2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2002

Morning Sitting

Volume 7, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan

Introductions by Members

Second Reading of Bills

Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36)

Hon. R. Neufeld

J. MacPhail

Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45)

Hon. G. Plant

J. Kwan

[ Page 3135 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2002

The House

met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan:

Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve the right for a

matter of privilege.

Mr.

Speaker: Duly noted. Thank you.

Hon. M.

Coell: I'd like to make an introduction, if I might.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M.

Coell: Today in the gallery we have 24 students, their teacher and four

adults accompanying them from Bayside Middle School in Brentwood. Bayside is a

wonderful school. These young people are here to watch us today. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. S.

Bond: I call second reading of Bill 36.

Second Reading of Bills

ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, Bill 36 amends four acts: the Coal Act, the Oil and

Gas Commission Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act. With this bill we aim to improve

client service by removing barriers to development, encourage greater investment

in the mining and oil and gas sectors, and reduce the cost to government. By

encouraging investment and fostering private sector growth, we will increase

revenues that help support government's priorities like health care and

education. These changes mark a positive step towards results-based regulations

and performance-based compliance and enforcement models for the mining, oil and

gas and energy sectors.

The

amendments proposed to the Coal Act streamline regulatory requirements for

holders of coal licences and leases. Coal tenure holders wishing to access their

licence locations will no longer be subject to the provisions of the

higher-level plans under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. The

proposed amendments will allow coalminers the use of on-site aggregate for

building and maintaining safe mine roads. Metal miners can use on-site

aggregate, but coalminers have had to obtain a separate tenure under the Land

Act. This amendment corrects the inequity and removes the need for duplicate

tenures.

Amendments

to the Oil and Gas Commission Act are aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on

industry and making the rules and processes clearer and more effective. They

will help to ensure that the commission's operational practices, processes and

regulation authorities reflect government's interests and priorities.

The

amendments include a change that allows certain regulatory responsibilities

administered by other agencies to be transferred to the commission for oil and

gas activities and pipelines. The commission's lack of authority over certain

regulations has limited its ability to streamline processes and improve

efficiencies. Authorities to be transferred as a result of this amendment

include the oil and gas waste regulation under the Waste Management Act and

part

7 of the water regulation under the Water Act to the commission.

One

subsection is being repealed to enable the commission to enforce provisions

under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.

Presently

the definition of a pipeline in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act is different

from the definition in the Pipeline Act. An amendment will allow the Oil and Gas

Commission Act to adopt a more appropriate Pipeline Act definition.

The act is

being amended to increase the board of directors from two to three. The Deputy

Minister of Energy and Mines will be a director and a chair of the Oil and Gas

Commission. The changes clarify the roles, functions and duties of the board and

differentiate the powers of the commission from those of the board. Changing the

structure will strengthen the authority of the commission. Having the deputy

minister serve as chair acknowledges the close relationship that must exist

between the commission and the ministry.

With the

changes comes a new provision that will create a general development permit,

allowing for concurrent examination of surface effects of planned oil and gas

activities and pipelines in local areas. This permit will reduce regulatory

burdens for the industry, improve planning and land use coordination and

streamline the commission's application review process.

[1010]

A number of

amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will help facilitate new

developments such as coalbed methane, streamline administrative processes and

clarify provisions. The current 600-metre depth restriction on test holes is

being eliminated to make this tool more useful to industry. The term of a

geophysical licence will be established in regulation to allow a definition of a

longer term. This will reduce the cost for both industry and the commission

while providing the appropriate administration. Currently, every licence year

expires December 31 of the year it's issued. A company wishing to survey in

mid-winter, when many surveys are done — in fact, almost all of them — may

require two licences to complete a single survey.

New

variance provisions will be created to permit more flexibility in the

geophysical exploration regula-

[ Page 3136 ]

tion and regulations made by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Geophysical

regulations,

section 4(5), lists a number of items that must be included in a

final plan submitted to the commission after the completion of a project. The

regulation might be written to allow an authorized commission to vary this list

of items, either by adding to it or deleting from it.

Section 10

says that the seismic lines that do not entail the drilling of holes must be

marked within a minimum of eight metre metal tags per kilometre. In some areas,

or if the project is done in winter, making the lines might not be required or

practical, so this provision might be written with the phrase "unless

otherwise approved by an authorized commission employee."

Section 2

of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act general regulation specifies all the fees

for different things under the PNG Act. We may want to provide the ability for

someone to waive a specific fee. For example, an issue came up a while ago,

where a university wanted to conduct a Lithoprobe study, essentially a

geophysical exploration program conducted over a fairly long distance using

ditches along highways and roadways. The current regulation would not allow

government to waive what amounted to exorbitant costs because of the

length-of-survey component of the fee.

Section 8

of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act general regulation requires the submission

of a report every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter.

For some schemes a different reporting frequency may be appropriate or

desirable. The expansion of petroleum and natural gas developments into areas

outside the conventional petroleum and natural gas production areas of B.C. has

increased the possibility for involving land where persons other than the

province own the petroleum and natural gas rights.

An example

would be the new interest in coalbed methane and other oil and gas developments

on Vancouver Island, the Kootenays and the northeast areas where there are large

privately held blocks of old Crown grants. The proposed amendments will clarify

that certain parts of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act apply to those

developments.

In some

areas of the province and for some developments, such as coalbed methane

projects, a variance from normal well-spacing rules may be required for

technical, operational and other reasons. For example, normal spacing for gas

wells in B.C. is 640 acres per well. Most American jurisdictions use spacing in

the range of 80 to 320 acres per well for coalbed methane production. Amendments

are proposed to provide for streamlining processes to accommodate

other-than-normal circumstances in the development of resources such as coalbed

methane.

Currently,

the Ministry of Energy and Mines can invest in resource roads and other

infrastructure to facilitate the development of energy, mineral and oil and gas

resources, but there is no authority for tolls or charges for the use of those

facilities by industry. An amendment to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources Act will authorize the ministry to administer and collect

tolls and charges for resource roads and other facilities. It will promote

ministry involvement in public-private partnerships, provide greater access to

Crown land and resources, and protect and create jobs in the mining and oil and

gas sectors.

[1015]

The

Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road, currently administered under the Build BC Act, is an

example of a resource road that could be better managed under this amendment. It

should be noted that this provision is expected to be consistent with the

proposed omnibus private-public partnership bill. The title of the act will be

changed to the Ministry of Energy and Mines Act to reflect the current name of

the ministry.

The various

amendments going forward under this ministry bill support our goals to create a

thriving economy led by the private sector, one that provides high-paid jobs for

British Columbians and reduces their tax burden.

Hon.

Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to committee for…. I'm sorry. Strike

that last comment from the record, please, sir.

Mr.

Speaker: Consider it struck.

We are at

second reading of Bill 36. For debate, the Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: I want to put some points onto the record around Bill 36, Energy

and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, that will shape the discussion. I hope

that we have, at committee stage on the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment

Act…. I have a few areas of concern.

I know that

all British Columbians want to see a strong provincial economy. It's important,

at the same time that everybody wants to see strong economic growth, that we

don't take too many steps backward while supposedly moving forward in the name

of economic growth. It is important to recognize and maintain the important

steps that have already been made in environmental protection over the last

several years.

I listened

very carefully to the debate last night around changes to the Waste Management

Act, with my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant making some important

points, and the reaction of the government benches. The members of the

government, particularly this Minister of Energy and Mines, are always quick to

try and blame the mining industry decline on regulations and so-called red tape

from the previous government. It's very interesting to note that as soon as they

took over government, the issue of commodity prices was suddenly an external

condition. Under the previous government there was no such thing as external

conditions of commodity prices, but under their government now it's all of that.

Let me just

say that even as they go so far as to say that the previous government — and

I've heard them say this over and over again in quotes — "hated" the

mining sector in this province, that is just simply

[ Page 3137 ]

wrong and inaccurate. In fact, this Liberal government is now merely building

upon changes that we made in this sector.

During

second reading of Bill 32, backbencher after backbencher rose and personally

accused the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant of trying to condemn the

mining industry in B.C. I'm going to take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to

actually try and set the record straight on this. During all of this discussion,

no one — no one — can possibly dispute the importance of the mining industry

to communities throughout this province. In fact, it becomes increasingly

important during a time when another part of our resource sector is so

threatened, the lumber sector, the forest sector.

[1020]

However,

this is my point: it is imperative to maintain firm checks on an industry which

can have severe impact on the environment and ecosystems that are part of other

parts of a sustainable resource sector. If I could use the words of the Minister

of Sustainable Resource Management, we need balance. Unfortunately, much of this

government's actions are not balanced, but they're unevenly skewed toward

industry — guaranteeing certain access to land, removing requirements from the

Forest Practices Code and planning to expand coal burning as a source of power

in British Columbia. At a time when we as a nation are trying to meet

international air-quality standards and improve the quality of air in British

Columbia, this government — I think, Mr. Speaker, far more so leaning toward

appeasing the Mining Association of B.C. — wants to expand non-renewable

energy sources — all this at a time when the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection has pledged to improve air quality in British Columbia.

The reason

why I bring this up in this legislation is because it's a fundamental part of

the legislation's purpose: to open up the coalmining sector and, ultimately,

expand coal burning in British Columbia. I think we need to examine this as

being part of a larger jigsaw puzzle that we're starting to put together. In the

course of putting this jigsaw puzzle together, we really see what this

government has planned for the energy sector and environment in this province. I

want to outline some of the pieces of that puzzle.

Since it

was completed in March, the Minister of Energy and Mines has been sitting on the

final Energy Policy Task Force report. I think it's a safe guess to say that the

government is stalling because of the extremely unpopular things which it will

say and propose and which will probably, eventually, be adopted by this

government. You know what? This government has decided to release the bad news

bit by bit to try and lessen the outcry when the final report is released.

For

example, the interim report proposed splitting B.C. Hydro up and moving toward

privatization of services as well as increased price to customers. People kept

on saying: "Privatization. You're selling off our resources, and you're

increasing prices to us at the same time. What's that about?" Consumer

groups and industry groups are still speaking out about those proposals.

However, the minister announced on April 26, through the media — maybe the

back bench heard it the first time through the media as well — that the people

of this province should expect a price increase in hydro rates of nearly 40

percent.

As of

mid-April when we had that debate, almost a month after the report was

completed, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection had not seen the

report. Now we have a bill before us that will allow for the expansion of

coalmining in the province, freeing everything up so that this government can

expand coal burning.

Another

critical element of this jigsaw puzzle that we're starting to put together

around industry, environment and the mining sector is environmental assessment.

This bill, as we have discussed, will remove barriers to development. What this

minister, the Minister of Energy and Mines, and this legislation are not saying,

however, is the role environmental assessment will play in the development of

coalbed methane or increased mining activity.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

The news

releases around this bill talk about flexibility to industry. Well, the question

has to be asked — and I hope it can be answered, unlike any other time this

question has been asked: just how much flexibility are we talking about? It's a

real concern, because we've heard that the environmental act will be changing.

estimates debate on March 7 the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management was

asked if any areas currently assessed would no longer be under the new

legislation. He responded: "The same types of projects that are being

reviewed today will be reviewed under the new process." However, when

pressed about specifics, the minister was not so confident. When asked about

mineral refining, the minister said: "We haven't determined those details

at this time." What the minister didn't know at that time was that the

opposition had received an internal ministry document outlining that processes

like mineral refining would no longer be required to go through an environmental

assessment.

[1025]

There you

have it. There's another piece of the puzzle. The government's going ahead with

this legislation to expand the mining industry, but it's keeping quiet — I

would say dead silent — on the changes to the environmental assessment process

that will impact the quality and comprehensiveness of that environmental

assessment process directly on the parts of the resource-based part of our

economy that are being opened up for business right now.

Let me make

a prediction. I think the opposition's record on predictions is pretty good to

date. Let me predict that under this government, we'll see the environmental

assessment process so weakened that the Liberal government can say it has given

industry flexibility, but it will all be at the expense of the environment.

This bill,

Bill 36, also gives us a glance at the changes to the Forest Practices Code.

Just yesterday, 24

[ Page 3138 ]

hours ago, the Minister of Forests released a White Paper on the new code, to

be followed by legislation this fall. This was supposed to be a period, right

now, that allows for consultation with stakeholders before the legislation comes

down. However, this government has obviously decided what the changes will be in

many of the areas of this province. So much for consultation — 60 days to do

what?

Bill 36

points out exactly the type of changes in the Forest Practices Code that we can

expect. Let me just give you an example. The coal tenure holders wanting to

build a road to a site will no longer be required to comply with the Forest

Practices Code requirements. Well, isn't that interesting? I'm hoping that the

minister has gotten way out ahead of his government and that his government

simply doesn't know he's now legislating changes to the Forest Practices Code

and thereby undermining, perhaps even questioning, the veracity of the

commitment of the Minister of Forests to consult on the Forest Practices Code.

Again,

where's the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection on this? Yesterday I

heard the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection quote me on the use of coal

in our economic development. She quoted me exactly accurately. Here's what I

said. I said that the environmental safeguards around coal production are

rapidly advancing. This was in discussion about the development of the Hat Creek

coal site — absolutely accurately. What she failed to acknowledge was that the

previous government didn't try, in any way, to limit the ability of the Forest

Practices Code to protect the environment. The previous government didn't limit

the comprehensiveness of environmental assessment, like this government is

planning.

The

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is exactly right that the previous

government did everything, in an environmentally protective way, to encourage

the development of coal, which now puts to rest all of the catcalls and hoots

from the Liberal back bench that somehow we were anti–energy development. What

we didn't do, the way this government is now doing, is say to the industry:

"Have at the province. Don't worry about environmental protection. Don't

worry about having to do any environmental assessment. The province is open up

to you regardless of the environmental consequences." The previous

government absolutely supported industry but, at the same time, took a balanced

approach so that the province's natural resources were sustainable not only for

this current generation but for the next generation as well.

[1030]

Let me just

put another couple of pieces into place around what this legislation is actually

doing. The Ministry of Energy and Mines press release on Bill 36, the Energy and

Mines Statutes Amendment Act, states: "Permit conditions will continue to

ensure the environment is protected." What we see here is a group getting

exemptions from very important requirements from the Forest Practices Code. No

longer will these groups, while building roads, be forced to abide by the

standards and regulations that protect the environment. "But don't worry.

Trust us," the minister says. "There will be permit conditions."

Really?

On the

basis of what do we trust the government? The conditions won't be in

legislation, not this legislation. These are conditions that are changing huge

practices in this province contained in the Forest Practices Code, but here we

are with no legislated guarantees, and we're supposed to trust the government.

Once again environmental protection is thrown by the wayside — no legislated

guarantees whatsoever — with a promise from this government saying:

"Trust us, and trust industry."

Again, the

minister might say: "Don't worry. Trust us. Be happy, because the Minister

of Water, Land and Air Protection will hold us accountable with standards and

compliance and enforcement." Unfortunately, I have to reflect that people

are saying across this province: "Sorry, that's of little assurance when

one considers that the budget of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

for compliance and enforcement is being reduced by over 35 percent over the next

three years, right at a time when its services are required more and more."

Maybe some

people can see this jigsaw puzzle forming a picture of what the future of

British Columbia will look like for a sustainable economy — for us, for our

children and our grandchildren. It is a jigsaw puzzle that this government wants

to keep a secret, but there are many, many in this province who are seeing what

it looks like.

In fact, I

think the Business Council of British Columbia last week in its economic

statement said it best — that for many, many decades this province has relied

in the past and continues to rely on resource development as….

Interjections.

MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm actually having trouble concentrating, but

far be it from me to question the member for Vancouver-Kingsway to actually get

up and debate the matter.

The

Business Council said we cannot continue to rely on resource development.

What has

been the economic agenda so far outlined, since the failed tax cuts haven't

stimulated the economy? That failure led to the burial of lots of communities'

infrastructure in this province — their hospitals and schools. So what's the

government doing? They're talking about offshore oil and gas exploration. Gosh,

that's really new economy. They're talking about expanding coalmining. Gee,

that's really new economy. They're talking about privatization of the forest

sector to eliminate community-based jobs but expand access for forest companies.

[1035]

The

Business Council itself, the best friend of this government, has said this is

exactly the wrong direction to go in. Not only does the Business Council say

that…. What the government is doing is going in ex-

[ Page 3139 ]

actly the wrong direction and also risking the future of our children as well

by having no protections in place to sustain our resources for the future.

I am

standing up here reflecting the concern of many business people in this

province, community people and, I would say, parents and grandparents who

believe strongly in a sustainable economy. They are deeply concerned that the

government is systematically dismantling environmental regulation in this

province so that it can say: "B.C.'s open for business."

I predict

this: if the high environmental standards that B.C. is accustomed to are not

maintained, we will see a rebirth of a war in the woods — land use disputes

like we've never seen before, as this government favours one sector's use of the

land over another's. We will see a situation that will do nothing to improve

investor confidence.

Mr.

Speaker, I would prepare the government for very serious questions from the

public at large on its so-called commitment to consult on Forest Practices Code

changes that are clearly being legislated out of existence in this legislation.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Energy and Mines closes

the debate on Bill 36 second reading.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I appreciate the remarks from the member for Vancouver-Hastings and

look forward to some debate as we go forward. It's interesting that the member

brings forward some of the issues that she did, and again it's the fear she

tries to instil in people's hearts about what's actually happening in British

Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, I guess sometimes that member doesn't remember what it takes to keep a

province going — such a short memory from that person — or what it takes to

keep a health care system working for the province, which this government is

intent on doing, or what kind of money it takes to keep a good education system.

K-to-12 and post-secondary education in this province are a huge amount of

dollars.

We have to

open up our resources. We have to create good jobs in the resource industry.

Those jobs that average $80,000 to $100,000 a year are the kinds of jobs we need

in British Columbia so that we can continue to afford to have those excellent

services that that member talks about having all the time.

It's pretty

hard to be chastised by the member of the opposition about the burning of coal.

This bill has nothing to do with the burning of coal. It has everything to do

with making it easier for the coal industry to be able to do its business but to

still have high environmental standards. We're known around the world for that.

The highest standards in health and safety in North America continue, but what

we need to do is be able to make sure that that industry is there is for us in

the future and for our children so that they can have good jobs in the coal

industry.

There's

nothing wrong with the coal industry. In fact, as late as 2000, that member was

speaking on radio and saying she had no problems with burning coal for the

generation of electricity — in the year 2000, when she was in government.

Today she comes into this House and has a totally different story, but that's

not untypical of what we hear from that member day after day after day.

[1040]

To say that

the Business Council says it's wrong to have a good resource economy is totally

taking things out of context. I can't imagine that the Business Council said

that. I would, obviously, think they said we should be looking towards the new

economy, but that new economy demands certain things. It demands copper in huge

amounts. It demands good, solid electricity in huge amounts. Mr. Speaker, I'm

sure you know that high-resolution TVs, for instance, require four times the

energy that normal TVs do. Where does that energy come from? It doesn't just

come out of the sky. It has to be generated someplace. We have to generate it so

that we can have that high-tech industry. That high-tech industry also

contributes to how the industry operates.

Things have

changed dramatically in how we mine. It's changed dramatically in how we mine

coal or minerals, or search for oil and gas.

I should

back up here a bit. The other thing that is interesting is that I'm sure this

member…. I don't know if she's changed much, but when she was in government,

she used to fly back and forth from Vancouver to Victoria — because her home's

in Vancouver — on almost a daily basis on the helijet. I'm not exactly sure

how much jet fuel that helijet uses on every trip, but I'm going to get those

numbers, and I'm going to figure out how much it costs, how many barrels of oil

have to be produced so we can have that helijet flying back and forth for our

convenience. Every one of us wants that convenience. She's no different than I.

I fly back and forth — not on a daily basis, but I fly home. It consumes jet

fuel, but it gets me back and forth to my home.

It's

interesting to note that every year we consume about 40,000 pounds of minerals

and energy in our normal daily lives. That's what we do today, each and every

one of us. I don't care whether you're an environmentalist or someone who

doesn't care; it's the average, in the middle.

That has to

come from somewhere. It can't just come from everyplace else. It's got to be

developed here, and if we can develop it here and provide good, solid jobs in

British Columbia, that's what we should be doing. If you take that 40,000 pounds

a year and multiply it by the average age of about 70 years, it's a huge number.

That's all energy that we consume on a regular basis.

When you

see computers, when you see laptops, just think about what goes into making that

laptop. There's copper; there's plastic; there's lithium batteries. The whole

laptop is created mostly by mining of minerals. Then you need energy to run it.

Lo and behold, you can't just plug it into the wall and — you know

[ Page 3140 ]

what? — it happens. Someplace that energy is developed.

To run

around with a chicken approach, saying the world is falling if we don't quit

generating electricity and we don't quit using minerals, is the absolutely

backwards way to do things. We have to use that high-tech, which we do in the

province of British Columbia, to be able to create those minerals and that

energy in the province in the most environmentally sensitive, friendly way we

can, still realizing that we need those things in our life on a daily basis.

Sometime well into the future maybe we won't. I don't know, but I want to be

careful that we make sure we have a world for our children to come into where

they can have good jobs and provide for their children, for their future.

With those

few words, I move that the bill be referred to committee for discussion at

debate at the next sitting of the House after….

An Hon.

Member: You don't have second reading yet. Move second reading.

Deputy

Speaker: Minister, move second reading, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move second reading — sorry.

Deputy

Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 36.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I got excited there, Mr. Speaker. When I talk about more good news,

it's hard not to be exuberant.

I move that

the bill be referred to a committee for discussion or debate at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 36,

Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

[1045]

Hon. S.

Bond: I call second reading of Bill 45.

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

I would

like now to provide a more detailed description of the amendments to the Legal

Services Society Act contained in this bill. This bill actually will replace the

Legal Services Society Act that now exists, with a new act, but many of the

provisions in the existing statute have been maintained and will be carried

forward into the new act, although with different numbering.

I'd also

like to take this opportunity to describe briefly the province's obligations,

which give rise to the need for the Legal Services Society.

First, the

province has responsibility for the effective administration of the justice

system, and legal aid is an important part of that system.

Second, the

Crown — that is, Her Majesty the Queen, the right of the province of British

Columbia — has obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as

interpreted by the courts and also under federal statutes to provide legal

services in certain kinds of cases where the individual affected by government

proceeding would not be able to afford legal representation or where, by

statute, there is a determination that the right to counsel is available in any

case. Examples of those kinds of cases include adult criminal cases, young

offender cases and child protection cases. Since the Crown is a party in those

cases — the party in opposition to the person accused of a crime or a young

offender or an individual involved in a child protection case — it's necessary

for an independent body to exist to be able to make decisions on the legal

services that are to be provided in order to ensure that there is no conflict.

The independence of a Legal Services Society is required to ensure that there is

no conflict in relation to decisions around what legal services should be

provided to persons in those kinds of cases where the Crown has, either by

reason of the constitution or by federal statute, an obligation to ensure that

services are provided.

While the

society does have to have independence of government in making decisions on

individual cases, for the reasons I've outlined, government also has a

legitimate role in defining the service priorities for legal aid. Government's

involvement in defining service priorities is appropriate given the extent to

which the Legal Services Society is reliant upon public funding to do the work

that it does.

In my view,

the participation and the need for participation by government in setting

service priorities does not in any way undermine the basic independent role that

the society must have in relation to ensuring that services are provided in

particular cases. In terms of the independence issue, independence really is

important, largely because of that potential conflict of interest that arises

where the state and the citizen are in opposition or opposing interests to each

other in some kinds of cases. For all other purposes, I think government has and

must have a role in establishing appropriate service priorities for the society.

[1050]

What this

bill does — and the provisions in the act that this bill will become — is

attempt to balance the need for independence with a reasonable level of

participation by government. The key provisions of the bill and the act can be

grouped into four topic areas. First, governance; second, mandate; third,

relationship between government and the society; fourth, the subject of revenue

generation and cost recovery. I want to talk about each of those four topics in

turn.

[ Page 3141 ]

First,

governance. The new governance structure of the society will be found primarily

section 4 of the bill in which the old provisions for the governance of the

society are amended and changed to reflect the direction of the new organization

— the organization as it will be continued under this act. The current board

structure is unwieldy with 15 members from four appointing bodies. The proposed

governance model reduces the total number of appointees from 15 to nine and

reduces the number of appointing bodies from four to two. That is, the board

will consist of five directors to be appointed by cabinet on the recommendation

of the Attorney General and four directors to be appointed by the Law Society of

British Columbia after consultation with the executive of the B.C. branch of the

Canadian Bar Association. Those nine board members must elect one of their

members to be the chair of the board.

One of the

things this bill does that is new in this act but is part of the general

approach that we are taking to issues of board governance across government is

that, for the first time, the bill will introduce into the Legal Services

Society Act some selection criteria — I believe that's right, that it's for

the first time — for appointments to the board which must be satisfied by the

board as a whole. Those selection criteria are intended to ensure that the board

will have a balance of perspectives and experience that will create a more

effective decision-making body.

The second

topic is mandate. This bill repeals the old statutory mandate of the society and

replaces it with statements about the society's role, its objects, its

principles and its powers under what will become sections 9 through 11. In broad

terms, these sections are enabling rather than mandatory. They do not tell the

society who must be given legal aid; rather, they permit the society greater

flexibility in determining what services to provide, how to provide them and to

whom to provide them.

These

decisions, however, must be made within the parameters of budget limitations

and, of course, consistent with the obligations that I spoke about earlier,

which lie on the Crown to provide counsel to certain individuals in certain

kinds of cases. Again, in the view of government, the fact that decisions will

have to be made within the parameters of budget limitations is, in our view, a

reasonable constraint to place on any organization which is funded with public

money. This kind of provision is common in other Canadian jurisdictions that

have enacted statutes to deal with the provision of legal aid.

The objects

of the society, as they will be established by

section 9, include the object to

assist low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems and facilitate

access to justice for low-income individuals. The objects also include the

requirement to establish and administer an effective and efficient system for

providing legal aid to low-income individuals in British Columbia. The society

will also have the object of providing advice to the Attorney General respecting

legal aid.

fulfilling those objects, the society will be guided by the principles that are

set out in

section 9. It will have the powers and capacity established in

section 10.

Then,

section 11 is an important section, because it makes clear that the society may

use a broad range of integrated services to meet its obligations and that it may

limit the extent of those services. This

section reflects the principle, which I

think is important, that legal aid means more than the simple fact of

representation by a lawyer. Legal aid assistance may take place before a dispute

ever reaches the courts. Legal aid may be provided in a variety of different

ways by a variety of different types of service providers.

I have said

in other contexts and will repeat here again the commitment of government to

develop new systems to help people resolve their legal problems by means other

than the traditional adversarial court proceeding. Legal aid, I believe, is a

key service in this larger access-to-justice picture, which looks at the justice

system as something more than a system focused entirely on the courtroom.

[1055]

What

section 11 does is ensure that the methods of providing legal aid services are

stated broadly and in a way that will provide the society with the tools it

needs to do all of the things that constitute this broad definition of legal

aid.

Other

sections of the bill, including sections 13 to 16, contain cost-recovery and

revenue-generation provisions.

Section 10,

which I've already referred to, also provides the society with the capacity to

generate revenue both inside and outside British Columbia. It also ensures that

the society will have the power and the capacity to recover the legal costs of

providing some services from clients in appropriate cases.

Sections 13

to 16, specifically, create a process through which the society may recover

legal costs through the imposition of liens on the real or personal property of

clients who may become eligible to repay. That often happens in situations where

a client has the need of service, has no income stream to support the payment of

the service as it's being provided but at the end of the proceeding may either

have a stream of income or may have access to an asset that can be realized to

provide the dollars necessary to ensure that the service is paid for.

Mr.

Speaker, this is, in fact, the traditional way in which lawyers have provided

service to their clients. The client walks in the door with a problem. The

client believes that their rights have been violated. The lawyer agrees to take

the case on, knowing that while the client cannot pay the fee up front, at the

end of the day if the client succeeds, there will be dollars available to ensure

that an appropriate fee can be charged and paid for the service provided and

that there will also be funds available in the form of the actual remedy

available for the wrong that's been done.

In fact,

when I first started practising law, that particular way of providing legal

services was pretty typical of many of the litigation lawyers in the firm I

prac-

[ Page 3142 ]

tised in — certainly when they acted for plaintiffs in cases where there

was some prospect at the end of the day that a successful outcome would create

the ability to charge an appropriate fee.

Lawyers

have traditionally, in the exercise of their professional discretion and

judgment, made decisions to take cases like that on, knowing that even at the

end of the day if there was no money, they might not actually be able to recover

a fee.

It was part

of the professional obligation of lawyers then, as I think it still is for many

lawyers, broadly speaking, today, to reach out and attempt to help the broadest

range of clients in the broadest possible way while at the same time ensuring

that over the course of a year, they worked on sufficient numbers of files to

generate a reasonable income for their hard work on behalf of their clients.

That kind

of general approach in some respects is now being moved into the Legal Services

Society to give the society the tools to, in appropriate cases, secure or

protect the right to recover some of the costs of providing services.

particular, the lien provisions that are being introduced in this bill are

consistent with the existing practice of requiring repayment where clients

receive cash settlements or windfalls, and they address situations where clients

have an interest in valuable assets that are not liquid.

[1100]

Sections 18

and 21 of the bill help to establish a new relationship between the Ministry of

Attorney General and the Legal Services Society. As I outlined earlier, the

society is established to help the government meet its legal obligations to

ensure that individuals have access to legal representation. But it is also a

body which is expert in delivering other legal assistance services. There is

room for increased government involvement in defining the overall priorities for

legal aid services while, at the same time, accommodating the society's

independent decision-making capacity in individual cases.

It's also

in the interest of the society and government, frankly, that the society be able

to develop service plans over a longer period than one year. To do so — that

is, to be able to develop longer-term service plans — will require longer-term

certainty about funding levels. To enable this balancing of interests, the act

will establish two mechanism.

The first

is a memorandum of understanding, under

section 21, which obliges the ministry

and the Legal Services Society to negotiate terms of an agreement every three

years. The agreement is to include a three-year projection of service priorities

and funding estimates, among other elements. The second mechanism, found under

section 18, establishes a budget approval process which allows the Attorney

General to approve or not approve the society's budget. A similar mechanism is

used in Ontario and Alberta for their legal aid plans. Again, the intention

behind these mechanisms is to respect the balance, in an appropriate way,

between the need for the society to be independent of government in some

respects and the concomitant need of government to have an involvement in

setting service priorities to ensure that public dollars are properly spent.

One of the

things the government has done towards fulfilment of the objectives represented

by these provisions is that through the three-year service plan of the Ministry

of the Attorney General, for the first time in the history of the society, the

society has a firm understanding of what government's contribution and

commitments will be not just for this year but for the next two years. I hasten

to add that one of the important aspects of this bill is to ensure or expand the

range of opportunities the society will have to generate revenue from other

sources and, when it does so, to use that revenue to provide the services it

provides and, in some cases perhaps, to expand the range of services it

provides.

Broadly

speaking, then, this bill implements the core review service changes to the

administration of legal aid in British Columbia. It will provide the society

with a modern, flexible and innovative set of objectives, powers and capacities

with the appropriate level of accountability to government and the appropriate

level of independence. I think it's a good new model to enhance both the

efficiency and the accountability of the legal aid structure in British

Columbia.

J. Kwan:

I was listening to the words of the Attorney General, and I couldn't help but

notice that once again, the Liberal government has used the term

"flexibility." In his discussion around flexibility with the changes

for legal aid, what is clear is that legal aid services are going to be taken

away from some British Columbians, particularly those who are in greatest need.

The government likes to use the word "flexibility." We see it in other

areas as well. We've seen it in the area of education. We've seen it in other

areas with government, whereby the government is making cuts to funding and

programs that are essential to British Columbians. In this instance, we're

talking about legal aid services. The government invokes the notion of

flexibility as though somehow taking funding away is going to create greater

options for British Columbians to access their right to justice. In reality, it

is the opposite.

[1105]

Let's just

review for a moment what's been taking place in the area of legal aid as a

result of the actions of this Attorney General and this government. The

government has made its announcements on funding cuts — substantive funding

cuts — in the area of legal aid. It announced that reductions to funding for

advocacy groups include the areas of welfare rights and women's issues. Because

of the funding cuts for legal aid, those services will likely no longer be

available to British Columbians, especially at a time where there's a high

unemployment rate, at a time when this government is bringing in Bills 26 and 27

changing eligibility rules, reducing rates, affecting people who are on

disability and their access to income assistance from government.

[ Page 3143 ]

Advocacy

groups throughout British Columbia will see their funding reduced. Those people

who will be denied access to get government support would not be able to get

advocacy support through legal aid offices, community law offices, advocacy

agencies that provide for such assistance.

The

government has also announced a reduction in staffing and service locations for

agencies such as the employment standards branch, the residential tenancy branch

and the Ministry of Human Resources. Again, legal aid provides for significant

help for British Columbians in these areas. If you are an individual who is

working in an unsafe work environment and have a complaint to file against your

employer, yes, you file that complaint to the employment standards branch. Well,

there are closures and reductions of staff in the employment standards branch.

Many people

who file these complaints, particularly those who are in entry-level jobs

perhaps, people who are immigrants to the country who may face multiple

barriers, women, single moms and harassment in the workplace…. When you want

to file those complaints at the employment standards branch, staffing reductions

have been made and offices are being closed. And when you turn to the legal aid

offices to get assistance, you've found that service also not available as a

result of the cuts by the Attorney General in the area of legal aid.

Residential

tenancy branch. Another area — what is known as the area of administrative

law. When landlord and tenant disputes arise; when tenants, particularly, are

faced with illegal evictions, as an example. Illegal rent increases, as an

example. Abuse from the landlord in a variety of ways — lack of maintenance

that needs to be done in the rental property. The tenants often seek the advice

and support of advocacy groups, paralegals, those who work at community law

offices who work in legal aid. That service is being reduced and eliminated as a

result of the cuts. This bill allows for that. The key part that's being taken

away from the Legal Services Society Act by way of its mandate in providing

support to the people who need it most…. I'll quote that into the record in

just a moment.

In the

government's eyes, when that service is being taken away for tenants who need

it, who need advocacy work and support from legal aid offices…. When that

support is gone, this government calls it flexibility. That's the new era, the

new "f" word in the government's approach: flexibility. In terms of

telling people: "We're no long providing a service that you need the most,

but we're providing you a new definition called flexibility…." The new

"f" word in the new-era agenda.

Human

Resources. I touched on that for just a moment. Bills 26 and 27, impacting the

most vulnerable people: single moms, children, seniors, people with

disabilities. The government is going to cut their rates. They're going to

eliminate their eligibility. They're going to cause people enormous harm by

these changes under Bills 26 and 27, because the government says they want to

save money — save money, not necessarily by actually really assisting people

to find jobs.

[1110]

I just got

a call from my constituency office. Someone just came in — and I talked to my

staff; this is rather unbelievable, Mr. Speaker — and this individual is on

disability 1. Well, he found a job. He wanted to get a job, and he found himself

a job. He went to the welfare office and asked for some gas money and some tools

so that he can get out to the worksite, which is actually not in Vancouver but

in, I believe, Maple Ridge. I believe that was the location.

He needed

support for two weeks in order to get out there until his cheque came in,

because he found himself a job. He went to the welfare office, and guess what

they said: "I'm sorry. We can't provide you with that assistance."

Effective April 1, the government has taken away the provision to provide

support for people to get their job, to provide the tools they need to get to

their worksite.

Then the

office said to this individual: "What you need to do is go to a training

program that the government's going to give to you and a job that we approve of

you taking. For three weeks you need to do that." Here's this person

saying: "I've already got a job. I don't need to go to a training program

or need the government to tell me what job I should be working at."

This is the

change that's being brought about with the government and Bill 26 and Bill 27.

This individual would need assistance from an advocate to take this case on, to

challenge the government on this issue. That service is no longer available as a

result of the cuts by government on legal aid services. Poverty law support is

no longer available as a result of this bill. It takes away the mandate of legal

aid to ensure that poverty law services are being provided to British

Columbians.

Court

closures is another announcement by this government. Throughout British Columbia

some 26 courthouses will be closed. Access to justice will be denied. Court

cases will not be processed as a result of courthouse closures. This government

seems to think that's giving flexibility and choice to British Columbians, when

access to justice is denied.

We're still

awaiting deregulation and reduction in protections under the Employment

Standards Act that this government intends to bring forward. We understand that

the government is intending to bring forward changes in the WCB laws that

protect workers in the workplace from injuries and, after they've been injured,

access to compensation for injured workers and their families. God forbid that

there should be a death as a result of workplace injuries. The changes that the

government's going to bring about in terms of limitations on access to WCB….

That is still to come, both in the areas of employment standards and workers

compensation.

Cases

involving employment standards and WCB are very complicated. They're

heart-wrenching, complicated and have long-lasting impacts on the individuals

and their families. They need advocacy, legal

[ Page 3144 ]

aid, support. That service is no longer a mandate with the changes in this

bill by this government.

It is not a

surprise, and it should not be a surprise to the Attorney General, that over the

last number of months, when it became public that the government is cutting

legal aid significantly by some 40 percent — 38.8 percent, to be exact — a

myriad of people came forward and spoke against it, including the Canadian Bar

Association and particularly the poverty law section. They have stated that they

profoundly disagree with the government's policies and priorities regarding

legal aid funding.

It wasn't

just the Canadian Bar Association that made that statement. Judges have come

forward and opposed the government on these cuts. They have said that it is not

just the rich who need access to justice; it is the poor also. It is through

legal aid that the poor get access to justice. Irrespective of that, though,

government is proceeding with the cuts to legal aid in any event —

irrespective of what judges have to say.

[1115]

Then it

wasn't just judges. Prosecutors came forward and said to government: "This

is not a good thing for government to proceed with. Find savings somewhere else

but not from the poorest and most marginalized people, who should have the right

to access justice. If you make these cuts, access to justice would be

denied."

Community.

People who care about individuals who are faced with difficult circumstances,

people who are compassionate about the society in which we live and want to see

those who are most disadvantaged have access to justice have come forward and

support the call for government to reinstate the funding for legal aid and to

not make changes to the Legal Services Society Act by eliminating the mandate to

ensure that poverty law is provided to people who need it the most.

The

government did not listen. In the new era of supposedly transparent, supposedly

consultative government, this government has ignored the calls of the thousands

of people across British Columbia for government to not proceed with the cuts to

legal aid services and the change of the mandate of the Legal Services Society

Act. The Canadian Bar Association has also objected to the government closing

some 38 out of 45 locations that provide for poverty law services throughout

British Columbia. This government is not listening to that.

In fact,

just this last weekend I was in Prince Rupert, and I met with lawyers,

paralegals, people who provide for legal aid services, individuals from Prince

Rupert. They said to me that it makes no sense for the government to shut the

legal aid office in Prince Rupert. The MLA from Prince Rupert — North Coast, I

think the name of his riding is — didn't even know that there was a legal aid

office in his constituency until most recently. He didn't even know that it

existed.

They said

that for government to eliminate this office, it will ultimately cost government

more money, because there are some cases where people are entitled to legal

representation, cases that the government still says they'll provide for:

criminal justice cases, criminal law cases, family law cases where there's

violence involved. In those instances, where the office is closed, they will

have to fly a lawyer from the lower mainland or elsewhere around the province

into Prince Rupert. I was advised that several trips would equate to the entire

funding for the office and all the staff.

Not only

that, every time you fly someone in, someone who is unfamiliar with the

community, unfamiliar with the case, they fly in on a plane, they sort of get

their papers, they read the papers, they go and represent the person. But they

have very little prep time — little time to discuss with the person, around

their case.

Whereas if you have someone in the office, in the community, you can

afford to make sure that there is more prep time and better understanding of the

community so that people could ensure proper representation.

[1120]

Will the

government listen? I hope so. I know that they're preparing information for the

Attorney General to hopefully talk some sense into the government from the

perspective of both ensuring access to justice in the community and

cost-efficiency — this government's mantra. The premise behind this bill, as

the Attorney General has stated, is around cost-efficiencies. Well, here's the

government taking an approach that would not be cost-efficient and would

diminish services in the community in their access to justice. How does that

make sense?

Deputy

Speaker: Member, if I could just interrupt. The member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hamilton: Visiting us today are 25 grade 5 students, teachers and parents

from L'École Victor Brodeur in my riding. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

The Attorney General touts the alternative dispute resolution as a panacea for

all British Columbians who need to access legal aid support, as though somehow

this will solve all the need in the broader community. While I endorse — and

so do many of the advocates in the broader community — the alternative dispute

resolution approach as a concept, the minister must admit that there are

limitations on when alternative dispute resolutions can resolve an issue,

including many of the poverty law issues.

As an

example, an alternative dispute resolution is of little help when an unemployed

homeowner faces a disclosure. The client needs at least

summary legal advice

from a lawyer about their legal rights. As well,

[ Page 3145 ]

the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms appear not to be effective or

in play for many disputes between individuals and the government, including

access to income assistance, as an example. Those are just a couple of examples

where this panacea that I know the Attorney General likes to tout as the be-all

and end-all in terms of British Columbians' need to access legal aid….

The Legal

Services Society has been recognized for many years as the heart of poverty law

advocacy services throughout the province. Many of the funded and voluntary

advocacy agencies rely on legal aid services for legal supervision, staff

training, mentoring, conferences, written and video resources and many other

client-related services. The virtual elimination of poverty law services at the

Legal Services Society will impact these organizations significantly, but most

important of all, it would impact the clients that depend on these services.

I came from

the advocacy world. I was an advocate before I crossed the dark side and became

a politician. I did start out, actually, at Legal Aid. I was a student there. I

did my practicum from Simon Fraser University for my degree in criminology. I

did my practicum at Legal Aid.

It was my

first introduction to advocacy work in communities. I did my work at the Gastown

office, close to the downtown east side. I dealt with many cases — cases that

involved people who were on income assistance, landlord-tenant disputes, human

rights issues, immigration issues. That's what I did at Legal Aid. That's what I

learned at Legal Aid. In fact, I learned that there are many people in British

Columbia who are faced with very difficult challenges. They have nowhere to turn

to, save and except agencies in the community that provide the services, of

which the Legal Services Society is one.

[1125]

I remember

thinking, even at that time as a young student: "Boy, there is so much need

in our community, and there aren't enough resources to provide for that."

Part of the work I also did at Legal Aid was process applications. There were

many people turned away from accessing a paralegal, an advocate or a lawyer —

not because they didn't need it, but because there weren't enough services or

resources to provide for it. Even then I advocated that there needed to be more

support. Instead of doing that, this government is further reducing the support

in the community.

I'll give

one example. This is one of the most memorable cases that I had when I was

working at Legal Aid. In fact, it was my first case as a student working there

as a community legal advocate. There was a young woman who came in who was a

refugee claimant — her and her father from Vietnam. She had lost all of her

other family members, and she and her father were the only survivors from the

war. Her father was profoundly disabled as a result of the war and was unable to

work.

She was a

brave young woman who suffered in her own country, and they fled and came to

Canada. She was older than most other classmates in her school. If memory serves

me correctly — this is almost ten years ago now — she was 18 at the time,

but she was only in grade 10. She was collecting income assistance to support

her and her father, and welfare at that time told her she should get off welfare

and go get a job at McDonald's and go to night school, if she wished, and try to

complete her high school.

The woman

was devastated by this because she didn't want to limit her opportunities in the

future. She knew an education was essential and that, at the minimum, she needed

to finish high school. She had a dream to become a nurse. She wanted to go

beyond high school. She wanted to access post-secondary education. She wanted to

become a nurse.

I remember

taking her case. It was my first case, and there was a tribunal. I laboured over

this case. I took the paperwork home. I researched like crazy to find out what

arguments I could bring forward, with the supervision of a lawyer from Legal

Aid. I remember that my supervisor at that time said: "You know, Jenny, you

need to prepare yourself and your client in the event that you should

lose."

My client

was very emotional when we got close to the hearing date. She sat in the office

and cried and cried and cried and was just worried sick that we were going to

lose. I didn't really quite know how to console her, other than to say:

"There are some options here, if we should lose, and I have all that

prepared for you. We'll talk about that after the case."

We went

into the tribunal, and we made our case — argument after argument. I remember

the tribunal chair said: "We could always tell when an SFU student is

coming in from legal aid services, because they come in with a pile of paper,

and they've got argument after argument, submission after submission." That

we did. For two hours I argued why this woman should not be cut off of welfare.

After that

we had to leave the room for the tribunal to make the decision. We sat out in

the hall, and my supervisor left at that time. He had thought we'd lost, and he

had said: "Come back to the office with your client so that we can work

over the alternatives." Anyway, we sat and waited. Usually tribunal

decisions don't take that long, but in this instance it was well over an hour.

We sat in the hallway in the United Church in the downtown east side, waiting

for the decision to be made.

[1130]

Ultimately,

we were called back in, and we sat there. My client was crying, and I was

holding her hand, and we walked in and waited for a decision. The decision was a

unanimous decision in support of the client to continue to receive income

assistance. She cried even harder because we won, and I cried with her. We

hugged, and we went back to our office and celebrated. It was a victory that I

will never forget — not for me, but for that young woman.

To my

surprise, this young woman some years later sent me a Christmas card. She told

me that she has gotten into school, and she's studying to be a nurse. It

[ Page 3146 ]

took her many years, because she had to catch up on her ESL, and she had many

challenges. She was trying to manage and help her father. She was on her way to

realizing her dream, and she sent me a little card just to say: "Thank you,

because my dream is now a reality." Not because of me — I want to be very

clear — but because of the services that legal aid provided, which were

available to the people who need it the most. This person got off of income

assistance, supported her father and had a future.

I will

never forget that case, and I have to say it was that case that eventually

didn't bring me to law school. I thought I wanted to be a lawyer. I decided I

wanted to work in the community and be an advocate, to make a difference. That

eventually led me into politics. That's another story for another day, but the

point here is this: legal aid service is provided to the people that will make a

difference. I've experienced it. That's one example of which I can tell this

story today, but there were many examples where we made a difference.

I remember

another case of an individual — again, a refugee claimant. He had left China.

It was around the time when there were a lot of political issues in China, and

he was being persecuted. If he returned, he feared that he would lose his life.

He came to the legal aid offices, and I was involved in that case as well.

Again, we were successful. The individual won the hearing and was not sent back

to China. He was able to stay. Some years later — he worked hard, hard, hard

— he saved enough money and built up a small business in the Chinatown

community, barbecued pork and duck and other goodies to be sold in Chinatown. He

established his own little shop. I still go there from time to time. I see the

fellow from time to time.

You know,

those are the successes. The successes happen because legal aid services were

there for them, and it makes a difference. But here we have a change of the

mandate of the Legal Services Society Act that will take away support for

individuals who need it the most.

Hon.

Speaker, I'm the designated speaker.

Deputy

Speaker: Thank you, member. Proceed.

J. Kwan:

Thank you. I will just stop with those examples of my own personal

experience where I know legal aid services made a difference in the lives of

people and why it is needed.

I know that

the Attorney General is fond of suggesting that British Columbia — prior to

the cuts from government, cuts of 38.8 percent in legal aid funding — is one

of the highest in funding for legal aid. I know that the Attorney General likes

to brag about that. It is true that legal aid funding from British Columbia is

higher than that of other provinces. You'd think that's something we ought to be

proud of, because we're a province that wants to make sure access to justice is

not denied to the people who need it the most.

[1135]

I must

point out one issue. That is, with respect to poverty law services, per-capita

spending data means nothing when poverty law services are singled out for

elimination. It means nothing, Mr. Speaker.

Some have

even gone as far as to argue this: from the Canadian Bar Association — they

say that that characterization of the government is a deliberate distortion of

the facts, that the per-capita funding that comes from the average B.C. taxpayer

is exactly zero. It is 100 percent funded from the legal services tax revenues

and the federal government. The provincial government in fact makes money from

legal aid in B.C., because it pockets more than it spends from the legal

services tax.

The legal

services tax that is being referred to here is the provincial sales tax, which

has been raised by this government by half a percent, on legal services

provided. That tax was instituted to fund legal aid services. It was instituted

by the previous government. We received some criticism for that, particularly

from the now Attorney General, who criticized the government for not putting 100

percent of that funding into legal aid then. It was short, I believe, about $12

million. I accept that criticism. Government should have put all of the moneys

into legal aid, and it didn't. The previous government was short $12 million.

In addition

to that, the provincial government receives about $12 million of funding for

legal aid from the federal government.

When you

add up all the taxes, it's close to about $90 million to $100 million for legal

aid services — exactly the budget they need to carry on their work. Instead of

that, this Attorney General, who was then the critic and chastised the previous

government for not putting 100 percent of the legal aid funding into legal aid,

is now bringing legal aid funding down to $54 million, a cut of $46 million

approximately. That's what this government is doing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

And where

is that money going? To general revenues to pay for, quite frankly, in my own

view, the big tax cuts that this government brought in for the wealthiest

British Columbians.

So the

Canadian Bar Association takes a strong position against the government on this

matter, and government has made significant cuts in the area of legal aid.

[1140]

When the

government made the cuts to legal aid, the Legal Services Society Board then had

strong words for the government on this issue. In fact, the former chair, Ms.

Tremblay, has stated that under these circumstances, no one can meet the

ministry's stated new-era objective of providing "equal access to legal

representation and justice for all British Columbians." She refused to

implement a budget that will cut legal aid services for the people who are most

vulnerable and who need to get access to justice in British Columbia. The former

Legal Services Society Board refused to close community law offices across the

province.

[ Page 3147 ]

Do you know

what the government did? This Attorney General fired the board because the board

said: "We cannot meet the ministry's stated new-era objective of providing

equal access to legal representation and justice for all British

Columbians." Because they were unable to do that, the government fired that

board. So much for the independence of the Legal Services Society Board.

What does

this bill do? It makes it easier for the government to fire the board — make

no mistake about it — and allows the government to intervene in the

independence of the Legal Services Society Board and their operations to the

point that it allows the government to approve their budget.

What did

the Attorney General say? "Section 18 gives room for the government to be

involved," he says. Involvement is a complete distortion of what this bill

is doing and what it is allowing. It is a complete interference of government in

an independent or supposedly independent agency called legal aid. Not only that,

so that the government would, I guess, have an easier time cutting the budget of

legal aid services, because the new act the government is trying to push through

here was only introduced yesterday. I had less than 24 hours to review the bill

to see what it says — less than 24 hours for this debate — and I was only

told this morning at 10 o'clock that we were going to be debating this bill. I

had about an hour or two this morning to gather all my papers to try and come

forward with an argument on this bill and see what I thought about it.

This

government, in this bill, is going to create a situation where, quite frankly,

the independence of the Legal Services Society Board is not going to be

honoured. It allows for complete interference of the government around their

budget decisions, around their resource distribution and many of those kinds of

decisions.

It's

dismaying, you know. You'd think the Attorney General would want to make sure

this bill is out in the broader community, that there's discussion around it and

that the opposition would have sufficient time to review the matter so that it

could be properly debated in this House. No. The bill was brought to this House

for second reading in less than 24 hours.

There were

members in this House who earlier said…. Particularly, I recall the member for

Vancouver-Langara, who said: "If there is honesty in government in ensuring

proper debate and integrity of government in ensuring proper debate when

legislation is introduced, there ought to be ample time for review so that

people can debate these matters appropriately." I also recall that the now

Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader, used to chastise the former

government on legislation that was introduced and there was less than one week

of notice. It was deemed to be inappropriate, and it was deemed to be in

violation of the spirit of democracy from the point of view of making sure, in a

democratic society, there is proper debate in the House.

Here we are

in the new-era government with this Attorney General, with a Liberal government.

With many of the bills we now find ourselves having to debate the matters in the

House with less than 24 hours' notice. We saw that with Bills 26 and 27 —

fundamental bills that will impact the most vulnerable people in British

Columbia in accessing government support and assistance. That bill was debated

in the House for second reading with less than 24 hours' notice. Here we are

once again, another bill targeting the most vulnerable people in British

Columbia who need to access justice — less than 24 hours' notice for second

reading debate.

[1145]

It seems to

me, actually, that there's a pattern. I should go back and check and make a

list. There is a pattern here. Which bills are being tabled in the House with

less than 24 hours of notice for debate for second reading? They appear to be

the bills that target the most vulnerable. It's sort of like when the government

says: "We're putting you first — children, seniors, low income

people." When the government said that, nobody thought it meant:

"We're putting you first in the firing line for attack." Nobody

thought that it meant for the government: "We're putting you first — the

poorest of the poor to the lineups at food banks." Nobody would have

thought that, but that's what this government has done since the election.

Due to the

Attorney General's inability to cooperate with the Legal Services Society, a

trustee was brought in. As I mentioned, the old board was fired. A trustee was

brought in, and he's currently running the Legal Services Society. This, of

course, enabled the government — the Attorney General himself — to increase

this government's control over the society's actions and to ensure that the

government's agenda to cut legal aid was implemented. Let's be clear. That was

the motivation behind the appointment of the trustee. This bill allows for the

firing of the trustee even more easily.

This

legislation further strengthens the government's grip on the Legal Services

Society.

Section 4 of the bill reduces the Legal Services Society Board from 15

to nine members. When the board had 15 members, five appointees were selected by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by recommendation of the Attorney General.

The majority were from outside in terms of appointment.

The board

structure proposed in this bill ensures that five of the nine members are

appointed by the Attorney General. The government can then ensure that a

majority of the board members will support their agenda, even if the

government's policies are in opposition to the perspective of the Law Society of

B.C. That's what this new bill does; it biases the board with government

appointments.

The

proposed board structure, quite frankly, also lacks diversity. The original law

society ensured that two directors would be appointed by the board of directors

of the Native Community Law Offices Association of B.C., two directors were

appointed by the Association of Community Law Offices and five directors be

appointed by the Canadian Bar Association — people

[ Page 3148 ]

who are in the front line to provide for these services who should have a say

in the work of the Legal Services Society.

Now all

that's changed. The structure of the board is significantly reduced, and the

majority of the board are appointments by the Attorney General, by the

government. It is interesting to note that the change takes away first nations

community law offices as well as the community law offices representation. They

are now out of the process of legal aid planning in this province.

Yet we know

that many of the people who need legal services are aboriginal people. I know

that the community law offices and the native law offices provided for a lot of

support to the people in their community who are in greatest need. But now

community representatives from these organizations will no longer have a seat on

the board of legal aid.

[1150]

Of course,

as a token way of acknowledging diversity, the bill offhandedly mentions that in

choosing the directors the Attorney General and the Canadian Bar Association

should consider geographic location and culture as factors. The caveat is much

weaker than the original act's provision for ensuring that the board is diverse.

But that is

the way of the new-era Liberal government. They pay a lot of lip service. They

try to use the right language to mask the real agenda they have. We've seen it.

As I

mentioned earlier, a new definition of flexibility for this government is:

taking away services. That's what flexibility means for this government. I know

that some community members have dubbed it as the new "f" word from

the government — flexibility.

This bill

provides the Legal Services Society with the ability to raise funds through

commercial activities. This is indicative of the government's attempt to

abdicate responsibility for legal aid funding and to download this

responsibility onto the Legal Services Society. Instead of focusing on meeting

the needs of legal aid clients and ensuring and engaging in short- and long-term

planning for the B.C. legal aid system, directors of the board and staff of the

society will be struggling to raise funds through fundraising.

The bill

also provides for the society to recover, through client contributions or any

other method it considers appropriate, costs of providing legal aid.

I can

acknowledge that some people who are entitled to legal aid may be able to make

some sort of contribution to paying for legal aid services. However, we have to

remember that most people who qualify for legal aid services are incapable of

providing for legal aid services. That's why they're there. In fact, the

eligibility for legal aid is such that only the poorest of the poor would get

access to legal aid. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't qualify for legal

aid. Yet the government is going to contemplate charging people.

I remember

when I was student at legal aid services. Sometimes we did charge people —

$10. It's not a lot of money. They charge when they can. A sliding scale is

already provided for, if people can provide more. By and large, the people who

are eligible for legal aid don't have the resources. That's why they're there.

That's why they're seeking legal aid support.

Mr.

Speaker, I have more to say about this bill, but I'm noting the time. I move

that we adjourn debate.

J. Kwan

moved adjournment of debate.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

The House

adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright ©

2002: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175