British Columbia Hansard — Monday, May 6, 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session) (H0506pm-05) (H0506pm 05)

H0506pm-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, May 6, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 7, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD 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. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. 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 (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 Monday, May 6, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 3183 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 3183 Office for Children and Youth Act (Bill 43) Hon. G.

Plant Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 3183 Arts and culture in Burnaby J. Nuraney Hospice care in Vernon T. Christensen Royal Inland Hospital chaplain K. Krueger Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3184 Negotiations with physicians J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Blacklisting of hospital workers J. Kwan Hon. C.

Hansen Sale of Vancouver Canucks hockey team K. Stewart Hon. R. Thorpe Land use planning report M. Hunter Hon. S. Hagen Sale of Vancouver Canucks hockey team J. MacPhail Hon. R. Thorpe Employment program for disabled and mentally ill persons E. Brenzinger Hon. M. Coell Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3187 J.

MacPhail Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 3187 Creston Valley wildlife management area, annual report, 2001 Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3187 Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45) J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant Hon. G.

Collins Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3207 Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3207 Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32) Hon. J. Murray J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3210 Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3210 Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3210 Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) Hon.

M. Coell J. MacPhail J. Kwan

3183 MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Hagen: I'm delighted that we have in the House today some special visitors from Sweden. We have Michael Hagberg, a Swedish Member of Par- liament. He's accompanied by Christin Nilsson, a former Member of Parliament who is currently the general secretary of the Social Democratic Women in Sweden. Would the House please make them wel- come. J.

Nuraney: I ' m v e r y g l a d t o h a v e i n t h e g a l l e r y today with us Rose Farina, who is a longtime commu- nity worker in Burnaby who has served on many committees in Burnaby and is now the president of the Burnaby Arts Council. She is accompanied by Mary and Donald LeGrand. Will the House please make them welcome. [1405] Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: It's a pleasure for me to welcome three special guests to the Legislature today — their first time in the Legislature. The first, from the great riding of Burquitlam, is my mother Nessie Reid, who just celebrated her eighty-seventh birthday.

The second is my sister, Diane Molyneux, from the beauti- ful Comox Valley at the north end of the island. Fi- nally, there's my daughter, Katherine Halsey-Brandt, who is a student at UBC and is over here reconnoitring the University of Victoria. May the House please make them welcome. V. Anderson: I would like the House to join me in welcoming 31 grade 5 students accompanied by ten adults and their teacher, Father Conte, from Vancouver College in the Vancouver-Langara riding. Introduction and First Reading of Bills OFFICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Office for Children and Youth Act. Hon. G. Plant: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 43, Of- fice for Children and Youth Act. This act creates a chil- dren and youth officer to provide systematic advocacy and monitoring and to provide independent advice with respect to government services for children and youth. The act covers services provided to children and youth under the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Adoption Act.

Other services covered in- clude early childhood development, mental health, addictions, youth justice and planning for transition from youth to adult services. This new model ad- dresses the duplication of services for children and youth and implements the decisions of the core ser- vices review and deregulation task force with respect to the existing children's commissioner. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) ARTS AND CULTURE IN BURNABY J. Nuraney: L a s t w e e k i n B u r n a b y w e c e l e b r a t e d the B.C. Arts and Culture Week. Many activities by artists of all kinds took place throughout the week. It is a little-known fact that Burnaby is very promi- nent in the arts world and, in fact, the hub for arts ac- tivity in British Columbia. There are many art venues in Burnaby. The Shadbolt Centre has a theatre, music studios, art displays and other cultural activities. At the Ceperley House one can rent, buy or just enjoy art.

Our local libraries are also a great place to enjoy arts and culture, where you can pull a B.C.-authored book off the shelf and enjoy reading it. In addition to these, we also have the Michael J. Fox theatre, which has gained enormous popularity throughout the lower mainland. May I mention that Michael J. Fox is from Burnaby and is considered a mentor among the emerging young artists. He will in fact be in Burnaby in person on June 6, where he has agreed to come every year to promote fundraising for the theatre.

Many artists and arts groups belong to the Burnaby Arts Council, which acts as an umbrella organization for all arts and culture in my constituency. It services approximately 50 member groups and over a hundred individual and corporate members. The Burnaby Arts Council promotes the arts throughout the special arts program and cultural events. Every second year Bur- naby Arts Council organizes the Showcase, which gives exposure of great talent that we have in Burnaby to members and member groups.

The Burnaby Arts Council's Christmas fair is also held every year and is known throughout British Columbia for its local talent. [1410] In Burnaby Heights, which is the business area in Burnaby, we have a great partnership between busi- ness and the art world. Burnaby Heights business asso-

3184 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 ciation and the Arts Council coordinate the art walk, where artists display their work in stores and hold demonstrations. Some of the businesses have large murals to be painted on the outside of their stores, and this offers the local artists a great opportunity to exhibit their works. The murals are a good exposure for the artists as well as for the business. The arts and culture are very much alive in Bur- naby, and I'm proud to represent a constituency that has such a vibrant and exciting art world. I thank you. HOSPICE CARE IN VERNON T.

Christensen: May is Hospice Month. Yesterday my family and I participated in the third annual Hike for Hospice in Vernon, one of a number of fundraising initiatives conducted by the Vernon and District Hos- pice Society to support its efforts to provide care and support for the dying and their families in the North Okanagan. The hike raised $20,000. The society's many dedicated volunteers have been caring for people in my community for two decades.

When the society identified the need for a hospice house in Vernon in the late 1990s, the community agreed and locally raised $800,000 of the total $1.3 mil- lion raised to pay for the construction of the Vernon Hospice House in its first year of operation. Since opening a year ago, 96 terminally ill commu- nity members have received care, and their families have received support and counselling at Hospice. Hospice provides a compassionate, supportive and comfortable home to live out the final days of life while receiving quality palliative care.

Hospice will also pro- vide temporary admission for pain and symptom man- agement and respite for unpaid home caregivers who, quite understandably, are exhausted in their day-after- day care of their loved one. The greatest measurement of Hospice's success is the significant impact it has had on the families it has served. Their letters comment on the home-like envi- ronment, the compassion of the staff and volunteers, and how Hospice managed to make a time of great sorrow and sadness for family into a beautiful experience.

One significant challenge that has burdened Vernon Hospice House from prior to its opening has been a lack of financial support from government. Un- der the old health region, no operational funding was available for Hospice, notwithstanding that everyone seemed to agree that in most cases Hospice was able to provide more appropriate care to the terminally ill than an acute care facility. I am very pleased that the interior health authority has exercised its new-found autonomy to recognize the value of the service being provided by the Vernon Hospice House and to provide some operational fund- ing.

It is a start to catching up to what my community has long recognized — that quality palliative care is best provided in a home-like setting with the support of loved ones and the community at large, and that H o s p i c e m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f o u r health care system. ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL CHAPLAIN K. Krueger: Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops has a wonderful chaplain. His name is Viktor Gundel, and by all accounts, he is the salt of the earth.

Victor is one of those rare people who really puts everybody else's needs ahead of his own, and he's available 24 hours a day seven days a week. Doctors, nurses, support work- ers, patients, families, clergy…. Everybody I know praises Victor — well, all but one person, and that's the person who abruptly fired him the other day. I found out about this the same way most people in Kamloops did, by seeing a front-page picture of Chap- lain Victor and his pregnant wife, expecting their first baby imminently, in the Kamloops Daily News . I was shocked.

As it turns out, so was the chair of the interior health authority, who first learned of it the same way I did. In the days since, I've heard from constituents across the spectrum of society in Kamloops. Here are some examples: "Mr. Gundel's input into patient care has made an enormous impact in his short stay here. I can only say, as the director of the intensive care unit, that his position is essential to the global functioning of our unit and that losing him is a severe blow to us." Another constituent, a worker in the hospital, writes: "Health care workers do not take care of them- selves first.

They put the patient and families first. Having Viktor around allowed us to think of ourselves and have support there immediately when we needed it. He was part of the team and is being greatly missed." [1415] I've spoken with every management level of the interior health authority about this matter. Although there is general agreement that the decision could have been implemented more courteously and respectfully, indications are that the decision will stand. Therefore, I appeal to the government on behalf of my constituents, with whom I am in full agreement.

Spiritual care is an integral component of health ser- vices. Having a paid chaplain in a large facility to co- ordinate the efforts of community clergy and ensure patients' needs are met is a reasonable expenditure. If we have not spelled out to the health authorities that this will be one of our expectations of them and that their performance will be measured, then I think we should. Regardless of how tough their decisions have to be in any personnel matter, this government will require courtesy, respect and kindness in all deal- ings with personnel. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS J. MacPhail: The deal that the Premier cooked up with the B.C. Medical Association in his living room has collapsed. Doctors are pointing the finger at the

MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3185 government, and the government's pointing the finger at the doctors. If that's not bad enough, the Minister of Health Services said this morning that it was now up to pa- tients to put the political pressure on their doctors to get this thing settled. The Minister of Health Services is putting politics into the examination room. It is not up to patients to settle this dispute. They've suffered enough under this government.

To the Minister of Health Services: will he now stand up and assure patients that they will not be dragged into the government's public relations war against doctors? And will he tell patients what plan he has to settle this thing so that it doesn't involve them fighting his political battles? Hon. C. Hansen: The memorandum of understand- ing that was signed about five weeks ago developed a framework for resolving the issues around physician compensation in British Columbia. This government put $392 million of additional money into the budget to provide for that. The B.C.

Medical Association agreed that that was the envelope and that there would be no more on top of that. There has been significant progress made in the negotiations. Quite frankly, I think the progress that has been made is a tribute to the negotiating parties on both sides. There are some remaining issues. We have encouraged the BCMA to get back to the negotiating table so that we can actually sort out those remaining issues so that patient safety will not be put at stake in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: I asked what this minister is doing for patients, and he talks about a failed negotiating strat- egy. This government doesn't have a plan to put pa- tients first. Soon they'll have an ad agency, but they've got no plan whatsoever for how to resolve this dispute with the doctors.

Again, to the Minister of Health Services: rather than play a game of chicken with patients in this prov- ince, will he now agree that it was a mistake to rip up the independent binding arbitration process — some- thing, frankly, he supported in opposition and he sup- p o r t e d w h e n h e f i r s t b e c a m e M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h S e r - vices? Will he agree to put independent binding arbi- tration back on the table so that this dispute can be settled before patient care is disrupted? Hon. C.

Hansen: Given the fact that this member has, every day, a whole list of multimillion-dollar pri- orities that she would like to see government spend more money on, I'm surprised, quite frankly, that she thinks government should fork out even hundreds of millions more dollars to fund the arbitration process as Mr. McEachern had brought it down. We are putting patients first in British Columbia. We are working on a negotiation process that will al- low us to resolve these issues within the framework that has already been agreed to.

From day one we made it clear that binding arbitration was not on the table, was not acceptable. We're fully prepared to look at alternatives to that. We put a proposal forward to the BCMA around a third-party process for a dispute settlement mechanism to carry us into the future. Quite frankly, we were surprised last week, given that the BCMA has not responded in substance to what was there, that they would suddenly see this as the reason to walk away from negotiating tables. We want to get back to the negotiating table. We want to get there today. We want to get these issues resolved.

Quite frankly, I think it's inappropriate for any doctor or group of doctors in British Columbia to threaten to withdraw care from their patients while there is still good progress being made and there is an agreement that is there to be had. We just have to nego- tiate the details. BLACKLISTING OF HOSPITAL WORKERS J. Kwan: T h i s m i n i s t e r s h o u l d h a v e f o l l o w e d through with his own advice, and that is to allow the independent arbitration process to be completed and validated.

Then perhaps we wouldn't have this dispute today. [1420] Tapes released last week show that the real drive behind contracting out is to get Sodexho and other for- profit health care companies to carry the government's war with the labour movement. Blacklisting is a tried- and-true anti-labour tactic. It is one we thought we'd seen the end of, until this government invited for-profit health care outfits to the table.

To the Minister of Health Services: will he stand up in the House today and promise British Columbians that just because they belong to a particular union, they won't be forced onto the unemployment line? Hon. C. Hansen: We do not condone blacklisting in a n y w a y , s h a p e o r f o r m .

W e h a v e m a d e i t q u i t e c l e a r that as health authorities go out to do open tendering to identify companies that can provide quality support services in our health care sector more cost-effectively than we've been able to do up to now, they have to go out in a tendering process that is open and that is transparent, and the companies they choose should be companies that abide by the laws in British Columbia and are good corporate citizens that treat their employ- ees fairly. We would not condone any kind of blacklist- ing against any particular union or group of members in this province. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: I'm glad the minister has acknowledged that blacklisting is inappropriate. It is not only unfair to the workers, but it is unfair to the patients who depend on the years of experience that they bring to the jobs. X-

3186 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 ray and lab technicians, licensed practitioners, dietary specialists and food service workers — these people are the backbone of our health care system. The average health care provider whose job is being threatened has over 20 years of experience in providing patients with top-quality care. Will the Minister of Health Services, then, step in today and tell health authorities that throwing away that experience and expertise would damage patient care and create more chaos in our health care system? Will he order them to stop now? It is happening right now.

If this government doesn't condone it, step in and say no. Hon. C. Hansen: We made it quite clear to the health authorities that their tendering process has to be open and transparent and fair to all concerned. I have also said that if there is any evidence that anyone has that the laws of British Columbia have been broken around labour practices, they should bring that evidence to the Minister of Labour, and it will be prop- erly investigated. SALE OF VANCOUVER CANUCKS HOCKEY TEAM K. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Com- petition, Science and Enterprise.

Over the weekend it was reported that the Vancouver Canucks are in dis- cussion with our government on looking at options to improve the competitiveness of the team. Can the Min- ister of Competition, Science and Enterprise inform the House as to the nature of those discussions and the directions of those discussions? Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me be very clear. Our gov- ernment will not subsidize any business in British Co- lumbia. We are creating a competitive business climate here in British Columbia so that all businesses can compete and win.

Not one penny of the money we have committed to spend on health care and education will be diverted to any organization, including the Vancouver Canucks. Our government is committed to creating a competitive business environment, so every- one can compete in British Columbia and win. Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has a supplementary question. K. Stewart: With the weekend media report that the Canucks' owners are interested in selling the team, can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enter- prise tell us whether or not he expects the Vancouver Canucks to stay in Vancouver? Hon. R.

Thorpe: The decision on whether the Vancouver Canucks stay in British Columbia or not is strictly up to the Vancouver Canucks. Our commitment is to ensure that British Columbia has a competitive business climate so that all companies can be successful in British Columbia, be attracted to British Columbia and win in British Columbia. Once again I want to say to all British Columbians: not one penny of the funds that our government has committed to health care or education will be diverted to any business, for any sub- sidy, in any form in British Columbia. [1425] LAND USE PLANNING REPORT M.

Hunter: Last week the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management released a report that had been commissioned by the previous government. That re- port was to assess the performance of land use plan- ning processes between 1992 and 2001. Will the Minis- ter of Sustainable Resource Management please outline the results of that report? Hon. S. Hagen: Thanks for the question.

This independent analysis shows that there were a number of costs and benefits associated with the previ- ous government's land use planning efforts, including job losses from reductions in resource extraction, re- ductions in the economic base for resource-dependent communities and loss of government revenues. This report clearly shows that land use planning should continue, but that it can be improved. This is exactly what our government has been undertaking to do over the last ten months. Mr. Speaker: The member for Nanaimo has a sup- plementary question. M.

Hunter: S o t h i s g o v e r n m e n t h a s b e e n c o m m i t - ted to managing our natural resources through sound science and proper management. Could the Minister of Sustainable Resource Man- agement tell us what actions he's prepared to take in order to ensure that the problems outlined in the report he just talked about are properly and adequately ad- dressed? Hon. S.

Hagen: As part of our core review and business planning, our government has undertaken a number of strategic changes in land use planning, in- cluding the smaller and more efficient tables, shorter time lines for completion, more clearly defined objec- tives for outcomes, stronger provincial oversight and broader input for first nations. I'm confident that these changes address the sig- nificant economic problems outlined in the report while at the same time retaining the benefits that can result from successful land use planning. SALE OF VANCOUVER CANUCKS HOCKEY TEAM J.

MacPhail: It did occur to me, following those questions about the Vancouver Canucks…. To the Min- ister of Competition, Science and Enterprise — this is a very specific question; it requires a yes or a no, so you can look up: will the minister assure us that no lottery

MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3187 money will go in any way to the Canucks either before or after the sale of the team? Hon. R. Thorpe: Apparently, the member on the other side of the House was offside when I gave the last answer. Let me just tell the member that our government has committed the funds to health care and education. We are committed to supporting health care in British Columbia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have increased funding to health care by $1.1 billion in the last ten months.

In addition, my colleague and Minister of Education has maintained funding to schools in British Columbia. Our government is committed, unlike the previous government, to ensuring that all businesses in British Columbia can compete and win in a global economy. EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR DISABLED AND MENTALLY ILL PERSONS E. Brenzinger: My question is for the Minister of Human Resources. Last week the minister announced the new em- ployment strategy for persons with disabilities.

A number of my constituents with disabilities are con- cerned by reports that they will be forced to find em- ployment without receiving adequate support. To the Minister of Human Resources: how will the disabled see this strategy as being any different from any other programs in the past? Hon. M. Coell: There are tens of thousands of people with disabilities who have employment in British Co- lumbia, but people with disabilities have a 50 percent higher unemployment rate than people who don't.

We've developed a strategy that we believe will help people with disabilities enter the workforce and do the best they can. We're going to start with earnings exemp- tions at $300. They'll be able to continue with their medi- cal benefits once they leave income assistance. We'll be able to supply technical aids, workplace modifications, follow-up supports and a rapid reinstatement if some- one with a disability isn't able to continue to work. What we want to be able to do is help people work and support them in work. People with disabilities need that help. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplementary question. E. Brenzinger: People with mental illnesses face unique barriers and often require specific resources to help them gain independence through employment. Can the Minister of Human Resources outline for my constituents how this strategy will specifically help people with mental illness? [1430] Hon. M. Coell: The desire here is to make sure the supports are there for people with disabilities, includ- ing mental illness, so that they can come on and off income assistance as needed.

They would keep their disability status, so there would be rapid reinstatement back onto income assistance if someone was only able to work cyclically or part-time. The idea is to find the potential people have to support them to reach that potential no matter what their disability is. [End of question period.] Petitions J. MacPhail: I have the honour today to present a petition signed by Mr. Rick Wood and 3,607 other Brit- ish Columbians, who request the government to re- verse its decision to lift the moratorium on fish farm expansion.

They point out that the scientific evidence proves that current fish-farming practices, if continued, are capable of destroying all species of wild and hatch- ery salmon. Tabling Documents Hon. J. Murray: I have the honour of presenting the Creston Valley wildlife management area annual re- port for 2001. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage on Bill 45. Committee of the Whole House LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:34 p.m. On

section 1. J. Kwan: Under

section 1 there is the new definition of financial obligation to the society, which states that it means, in relation to a client, the money that is to be paid to the society under a legal aid contract between the client and the society. Could the minister please advise what circumstances would cause an individual to have a financial obligation to the society? [1435] Hon. G. Plant: I think the circumstances that en- gage that definition are those set out or provided for in

part 3 of the bill, which starts at

section 13. J. Kwan: We can canvass this issue under

section 13, or the minister can advise and provide information to the House with respect to the circumstances in which an individual would have a financial obligation to the society. I would like him to give us some exam- ples and elaborate on the question that I asked.

3188 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 The Chair: Shall

section 1 pass? Member for Van- couver–Mount Pleasant. J. Kwan: I take it from the minister's silence that he wants to canvass those questions then, in

section 13? Hon. G. Plant: The definition of "financial obliga- tion to the society" links to obligations that arise solely in respect of the scheme or provisions that are in

part 3, as I understand it. I think the right place to ask about what a financial obligation might be is in the context of those provisions. It's not actually a very complicated definition. Fi- nancial obligation means, in relation to a client, the money that is to be paid by the client to the society under a legal aid contract between the client and the society. I think, though, that the place the issue arises in more concrete form is probably the provisions of

part 3. J. Kwan: I had prefaced my question by asking the minister if he wants to canvass that under the defini- tions section, which is

section 1. Or does he want to canvass it under

section 3? That was the question. All the minister had to do was rise up and advise. The follow-up question in relation to this definition, of course, would be the consequences of not paying a financial obligation to the society. Again, I will seek the minister's perspective. Does he want me to canvass these questions under

part 3 or under the

definitions? I'm particularly interested in understanding what the consequences are of not paying a financial obliga- tion to the society. For example, will the society be re- quiring people to sell their homes or other properties? Is that what the "lien against land" is about under sec- tion 14, under

part 3, in order to pay the financial obli- gation? We can canvass that under

part 3. I'm seeking the minister's preference in relation to these questions. Hon. G. Plant: I'm grateful for that, but I'm really in the member's hands. I'm certainly willing to answer questions. I've already said twice that I think the better place to ask questions about this is in the context of

part 3 where, in fact, the phrase "financial obligation to the society" appears in the context of some specific provisions, including sections 13 and 14 at least. J. Kwan: That's fine. I can canvass…. I do want to make it clear in terms of the place where the minister wants to answer the questions, because from time to time we've seen this. If a

section is passed in the House, we may lose the opportunity to ask the questions. I want to be clear that I would be able to get my answers then at the subsequent sections, which is why I'm ask- ing the minister on this point. [1440] In the

definitions section, "legal aid contract" in the bill states that it "means, in relation to a client, the con- tract between the client and the society under which the society provides legal aid to the client." This defini- tion did not exist in the previous Legal Services Society Act. Could the minister please advise: what is the pur- pose of adding this definition? Hon. G. Plant: It essentially sets up the context within which, among other things, the lien provisions may come into effect. It ensures that there will be a contract between the society and the client. In the con- text of the provisions of

part 3, some of the terms of that contract may have to do with an obligation to pay money to the society for legal services provided to somebody in circumstances where, for example, there is a windfall or an opportunity to recover the funds for the costs of legal services from real property that may become available during the course of or as a result of the legal proceedings. J. Kwan: The example the minister used is in rela- tion to the liens provision. Would that be the only type of obligation and responsibilities that would be in- cluded in this contract? Hon. G.

Plant: I don't think it's limited to the lien situation, but we think that's probably the most likely situation when it will be used. Part of the objective of the bill is, in fact, to expand the opportunity for the society to engage in cost recovery even from clients, so the framework is set up to enable that, while recogniz- ing that for a huge number of people who are eligible for legal aid, there is no prospect in practical terms that they would ever be able to pay for any of the services that are provided.

But you know, from time to time someone who is charged with a criminal matter and that would be eli- gible for legal aid might come into a windfall source of cash. In those circumstances, my view is that the public interest in terms of providing tax dollars to fund a de- fence without any possibility of recovery from the per- son who now could afford to pay for their defence is pretty thin, so the bill is intended, in some circum- stances, to give the society the ability to seek cost re- covery, as I've outlined. J. Kwan: The minister said that is one of the exam- ples in the liens provisions.

He advised that there may also be other circumstances. Could the minister please advise what other circumstances? Hon. G. Plant: I gave the member another example of a situation where a contract might be required to ensure that the society was in a position to recover windfall funds that might be in the possession of someone who is accused of a criminal offence. That's another example of the potential for the use of this kind of situation. [1445] I think it's also provided for, perhaps by implica- tion in

section 10, the powers and capacity — a provi- sion which gives the society the powers and capacity of an individual without limiting the power to determine the method or methods by which legal aid is to be or may be provided.

MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3189 J. Kwan: In the case where there's a breach of the legal aid contract between the society and the client, what are the consequences? Hon. G. Plant: Well, that will depend on the terms of the contract. J. Kwan: We'll use the examples that the minister has brought up. Hon. G. Plant: The examples that I've used do not constitute a breach. In one case we were talking about liens.

The contract would presumably provide that in the event the outcome of a matter produced an asset that was exigible, there would be the prospect of at least registering and ultimately, perhaps, enforcing a lien against that asset to the extent of the amount ow- ing to the society. I assume it would be open to the society to take proceedings to enforce the lien if it should become necessary to do so.

A classic example of this is the situation where, in the family law case, there's a matrimonial home that may have hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity but no source of income for one of the partners to the relationship. That partner may get legal aid to help with a custody application on the basis that when the family law matter is complete, the society would be able to recover its fees or at least firstly secure its enti- tlement to fees on the matrimonial home.

If, in the full- ness of time, there was no ability to actually generate the money from some other source to ensure that the fees were paid, then presumably the society would be in the position of being able to enforce the lien. J. Kwan: Are these legal aid contracts essentially meant to force legal aid clients to pay for services? Is that the primary reason why these legal aid contracts would be established? Hon. G. Plant: Well, in circumstances where legal aid clients can afford to pay for services, they're usually not eligible for them. J.

Kwan: Is the minister suggesting that if clients can pay for the services, they would not be paying for legal aid services because they won't be eligible for it? So what is the purpose of these legal aid contracts? Hon. G. Plant: We've already pointed out that one of the features of this act is

part 3. It gives the right to the Legal Services Society to recover financial obliga- tions to it. In some cases, that may include the ability to recover obligations for services provided. The fundamental public-policy interest here is that we want to be sure that we provide legal aid coverage only to those who really cannot afford it. We also rec- ognize that in some circumstances there may be an asset that already exists or the possibility of a windfall i n t h e f o r m o f c a s h t h a t w e d o n ' t n e c e s s a r i l y k n o w enough about at the time the request for coverage is made to the society.

The society, I think, should be in a position to ensure that if as a result of a proceeding or during the course of a proceeding, the person who re- ceived the service actually does come into a position where they could have afforded to pay for it, then they should pay for it. J. Kwan: Let me use this example. With the change of this act, a lot of the legal aid services would actually be eliminated. I'd be tempted to use a case like a WCB case, whereby an injured worker could, after proceed- ing with a case, come into — to use the minister's words — a windfall of some moneys through winning that case.

Given the change of this act, I think a lot of the WCB cases would not be covered by legal aid, be- cause the resources won't be there to provide that ser- vice. [1450] Let me use this example of a case where you could have a family in a family dispute where violence is involved, because that is the provision to which legal services would be provided. If violence is not involved, likely, again, legal aid services would not be provided to the family.

Let's use a situation where violence is involved and there are children involved and custody issues as well, and let's say it's the woman in this instance who is qualified for legal aid. After the court case it may well be that through the custody issues and the family asset distribution issues, the family unit — the woman and the child — m a y w e l l c o m e i n t o s o m e a s s e t s i n t h a t case. Would the legal aid contract bind that family, then, to sell their assets after the case in order to pay for legal services? Is that an option under the legal aid contract? Hon. G.

Plant: I think the reason why the provision deals with liens is, to answer the member's question, that there are circumstances where it's appropriate that the society might secure its right to prospectively, at a future point, recover some of the costs. I don't think it's contemplated that the society would have a contractual arrangement with a client that would, on its face, re- quire somebody to sell some asset.

When I think of windfall — and I don't know if this is a good example or not — I think of the prospect of someone accused of a criminal offence who comes and makes an application through legal aid and discloses the fact that they have no sources of income but, on making full disclosure, realizes they have an obligation to disclose the fact that a relative has just died and that they may have an entitlement to a significant amount of cash coming from the estate of the relative.

While that's not something that is a present entitlement or a present asset of the person who's seeking coverage, it might shortly become that. In those circumstances the society, I think, ought to at least have some ability to think about whether it can secure the right to repay- ment for some of the cost of its services against what I would say could fairly be characterized as a windfall. Those are the kinds of things that I think are probably

3190 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 intended by the arrangements created not in

section 1 but in the other provisions of the act. J. Kwan: I saw the minister's staff actually shaking their heads when I asked a question about the prospec- tive situation with a woman and a child where after the legal aid representation, if they did come into some asset, they would not be required to sell that asset in order to pay for the legal aid services they received from the legal aid society. If that's the case, can the minister please advise: where in the act does it stipu- late under what circumstances a person would have to sell the assets or the windfall?

What constitutes a wind- fall — under what circumstances? Where within the act does it stipulate that? Hon. G. Plant: We are not going to have a very successful debate if the member spends much time commenting on the facial demeanour of the people who have served the public of British Columbia by assisting me in this debate. J. MacPhail: Oh, stop it. Hon. G. Plant: "Stop it" is right. The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. Let's confine the debate to two members. Thank you. Hon. G. Plant: I think it's really offensive, frankly. Interjection. The Chair: Member, let's just keep the debate down to…. Hon. G.

Plant: I've already illustrated what I think the scheme that's played out in this act is intended to do. Of course, the question of how it might operate in specific circumstances will depend in large measure on the way in which the society uses the tools that are given to it under this act.

It's hard to predict the out- come of hypothetical situations, because they often do have facts that are not necessarily part of the explana- tion of the hypothetical situation. [1455] In this case one of the challenges, of course, in giv- ing examples is that while I have a pretty good idea of the range of services that the society is likely to con- tinue to provide, the decision specifically about the range of services they are going to provide on a case- by-case basis is going to be a decision for the society. What the provisions talk about in

part 3 of the bill, which we're now debating, is making sure that in some appropriate circumstances the society has the ability to recover amounts that it has paid for representation of people who it turns out actually had or may come into the ability to pay for those services. If we are able to recover costs in those situations, then the society would have greater ability to actually provide coverage to those people who do not ever come into a windfall or do not have the opportunity to realize family assets that become available during the course of a family proceeding. J. Kwan: Quite frankly, the

section that the minister references in

part 3 doesn't clearly stipulate under what circumstances and what obligations a client would have to repay legal aid services. I'm canvassing this question under the definition

section that says: "Here's the meaning of the legal aid contract." What are the obligations associated with these legal aid contracts? The problem here is this. The government is fond of saying: "Well, don't worry. Trust us." We've seen that, quite frankly. We've seen it in a number of situations. We've seen the government tear up contracts when they said they won't tear up contracts. We've seen that they've broken their word to the public on that matter. With the changes in legal aid….

It is a very impor- tant set of changes that the minister is bringing about — fundamental changes that will revamp the provision of legal aid to the people who are in the greatest need in the province in trying to access legal representation and trying, quite frankly, to access justice. People who seek legal aid are the people who can't afford to get legal representation elsewhere.

Given that this is a new definition in the act — it was never there before — I'm canvassing from the min- ister: what are the purposes of this contract, and what are the legal obligations and responsibilities that would be included in these contracts? Quite frankly, the min- ister has not been able to answer that question in a clear, substantive way. He has not identified clearly under what circumstances people would have to enter into these contracts and what those consequences are. Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate this question.

In fact, the society has a long tradition of making people sell things before determining whether or not they'll provide coverage. If the asset is liquid and if the society is of the view that it's not essential, then the society may say: "You've got an asset you could sell. You should sell it and pay for your own legal advice." What the society has not had the ability to do is secure through a lien the entitlement to realize at a later date some amount for the cost of the services that have been provided.

In the case of, for example, a fam- ily home the society's view has been and will, I'm sure, continue to be that it won't make somebody sell their home in order to make sure that they get access to legal representation. These things are a part of current practice already, and what is going to happen in the future as a result of the provisions of

part 3 is that the society will have the ability to secure to some extent, in some cases, future recovery of fees where there is an appropriate asset that can be liened.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2.

MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3191 J. Kwan: Subsections (1), (2) and (3) under

section 2 are identical to the original act, but subsection (4) is a new addition to the act. This subsection allows the so- ciety to carry on "a business, trade, industry or profes- sion." I believe that this reference relates to the society's ability to generate additional revenue through business initiatives and fundraising.

Subsection (4) then goes on to state: "…the society must not distribute any gain, profit or dividend or otherwise dispose of its assets to a member of the society without receiving full and valu- able consideration." Can the Attorney General provide an example of the types of business, trade, industry or profession that the Legal Services Society may engage in to raise funds for legal services? [1500] Hon. G. Plant: One opportunity that has been iden- tified to me is the possibility of selling some of the in- tellectual property that they have in case management and case management systems. J.

Kwan: Would the Legal Services Society raise funds by providing legal services to individuals who are capable of paying the full cost of legal services pro- vided by the society? Hon. G. Plant: I think it would be difficult to imag- ine how they could do that, given the basic objects of the society. J. Kwan: Well, that's precisely the point. Why I asked the question is to make sure it is not the case that under this provision, the society would be able to sell their services to people who could pay for legal aid services.

I fear doing that detracts from the scarce re- sources that will be available within the society to pro- vide services for people who are in greatest need. I want to be clear with respect to what the intent is with this government. It is never clear what the intent is. We often find ourselves reading between the lines to find out what the intent of the government is.

If the minister says this is hypocritical, if that is the case, then I assume — although I can't just outright assume — that is the answer from the minister: it is not the intent of this act to allow for the Legal Services Society to sell legal aid services to the people who could otherwise pay for it. Hon. G. Plant: Well, remembering that the objects of the society are to assist low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems and to facilitate access to justice for low-income individuals, and the other ob- jects that are set out in

section 9, I think the primary focus of the society will definitely be on the provision of legal aid services to people who can't afford them. But let's be clear. As I read the model, the society created by this act, if the society were to use its own resources to provide legal services to people who could afford to pay for them, there would of course be no drain on the public purse whatsoever from that activ- ity.

Then, if by doing that, they were in a position where they actually charged more for the services than it cost to provide them, they would be in a position where they had earned income from that activity. Hav- ing earned that income, they would then be required to devote that income to the provision of legal services to low-income individuals. Although I don't think the act is set up to contem- plate that, the society would become a for-profit law firm in addition to its not-for-profit primary objectives.

The example that the member gives, if it were permit- ted by the act, would in fact increase the range of ser- vices that could be made available to low-income indi- viduals. J. Kwan: Well, quite frankly, there's no guarantee of that. There's no guarantee of that necessarily. It may well be that the resources that are available within legal aid would be drained from providing legal aid to the people who need it the most.

I'm not necessarily comforted to say that if you do sell your services, you can make more money, and then, by making more money, you can actually provide the services to the people in greatest need. It takes a lot of energy to invest and to develop revenue-making schemes. By doing that, it may take away all or sub- stantively all the resources available within the society to provide for services to individuals in British Colum- bia. So there's no guarantee that's the case.

Given the minister's comment, I have no comfort whatsoever that it is not the intent of the act to actually detract from the resources of the society in providing legal aid to the people who are in greatest need. [1505] Hon. G. Plant: If I may, I think it's important in this context to point out that under

section 10(3), the bill provides that the society must not engage in an activity unless it does so without using any of the funding pro- vided to it by the government. Or if it is using funding p r o v i d e d t o i t b y g o v e r n m e n t , t h e n i t h a s t o d o s o i n accordance with the act, the memorandum of under- standing, the regulations and the budget. All of those things in part (

b) will be directed entirely to the provi- sion of what are properly called legal aid services — that is, services to people who could not otherwise af- ford them. I think the member for Burnaby North has an in- troduction. Introductions by Members R. Lee: In the House today, visiting from my con- stituency, are 27 grade 5 students from St. Helen's School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ramalho, and five parents: Ms. Cathro, Ms. Petrollini, Ms. Rinaldo, Ms. Lee and Ms. Mobelio. Would the House please make them welcome.

3192 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 Debate Continued J. Kwan: While I'm glad that the minister pointed under the section, actually…. On the one hand the min- ister says that the society must not engage in activities unless it does so without using any of the funding pro- vided to it by the government or does so in accordance with the act, the regulations, the memorandum of un- derstanding referred to in subsection (21) and money for that activity is available within the budget ap- proved by the Attorney General under

section 18. The Attorney General is actually going to be, quite frankly, interfering with the budgeting process of the Legal Services Society. It may well be within the gov- ernment's agenda to engage in providing services oth- erwise to people who are in greatest need, because for this government the need is greater in terms of generat- ing revenue as opposed to providing the services. It may well be that that's the perspective in the regula- tions or in the memorandum of understanding or whatever the case may be.

That information is not be- fore the House for examination by the members of this House or by the public. In canvassing this question, in trying to understand what the intent of the act is, I want to be clear that the intent of the act is not to detract from services and re- sources of the Legal Services Society for people who are in the greatest need in an attempt to generate reve- nues for the government. Hon. G.

Plant: In fact, the intent of the act is to give the society some revenue-generating tools so it can expand the range of services it provides to people in British Columbia who can't otherwise afford to pay for a lawyer. J. Kwan: Provided that it is understood it does not detract from the resources of the society in an attempt to make money, so that it does not detract from re- sources of the society to provide legal aid services to people in the greatest need, in an attempt to make money. That, I believe, has to be clear. Hon. G.

Plant: I don't what the member means by "detract," and I don't know what the member means by "resources." But there are people in the Legal Services Society who have been working hard over a number of years to develop some systems for how they manage case flow. They get calls from time to time from people who say: "Hey, you guys are experts in this." People from other jurisdictions call up and say they'd like to have the opportunity to share in this skill in the sys- tems and the software, I think, that goes along with that, which may have been developed by the society for all I know.

The society's view on that is that we have developed something here in British Columbia, with public dollars, that may have a value. We think we should be in a position, on behalf of the public in- terest of British Columbia, to see if we can sell that to the people who are willing to pay for it in other juris- dictions and to use money from that activity to provide or expand the range of services that they could other- wise provide beyond the range of services that they might be able to provide solely on the basis of the grant they receive from the province.

Everything about this is about enhancing the ability of the society to in fact deliver the services that are re- quired across as broad a range of the spectrum as pos- sible.

In providing the society with the power to carry on a business, trade, industry or profession as an inci- dent to its fundamental purposes, government's inten- tion is simply to ensure that the society is in a position where it could take advantage of those opportunities. [1510] I am certain that it would be able to do so without in any way detracting from its main responsibility of continuing to establish and administer a legal aid sys- tem in British Columbia.

In fact, my view is that it will be able to enhance the delivery of legal aid services in British Columbia if these revenue-generating tools are made available to it. Sections 2 and 3 approved. On

section 4. J. Kwan:

Section 4 deals with the change to the rep- resentation on the board of directors within the Legal Services Society. The original act had 15 directors on the board. This bill, Bill 45, reduces the number of di- rectors to nine. The reduction amounts to maintaining the same number of government appointees yet elimi- nating appointees from the Association of Community Law Offices and the native community law offices. Could the minister please advise why the number of directors was reduced? Hon. G.

Plant: In my view, 15 is too big a number for an organization to operate effectively, particularly given the responsibilities of this organization. It's not, maybe, a general rule, but it's a rule that I think applies in this case. I think nine is a good size of board for the responsibilities that this board has. J. Kwan: Why are the two organizations that pro- vide front-line legal aid services no longer guaranteed participation on the Legal Services Society board — the Native Community Law Offices Association and the Association of Community Law Offices? Hon. G.

Plant: Well, government funds, substan- tially, all of what legal aid does, so I think it's legiti- mate that government have the opportunity to appoint some board members. There's also a need to ensure that the society has some degree of independence, par- ticularly in relation to the potential conflict that could arise in cases where legal aid is provided to somebody in a dispute, like a criminal charge, where the Crown is on the other side. I think that's when the claim that the society…. Let me put it this way. I think that's when the claim that the determination about the provision of

MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3193 counsel needs to be made by somebody other than government directly has some force. The Law Society, as a representative of the legal profession in British Columbia, appeared to me to be a body that can appoint directors representing the Law Society's interests in these matters. That ensures that there are independent voices on the board. Of course, the board is established as the board of a society which will become itself independent and is already inde- pendent.

With respect to why we put together the board without representation from the two law office associa- tions that the member refers to, I think the general thrust of the reorganization of the society requires a reconfiguration of service delivery that needed to be made possible. This new board will make that possible. To be frank, I have long had some concerns about the fact that one-third of the Legal Services Society board, under its former configuration, represented people who had a direct interest in obtaining funding from the society.

You had people who were on the board essentially asking the board to provide funding to their organization. I think that's not the right way to constitute a board. I think the board as constituted by this bill will in fact represent and protect the public interest in the best way possible. One of the great things, of course, about

section 4 is that for the first time we have introduced appointment criteria for those who will be appointed to the board. Those are set out in subsection (5). J. Kwan: The 2002-03 service plan for the Legal Services Society states that one of the goals of the or- ganization is to "work with aboriginal people in the communities to develop and promote innovative and effective methods to deliver legal services and legal education." How does removing the guaranteed repre- sentation of native community law offices support this goal? [1515] Hon. G. Plant: With respect, I'm not sure that it has anything to do with it.

I commend the society for hav- ing that goal, and I'm certain they'll work hard to achieve it. J. Kwan: Well, with all due respect, I disagree. In the previous act, it stipulates representation from the broader community and particularly front-line work- ers. In particular, it stipulates representation from the native community law offices. The people who have direct contact with the clients, who are faced with the need for representation…. That voice is no longer guaranteed to be there in the representation.

As I mentioned during second reading debate of this bill, the government no doubt will pay lip service to representation, but the fact is that the act changes that guarantee to ensure that there is full representa- tion from the broader community. I think it's a mistake to do this. It takes away, in my own view, the broader community representation that is needed within the board. The original act also guarantees that at least two out of the five directors appointed by government would not be lawyers. The bill does not place any stipulations upon the appointees selected by the gov- ernment.

Again, why has the government removed the provision that ensures that at least two board appoint- ees would not be lawyers? Isn't it important to provide people who are not from the legal profession an oppor- tunity to participate in the process of setting priorities for legal aid in B.C.? That is often the case with many of the other professional boards. Often it is the case that lay people need to be at the table, because they bring a different perspective in terms of the need for represen- tation and a different set of opinions from those who are directly in the profession. Hon. G.

Plant: What I believe is important is that the prospective appointees to this board would provide to the board as a whole knowledge, skills and experi- ence in a number of areas including business, man- agement and financial matters of public and private sector organizations; law and the operation of courts, tribunals and alternate dispute resolution processes; the provision of legal aid; the cultural and geographic diversity of British Columbia; and the social and eco- nomic circumstances associated with the special legal needs of low-income individuals.

I think if both the Law Society and the Attorney General recommend for appointment people who have those qualifications, then we'll have a board composed of people who are able to carry out the purposes and objects of the society in the best possible way. That's why those appointment criteria have been expressly provided for in subsection (5) of

section 4. J. Kwan: The subsection does talk about the consid- eration of other factors, such as knowledge, skills and experience with cultural and geographic diversity, business, the law, legal aid and social and economic circumstances of low-income individuals, but the act doesn't outright stipulate that broad representation. It doesn't guarantee that there be geographic representa- tion, that there be cultural diversity, that there be lay people within the board outside of people who are from the legal profession. Formerly, the act actually spelled out more specifi- cally who needs to be at that table.

Now that is not the case. One can only assume that while that is a general goal, there is no guarantee that that representation will be there on the board. Why would the government take away that goal? If it is the case that the government wants to ensure that there is broad diversity in the rep- resentation, why not include it in the act and stipulate the numbers of representation reflecting that diversity? Hon. G.

Plant: While the former act may have pro- vided, for example, for the appointment of lawyers to the board, it did not make any requirements with re- spect to the qualifications or experience of those lawyers

3194 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 in relation to matters like legal aid. I think we've taken a step forward here in

section 4 by focusing on the quali- fications of the prospective appointees and enumerating a pretty comprehensive list of those qualifications. [1520] The critical issue, I think, for the purpose of protect- ing the public interest is whether you have people on this board who know something about how to manage public and private sector organizations, who know something about law and the operation of courts and alternate dispute resolution processes. I think the fact that that phrase — alternate dispute resolution processes — is there is an important step forward.

It's important that the board members know something about the pro- vision of legal aid and that they have knowledge, skills and experience in relation to the cultural and geographic diversity of British Columbia and the social and eco- nomic circumstances associated with the special legal needs of low-income individuals. I expect that the board will continue to contain a mix of lawyers and non- lawyers, but that will be up to the appointing bodies.

W h a t ' s m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n m y v i e w , f r o m t h e p e r - spective of protecting the public interest, is that the people that are appointed have real qualifications. What subsection (5) of

section 4 does is bring those qualifications into this statute for the first time. J. Kwan: Well, the previous act, contrary to what the Attorney General suggests, actually stipulates that two of the five board representatives must not be law- yers. That's clearly stipulated.

It also clearly stipulates that there be representation from the Native Commu- nity Law Offices Association of B.C. and that there also be two representatives from the Association of Com- munity Law Offices of British Columbia — people who do have expertise and the skill set and the knowledge in the areas that the minister talks about with respect to issues around the need for representation for their cli- ents, because these are the individuals who deal with the clients on a day-by-day basis. Who would know better the needs of the people in the community than the people who are front-line workers?

That's what these individuals are; they're front-line workers. They have the skill set, they have the knowledge, and they have the experience on a day- by-day basis. For the Attorney General to even ques- tion their knowledge and skill set, quite frankly, be- hooves all of us…. Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out, as well, that the majority of the people who are to be appointed to the board are people that the government will select — not chosen from the people in the profession. The majority of them will be chosen by government.

There- fore, they're government appointees, individuals that will aid in the bid of the government's perspective to the point where the act — and we'll go into that matter in a little while as well — directs that direct opportu- nity for the government and the Attorney General to interfere in the independence of the Legal Services So- ciety in their efforts to establish their budget and to allocate their resources and so on.

Quite frankly, the independence of the board is being compromised, the diversity of the board is being compromised, and so, too, is the broader representa- tion that is needed in terms of independent govern- ment appointees. That, with the change of this provi- sion of the act, is being compromised. Hon. G. Plant: Well, I have this looming feeling that the member and I are not going to agree about this particular thing. Let's be clear. In the existing act there is no requirement that the appointees to the board know anything about private or public sector organiza- tions.

There is no requirement that the existing ap- pointees know anything about the provision of legal aid. There is no requirement that they know anything about the cultural or geographic diversity of British Columbia. There is no requirement that they know anything about the social and economic circumstances associated with the special legal needs of low-income individuals. Yes, the act as it now stands does contain provi- sions that say that some of the appointees by cabinet, for example, must not be lawyers.

The issue is broader, though, than simply whether someone is a lawyer or is appointed by a particular agency or another.

The issue is whether the people that we appoint actually come to the position with some knowledge, skills and experi- ence in the area that they are going to be asked to do some work around — namely, the provision of legal aid services. [1525] I think the fact that this new board will be composed of people recommended and appointed on the basis of a consideration of their qualifications is a step forward, and I may say that I think it's a step forward not just in relation to the governance of the Legal Services Society.

But as government generally moves towards the intro- duction of appointment criteria for boards and agencies, I think we are, generally speaking, going to improve the calibre of service provided by those boards across gov- ernment. I think that's a good step forward. J. Kwan: Earlier in the discussion of

section 4, "Board of Directors," the Attorney General said that the native community law offices and the community law offices shouldn't be on the board, because they receive funding from the board. Lawyers who are members of the Law Society also receive funding from the board, as some lawyers do legal aid work and receive funding for this work through government.

So, the argument suggesting that receiving funding from the Legal Ser- vices Society creates a conflict only applies to the community and native community law offices and does not extend to Law Society members who receive government funding that provides for legal aid. It's, quite frankly, a double standard that is being put forward by the government, similar to the Minister of Education's on the school planning council perspec- tive. The minister had an illogical rationale on the no- tion of conflict, to whom it applies and at what stage. We see now the same argument being used here.

MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3195 Quite frankly, what the change of this act does, in my view, is eliminate the ability of the communities, through the associations, to appoint members to the board and to prevent broader community representa- tion on the board. One would have thought this was a step forward in the previous act, when it was brought about to ensure there was broader community repre- sentation. Now that is gone. That has been taken away, because the minister, under Bill 45, does not require the representation. In fact, that representation is specifi- cally eliminated from the act.

Hon. G. Plant: Let me explain why I think there's no force to the member's critique. My understanding is that you cannot be a member of the Law Society and a member of the legal aid board if you are in fact receiving any income from legal aid work. I think there may be a minimum threshold of $500 or $1,000 or $2,000 that you're allowed to do a year, but actually the people who are lawyers, on the Legal Services Society board, cannot for their income depend upon legal aid work. The spectre of conflict or a double standard that the member spoke about does not in fact exist. [1530]

Section 4 approved on the following division: YEAS — 61 Falcon Coell Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Cheema Hansen Bruce Santori Barisoff Nettleton Wilson Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Collins Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Long Chutter Mayencourt Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger Locke Bhullar Wong Bloy Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan On

section 5. [1535] J. Kwan: I just want to put on record that the com- position of the executive committee has been changed from five members to three under this section. This change, of course, is necessitated by the reduction of the numbers of the board from 15 to nine. I just want to put this on record. My colleague and I voted against the previous sec- tion and the reduction of the numbers of the represen- tation and composition of the board. It follows that with that change, the executive committee would also n e e d t o r e d u c e i n s i z e .

H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e w e h a v e voted against the reduction of the board's size, if that change wasn't in place, then naturally we would not be in support of the executive committee. Because the previous

section did pass with the majority of the gov- ernment, we would not necessarily vote against this just because it is to be consistent with

section 4. Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved. On

section 8. J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise what prompted the government to introduce this

section in the act? The previous act made no mention of prevent- ing legal proceedings against the society. What type of legal proceedings is this legislation meant to prevent? Hon. G. Plant: For the information of the member, the size of the executive committee is not limited to three under

section 5. I don't understand what she was saying there. The section, quite literally read, does not limit the executive committee to three. It may make for an executive committee with three, but it could be the chair plus eight other directors. Personal liability protection,

section 8. This

section protects the LSS board and staff as individuals acting within the scope of their duties and their powers under the act. It does not protect individuals whose actions are in bad faith, nor does it absolve the society of vi- carious liability. It ensures that there are remedies available to a wronged party who may have a cause of action against the society. We think it will reduce the insurance costs of the society. Generally speaking, this is pretty consistent with the provisions in at least some other provinces and how they deal with their legal aid plans.

More impor- tantly, it's also consistent with approaches taken through a number of agencies across government. The goal here is to ensure that any wrong done basically on b e h a l f o f o r i n t h e n a m e o f t h e s o c i e t y i s a w r o n g f o r which the society should be held accountable. J. Kwan: Would it include the prevention of legal proceedings against the society where the society has no capacity, no resources, to provide legal aid to peo- ple who are in need of legal aid? Would that prevent

3196 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 legal proceedings from taking place because of this

section of the act? Hon. G. Plant: I don't want to be taken as answer- ing that question or not answering it. This

section deals with a claim made against the executive director, a director, an officer, an employee or a trustee of the so- ciety. It does not deal with claims against the society. J. Kwan: What type of legal proceedings, then, is the minister envisioning? Would it be personal liability issues? Is that the sole purpose of this

section of the act on personal liabilities for individuals working with the society, like the executive director of the society as an example? [1540] Hon. G. Plant: I don't know that this was put here as a result of any particular projection of any specific kind of risk. This was actually put in because it's con- sistent with many philosophies of corporate govern- ments in the public sector and also in the private sector in some cases. If an agency d oes a wrong , that would be recognized as a legal wrong, and the agency should be held liable.

If someone who's an employee of the agency is joined in the action, it usually doesn't help the plaintiff in any significant way to add those people. More importantly, I think we have an obligation to ensure that when the people who work for public agencies like the Legal Services Society are, broadly speaking, acting within the scope or the intended scope of their duties, they should have some level of assur- ance that if someone were to commence an action for whatever reason, the person would, generally speak- ing, be required to sue the society. Of course there are exceptions to that.

Those are provided in the subsec- tions of

section 8. I'm told that this general protection was in fact requested by the previous board.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. J. Kwan:

Section 9 deals with the objects of the soci- ety. In comparison to the previous act, there are substan- tive changes with respect to the objects of the society. The previous act stipulated clearly that poverty law is to be provided by the society. That was a clearly stipulated object within the mandate of the Legal Ser- vices Society. However, with the change in this act, that object is no longer in place. It's now deleted. I think that is substantive in terms of the changes to the repre- sentation.

The previous act, in my view, set out a minimum level of service that the society was required to provide to British Columbians. Could the minister please ad- vise why Bill 45 does not include a similar

section out- lining the society's minimum obligations? Hon. G. Plant: The society has the objects stated in

section 9, which are to assist low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems and facilitate access to justice for low-income individuals, to establish and administer an effective and efficient system for provid- ing legal aid to low income individuals in British Co- lumbia and to provide advice to the Attorney General respecting legal aid. It's to be guided by the principles set out in subsection (2).

When we look at the society from the perspective of government, it will be, I think, government's continu- ing expectation that the society be responsible for en- suring that people who would be entitled to legal rep- resentation as a result of the application of Charter principles would in fact be provided with that repre- sentation by the society. In effect, the member is asking that the act state what I suppose could be described as a tautology. The obligation to fund arises in certain circumstances by virtue of the constitution as interpreted by the courts.

The purpose of the society, in large measure, is to en- sure that government has available an agency that will largely discharge that obligation on government's be- half. [1545] J. Kwan: Bill 45 mentions only low income as a reason that an individual would qualify for legal aid services. The original act requires that individuals fac- ing prison time, either through criminal or civil pro- ceedings, be provided with legal aid. Does this mean, then, that legal aid is no longer accessible for people involved in legal proceedings where the penalty may be imprisonment? Hon. G.

Plant: The imprisonment test is a basic test, I'm told, across the country. I expect the society will fund legal aid requirements in circumstances where persons aren't charged with a criminal offence that could lead to the individual's imprisonment, subject to the other important criteria, including ability to pay and things like that.

Of course, as the member knows, the society as it now exists and as it was operating prior to the com- mencement of the current fiscal year did not, in fact, provide funding to all persons charged in criminal pro- ceedings that could lead to the individual's imprison- ment who were otherwise eligible. In fact, government itself directly funded legal aid to persons charged in criminal proceedings that could lead to their impris- onment, in some circumstances, through the process usually referred to as a Rowbotham application.

What we're trying to do here is in fact create a soci- ety that has broad objects and to work with the society to ensure that it understands and implements the obli- gations that lie on the government to provide service in the cases I've talked about, where the constitution as judicially interpreted requires that service be provided but also in a broader range of services. To some extent, government's ability to provide that broader range of services turns on the financial circumstances of gov- ernment.

MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3197 From the society's perspective, I think the society will always want to be in a position to try to use the dollars it has as efficiently as it can to reach as broad a range of clients and circumstances as is possible, sub- ject to some of the limits that are provided for in other parts of the bill. J. Kwan: The current Legal Services Society Act guaranteed individuals involved in domestic disputes access to legal services. Why doesn't Bill 45 guarantee legal aid access to individuals in domestic dispute situations? Hon. G.

Plant: We've taken the approach that the society is there as the vehicle to provide assistance, broadly speaking, to low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems and the other objects I've already quoted that are in

section 9. The society, then, is set up with the capacity and the purpose and the objects of e n s u r i n g t h a t i t c a n d o a s m u c h a s i t c a n p o s s i b l y d o within the financial circumstances that apply to it. In fact, the act goes a bit further than the old act by ex- panding the range of services that can be provided and in that respect, perhaps, expanding our conception of legal aid so that it embraces alternate dispute resolu- tion. It embraces a broader range of justice reform ini- tiatives that I think can assist in providing access to justice as a whole.

Of course, in doing that, there is a need to be mindful of financial limitations. The kinds of situations that the member refers to will always, I think, be a high priority for the Legal Services Society and in the three-year service plan for my ministry. What we contemplate will be available for funding for the Legal Services Society over three years…. We believe the society will, in fact, have the resources that will allow it to provide full coverage in domestic disputes where there is a risk of violence. J.

Kwan: Will an individual still be guaranteed le- gal aid if their legal problem threatens their livelihood and their ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for themselves or their dependents? [1550] Hon. G. Plant: I expect that, to a very real extent, the answer to that question will turn on the availability of the dollars required to fund that service. As the member knows, because she and I have debated at some length in the estimates debate, I expect that over the next three years, in the service plan that has been approved, there will certainly be a much more limited access to civil legal aid. J.

Kwan: Well, then the short answer is no. Will an individual be guaranteed legal aid if the individual's legal problem threatens his or her family's physical or mental safety or health? Hon. G. Plant: Well, it depends on the nature of the problem. Of course, it also depends on the terms of coverage that the society establishes for the services it intends to provide. I think the society will have — it already does but is working on probably revising — in effect, its business plan, its plan of operations, the range of coverage that it expects it will be able to provide.

While it will deal with applications for coverage on a case-by-case basis, I expect it will do so from the basis of certain broad prin- ciples. To give an example in the mental health area, we expect the society will provide legal representation, at least at some review hearings, for clients who are in- voluntarily detained under the Mental Health Act and also at some B.C. Review Board hearings for clients found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible for crimes because of a mental disorder. That might be the kind of thing that was formerly contemplated by the provisions of

section 3 in the existing bill. J. Kwan: Well, with all of the words of the minister, it comes down to this one issue. It is about resources. W h a t w e h a v e s e e n t h i s g o v e r n m e n t d o , o f c o u r s e , i s cut legal aid funding substantively — 38.8 percent. With that, we see the change in the act under the objects of the act. In the original act, the objects

section included a description of the type of legal aid services that the society was obligated to provide for citizens. Bill 45 does not contain a similar section. Let me just read into the record what the previous act said in this regard: "The society must ensure for the purposes of subsection (1)(

a) that legal services are available for a qualifying individual who meets one or more of the following conditions: (

a) is a defendant in criminal proceedings that could lead to the individual's imprisonment; (

b) may be imprisoned or confined through civil proceedings; (

c) is or may be a party to a proceeding respecting a domestic dispute that affects the individual's physical or mental safety or health or that of the individual's children; (

d) has a legal problem that threatens (

i) the individual's family's physical or mental safety or health, (ii) the individual's ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for himself or herself and the individual's dependents or (iii) the individual's livelihood." This

section is very important as it ensures that people in the aforementioned circumstances will be provided with access to legal aid services. The current legislation fails to clearly stipulate the minimum legal aid requirements. Bill 45,

section 21(2)(b), discusses a memorandum of understanding between the Legal Services Society and the Attorney General. It is possible that the obliga- tory legal aid services may be included in this memo- randum. Even if this is the case, the obligatory legal aid services requirement would not be entrenched in the act. In my own view, I don't think that will happen, because it is the same Attorney General who is cutting the resources to legal aid so that they can continue to provide these services. It's the same Attorney General who has cut 38.8 percent off the legal aid budget. So,

3198 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 do I have any faith in the Attorney General coming forth with a memorandum of understanding and en- suring that legal aid services would be provided to all British Columbians who need it? The answer is no. [1555] Further to that, if that is the intent of the govern- ment, why then would the government change this very important

section of the act under Bill 45? Why would they do that? Why don't they just leave in place this

section of the act, which is the objects of the soci- ety, which is essentially the mandate of the society? In my own view, the most important piece, of course, is making sure that legal aid services are provided to British Columbians who are in need. In the area of what is now termed as poverty law, that is completely erased from the objects of the act under Bill 45. Mr. Chair, for that reason I will be voting against the changes as proposed under this act, Bill 45. [1600]

Section 9 approved on the following division: YEAS — 61 Falcon Coell Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Cheema Hansen Bruce Santori Barisoff Nettleton Wilson Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Collins Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Long Chutter Mayencourt Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger Locke Bhullar Wong Bloy Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan On

section 10. J. Kwan:

Section 10, as I understand, gives the soci- ety the capacity of an individual; yet the original act gives the Legal Services Society the powers and capac- ity of a natural person. Could the minister please ad- vise what the difference is between the capacity of an individual and the powers and capacity of a natural person? Hon. G. Plant: This provision takes advantage of the opportunity presented by the fact that we're re- forming the act to update the language. There is no substantive difference. [1605] J.

Kwan: Earlier we touched on the question around commercial activities that would be considered by the Legal Services Society inside and outside of B.C. The minister gave an example in terms of expertise that could be sold. Could the minister please advise what other types of commercial activities the government has in mind? Hon. G. Plant: Well, actually, the government doesn't have these activities in mind. It's the society that does.

It may perhaps involve selling literature or other kinds of intellectual properties developed over the course of the years and that it may continue to de- velop as it does its work. [R. Stewart in the chair.] J. Kwan: Would it include the selling of public legal education materials? Hon. G. Plant: There is the possibility they might do that. They might sell that kind of material to people who don't qualify for legal aid. Of course, there will also be a public legal information and education pro- gram available to ensure that people who do qualify for legal aid get access to information and education. J.

Kwan: Could the minister please advise where the act stipulates the selling of the materials — as an example, public legal education materials — to people who qualify and that they would not be charged? Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm not sure if I understood the member's question. One of the ways in which the society will provide legal aid is by providing people with public legal education and information. The pro- vision of that service to people who would not be able to afford to pay for the information is the kind of thing that I think the Legal Services Society should be doing.

That's why this bill actually expressly contemplates that they'll do that very thing. If someone comes and needs some information about an issue that may relate to a potential legal problem they face, I think the soci- ety will be providing that information to them, particu- larly to those who would qualify on the basis of income levels, without requiring them to pay for it. J. Kwan: What about in the instance where some- one is not qualified for legal aid, not because of the financial criteria but because it's a service that legal aid no longer provides because of the lack of resources

MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3199 from government to provide that legal aid service to that individual? Would they be charged for the legal education materials? Hon. G. Plant: Let me illustrate what I think might happen here. I must admit that this is purely specula- tive, because it's up to the society. The society may decide that it has already developed materials that are pretty helpful in terms of informing people about what their rights are in some areas, and the society may de- cide to see if they can source opportunities to sell those materials in bookstores. At the same time, the society will be in the business of ensuring that it provides a program of legal aid. As

section 11 points out, the society is expressly empowered to provide legal aid by any method it con- siders appropriate including, without limiting this, the services enumerated in subparagraphs (

a) through (

e) of subsection (1), one of which is by providing public legal education and information. J. Kwan:

Section 10(3)(

a) and (

b) of the act stipulate that "the society must not engage in an activity unless it does so without using any of the funding provided to it by the government, or it does so in accordance with this act, the regulations and the memorandum of un- derstanding referred to in

section 21 and money for that activity is available within the budget approved by the Attorney General under

section 18." [1610] This is new in this act. Formerly, in the previous act it was not required that budgets be approved by the Attorney General in this way. This, in my view, is a direct interference by the government into the inde- pendence of the Legal Services Society. Now the work of the society must be approved by the Attorney Gen- eral and within the budget which the Attorney has stipulated. Of course, we know the Attorney has cut the legal aid budget by 38.8 percent — or will be cut- ting it over the next three years.

Therefore, the work of the Legal Services Society is going to be severely cur- tailed as a result of this government's interference in the Legal Services Society's work. The

section also touches on the government or the society, if you will, charging clients for legal aid. I have a fundamental problem with this from the point of view that the clients who will qualify for legal aid are people who are already faced with financial difficulties. That's why they're applying to legal aid when they're faced with a legal barrier. That's why they're applying to legal aid for legal representation. If they were able to pay for it themselves, they wouldn't qualify for legal aid. The current financial eligibility tests are already very stringent, yet it makes the provision under this

section for the society to recover contributions from the client towards the cost of legal aid, so I would have difficulty with this

section as well. As I mentioned, people who are qualified for legal aid are already people who don't have financial re- sources elsewhere to provide for legal aid services. That's why they're there; that's why they're eligible. For the government to want to charge them and to recover costs from these clients — w h o a r e , i n m y v i e w , t h e poorest of the poor — doesn't make any sense. It goes contrary, I think, to the purpose of legal aid, which is to provide legal aid services to the people who couldn't otherwise afford it. Hon. G.

Plant: Actually, what this scheme does is create the possibility for the society to expand the range of services it provides.

I have lost track over the years of the number of lawyers I've talked to who say: "You know, there are cases that are sort of in between that point where clearly they meet the existing eligibil- ity criteria and must be afforded full coverage without any attempt to recover and, on the other hand, at the other extreme, people who earn enough money to pay full freight for the legal services they require." There are many cases in a grey area in between, where people could in fact make some modest contribution towards the total cost of delivering the service they require but could not pay for all of it.

In fact, as the society evolves over the course of the next few years, my hope is that the society will look at this grey area and see whether there are situations where it could in fact provide some level of service to people who are probably above the income level that currently exists for eligibility thresholds and yet, of course, can't pay for all of the services. The society needs the tools to adjust to particular cases where it says: "You know, we think we can go half the distance with you.

You put half; we'll put half." That way, there's access to justice for an individual who would not, on the conventional approach we follow tradition- ally, have access, because it's virtually all or nothing in the current model. I think this is a great provision as we move for- ward, particularly when we look at subsection (3), which the member referred to a few minutes ago. Sub- section (3) also opens up the ability of the society to become more creative in the work it does.

It makes it clear that if the society is getting money from the prov- ince of British Columbia, it has to be accountable to the government of British Columbia for the money it spends. [1615] I've heard the member make the independence ar- gument without explaining it. It seems to me that it's critically important that if government is giving the amounts of money that it gives to the Legal Services Society, the society has to in some way be accountable to government for how it spends that money.

I think it's perfectly legitimate that government, as the funder, be at the table in terms of talking about priorities not for the purpose the member thinks but rather for the o p p o s i t e p u r p o s e o f e n s u r i n g t h a t i n f a c t t h e s o c i e t y does meet the obligation of providing service to people

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0506pm-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0506pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3cfcf094e177da6e93d67effa9b8b46bd4e02926

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