British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 1, 2003

H0501pm-14

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 1, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 14, Number 14 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, May 1, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6427 Statements (Standing Order 25 B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 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

6427 THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members 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. [1405] In 1996 Eastern Cape province and British Colum- bia signed an agreement on cooperation in govern- ments.

Under the aegis of the Canada–South Africa provincial twinning project, study and work exchanges are funded by the Canadian International Develop- ment Agency and administered by the Institute of Pub- lic 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 devel- opment of legislation. They will observe the roles and structure of cabinet operations and the legal services branch in the preparation of legislation and the deliv- ery of legal advisory service to government.

I hope all members will join me in welcoming to this House and to British Columbia our very distin- guished 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 Newspa- pers 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 news- papers are in this province in informing the public and letting them know about what's taking place and pro- viding 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 to- day. 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 t h i n k s o m e o f t h e m m a y e v e n b e i n h e r e , s o I w o u l d 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 wel- come. R. Hawes: I have a copy of a proclamation signed by the Lieutenant-Governor and witnessed by the At- torney 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 ex- pense to the health care system. We owe a debt of grati- tude to those who would work to both increase aware- ness 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 Ma- zoff, editor of HCV Advocate . Could the House please make them welcome. [1410] 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 gov- ernment. 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 di- rector. She left us to have Hannah Hilbert-West, who is

6428 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 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. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) POWER PRODUCTION FACILITY IN GOLD RIVER 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 meas- ure, 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 trans- form 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 entrepre- neurialism in the energy field and allows people to build a sustainable future in the heartlands of B.C. [1415] 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 ex- ists.

I want to thank those folks — David Kingston In- dustrials 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. TELEPHONE COUNSELLING SERVICE FOR ABUSED YOUTH S. Orr: Something very important is happening this Sunday — that's May 9 — and it starts at 9 in the morn- ing. 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 con- fidential, 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 an- swers approximately 1,000 calls and on-line questions every day. Kids call for all the reasons that we, as re- sponsible adults, worry about for them: physical, sex- ual 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 re- ceives 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 Denni- son. For all the kids they are helping and our commu- nity, I want to thank them for all their hard work. ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH 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 Cana- dians and their contributions to British Columbia as well as to Canada as a whole.

Since the inaugural Asian Heritage Month celebra- tion in Toronto in 1993, cities across Canada, including Vancouver, have been holding annual festivals during the month of May to recognize Asian heritage in Can- ada. 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 fisher- men to today's Asian Canadians working in different professions, contributed to Canada's economic, social

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6429 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 excit- ing 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. Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL J.

MacPhail: The opposition has come into posses- sion of an internal Ministry of Transportation memo which discusses the implication of what it calls the BCR initiative. The memo raises a number of interest- ing 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 aban- doning 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 fur- ther leaked documents, can the Minister of Transporta- tion tell this House today what lines actually will be abandoned in her secret plan to sell off B.C. Rail? [1420] 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 communi- ties 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 Brit- ish Columbia, because there will be renewed invest- ment 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. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plementary question. 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 dili- gent, 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. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister herself isn't in the loop, because abandoning rail lines isn't the only reve- lation of this government's real B.C.

Rail policy con- tained 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 project- ing 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 profit- able 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 corpora- tion, she would realize and remember, from years ac- cumulated, that B.C. Rail is carrying half a billion dol- lars' worth of debt right now. That puts a tremendous pressure on this railway, particularly for infrastruc- ture…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Order, please.

6430 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. members. We will con- tinue when we can hear the answer to the question. [1425] Interjections. 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: W h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h e d e b t l o a d o f 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, get- ting an operator that will take this railway forward to greater investments, greater success and long-term continuity is what's good for this province. COMMITTEE REPORT ON LABOUR RELATIONS ISSUES H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Skills De- velopment and Labour.

There were a number of issues brought forward by stakeholders that were not ad- dressed in last year's Labour Relations Code Amend- ment Act. Under

section 3 of the act, the minister ap- pointed 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 review- ing 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 partici- pants 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. T o d a y , w i t h t h a t r e p o r t t h a t ' s r e l e a s e d … . I t ' s w e l l 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 t o s a y .

F r o m t h a t , I ' l l b e d i s c u s s i n g i t w i t h c o l l e a g u e s 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. SARS AND SAFETY OF BLOOD SUPPLY 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 sys- tem. The reason for that is that it is an airborne trans- mission, as we have seen.

The science basically indi- cates 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 Ser- vices has introduced new screening measures so that anybody who has been in a SARS-infected area is actu- a l l y e n c o u r a g e d t o h o l d b a c k o n t h e i r d o n a t i o n o f blood until such time as they've passed a 14-day pe- riod. So I am very confident that our blood system in Canada continues to be one of the safest and the best in the world. DRUG COSTS AND PHARMACARE PROGRAM 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, dou- bling 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? [1430] Hon. C.

Hansen: I n F e b r u a r y w h e n I a n n o u n c e d the details of the new Fair Pharmacare program, I indi- cated at that time that we were pursuing other meas- u r e s , a s w e l l , t h a t w o u l d h e l p u s t o m a k e s u r e t h e 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 fam- ily 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 Phar- macare. 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 lim- ited coverage drug program, the most expensive cate- gory 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,

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6431 because that will be the more common name that con- sumers get used to. We have agreed to make that par- ticular product the first-line product for proton pump inhibitors. The good news is that it is equally as effec- tive as the other proton pump inhibitors on the mar- ket, 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.

TRANSFER OF RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL RESIDENT J. MacPhail: I h a v e a q u e s t i o n t h a t ' s v e r y t i m e - sensitive. The Minister of Health Services, the Minis- ter for Long Term Care and the Minister of State for Mental Health were informed of a very serious situa- tion 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 o f k i n , G e r a l d i n e M e r c e r , i s d e s p e r a t e t o s t o p t h i s 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 under- standing that the transfer has been delayed and that a review is being undertaken on this matter. CROWN PROSECUTION POLICY IN SPOUSAL ABUSE CASES S. Orr: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f S t a t e f o r 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 re- sponses 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 ac- count, and women did not see justice being done or feel they were being protected. It's always preferable to obtain a criminal convic- tion, 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 con- tinue 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 interven- tion. If the offender does not substantially complete the alternative measures program, he can be prosecuted for the original offence. [1435] The new policy places emphasis on victim safety and on finding justice responses appropriate for each case. [End of question period.] Introductions by Members 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, in- cluding statutory holidays, effective this May long weekend. The tour guides are post-secondary students who will welcome and provide tours to thousands of visi- tors. In total, the tour office will be offering tours in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Manda- rin, Japanese and Cantonese. I would like to intro- duce in the gallery today Andrew Kwasnica, Jean Lomas, Nicole Boulet, Lianna Chu, Jennifer Ford and Celine Anderson. Would the House please welcome them. Orders of the Day Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Attorney General. Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

6432 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS (continued) On vote 11: ministry operations, $379,990,000 ( con- tinued). 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 R i g h t s T r i b u n a l i n m y c o n s t i t u e n c y o f V a n c o u v e r - 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 af- fordable and accessible way, got together to celebrate the rebirth, if you will, of this new entity. [1440] I want to ask a few questions of the Attorney Gen- eral 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 indi- viduals from the gay and lesbian community and mul- ticultural 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 en- s u r e t h a t p e o p l e h a v e p e o p l e a d v o c a t i n g o n b e h a l f o f 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 discrimi- nation 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, peo- ple who believe that they have been the victims of dis- crimination 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 com- plaint 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 as- sist 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 litiga- tion 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, par- ticularly 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 peo- ple who have responsibility for administering this new model will seize the opportunity to achieve early reso- lution of those cases that can be resolved in an early way — a n d o u g h t t o b e r e s o l v e d i n a n e a r l y w a y — that is fair and effective and that actually helps heal a broken relationship or build a constructive new rela- tionship to minimize the risk that discrimination will occur. [1445] There are, of course, some cases that require adju- dication, and the model that we've put in place will ensure that those cases ultimately come before a tribu- nal 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 an- swer. 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 struc- ture of the Human Rights Commission, the tribunal, etc. I wonder if he would please pick a couple of prov- inces 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

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6433 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 discrimina- tion 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 ex- actly like this. That's why I think that other jurisdic- tions in Canada are going to be looking at what we are doing to see if this actually will do a better job of pro- viding 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 mod- els.

I think there was a report done for the Canadian Human Rights Commission or for the government of Canada about the Canadian Human Rights Commis- sion that included a recommendation about imple- menting 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 leg- islation 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 commu- nity and perhaps for other communities that have raised concerns about this. W i t h t h a t i n m i n d , I j u s t w a n t t o c o n t i n u e o n i n 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 Brit- ish 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? [1450] 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 ex- pand 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 con- stituents 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 com- munity 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 j u s t w a n t t o a s k a v e r y s i m p l e q u e s t i o n . I t ' s t h e 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 Tri- bunal 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 work- load, which are not being done anymore. The commis- sion received complaints and then undertook investi- gations of those complaints. Our view is that the process was part of the prob- lem 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 bro- k e n , a n d i t c o u l d n o t b e f i x e d . W h a t w e h a v e d o n e i s 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. [1455] The member raises an interesting question. I sup- pose it's a variation on the age-old question: what's in a

6434 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 name? What I can say about that is that I've been doing this just long enough to realize that transition is diffi- cult 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 discrimi- nated 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 real- ize 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 independ- ent 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 any- thing 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 im- provements 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. [1500] 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 sub- contracted to another agency…? Perhaps I should get more clarification on the AG's point on how those clin- ics are going to be managed. Is this part of the contract w i t h C o m m u n i t y L e g a l A s s i s t a n c e S o c i e t y ? I t i s ? I n effect, their services are located throughout the prov- ince. 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 pro- viding 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 Co- lumbia 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 repre- sentation, 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 individu- als 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 indi- viduals 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 com- plaints that are dealt with successfully through the

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6435 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 expec- tations of what we hope will be the numbers of cases that will be resolved through alternate dispute resolu- tion 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. [1505] L. Mayencourt: Thank you to the Attorney General for that. 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 — obvi- ously, the gay and lesbian community, people from different cultures, different countries.

I wonder if the Attorney General could speak to the issue of how edu- cation might be offered to the multicultural commu- nity, as an example. What kinds of materials is he w o r k i n g w i t h f o r g r o u p s s u c h a s M O S A I C a n d S U C - CESS and other groups that provide services to the multicultural community, the immigrant community? Hon. G. Plant: One of the features of the arrange- ments that were put in place a month ago is that we have an arrangement with the B.C.

Human Rights Coa- lition 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 help- ing employers and others learn about what's required to avoid committing acts of discrimination and to be- come more respectful employers.

Some of the other organizations that the member refers to, like MOSAIC or SUCCESS or other organiza- tions that service multicultural communities and vul- nerable communities like the gay and lesbian commu- nity…. 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 coali- tion 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 — em- ployers, business owners, potential groups of vulner- able people — the kind of practical advice and infor- mation they need to understand their rights and re- sponsibilities.

The commission spent a lot of time in- vestigating 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 t h e l a s t n u m b e r o f y e a r s b y d o i n g w o r k a r o u n d t h e community to help people understand these things was the Human Rights Coalition. We're going to con- tinue to use that expertise in helping us get this new model up and running. B. Locke: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted. Introductions by Members B. Locke: I would like to introduce into the gallery today about 60 students from Green Timbers Elemen- tary 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. [1510] Debate Continued 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 run- ning. In our service plan one of the performance meas- ures we have relates to the implementation of a human rights education program. The program plan is sup- posed 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 per- formance 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

6436 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 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 some- one 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 prob- lems 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 assis- tance. 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 mem- ber's question, but I'm wondering if he could just re- peat it so I don't waste time pretending to answer something that he is not interested in hearing. [1515] 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 de- scribed 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 dis- posable income level — and, if he could, let me know what that is? Hon. G. Plant: The means test is under considera- tion 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 determina- tion 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 per- haps low-income or mid-income people with exorbi- tant 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 pub- licly funded help to conduct their cases. We pretty de- liberately 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 contin- ued 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 eli- gibility criteria in a way that is affordable, effective and fair.

We might actually get to a point where we're not h a v i n g t o b e a s d i s c i p l i n e d o r r i g o r o u s a b o u t t h e s e things. We're working on seeing what we can do to get this service offered in a way that spends the most pos- sible 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. [1520] The issue for respondents is a challenge, because sometimes respondents can afford to defend them- selves 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

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6437 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 assis- tance, 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 assis- tance, but it does create a real hardship for them.

Actu- ally, 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 reas- signment 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 them- selves 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 com- ment 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 dif- ficult issues.

There are today and there always are dif- ficult issues. [1525] 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 applica- tion 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 con- tinue 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 Colum- bia for a long time for anybody who could afford to pay for a lawyer. Legal aid is a source of legal represen- tation of last resort. The extent to which different or- ganizations apply those principles successfully on a case-by-case basis is something that we could also dis- cuss, 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 sys- temic 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 le- gal 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 conse- quences 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 necessar- ily 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 implemen- tation of that belief has been one of the reasons why we have had processes that have been unmanageable, unaf- fordable 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 considera- tion 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 equivoca- tions, 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

6438 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 ask a question about the role of the Human Rights Tri- bunal 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. [1530] 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 hu- man 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 Hu- man 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 avail- able 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 govern- ment…. 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 gov- ernment our fundamental responsibility is to put in place an institution that can help people resolve com- plaints 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 constitu- ents. 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. [1535] 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 ex- pected to produce a service plan? Hon. G. Plant: Technically, the Human Rights Tri- bunal 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 Hu- man Rights Tribunal.

The new act contains processes, I'm certain, for ac- countability, but we don't yet have a separate docu- ment 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 per- formance measures for what we expect from the tribu- nal in terms of timeliness of decision-making, respon- siveness 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 re- port and will report on its activities. T. Christensen: I should just get a bit more clarifi- cation in my own mind. In its reporting there's an op- portunity 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-

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6439 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 func- tions that the tribunal has in terms of reporting. I ex- pect those will be fulfilled. We will be monitoring, as a ministry, what the tribunal does in fulfilling its respon- sibilities 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. T. Christensen: I thank the minister for that.

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 discrimina- tion, I would hope that the number of complaints actu- ally goes down over time as we better educate the pub- lic — whether they be employers or landlords or any- body else providing a service — that they shouldn't be discriminating and on what in fact constitutes dis- crimination. [1540] 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 estab- lished in moving toward this new model of dealing with complaints under the Human Rights Code. H o p e f u l l y , w e ' l l h a v e s o m e c o n c r e t e m e a s u r e s b y 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 jus- tice 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 conse- quences, 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 pro- gram, 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 practi- cum 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, govern- ment is a party to a number of lawsuits.

Those are some of the things we are doing in the dispute resolu- tion reform business. There are also some things that are happening in the family law area, specifically, that I think are rela- tively 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 ex- periencing separation or divorce. This service is appar- ently 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. [1545] T. Christensen: I note that one of the performance measures that the service plan sets out is a pretty dra- matic 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 fu- ture goals? Hon. G. Plant: Well, the question was asked yes- terday. 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,

6440 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 would be a qualification that should be relatively easily achieved. 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 per- sonally or through some involvement in the legal sys- tem, 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 Rela- tions 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. [1550] T. Christensen: The Attorney General referenced the federal initiative, and obviously in the areas of fam- ily 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 govern- m e n t l e a d s t h e p a r a d e h e r e . I t m a y b e t h a t i f t h e changes that have been introduced to the Divorce Act are pas sed, we may have wo rk that has to be done in British Columbia one way or the other. In the mean- time 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 propos- als. I think the old labels and the old structure have p r o d u c e d s o m e r e a l c h a l l e n g e s .

T h e y d o t e n d t o p r o - duce a kind of proprietary approach on the part of par- ents to issues of custody and access. Goodness knows, there's a landscape littered with pain and hurt and sor- row 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.

T o a r g u e , j u s t f o r a m o m e n t , t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e 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 mat- ter 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 cyni- cal 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 relation- ships 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 cham- ber has views ― it doesn't have to be right now ― we could pursue those issues.

I think they're worth pursu- ing, and I would welcome their input. T. Christensen: I thank the Attorney General for his comments and for that invitation. I expect that's cer- tainly 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 relation- ship with both parents, and they're able to put that thought and fact ahead of all else that may be happen- ing between the parents. [1555] What I do want to comment on….

I know there are some initiatives that certainly the provincial govern- ment 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 ac- cess. I know that last year's annual report for the At- torney General highlighted the establishment of a web- site and a toll-free inquiry line to provide information on resolving family disputes, including custody dis- putes.

Can the Attorney comment on what sort of up- take 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

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6441 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 under- stand 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 pro- grams mandatory for parents. I think parenting-after- separation is the name of one of them. Can the Attor- ney 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 gov- ernment 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 loca- tions. 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. [1600] 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 ex- panding to other registries? Hon. G. Plant: There are very high levels of satis- faction 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 ra- tionale behind where we are now.

I think, probably, the service is reaching quite a lot of people in the commu- nities where it's not mandatory, and we might not ac- tually 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 par- ents 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 exam- ple, 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 un- der 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 minis- try 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 man- ner. [1605] 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 pub- lic money dedicated to this. I think there are a couple hundred of these done a year. It's an interesting ques- tion — 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 per- formance measure that the member is talking about. T. Christensen: Ideally, in any of these programs — whether they be court-ordered assessments or whether

6442 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 they be the parenting-after-separation efforts at media- tion that we'd like to encourage by putting public re- sources into — the end goal would be to avoid a judge having to make a decision as to whether a child is go- ing 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 di- vorce actions are started that have children somewhere involved in those proceedings. Can we tell that in reg- istries 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 cus- t o d y ? D o w e h a v e a n y r e s e a r c h a r o u n d t h a t t o k n o w 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 re- search 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, wil l know that it's hard to measure what in many ways is sort of a multiple mov- ing 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 seek leave of the House to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members 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 previ- ously introduced to this House. He's accompanied by Gerald Strongman, a former MLA, a very prominent art collector in British Columbia, a philanthropist, for- mer 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. [1610] Debate Continued 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 diffi- cult. 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, de- creasing, 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 mainte- nance 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 collec- tion 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 essen- tially a child support officer works with parents to un- derstand 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 success- ful. 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.

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6443 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 pay- ments 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 im- posed on them by court order, for example. [1615] 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 deci- sions there and a significant reduction in the overall budget to the Legal Services Society.

Perhaps the At- torney General can start by putting that in some con- text, 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 eli- gibility 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 com- ments 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 afford- able overall or the system more affordable. Hon. G.

Plant: A decade ago or so in British Co- lumbia the mandate of the Legal Services Society ex- panded broadly, and some funding commitments were made by government that caused the budget for legal aid to expand enormously and, I suggest, unsustain- ably, particularly given the overall ability of govern- ment to support a r

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0501pm-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0501pm 14
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	29a33c5a82230f70a51ab7d0670df468ab10a974

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).