on the part of the federal government to do the job they acknowledged they have responsibility to help with is a pretty big number. That has certainly had an impact on the delivery of legal aid in British Columbia. We were forced to make some pretty tough decisions a year and a bit ago as part of our overall commitment as government to ensure that we did not any longer ask our grandchildren to pay for the services we are providing today.

That's another way of talking about deficit reduction, but the impact of that, clearly, in this area has been real. There has been a significant reduction in the budget for the Legal Services Society over the three years of the service plan, commencing last year. The good side of that, I suppose, is that it became the occasion for the Legal Services Society to reinvent itself obviously with some help from this Legislature but also with a great deal of will and commitment on the part of the staff of the Legal Services Society.

They've come up with a new service delivery model. They are less top-heavy than they were. They are much more focused on delivering service and fully engaged in what I think is kind of the fundamental part of this exercise, which is to rethink what it means to give people the advice and representation they need to help them resolve their issues and their disputes. The answer to the problem with respect to funding legal aid, in my view, is not more money for the same old way that legal aid was being done half a dozen years ago.

It didn't work then, and it won't work now. It doesn't not work in the sense that it was an issue of enough money or not enough money. Where it falls apart is that in some of the ways the service was being provided, we weren't helping people solve their problems. We were just giving people excuses to litigate at some length about their issues. That is particularly the case for family law.

In poverty law, it seems to me — while I acknowledge that there has been real impact in terms of service delivery and poverty law — I have been pretty committed over the last two years to figuring out how we can make administrative justice institutions work better, how we can persuade the front-line officials who deliver the programs and benefits of government to do a better job of ensuring that they don't create disputes and that they resolve their disputes and issues according to processes which are less legalistic and more result-driven.

All of that makes a difference. It doesn't represent a complete answer by any means, but it is some of the work that we have to do that I think about whenever the subject of legal aid comes up. The good news is that the Legal Services Society is fully engaged in the same kind of work and is thinking about how they can make the best use of their limited dollars to reach the furthest and help the most people in the most effective possible ways.

You know, there is always a need for more money. The federal failure to contribute, stretched out over the

last 11 or 12 years, comes to $22 million. I can assure you that we could provide a lot of service to people in British Columbia if we had that $22 million instead of whatever it is that Ottawa has chosen to spend that money on — money which, in other provinces, they are spending. They're not spending at the same per-capita level here in British Columbia.

It's a big topic, obviously. I get that there is a significant impact in some places, but I've also begun to hear some very interesting things. I now hear from people who are excited about the work they're doing in and for LSS to rethink how they help people with family law problems or other sorts of problems and, for the first time, are sort of getting out of the old grind of tariff referrals and are much more directly engaged in the business of helping people solve their problems in the best way possible.

T. Christensen: Thank you to the Attorney General. I am actually very encouraged by a number of things he said, particularly around LSS now having the opportunity to rethink what, in fact, it is they're trying to do. Certainly, my impression, which it sounds like the Attorney General shares, is that many of the services being provided by LSS were driven by the way the system operated — that being the court system — rather than taking a step back perhaps and focusing on what the problem of the client is that we're trying to resolve and how we can best move forward. I suspect some of the best examples are around family law, where I certainly found that often, in too many cases, what was happening is that the former legal aid model was allowing people to perpetuate the dispute rather than perhaps find an appropriate solution.

Having said that, I expect there are still, certainly in terms of the delivery of legal aid, some pretty significant restrictions in terms of how far LSS can go in a rethink of how their services are provided. I noted at least in the early version their service plan, they're projecting that by 2005 criminal law is going to account for just under half of LSS's budget.

I know that is certainly something, when constituents hear that the vast majority of funds within legal aid are being spent on criminal defence matters, many have some difficulty understanding why on earth that's where the resources are being spent when they're putting that up against a family law dispute where there's perhaps a little more sympathy for the parties involved, particularly when children are involved.

Perhaps the Attorney General could give a brief explanation of some of the constitutional restrictions we face in terms of what LSS is more or less required to fund.

Hon. G. Plant: In simple terms, the constitution provides a measure of protection for people who are charged with criminal offences. That means that for those who can't afford to pay for the cost of their own representation, in many circumstances, particularly when their liberty is threatened by the possibility or likelihood of imprisonment upon conviction, they have the right to turn to the state for help in funding their legal representation.

That constitutional priority does not exist in respect of family law matters, for example. It does not exist in respect of the range of civil matters that comes under the umbrella, euphemistically, of poverty law. That's one of the major drivers in terms of how any legal aid organization in Canada will determine its priorities. It's a reason why we need to try to rethink what it means to provide criminal legal aid too, and that's a complex question. We actually started talking a little bit about that yesterday in this debate in terms of all the questions about how the criminal justice system works.

It is the constitutional concern with the deprivation of human liberty by the state, in criminal cases especially, that motivates the courts to make sure governments fund the defence costs of people who are charged with crimes in circumstances where they can't afford to represent themselves and, if convicted, they face the likelihood of imprisonment.

T. Christensen: Just following the earlier theme of LSS having the opportunity to rethink how they provide their services. I think you may have just answered this, but I'm going to just ask it for confirmation — that LSS has the opportunity or the freedom to take a pretty comprehensive review of how they're providing services to those facing criminal charges, and they may come back with proposals around that or look at different alternatives there perhaps. I know there's a number of different models around North America — perhaps in other provinces. Are they open to look at those, or are they locked into the way it's been done in the past?

Hon. G. Plant: That's right. The issue is representation in criminal cases. That's how that constitutional priority plays itself out. But there are lots of different ways you could fund to achieve representation. The Legal Services Society has a pretty wide-open ability to examine different models. That is work I think I could say is being done more collaboratively with government than has been the case in the past, in a constructive way.

LSS is fully independent in all of those areas where it needs to be to make the decisions about whether to provide representation in particular cases. We work with LSS in defining some level of performance plan expectations that help them establish or get a sense of what we think their priorities ought to be, which is a part of what informs their creative thinking about how to change service delivery models.

T. Christensen: Just looking at dollars alone, again on the criminal defence side, there are from time to time — in this province in particular, it seems — some pretty big cases that get headlines where the state is on the hook for the defence bills. Where does that funding come from? For example, in the Air India or the Pickton case, are those dollars coming out of the LSS budget so that it's then having an impact on the money

available for other purposes, or are there special contingency funds available for those high-profile cases and also cases where the defence lawyers find they need to make application to court — I think they're called Rowbotham applications — to get increased funding? Is that coming from some other contingency fund, or does it have an impact on the LSS budget?

Hon. G. Plant: Air India and Pickton are being funded by central government through contingency funding. It was the case that Rowbotham funding had been sort of a separate item in the Attorney General's ministry until the last couple of years. We took that money and rolled it into LSS, so LSS is expected to absorb the costs for most of the relatively big cases — in fact, ideally almost all of them.

T. Christensen: Just one final question under legal services. This is more a clarification, I think, arising from some of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition had asked. I understand that over the next year, LSS is phasing out providing legal services to immigrants. I just want to clarify that we're not phasing out…. That wasn't to be interpreted as phasing out services to immigrants; we're just talking about legal services.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, when the opposition leader and I were talking about legal aid services for immigration and refugee funding, legal aid funding, we were talking only about legal services. There are other ministries of government that have responsibilities and programs in respect of things like immigration settlement services, and they were not part of the discussion that the opposition leader and I were having.

T. Christensen: Thank you for that clarification. My concern was that in looking at the transcript, it wasn't abundantly clear, and I didn't want people to misconstrue that.

In respect of the operation of the courts as a whole, does somebody keep stats in terms of the number of unrepresented litigants and how that's increasing or decreasing from time to time and any sort of ongoing assessment of the number of unrepresented litigants on the operation of the court system?

Hon. G. Plant: We have no statistics, but the anecdotal evidence from judges, lawyers and court administrators is that there is an increase in the number of unrepresented litigants. Actually, I'm given to understand that unrepresented litigants are now starting to appear in the Supreme Court of Canada. It's not something that's just happening in British Columbia; it's a broader phenomenon. Yes, we do monitor it in the sense that we obviously hear what we're being told, and I am concerned about it. We are looking for ways to deal with the issue.

T. Christensen: I know that from time to time it's something that we hear the judiciary comment on and express a concern about. Is it something that would be within the parameters of the B.C. Justice Review Task Force to be looking at, or are they looking strictly at…? Well, I guess in looking at process, they could look at how changes to process could better accommodate unrepresented litigants. Can you comment on that just briefly?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, it may not be a full comment, but I guess what I'd say is that absent the statistical evidence, we're all sort of drawing our best conclusions. But I think it's pretty fair to say that unrepresented litigants are a symptom of something. The challenge for people who are interested in justice system reform and in access to justice is to look at the initiatives that would address and alleviate that symptom.

Hon. G. Plant: If I may, as part of moving vote 12…. Mr. Chair, you don't get to do what I've been having to do for the last number of hours here without there being a whole lot of people — some of them here, some of them back at the shop — all working very hard to try and ensure that I get the best possible information. I wanted to acknowledge the support of all the folks in my ministry who have helped prepare for these estimates debates and all the people who worked to prepare the service plans and to crunch the numbers to create a budget that is affordable but also does the work we hope it does.

I want to take this opportunity to thank everybody in the Ministry of Attorney General for getting up in the morning every day and doing their jobs serving the public of British Columbia, serving the public interest in a better justice system. I don't get as many opportunities as I'd like to say that publicly, so I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to say that. It's a marvellous group of dedicated people from top to bottom. It continues to be nothing but an awesome privilege to represent them and the work they do when I come into this chamber. So, thanks.

More specifically, while I'm about to introduce vote 12, I want to say the same thing about all the people who work in the treaty negotiations office. It's been a pretty exciting adventure for the last couple of years in the treaty negotiations office. It's been reinvented and restructured, and I think it's been made to work in a way that is bringing us very close to some success stories in the treaty file in British Columbia.

To the extent that's so, I think there is some policy leadership that has come from the Premier and from government, but the day-to-day work is done by negotiators, analysts, support people and administrators in the leanest, meanest, most effective fighting machine in government — the treaty negotiations office. They also work hard to help make the estimates process possible, and they do a great job day in and day out. Some of

them are sitting at tables having interesting discussions in different parts of British Columbia right now — I hope bringing us closer to resolution on some important issues. I wish them luck, and I thank them for all their hard work.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Bill 31 is the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act. This bill, and the act that it will become, is based on a uniform act prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada at the request of the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice.

The purpose of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, and the uniform act upon which it is based, is to establish clear and harmonized statutory rules to accord with the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada respecting the basis upon which a court in a province or territory may properly hear and determine a matter upon which its decision is sought — in short, jurisdiction.

The question of court jurisdiction becomes particularly important in cases where the matter before the court involves what lawyers call a "foreign element" — that is, where a party to the proceeding or some other aspect of the matter is located outside the province or the territory of the court. In those situations there is a need for some principles and some rules to decide when it is that a court may properly take jurisdiction over the matter.

There are two important decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada that have influenced the jurisprudence and have defined the jurisprudence in this area. One of them is called the Morguard Investments Ltd. case, and the other is Anchem Products Inc. v. the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia.

In those two cases the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the basis upon which a court may properly take jurisdiction in cases involving a foreign element is where there is, to quote the courts, "a real and substantial connection between the province or territory and the parties or subject matter of the proceedings." That's the principle — the requirement that there be a real and substantial connection.

The courts of British Columbia do not take jurisdiction over cases where there is no real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the territory where the dispute may have arisen or parties or the subject matter of the proceedings. In many different ways the question arises whether there is a real and substantial connection. That's the principle, that's the requirement, and that's the test.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that this principle is a correlative principle to the principle governing the enforcement of judgments from courts of other provinces and territories, which the court also addressed in its decision in the Morguard Investments Ltd. case. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the principle that Canadian courts should extend full faith and credit to the judgments of courts from other Canadian provinces and territories requires that Canadian courts properly exercise jurisdiction — that is, on the basis there is a real and substantial connection with the province or territory.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that Canadian courts should give full faith and credit to judgments from Canadian courts in other provinces and territories where the original court properly took jurisdiction on the basis of a real and substantial connection between the province or territory in question and the proceedings. In simpler terms, what we're talking about are rules that require us to respect the judgments and decisions of courts in other parts of Canada, but we're also saying that the obligation to extend full faith and credit to those courts and their decisions is dependent upon a certainty that those courts will only take jurisdiction in cases where it's appropriate they do so.

The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act is, therefore, a companion statute to Bill 32, the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. Together these two statutes give expression to the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada, and together they will provide a comprehensive approach to jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in Canada.

Bill 31, the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, would provide for the substantive rules of jurisdiction in a statute in express statutory form

rather than leaving them implicit in each province's court rules for the service of process. The rules would be based on the existence of defined connections between the province and the party to the proceedings or to the facts upon which the proceedings are based.

Another important element of the act is to provide a statutory means by which the superior courts of Canada may transfer litigation to a more appropriate forum in or outside Canada if the receiving court accepts such a transfer. By including provisions respecting the transfer of proceedings in the same statute respecting court jurisdiction, the act would make the power to transfer, along with the power to stay proceedings, an integral part of the means by which a Canadian court may deal with proceedings that more properly should be heard elsewhere.

In a real sense we're talking about a step along a road that has taken us a long way from a day where you might have said the provincial courts existed in splendid isolation, one from the other, to a world in which the Canadian judicial system is integrated, collaborative and cooperative and in which litigants who have disputes in one part of the country can be assured that their disputes, if necessarily resolved elsewhere in Canada, will be dealt with fairly, effectively and efficiently.

This act and its companion act, Bill 32, have been identified as priorities in the modernization and harmonization of Canadian commercial law by the commercial law strategy of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. What all those words add up to is some hard-working people in my ministry and in ministries across the country who are determined to make Canadian law as modern and effective as it can be. I want to express my thanks to the people who do that work — many of whom do it as volunteers — and to express the commitment of the government of British Columbia to this most worthwhile endeavour.

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

Bill 31, Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer 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.

Bill 32 is the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. As was the case in Bill 31, this act is based on a uniform act prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada to address changes in the law respecting the enforcement of Canadian judgments. Bill 31 is concerned with the jurisdiction of courts; Bill 32 is concerned with the enforcement of judgments. This uniform act was prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada at the request of provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice.

The purpose of Bill 32, the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, and the uniform act on which it is based is to provide a harmonized statute to accord with the principles respecting the enforcement of judgments amongst Canadian provinces and territories established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision in the Morguard Investments case. In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the principles of the Canadian constitution require that the courts of each province and territory of Canada should give full faith and credit to the judgments of courts in the other provinces and territories of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada also enunciated a correlative principle respecting the appropriate basis on which a Canadian court should take jurisdiction in a matter, and this principle is the principle underlying Bill 31, the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that it's no longer appropriate that the judgments of Canadian courts should be treated by the courts of other provinces as if they were judgments from courts of foreign countries. In particular, Canadian judgments should not be subject to the same rules by which Canadian courts may refuse or limit the enforcement of judgments from foreign countries. Rather, this act will provide that a judgment or order of a court in another province or territory of Canada may be registered in the British Columbia Supreme Court by filing a certified true copy of the judgment. A judgment so registered may then be enforced in British Columbia as if it were a judgment of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

This act does not pertain to types of orders that are the subject of existing legislation providing for interprovincial enforcement in such specific areas as family support or custody and access orders in relation to minors. Also excluded are orders respecting fines and penalties and non-monetary orders of administrative tribunals.

The act would provide that the British Columbia Supreme Court will not entertain as grounds for staying or limiting the enforcement of a judgment from another Canadian province or territory an argument that the originating court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the dispute or that the British Columbia court might have come to a different view of the merits of the decision. The proper course for a party wishing to raise those sorts of matters is to seek relief in the province or territory where the judgment was originally made, either through appeal or further application to the court that made the judgment. In other words, if there is a judgment against you in Ontario

and you believe the judgment was wrongly granted against you, the proper course is to go to Ontario and have the fight rather than have the fight here in British Columbia where the plaintiff seeks to enforce the order made by the Ontario court against you.

This principle of full faith and credit is an important principle. The principle as it is embodied in this act requires that the courts of one province not be in the position of supervising the actions of the courts of another province. A court in British Columbia may, however, make an order staying or limiting enforcement if the judgment debtor intends to bring in the originating province or territory of proceeding to set aside, vary or obtain other relief in respect of that judgment, or if, in some fundamental way, the original judgment is contrary to public policy in British Columbia.

An important feature of the act is that it provides a means for the enforcement of non-monetary judgments. Apart from legislation that addresses particular types of orders such as custody and access orders, there is no legal regime at present which permits the enforcement in one province of a non-money judgment made in another province. As our population becomes more mobile, as goods and services flow more freely throughout Canada, it is highly beneficial that there be a clear legislative means by which non-money judgments may be enforced between Canadian provinces and territories.

British Columbia has had a distinguished and leading role in the development of this legislation. The reports on which this act is based were prepared by the British Columbia Law Reform Commission and the B.C. Law Institute. This act and its companion act, Bill 31, are important elements in the commercial law strategy of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which is endorsed and actively supported by British Columbia. Such legislation reflects this government's continuing commitment to law reform and to modernization of the administration of justice.

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

Bill 32, Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees 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.

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