2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Surrey Business Excellence Awards

D. Hayer

Reform of health care system

J. Kwan

Burnaby Cavalcade of Stars

J. Nuraney

Oral Questions

Health care in northern B.C.

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Sea to Sky Highway and transportation infrastructure improvements

R. Sultan

Hon. J. Reid

Communication workshop for health care staff

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Gold Trail school district and school board special advisers

D. Chutter

Hon. C. Clark

Tabling Documents

Office of the auditor general for British Columbia, annual report, 2001-02

Committee of the Whole House

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64)

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

R. Stewart

J. MacPhail

[ Page 4027 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Manhas: I'd like to make an introduction I was asked not to do, but I did

not say I would not. This might provide an important lesson to this person on

how to deal with a politician. I'd like the House to make welcome an important

personality, at least to me: my new legislative assistant in her first time in

the House, Sarah McLaughlin.

[1405]

Hon. C.

Clark: In the Speaker's gallery today we have some remarkable students. They

represented British Columbia at the eighth Canadian Skills Canada competition

this year in Vancouver. Skills Canada competitions allow our students to

showcase their skills and demonstrate their excellence in a wide array of areas

every year, improving the image and the status of technology and trades careers

in B.C.

They did

something extraordinary this past year. Team B.C. beat out every province and

won the Skills Canada competition, bringing home medals in 31 competitions.

These young people demonstrate that British Columbia need not play second fiddle

to any other province or in any other sector. We can compete and we can win.

They demonstrate, I think, the general direction our entire province is heading

in.

It is my

pleasure to introduce them to all of you today: Dave Heyduck of Osoyoos

Secondary is here from Osoyoos; Anthony Yang of Walnut Grove Secondary, from

Langley; Jason Shellborn of the Abbotsford Career Technical Centre, from Dewdney;

Tim Hung of Eric Hamber Secondary in Vancouver; Kris Armstrong of the Abbotsford

CTC, from Abbotsford; Jason Gussen from Hatzic Secondary, from Pitt Meadows;

Emerson Ramirez, from Windermere Secondary in Vancouver; Michael Taekema from

Sardis Secondary, from Chilliwack; Johnson Ng and Jackson Jue of Port Moody

Secondary, both from my home riding of Port Moody–Westwood; Tyler Bancroft and

Jonathan Taggart from Eric Hamber Secondary; Roselynn Vernwood from Vic High in

Victoria; Chris Holbrow and Sean McMurchy of Robert Bateman Secondary, both from

Abbotsford.

I'd also

like to recognize Brad Radmaker of Earl Marriott Secondary from Surrey. Brad

will be representing British Columbia on Team Canada at the World Skills

Competition this June in Switzerland. Congratulations to Brad and all of the

Team Canada winners.

Hon. L.

Stephens: Visiting the precincts today are some other very excellent

students. From Apex Secondary School in Langley there are 12 grade 11 students

procedures, the legislative procedures of government and also the history of

this beautiful, wonderful building that we all cherish and value so much. Would

the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Bond: I want to join my colleague in congratulating the students. I want to

recognize, in particular, the post-secondary students who participated on Team

B.C. at the national skills competition that was held in Vancouver. I can tell

you, I was in Vancouver when the medals were presented. It was one of the most

high-energy, exciting events. Over 1,000 people were in the facility. Parents

were there; students were there.

Team B.C.,

I should tell you, literally kicked butt. We beat the second-place team by a

significant number of…. Okay, I take back….

Interjections.

Hon. S.

Bond: All right. Moving right along, Mr. Speaker….

An Hon.

Member: A technical term.

Hon. S.

Bond: It is a technical term. Thank you.

I want to

tell you that these are extraordinary students who are the future of the

province of British Columbia. Their skills are significant. They will be the

future of skilled workers in this province. I'm so pleased that they were

recognized. It is a legitimate, valid option. I know there are students and

parents here today and teachers with them as well.

I want to

introduce several post-secondary students: Matthew Greenless of Kwantlen

University College, from Surrey; Desmond Hart of BCIT, from Burnaby; and Paul

Kettlewell of BCIT, from Langley. I'd also like to recognize Eric Vachon of UBC,

from Burnaby. Eric will also be joining Team British Columbia as they compete in

the World Skills Competition in Switzerland in June. Please join me in welcoming

and congratulating these extraordinary students.

Anderson: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming here today Ray

Jones, who has come here to visit and have meetings with the Minister of Water,

Land and Air Protection. Please welcome Ray into our precinct.

[1410]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to introduce a special guest in the

gallery this afternoon. Daphne Izard is visiting us today. She's been married to

Ian since 1984.

Daphne and

Ian met in the precinct in 1977, when Daphne was an essential member of the Hon.

Garde Gardom's staff. She worked directly with Mr. Gardom from 1977 to 1986.

Daphne and Ian are the parents of Sasha and Diana, and she is joining us today

to celebrate Ian's 25 years of gainful employment with the Legislative Assembly.

Please join me in extending a warm welcome to her.

[ Page 4028 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) SURREY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

Hayer: I would like to speak today on the merits of teamwork that creates

strong business. Last night in the riding of Surrey-Tynehead, the Surrey Chamber

of Commerce held its annual Business Excellence Awards ceremony. This sold-out

event was a very successful event with the help of many volunteers, sponsors,

chamber directors, the president for the year 2002-03 Bill Hayes, executive

director Patsy Bourassa, Anita Patil and all other staff members.

To achieve

nomination status means they all are winners, but without teamwork, without all

employees and business managers and owners working together, none of them would

have made this honours list. Part of the success of these businesses comes from

the environment this government has created for small business to succeed. I was

past president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce for '96-97, and for many years

I was the board director, and I know from personal experience how hard our

Surrey businesses work to succeed.

With that,

I would now like to name the Surrey Business Excellence Award winners. For small

business, Liquid Labs and CAQTI Cosmetics; for medium business, Astrographics

Industries; for large business, B.C. Biomedical Laboratories; new entrepreneur

of the year, A Dog Day Afternoon, founded by Evelynn Devonshire in my

constituency; customer service of the year, Gold Room Jewellers; and the

businessperson of the year, Lloyd Craig, president and CEO of Coast Capital

Savings.

colleagues and I ask that everyone in the House join me in congratulating these

business success stories

REFORM OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

J. Kwan:

I rise today to speak about an important initiative that's taking place across

this country. Sponsored by the B.C. Health Coalition and supported by hundreds

of organizations across the country, the Call to Care initiative lays out eight

progressive principles to help guide the reform and renewal of our health care

system.

Universal

health care is the most powerful expression we have of our commitment to each

other and to the greater public good. Its future will determine whether those

values still have meaning and a place in our society. But we must continue to

ask the basic question: will health care remain a public good or become a

private commodity? Poll after poll shows Canadians and British Columbians

believe health care should remain public and be a public good and not a private

commodity.

But they're

being worn down. Right-wing governments like the one we have in B.C. pay lip

service to the values of medicare. Bit by bit, cut by cut, they're making the

case for privatization. A few weeks ago, we learned that what now passes for

emergency care in a small community in the Fraser Canyon is a broken telephone

outside a locked emergency door. Who can blame the people of this community if,

even for just one moment, they wonder whether private companies could do a

better job? That's exactly the reaction right-wing governments hope for. What

better way to promote privatization than by so mismanaging the public services

that private, for-profit options begin to look appealing?

Overcoming

that right-wing strategy requires that progressive voices reaffirm our

commitment to medicare's core values but also take very seriously the need for

medical reform and renewal. The status quo is not an option. Money is needed,

but it's not the only answer. Times have changed dramatically since medicare was

founded, and we need to modernize and reform the delivery of public health care

in a way that responds to these changes but remains true to its core values.

That's what the Call to Care initiative is about, and the opposition

congratulates the B.C. Health Coalition for their work.

[1415]

BURNABY CAVALCADE OF STARS

Nuraney: Last Saturday night the Burnaby Arts Council held its annual event

called the Cavalcade of Stars. This was the tenth anniversary of this program,

where the best of Burnaby's talent was showcased. This program encourages our

youth to show their talent and skills on the stage in various forms of art. The

event was held in the Michael J. Fox Theatre, which is also a pride of our

community.

As I

watched our young performers, I could not help but feel proud of our superb

talent. Some of the performers have attained world renown and are performing in

the entertainment centres of the United States.

Michael

Bublé, a singing sensation with a voice that harks back to the great singers of

the forties and fifties, recently signed with Warner Bros. Records. His debut CD

will be produced by yet another famous British Columbian, David Foster, and is

scheduled to be released on Valentine's Day of 2003. He first performed for the

Burnaby Arts Council some six years ago.

Murray

Sawchuk, another performer, started his magic at the age of ten, became

professional at the age of 15 and began to tour the world and became one of

America's top magicians at the age of 20. He presently performs in Las Vegas.

Jonathan

Chan. This 12-year-old is proficient both in piano and in violin. In 1996, when

he was only seven years old, he won the medal of the Royal Conservatory of

Music. He has also performed for the Prime Minister of Canada, and his

performance was an absolute delight.

Michael

Cheung obtained his ARCT, performer's diploma of distinction, at the age of 14.

He has won several awards and certificates of distinction. His performance on

piano was a very impressive treat.

[ Page 4029 ]

Other

performers included Tap Dance Society, Spotlight Dance Centre, youth ballet;

Alita Dupray, a jazz singer; Fraser River Fiddlers; Shayne Johnson; Nadia Kyne,

a young flute player; Sean Bayntun; and Darcelle's Dancers.

The evening

was a wonderful experience, and what is more pleasing is the fact that there are

people like Rose Farina, Nancy Gobis and Linda Cunningham working with the

Burnaby Arts Council seeking out talents to produce the stars of tomorrow.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE IN NORTHERN B.C.

J. Kwan:

The opposition has obtained a memo from Peter Warwick, the CEO of the northern

health authority. It's a frank assessment of the failure of the government's

health care reorganization. Mr. Warwick says that the planned cost savings have

not materialized. He says the cost containment strategies are not working, and

he says the reorganization of health care is going ahead much slower than

planned. The result: the northern health authority has incurred a $1.3 million

deficit for the first four months of this year, when it was planning for a

surplus.

Does the

Minister of Health Planning agree with her hand-picked CEO that her plan for

health care in the north is failing?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would invite the member to a briefing in terms of the division of

responsibilities between health planning and health services. The hiring of the

CEOs is the responsibility of the boards. The boards are appointed under the

advice of the Minister of Health Services.

Mr. Warwick

was the acting CEO of the northern health authority. We now have a permanent CEO

in place by the name of Malcolm Maxwell, who has just recently assumed that

position.

The

information in Mr. Warwick's memo is accurate in that the health authorities are

being cautious in how they roll out the redesign of health care, because we want

to make sure that health care in each of these communities is not compromised in

any way. If it means taking a little bit slower pace in some cases to make sure

that we're 100 percent certain that patient care and safety are not being unduly

compromised, then that is wise and prudent. Thanks very much.

[1420]

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The minister's words are just full of rhetoric, and the minister knows that.

In his memo

Mr. Warwick warns that the deep cuts are on the way in the north if things don't

start to improve soon. That's on top of the huge cuts that have already been put

in place. The memo is right here for the members to see.

The

northern health authority just fired its recruiting consultant and is planning

to reduce the number of operating rooms to four in Prince George. Doctors say

it's going to be a disaster. When will the minister listen to what his own

bureaucrats and the public are telling him and take action to avert the looming

health care crisis in the north?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The action we are taking is, in fact, averting the crisis that would

have happened had we continued with the status quo in health care. I would

advise the member that we made a commitment to maintain a health budget in this

province. We in fact increased it by $1.1 billion. Every single health authority

in the province, including the northern health authority, has seen an increase

in its budget over what was there a year prior.

When I was

up in Prince George just a few weeks back, what I learned while I was there is

that we now have an emergency room that's fully staffed with emergency room

nurses for the first time in many years as a direct result of the changes we

have made. We are opening new renal dialysis programs in Terrace. It's the first

time that whole northwest portion of the province has been served with renal

dialysis services.

Throughout

the north we are seeing, community by community, renewed stability in terms of

the ability to recruit doctors, to train nurses and to train young British

Columbians from those communities in health professions so that they can serve

those communities in the future.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the minister would take a moment and read the memo, and he'll know what is

true and what is not.

It is not

only the north where this minister's health care restructuring is failing. It is

in every part of the province. Let me give the minister one more example. On

October 4, Ingeborg Fuhrmann was admitted to the Peace Arch Hospital after

breaking her hip, following a stroke. Ms. Fuhrmann is 72 years old.

Soon after,

she was kicked out of her room and forced to spend a weekend lying in a hospital

hallway. Her daughter, Doris Madigan, says she was left defenceless. No one was

able to see her or help her. She was not even able to get assistance to use the

washroom. Why, Mr. Speaker? Ms. Madigan says it's because of provincial

cutbacks. The hospital administration says it's the result of overcrowding. If

the minister's plan is working as he says it is, can the minister explain why

this 72-year-old senior citizen spent a weekend lying in the hallway of the

hospital without assistance?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The legacy of health care we inherited as a government was one that

saw emergency

[ Page 4030 ]

rooms being closed. It saw hospitals that were being shut down around the

province because they couldn't be properly staffed.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: We had ICUs in communities in the province that were being closed

down for months at a time because that previous government had not trained the

number of nurses necessary to make sure these facilities are properly staffed.

We have

brought in a major redesign of the way health care is delivered in British

Columbia. It is working because we're actually able to give more dependable,

stable care to British Columbians in every single community throughout British

Columbia. I think we're going to see continued improvement. Clearly, we have a

long way to go to change from the status quo that was there, which clearly was

not working, to a new design that will work for British Columbians in the

future.

SEA TO SKY HIGHWAY AND

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

IMPROVEMENTS

Sultan: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Recently the

government outlined its plans to upgrade the Sea to Sky Highway, Highway 97 and

Kicking Horse Canyon. My constituents support the 2010 Olympics. They also

support seeing that the province's transportation needs are met. Can the

Minister of Transportation explain the government's objectives for Sea to Sky

Highway and other transportation projects in British Columbia?

[1425]

Hon. J.

Reid: It's really important to look at our transportation network as it

integrates, but one of the responsibilities of the province is safety. As we

recognize where the safety problems are, the Sea to Sky Highway has been

identified for many, many years as being a safety concern. In the years 1996 to

2001, there were 3,300 accidents along that

section of highway and,

unfortunately, 34 tragic deaths. So it has been clearly identified as a problem

with safety. Whenever we look at a highway where there is an increased usage, it

changes the dynamics. It is time to address those safety issues, and, the same

as the Kicking Horse Canyon, those are safety issues that need to be addressed.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano has a supplementary

question.

Sultan: A number of my constituents have expressed their desire to be heard

on the transportation needs of our province. After ten years of neglect by the

previous government, many of my constituents want us to get moving on improving

the transportation infrastructure. Can the Minister of Transportation tell us

how British Columbians can provide input into decisions being made by her

ministry?

Hon. J.

Reid: It is important that as we move ahead making decisions in

transportation, we do involve people from all the regions of the province. To

that end, we're going to have regional transportation advisory committees. They

will be in place by the end of this year — just formalizing a structure for

them now. That will provide the regions of the province with direct input into

the provincial decision-making to advise us on the priorities, the spending of

scarce dollars, to make sure we're making the very best decisions that are going

to work for those communities and those regions.

COMMUNICATION WORKSHOP

FOR HEALTH CARE STAFF

MacPhail: My colleague was referring to Ms. Fuhrmann, the patient who had to

sit in the hallway for three days. The same week that Ms. Fuhrmann was lying in

a hospital hallway with a broken hip, down the hall the Fraser health authority

was putting on — wait for it, Mr. Speaker — a communications workshop for

employees. Entitled "Delivering Difficult Messages," the workshop

promises health care professionals help in communicating messages they

themselves don't believe or support.

This

government's botched reorganization of the health care system has made things so

bad at the local level that the health authority now needs to hold workshops to

teach middle managers how to spin bad news. Can the Minister of Health Services

tell us whether he thinks it's better to spend money coaching employees how to

deliver bad news to patients — bad news like, "We don't have a room for

you, Ms. Fuhrmann" — or whether it would be money better spent to

actually give her a room?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I have come to realize, in the 18 months I've had this

responsibility, that there are lots of people who would like to try to protect

the status quo in health care. Clearly, there are those voices who are working

against everything we try to do to modernize and fix and redesign the health

care system in this province.

As I wind

up talking to front-line workers as I go around the province…. Initially we

find people who are anxious about change. I think that's human nature — that

people are anxious about change. But increasingly, as I go around to hospitals

and talk to some of the nurses and the other health professionals in the

facilities, they're saying they're starting to see improvements. They're

starting to see it actually working better throughout the province. I'm the

first one to admit that we have a long ways to go to make sure that the health

care system is actually back on track again compared to what we inherited 18

months ago.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

[ Page 4031 ]

MacPhail: Here's the notice. It says: "Delivering Difficult

Messages." It's from the health authority, talking about delivering

difficult messages as a result of this government's action. The workshop is

about telling seniors and the employees who have to deliver the services to

seniors like Ms. Fuhrmann that there's no room for Ms. Fuhrmann in the hospital.

British Columbians don't want their increasingly scarce health dollars spent on

teaching spin to health care managers. They want it spent on patient care —

patient care they were promised would be there when they need it, where they

need it. This government promised that to British Columbians.

[1430]

Can the

Minister of Health Services explain to Ms. Fuhrmann and her daughter, who is

distraught, why money is better spent on spin workshops rather than on a room

for Ms. Fuhrmann?

Hon. C.

Hansen: One of the instructions that we gave to health authorities in the

province was that they had to, first of all, look at administrative costs in the

province. That's the first place that they had to go in terms of trimming costs.

We took all of the money that was saved by…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …reducing administrative costs and administrative duplication in

the province, and we directed that money into patient care. All of the

initiatives that we have undertaken in health care have been aimed at saving

money in places where it's not necessary and redirecting those dollars into

direct patient care so that people throughout the province can get the care they

need. Hon. Speaker, we're starting to see the results of that reinvestment, and

we will continue to see improvement in the months and the years to come.

GOLD TRAIL SCHOOL DISTRICT

AND SCHOOL BOARD SPECIAL ADVISERS

Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Education. During this past

summer, a special adviser was appointed to the Gold Trail school district to

help manage its budget and to address student needs. Last week the special

adviser released his report. Could the Minister of Education tell us how she

intends to address the findings of the report and ensure that students in my

riding are receiving the education they deserve?

Hon. C.

Clark: I recognize, as a result of calls from many members in the community,

including the hard work of the MLAs in that community, that this school district

was facing some very, very significant challenges. They had some significant

budget challenges that they had been struggling with for many, many years since

amalgamation. They have some other significant challenges with respect to

student achievement in the district, and they have some big issues with equity

and the delivery of education between different groups and different parts of

the district.

recognized that. That's why we appointed the special adviser. Dr. Saywell has

come back with his report and identified a whole number of very, very serious

concerns. I have directed the board to scrap its plan and to come forward with a

new plan forthwith that will allow them…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. C.

Clark: …to deal with these challenges with which they are faced. As

Minister of Education, I need to be concerned at all times with the quality of

education that we provide and make sure that that similar quality is available

in every single district across the province, and that's what we've directed the

district to do.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet has a supplementary question.

Chutter: It was only last April that the minister was entrusted with the

responsibility to appoint special advisers to help school boards to provide

quality education to students. In fact, the Gold Trail school district was the

first to have one appointed. Can the Minister of Education tell us how the

ability to appoint special advisers will help to improve the education of

students?

Hon. C.

Clark: We received requests from across the district, from a whole host of

different groups, to think about appointing a special adviser in this district.

Not only did we hear from MLAs, but we heard from local government, and we heard

from parents that there were concerns that were profound, which we needed to

make sure were addressed.

Our

province, based on estimates from across the country, is about the third-best

funded per pupil across the country, and that's in an environment where we have

the slowest economy in Canada. I think that speaks to our government's

commitment to make sure that education is a priority…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …that spending money on education is a priority and that making

sure that every student, no matter where they live in British Columbia, has

access to a world-class…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …top-quality education that will allow them to compete anywhere,

anytime, around the world.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 4032 ]

Orders of the Day

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Collins: Pursuant to

section 10 of the Auditor General Act, I'm pleased to

table the annual report of the office of the auditor general for British

Columbia for the fiscal year 2001-02.

[1435]

I call

committee stage debate on Bill 64.

Committee of the Whole House

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 64; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:36 p.m.

section

3, sections 5 and 6 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

The issue we're discussing, of course, is about education and information

programs. The minister has appointed himself to be responsible for this, taking

it away from an independent source. Of course, the government has also taken

away some of the key components to education — that is, not just the

requirement to promote the understanding of the code but also to promote the

acceptance of this code.

There is a

myriad of questions that surface with respect to this issue. Just prior to the

lunch break, I asked the minister the question around some of the programs that

were cancelled and were no longer funded, like, as an example, the "Youth

Act Now — End Discrimination" program to fund programs that address

issues of discrimination and bullying in the schools and communities. In the

year 2001, 96 proposals were received. Sixteen actually received funding. The

minister did not answer the question about how he will now engage with youth in

the education system in combatting discrimination and bullying, and I would like

an answer from the minister on that.

Hon. G.

Plant: The question we're debating is whether, in this new code, there

should be a responsibility for developing and conducting a program of public

education and information designed to promote an understanding of this code.

That is a fundamentally forward-looking issue. The decision government has made

is that there should be a provision in the code that speaks expressly to that

and that the minister who is responsible for the Human Rights Code should be the

minister responsible for developing and conducting that program.

We're not

here to debate the details of programs that were administered by the Human

Rights Commission. I don't think we're going to advance our understanding of the

basic decision that is before us by dealing with particular decisions made by

the commission with respect to particular programs. There is no doubt that the

commission has made some decisions to cut back or eliminate the support it

provided to particular programs. I suppose we could have had that debate in the

context of the estimates debate this spring, but we're not going to get very far

along the road towards deciding what to do about

section 5 by dealing with the

particular programs that the commission undertook.

[1440]

J. Kwan:

With all due respect, the change before us right now, the

section we're

debating, is as follows: "The minister is responsible for developing and

conducting a program of public education and information designed to promote an

understanding of this code." Within that responsibility, the parameters

which now exist under Bill 64, I think it is very relevant for this House and

for British Columbians to know what the intentions of this government are.

Just before

the break, when I asked the Attorney General to clarify what his intentions are,

he said: "Don't worry; trust me. I will do my job." Yet if you press

for more details, the minister would likely get up and say: "Don't ask me

that now; ask me later." Well, no. The debate is before us now; the bill is

before us now. The changing of the responsibilities of the Human Rights Act in

the area of education is before us now. What are those changes we are

anticipating?

I think it

is incumbent upon the minister to provide those answers and not just hide behind

a process that says: "Don't ask me now. Ask me during estimates." We

will ask questions during estimates. There's no doubt about it — absolutely.

But those questions are just as relevant now, relative to this legislation,

because that's what this minister is changing. He is changing the mandate and

the provisions in the existing Human Rights Code. What are his intentions? What

is he going to do? What are the programs? How does he expect that youth will be

involved in understanding and learning, advocating and promoting human rights in

British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think I already answered a variation of this question. The fact is

that we spent a fair amount of energy over the past year or so looking,

fundamentally, at the structural issues that are the main heart of this

legislation, and we continue to devote a significant amount of energy toward the

anticipated transition from a dysfunctional structure to the new structure this

bill is intended to put in place.

At the same

time, I am mindful of the interest that exists out there in the public and in

the communities, particularly of groups that are interested in human rights

issues and the question of education. That is why we have ensured that the

minister will have responsibility for developing and conducting a program of

public education and information designed to promote an understanding of this

code.

[ Page 4033 ]

If the

member herself has suggestions about what that program of public education and

information should look like, I would certainly welcome them. She should feel

free to correspond directly with me about those suggestions. She may be of the

view that there are particular programs carried on by the commission that she

thinks we should look at seriously. If that's so, I would certainly welcome

that. We are not, however, going to get to that point until we reach a point of

deciding whether or not the government should have this responsibility. That is

the issue before us now.

J. Kwan:

So the minister has refused to answer the question. He has refused to answer the

question. Maybe (

a) he doesn't plan to do education involving youth, or maybe

(

b) he has no idea, no inkling. It's sort of like the Health minister: charge

seniors first, with income testing, without looking at other options.

The

Chair: Member. Member. Would you sit down, please, member. Would you take

your seat, please. Let's confine our questions to

section 3. Thank you.

J. Kwan:

Yes, Mr. Chair. The questions are related to

section 3. I'm setting out a

juxtaposition of how the minister answered the question or didn't answer the

question.

That is to

say, I suppose it's common practice amongst government to simply pass the buck:

"Let's kill the program, eliminate it, and then we'll think about how to do

it later." It's the same thing with what has happened in the health care

system, and it's the same thing happening right now in the education programs.

Right now the debate before us, Mr. Chair, is a

section about education

programs. I'm asking the minister, as he's changing the legislation, what his

plans are.

[1445]

What

education programs will we see? How does he expect to promote the education and

understanding of the Human Rights Code? He has already said he's not going to

promote acceptance of the code. He will simply send out pieces of information or

pieces of paper, and then that's it. I've already stated that's not good enough.

It's not good enough for a government that proclaims it cares and wants to

advance human rights.

On the

issue around education, which is what we're debating under this

section —

education and information — what are the plans for the government and this

minister to promote education? How are they going to go about doing it? These

are legitimate questions, because formerly in the act, that work was being done

by the commission, an independent arm of government subject to scrutiny by the

public.

I asked the

minister earlier how much he has set aside for some of these initiatives. He

couldn't say. There's no number set aside. Well, formerly the Human Rights

Commission had a budget to do their work. It was laid out; it was clear. Some of

those questions were answered by that. They provided public information for

British Columbians to see and to access. I don't see any indication that this is

going to be the case.

There's no

answer with respect to how this government, this minister, is going to deal with

accessing, providing, encouraging and including youth in advancing human rights.

Will the government conduct research into the human rights performance of

of government services and information to persons with disability? Is that part

of the scope under this section,

section 5, around education and information?

Hon. G.

Plant: No, that's part of

section 6.

J. Kwan:

Okay. The minister goes: "It's

section 6." Well, will the minister

do that work, then, under

section 6? Sections 5 and 6 fall under the realm of

section 3 of the act, which is what the government is eliminating, and that's

what we're debating right now.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I am not sure that I captured a coherent question there.

Section 6 speaks for itself.

Section 6 is about research and public

consultations.

J. Kwan:

How arrogant can we be? Well, Mr. Chair, we can go through this line by line.

Let's go through this line by line. We're debating Bill 64, Human Rights Code

Amendment Act, 2002. We're debating

section 3 under this bill, in which sections

5 and 6 are repealed and the following substituted:

"Education and information programs

5 The minister is responsible for developing and conducting

a program of public education and information designed to promote an

understanding of this Code.

Research and public consultations

6 The minister may

(

a) conduct or encourage research into

matters relevant to this Code, and

(

b) carry out consultations relevant to

this Code."

That's what this debate is about.

The

Chair: Member, would you please be seated for a second. I am finding this

line of questioning very tedious and repetitious, so I would think that we would

try to get to the point. Ask your questions of the minister, and be much more

pointed. Thank you very much.

J. Kwan:

Well, the minister just said he didn't understand what I said. He was suggesting

that my questions were incomprehensible, and I am laying it out clearly for the

minister so he can follow what my questions are. I'm sorry if the minister finds

this tedious. I'm sorry if people find this tedious.

The

Chair: Member, would you be seated, please. Would you please be seated. That

is not the statement the minister made. It is the statement that I have made —

that I am finding it tedious and repetitious. For the Chair's sake, would you

please move on.

[ Page 4034 ]

J. Kwan:

Actually, Mr. Chair, I have not gotten an answer. If the minister does not

understand my questions, then I have to find another way to lay it out, a way in

which he can understand and follow what it is that I am saying. That's what I'm

attempting to do here. I thought that under committee stage, we actually have an

opportunity to ask questions.

[1450]

Relative to

"Education and information programs" and "Research and public

consultations," which fall under

section 3 — which is what we're debating

right now in this House — which is to be eliminated from the old act with a

new substitution of what is prescribed under Bill 64…. I'm asking questions

relative to those programs within it.

What are

the expectations that British Columbians can see? What can they expect to see

from this minister in this area? These are questions that not only I have but

other British Columbians have as well. In fact, I know they have, because I've

received correspondence on it. As we speak, new correspondence has just come

into my office from people who have e-mailed us, who want to ask further

questions of the minister around these changes. I'm just doing my job. I'm doing

my job.

I would

like the minister to explain the question around research. Will he conduct

research into the human rights performance of government, like the commission

information to persons with a disability? That's the first question I have for

the minister, and I hope to get an answer.

Hon. G.

Plant: The issue before us in

section 3 is twofold. The first part of that

is whether the minister should have a responsibility for developing and

conducting a program of public education and information designed to promote an

understanding of this code. We've had a discussion about that for quite some

time. My sense is that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is opposed to

providing the minister with that responsibility. I sense that we're getting

close to the moment when we ought to make up our minds as a committee about that

provision.

The second

part of

section 3 is, if you will, the answer that the government gives to the

question of whether the minister may have the power to conduct or encourage

research into matters relevant to this code and carry out consultations relevant

to this code. The government's view is that the minister should have that power.

I can tell the House that if the Legislature gives the minister that power, I

intend to exercise it.

I have

studied the research that has been done from time to time by the former Human

Rights Commission, and I am confident that government and my ministry can do at

least as good a job as the former commission did with respect to those issues.

The details of what research and/or what consultations might be undertaken are

interesting questions. However, they are, sadly, for the moment entirely

hypothetical, because the minister doesn't have that power yet.

The

question is whether the minister should have that power. That's the issue before

us. My view is that the minister should have the power. I've said that if the

minister is given that power and I'm the minister, then I intend to exercise it.

I intend to exercise it in a manner that gives effect to the purposes of the

code, which we have already approved in this committee stage debate.

J. Kwan:

The issue, in my view, is bigger than just having the right to exercise that

power — so the minister says — in some non-independent agency that will be

doing this work, because in this case we're talking about monitoring government

practices, which the Attorney General is part of.

It's

fundamental to ensure that human rights are enforced and that violations of

human rights, when they are found, are challenged. In my view, to have a

non-independent agency such as the ministry and the Attorney General do that

work compromises the very work it's supposed to do and the goal and the mandate

it's supposed to have.

Now the

minister says: "Trust me. Don't worry. I'll do it." As I said earlier,

I remain suspicious about what exactly this government will do. Let me ask this

minister this question: will he conduct research into the employment equity

performance of the government?

[1455]

Hon. G.

Plant: I might draw the member's attention to the fact that the power that

we're speaking of here is a power both to conduct and to encourage research into

matters relevant to this code. If I were the minister, I could cause someone in

the ministry or someone contracted by government to conduct research, or I could

encourage others to conduct that research. I think that's the power that the

commission had.

The

question is whether we think that power should continue, that opportunity should

continue. If we make that decision here in the Legislature, then certainly I

will be interested in the member's views on what areas should be researched and

what consultations ought to be conducted.

J. Kwan:

I'll just give one example where I think, perhaps not in a big way but certainly

not in the spirit of supporting the advancement of human rights, this minister,

this ministry, has violated…. I know of an individual who was trying to get

access to the new Human Rights Code. The person is blind and could not get the

information because her computer did not provide the information in a form that

she could read in terms of the changes. The minister actually sent out a letter

to some people — of which I have copy from one person who received this letter

— to say that there would be a redline version of the act to show the

differences, the changes that have taken place between Bill 53 and Bill 64.

This

person, who is blind, tried to get a copy of this information and couldn't. They

phoned the ministry's office, but couldn't. The ministry's office just said:

"Hey, we don't have that available." In a very small

[ Page 4035 ]

sense, the person, who has a visual disability, could not access the

information, tried to get that information from the ministry and was not able to

do so. In a very small case, the person was denied, I think, the access that she

duly should have had.

The person

ended up getting the information — unfortunately, not through the ministry but

through other sources: the defenders of the human rights coalition. They

provided the information so that she could read it on her computer. The computer

would read it out loud to her in terms of what the changes are so that she could

see for herself what the information was. It wasn't forthcoming from the

ministry.

This is

from a minister who says: "Don't worry; we'll protect everyone." The

minister couldn't even perform the very basic minimum, which is to get the

information out to the public so that they know what's going on. If part of the

mandate is to promote education about the code, you would think that the bare

minimum that the ministry would do is to provide the information in a readable

form for people who have visual challenges. That was not done. It simply wasn't

done. What's the explanation? How can we trust him?

Hon. G.

Plant: The member's question raises a difficult challenge for me. My

information is that the facts that she has described are not the facts. That

happens from time to time, and I'll refrain from saying how often it happens

when it's this member asking questions. It happens a lot. So the member's….

MacPhail: At least she cares. No one else does — including you.

Hon. G.

Plant: You know what, Mr. Chair? I spent days trying to convince the former

government to start sending its documents out to the visually impaired community

in a way that they could read. The former government did not do that. I spent

days writing letters to the members opposite when they were cabinet ministers,

asking: "Could you please respect the needs of the visually impaired people

in British Columbia?" They would not do that…

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order.

Hon. G.

Plant: …until they were brought and required to do it. To hear those

questions from the members opposite….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order. Order.

Hon. G.

Plant: The hypocrisy they are capable of has no limits — no limits to the

hypocrisy they're capable of.

[1500]

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Plant: If the member opposite who is making her voice heard wants to engage

in the debate, I am certain she will, but from her seat on the floor she should

listen. The truth is that when she was in a position to make a difference, she

had to be dragged kicking and screaming before she would make a difference in

the lives of the visually impaired people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order.

Hon. G.

Plant: They came to my constituency office, and they said: "Why will

this government do nothing to help ensure that the people who have visual

impairment have access to the information that people need in order to form

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order.

Hon. G.

Plant: The member from Mount Pleasant raises an issue that is of concern to

me. The facts that I have been…

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order. The Attorney General has the floor.

Hon. G.

Plant: …told to date in respect to the matter brought to my attention a

few moments ago by the Vancouver–Mount Pleasant member are different from the

ones that she has relayed, but the issue is of concern to me. If she wishes to

write to me to bring that issue of concern directly to my attention, I will

certainly inquire into it.

J. Kwan:

This is the answer from the minister. He tried to imply that somehow the

question that was asked was a made-up question. That's what he implied that I

did. You know what? That question came from the human rights defender.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members.

J. Kwan:

If the Attorney General has forgotten what he said, he can check Hansard.

It's not difficult to do — just like he forgot that he signed an

accountability contract with the Premier.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order.

J. Kwan:

All he has to do is look back on the record. It's there in black and white.

[ Page 4036 ]

The

question, for the record, came from the human rights defender. I didn't make the

question up. The person was not able to get access to the ministry. Maybe if the

minister speaks with his ministry staff, he'll know that.

The reality

is that the person was not able to get access to the changes proposed under 64.

The minister had promised that a redline copy would be made available to

individuals, but the person did not get one.

By the way,

it was just checked yesterday. The website does not show a redline copy. It's

just the plain copy. There's nothing that actually shows there were changes in

comparison. There was a letter from the minister who sent out a letter saying

that a redline version of the changes will be on the website, and it isn't.

Maybe the minister should double-check his facts before he goes about accusing

people of not presenting accurate information, because his credibility, quite

frankly, is on the line.

In spite of

my efforts to ask the minister a question, he hasn't answered the question in

terms of what the new research components will be. Will he conduct research into

the employment equity performance of the government? That was the precise

question that I asked. I just need a yes or no. Is that part of the work plan

under this new research capacity for the minister? Yes or no?

Hon. G.

Plant: I didn't hear the question.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, could you repeat the question,

please.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, for the third time the question is: will the minister conduct

research into the employment equity performance of the government — yes or no?

Hon. G.

Plant: I certainly won't be able to consider whether or not I should do that

until such time as we make a decision whether or not I should have the power

that is conferred or proposed by the new

section 6 of the act. That's the issue

which is before us.

Stewart: I want to raise an issue here, because we've heard a request

several times for an exhaustive list, I guess, of the types of research the

Attorney General may undertake under

section 5 or 6 as amended by

section 3 of

Bill 64. I wonder if I could ask the Attorney General if he has made an

exhaustive list of the issues that he may choose to research into or conduct

consultations on or promote education for. Or is it too early yet to have such

an exhaustive list established?

Hon. G.

Plant: I appreciate the question. I think it's early yet.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

Well, I would like to know from the minister, then, what's being done now. The

Human Rights Commission has been fired. The mandate falls within the ministry to

do this work. He says he can't do anything until the code has been passed, the

new code, under 64. So what's being done now? Is there anything at all?

Hon. G.

Plant: Contrary to the statement of the member in the last question, the

Human Rights Commission has not been fired. In fact, it continues to operate as

we speak.

J. Kwan:

Well, I have press releases from the minister, from the government, saying that

the human rights commissioner has been fired. Maybe he's forgotten about that

too — slipped his mind, sort of like the accountability contract he signed

with the Premier. I have a whole stack of press releases from this government

firing the former human rights commissioner and the interim human rights

commissioner.

Hon. G.

Plant: The chief commissioner of the B.C. Human Rights Commission, appointed

in accordance with the statutory requirements, is an individual named Keith

Saddlemyer.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Keith Saddlemyer is a member of the minister's staff which he says he's

responsible for. If the minister says, "No, Keith Saddlemyer is not a

member of my staff," then the information that has been passed to the

public is erroneous. I spoke just yesterday with a representative of the B.C.

Human Rights Coalition who advised me that she's been dealing with Mr. Keith

Saddlemyer from the ministry's office, the ministry's staff.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, if the member is challenging the question of whether or not Mr.

Saddlemyer is in fact the chief commissioner of the B.C. Human Rights

Commission, that's, I suppose, what parliamentary privilege is about. But the

last time I looked, there was an OIC that appointed Mr. Saddlemyer. Mr.

Saddlemyer is not an employee of the Ministry of Attorney General. In fact, the

information I have received here, without having done much research to know

whether this is in fact categorically true, is that he has not been an employee

of the Ministry of Attorney General.

I'm not

sure where the member is going with these questions, but there is in fact a

Human Rights Commission in British Columbia. It has a chief commissioner, and

the chief commissioner is discharging his responsibilities.

J. Kwan:

Well, if the information I received is incorrect, then I suspect the B.C. Human

Rights Coalition's information they received from the government is also

incorrect, because that's where I received the information from.

The

minister has refused to answer the question on if he will conduct research into

human rights performance of the government, like the commission did, with

persons with disabilities.

[ Page 4037 ]

He's refused to answer the question of if he will conduct research into the

employment equity performance of government. He's refused to answer any

questions relative to the educational programs, such as how he would outreach to

the youth, such as the bullying program that has been cancelled or not funded

anymore. He's refused to answer those questions.

I wonder if

the minister will answer this question. Probably not, but I should ask it

anyway. Will the minister be critical of his own cabinet colleagues if they are

in violation of human rights provisions?

Hon. G.

Plant: Actually, I have a public record already of being critical of my

cabinet colleagues when they do not discharge their obligations.

J. Kwan:

The question, to be specific, is about human rights violations. That is the bill

before us that we're talking about. It seems to me the minister is refusing to

answer that question as well. I'm not quite sure what he's afraid of.

How will he

encourage human rights research?

[1510]

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I think there are lots of ways you can encourage human rights

research. You could speak about the need for research. You could talk to people

who are out there in the world who do this kind of research and sit down with

them and examine the issues that are there and see whether they are interested

in doing this research. It's a pretty open invitation and, I think, a welcome

one.

J. Kwan:

Another non-answer from the minister: "Oh well, it will happen. Something

will happen." That's what he said so far on education, on research. Well,

he's taken away the provision to ensure that the acceptance of human rights will

be promoted by the new Human Rights Code. He's taken away that provision —

unimportant; don't want to be the Big Brother to be doing that. That's what the

minister said.

Who else

will be doing the work of education and research? Does the minister anticipate

that he'll be farming some of that work out to agencies, groups? I want to ask

the question: what kind of funding does the minister anticipate will be provided

for this function?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I won't have any funding to do this unless we decide in this

chamber whether or not the minister should have the power that is contemplated

by the new

section 6. So as soon as I find out the answer to that question, I'll

be in a position to determine how to exercise that authority.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, members, order.

J. Kwan:

I guess the Attorney General's attitude is reflective of the new-era agenda —

no consultation, no transparency, no discussion. The minister doesn't want to

answer questions because perhaps it's difficult for him. Perhaps there's no

funding available for it. Maybe that's the real issue here. Maybe he's worried

that the 77 MLAs sitting on the government bench….

The

Chair: Member, be seated, please. I wish you would confine your questions to

section 3.

J. Kwan:

Well, relative to

section 3 is the notion that the minister is suggesting that

somehow perhaps he would not get the mandate to do this. Well, I question that

logic, quite frankly. Is he anticipating that he would not have the mandate to

do that, given that there are 77 elected government members?

The

Chair: Member, would you please be seated. Member, would you please be

seated. I would ask you once again to confine your questions to

section 3.

MacPhail: I fully understand the rules of the House as well, and let me just

try to rephrase the question that's acceptable to the Chair.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asked what other sources may provide education

and research. She asked a question about whether there might be agencies that

would provide that same education or research.

The

Attorney General rose up and somehow intimated that that couldn't even be

contemplated until he got the power. Inside that was the Attorney General, in a

petulant way, somehow suggesting that none of this would be decided until he

could ram this legislation through, and then maybe he'd contemplate it. We don't

believe that to be true. If it is, isn't that poor planning? If the Attorney

General is somehow saying, "I can't possibly believe that I would get my

legislation through, that the backbenchers may rise up and actually question

this legislation," that would be a first in the history of this government.

But he hid behind that to avoid answering the question.

Through

you, Mr. Chair, to the Attorney General: is the minister at any point

contemplating seeking outside assistance in delivering education and research?

[1515]

Hon. G.

Plant: Yesterday in second reading debate, I spoke at some length about this

subject. I spoke about the mandate that the bill confers upon the minister in

the

section which is now before us, but knowing that there was an interest in

this subject generally, I also spoke at some length about at least two other

ways in which the broad objective of educating people will be achieved. One of

those is the fact that the Human Rights Tribunal itself will have an educative

function in terms of helping people understand how to use its processes. That's

just a

summary of what I said yesterday. Another such is the clinic that will be

established, which will have responsibilities for training and education.

[ Page 4038 ]

Now, one of

the problems with the debate is that the questions are asked again and again,

and after I've answered them three or four times, which is the case in this

case, I eventually find myself incapable of providing the same information over

and over again. I understand the information is not acceptable to the

opposition. I understand that we have a difference of opinion on whether or not

the minister should have these responsibilities.

Fair

enough. But the broad question of education, the broad issue of research and

consultation is in part an issue of principle, if you will. It's whether or not

the minister should have that responsibility. In addition to the responsibility

that is contemplated by the new sections 5 and 6, there are the responsibilities

that the tribunal and the clinic will have, which I spoke about and have just a

moment ago summarized. In addition to that, I think there may well be

opportunity to conduct or encourage research, as is contemplated here by the new

section 6, and I can imagine a wide range of ways in which that research can be

undertaken.

Let me say

this. I agree with what I think the member opposite, the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, was implying at one point in her remarks a few

minutes ago, which was that to some extent, that authority may exist now without

this provision. In fact, I have done that. I have conducted and encouraged

research into matters relevant to this code. In fact, that is the work the

administrative justice project has been undertaking. One of the work products of

that was the 181-page background paper entitled Human Rights Review ,

which is part of the public consultation process that led to this legislation.

If I may

say, with respect, to those who might doubt my intentions, I think that in the

brief time I have been a minister with some responsibility for human rights

issues, I have actually established a track record of showing my interest in and

commitment to the conduct and encouragement of research into matters relevant to

this code. I think it goes beyond that. If you take the code and its purposes

somewhat more broadly than…. Well, in fact, you don't have to.

One of the

first acts we undertook when we were elected to office was to appoint a task

force that examined pay equity issues, public sector pay equity generally and

the specific provisions of the Human Rights Code that deal with equal pay for

equal work. That also was a very extensive study. It involved a considerable

amount of research and resulted in a report that was presented to government. In

both those cases, I could say that the work done by the administrative justice

project and by the pay equity task force involved consultations with the public

and with interested stakeholder groups.

What I

think I'm laying out for the consideration of members is some indication that I

have an interest in this subject, that I have a commitment to it and that I am

willing to follow through on that commitment. I can inform the House that my

interest in this subject has not waned. I believe there is a need for continuing

research and consultations, and I'm hopeful that the House will ensure that the

legislation takes what I think is the desirable step of stating quite clearly on

its face that the minister responsible for the code has the power to undertake

that research and those consultations where necessary.

[1520]

J. Kwan:

The minister keeps on saying: "Trust me; trust me. I'll do it. I have the

power to do it, so don't worry. My interest is there." We have seen where

the minister has gone, where his interest has been directed — elimination of

legal aid as an example in terms of a significant portion of the funding for

people who need legal aid. We know that. I don't know how one could simply trust

this minister, when even his own colleagues didn't trust him in a non-confidence

vote. Colleagues from his own profession could not trust him.

As we

speak, Mr. Chair, e-mails are pouring into our office, questions for the

minister. These are actually quite pointed, these questions. There are some

statements as well.

I would

like to ask these questions to the minister on behalf of this individual who

sent this in just now to our office. She starts off, though, with a couple of

statements:

"The

Attorney General cannot realistically provide human rights education without

a conflict of interest. The AG's legal services branch houses the lawyers

that routinely fight human rights complaints all the way to the Supreme

Court of Canada" — and then it lists some examples. "The cases

were lost at the Supreme Court of Canada at a greater expense to taxpayers.

"The

issue of the Attorney General providing education in human rights is also

unlikely in this era of cabinet solidarity. Will the Attorney General risk

criticizing a fellow cabinet minister" — the Education minister in

this instance — "by speaking out against the lack of accommodation

for special needs students in the school system? Will he encourage parents

to file complaints against the Ministry of Education and the Minister of

Education?"

It's a question that's just come into our office by e-mail today.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, then I want to take advantage of the opportunity to set the

record as clear as I can on that general question.

I think

that wherever people of this province believe they have been the victims of

discrimination contrary to the provisions of the Human Rights Code, they should

know there is in place a tribunal which is there to respond to those complaints,

to receive them, to require the respondent to make answer and, if necessary, to

move towards mediation, negotiation and adjudication of those complaints. For

me, that need is there and that opportunity is there whether the complaint is

against a private party, a neighbour or a government ministry. It matters not to

me if the respondent is the Minister of Education or the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant or the operator of a corner store in some small town

in British Columbia.

[ Page 4039 ]

If someone

believes they have been the victim of discrimination, they should have access to

a process that is fair, effective, efficient and affordable to resolve those

complaints. My strong view is that they do not have that access today, because

the existing institutions do not function well. What we're trying to do is put

in place new institutions that will function well, new institutions that will be

independent. A tribunal will be as independent tomorrow as it is today, and the

tribunal will continue to hear complaints against government tomorrow just as it

hears them today.

I don't

think there is substance to the contention that there is a conflict of interest.

I respectfully suggest that those who make that argument may not fully

understand the unique constitutional role that an Attorney General has in an

executive council. Although I respect the fact that not everyone may understand

that, my view is that there is no conflict. My view is that if called upon to

speak out on behalf of human rights issues, I feel it is my obligation to do so

irrespective of who is the target or the author of the discrimination.

[1525]

J. Kwan:

Maybe what's at issue, then, in the public's mind is that they simply don't

trust this Attorney General. The statutory obligation, as the minister says, is

there. Maybe the issue is that people don't trust it, because they haven't seen

it practised in reality. Maybe that's where the problems lie.

These

questions come in, questions around a potential bias issue. The fact is that

when the commission was in place, it was completely independent of government.

The commission rightly took cases to the court. In the Meiorin case, the female

firefighter denied a government position because of her gender went to the

Supreme Court, and she won — good on her, and good on the Human Rights

Commission, as well, for actually bringing that forward.

A person

with a disability was denied a driver's licence because of his disability —

good on that case as well.

The crux of

the issue, aside from a trust issue in terms of who's going to carry out this

task in a way that meets the public standards, is the issue around monitoring. I

asked the question of the minister earlier: who's going to do the work of

monitoring? There's nobody, especially when the work is to be done in-house by

the government. There's nobody who is there to monitor — no watchdog. Where is

the watchdog provision within education and research?

The

Chair: Member, would you please be seated. Would you be seated, please. I

ask you once again to please confine your questions to

section 3. We're talking

about education and information and research.

J. Kwan:

Yes. My question, Mr. Chair — through you to the minister — is: where is the

watchdog provision that should be required and that needs to be in place for the

minister to actually do the job of research and education?

Hon. G.

Plant: It appears that notwithstanding my valiant attempts, I have not

succeeded in persuading the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that the Human

Rights Code should contain a provision that makes the minister responsible for

developing and conducting a program of public education and information designed

to promote an understanding of this code.

It appears

that I have also failed to persuade her that the Human Rights Code should

contain a provision that's required, which says the minister may conduct or

encourage research into matters relevant to this code and carry out

consultations relevant to this code.

understand that she is opposed to these amendments. We have discussed them at

some length. I do not think there is more that I can add to this discussion. I

can say that these are here for a reason. They are here because the issues are

important. If these amendments pass, the obligations and the responsibilities

will be stated there in the code, to be discharged over time as the ministers

who have this portfolio may feel they are able to, in all of the circumstances,

as they try to do the job they are assigned to do in the best way they know how.

The

question before us, of course, is whether these responsibilities should be in

the act. I know that the member herself is interested, as are those who are

corresponding with her, in detailed questions about detailed activities. That is

not, frankly, in my respectful view, the issue that is before us. I also respect

the fact that the member herself may disagree with my characterization of what

the issue before us is.

What is

clear to me is that we disagree on whether or not these provisions should be in

the code. I think we have made that disagreement as clear as it can be made, and

I am not sure that I am going to be able to provide the member with any further

assistance in terms of understanding the operation of these two provisions.

J. Kwan:

Why did the minister take away the requirement to hold public hearings that was

in the previous code?

[1530]

Hon. G.

Plant: The former act did not include any inquiry act or subpoena powers in

relation to the public hearing component in what was

section 6. I think the word

"consultation" is broad enough to encompass the widest possible range

of discussions, including discussions held at public meetings. The

section as

worded is good enough for the purpose of ensuring that where the minister

believes it's important to do so, consultations can be undertaken that will

ensure that the widest possible cross-section of views is obtained and heard.

J. Kwan:

The previous act, under

section 6(2), reads as follows: "The chief

commissioner or the deputy chief commissioner may hold public hearings and

consultations regarding matters relevant to this Code." The

[ Page 4040 ]

new, revised act says: "The minister may…carry out consultations

relevant to this Code."

Public

hearings have been eliminated as a process. Why is that? Does consultation, in

the minister's mind, already include public hearings? In my view, they're

significantly different in terms of a public hearing versus what one might

describe as consultation.

Hon. G.

Plant: I've already answered that question.

J. Kwan:

The minister talked about the requirement for subpoena powers. In my view,

holding public hearings and consultation are not one and the same.

Hon. G.

Plant: They are the same.

J. Kwan:

They're not one and the same. Maybe in the minister's mind they are, in this

supposedly open and accountable, consultative government. The reality is that

when you have a blind person trying to access the new code, they can't even get

a copy of that from the ministry in a format that's readable for her as we talk

about the revisions of the changes to the code. In August the minister wrote a

letter to people telling them there would be a redline version of the act

showing the changes between Bill 53 and Bill 64. That didn't happen either.

A matter of

consultation may mean one thing to the minister, but to the wider public it

means something completely different. A matter of consultation may mean one

thing in the mind of the minister, but its practice may mean something else

altogether. That's what we've seen to date from this minister. There's no

consistency to all of that, and that's the reality of it.

Sections 5

and 6. What are the changes that we see? We see the government eliminating the

requirement to promote the acceptance of the Human Rights Code. We see the

government taking away its independence — the formerly independent role of the

commissioner to do education, information programs, research and public

consultation. We see the government taking away the prospect of holding public

hearings, making the new code far more restrictive, narrow in its parameters and

vague in its responsibilities.

In the

meantime the minister says, "Don't worry; trust me," when we know his

past record spells it differently.

[1535-1540]

Section 3,

sections 5 and 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Coell

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Coleman

Chong

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Bell

Chutter

Trumper

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Wong

Suffredine

Cobb

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Section 4,

part 1 approved.

section

part 2.

J. Kwan:

Section 5 is a significant one. The entire

part 2 of the former Human Rights

Code is being eliminated.

Part 2 speaks to the Human Rights Commission and the

advisory council, and of course, this establishes the Human Rights Commission

and its advisory council.

To have the

statutory responsibility for the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights

Advisory Council, if this clause under the new Bill 64 passes, it would mean we

will no longer have a Human Rights Commission. We will no longer have a Human

Rights Advisory Council. Before we move into eliminating this independent role

that was put in place about five years ago, moving in the same direction as the

rest of the country, could the minister please advise what role the advisory

council had?

[1545]

Hon. G.

Plant: The advisory council had the responsibility to inform the public

about the work of the commission, ensure that the concerns of the public were

brought to the attention of the commission — I think principally the chief

commissioner — and advise both the commission and the minister on matters

relevant to the administration of this code.

J. Kwan:

With the elimination of the advisory council, how will the community be able to

provide input into the Human Rights Code administrative process?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, one of the ways would be some of the opportunities for

interested persons and members of the public to participate in some of the

processes that might be instituted under sections 5 and 6. I believe, and it has

been my experience, that interested members of the public are able to bring

these issues to the attention of the minister directly. They frequently do so.

That includes, of course, people with

[ Page 4041 ]

expertise in human rights issues. There was an extensive amount of that sort

of input undertaken in the context of the review we did as part of the

administrative justice project, so I know there will be avenues available for

people to provide advice on matters relevant to the administration of this code

without the need for a statutorily created body to undertake that function.

J. Kwan:

Will the tribunal or the clinic be undertaking that function in terms of

receiving input from the public?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I don't think probably in the way the advisory council may have

done it in the past, but for example, I can imagine the tribunal receiving input

and suggestions from time to time on issues like the rules they adopt for

procedure for hearing matters. In that respect, I'm certain the tribunal will

receive and listen to the input that it gets from time to time. I'm sure the

clinic operators will also get suggestions from the people who use their

services about how they might do a better job in providing those services. There

will be some of that, but not, perhaps, in the way the advisory council used to

function.

J. Kwan:

So really, the only access for the public is through the minister. The tribunal

does not necessarily do that work, and the clinic does not necessarily do the

work, the function that used to be provided under the advisory council, so the

only access is through the minister. The minister says we don't need that in the

code; we don't need a statutory authority. It goes back to the whole issue

around independence, the issue around access, and the capacity and ability for

the public to provide that input.

In the

previous

section we've just seen that whatever program is put in place is at the

discretion of the minister. It's up to him to decide by way of consultation.

Public hearings are now gone, no longer available. It's a problematic,

regressive step, if you will, in terms of receiving access for input.

How much is

the annual budget for the commission?

[1550]

Hon. G.

Plant: One thing I might say as we are discussing the advisory council, for

the benefit of those who may be following the debate…. I think the advisory

council was brought in when the current act came into force in the early days of

1997. My understanding is that the council was not actually appointed for the

first 18 months. I think the council during its life provided two reports, and

I'm not certain that the council had much success in persuading the commission

to adopt its recommendations. Viewed from a distance, I'm not certain that the

council during its life added to the process of our continuing development of

our understanding of how human rights processes ought to work — or, at least,

added much. In saying that, I want to be clear I'm not saying anything about the

diligence or the dedication of the people who may have from time to time served

as members of the council. It's more a structural question.

I know this

advisory council did also make some recommendations with respect to substantive

amendments to the code, which the former government chose not to implement. So

in that respect, too, I think you could say there was probably a sense of

unfulfilled purpose. For that reason, also, I think we can make the decision to

move forward without this council. The member was asking what the budget was for

the commission. I'm not certain what financial year she means.

J. Kwan:

For this fiscal financial year.

The

Chair: For this fiscal year? Attorney General.

Hon. G.

Plant: The budget for '01-02 is $4.685 million. I don't have the number for

'02-03 in front of me, but I expect it's in the estimates of the Ministry of

Attorney General.

J. Kwan:

Maybe I can give that information to the minister. The reason I ask this is

important. One would have expected the minister to know, in an area as important

as human rights, how much he has allocated to it in his budget this fiscal year

and how much has been cut from it, then to anticipate the same amount being

transferred to the clinic and to the tribunal. The information from the

estimates process has it that the Attorney General's budget for '02-03 is $3.9

million for the commission and $1.2 million for the tribunal. It's a substantial

difference in terms of the dollars. The question to the minister is: will the

$3.9 million attributed to the commission now be transferred to the tribunal, or

does the money go back to general revenues?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm not certain I can give the member an exact figure at this point.

We are still looking at what it's going to cost to operate the tribunal in its

reconfigured form, assuming this legislation passes. I expect that much of what

is unspent from the current fiscal year will be available for the tribunal to

spend in the balance of the fiscal year, assuming it gets up and running in the

next few months, and then we'll get into the business of determining what the

budget will be for the tribunal for fiscal year '03-04.

J. Kwan:

It's a fairly straightforward question, I think. This act says the Human Rights

Commission is now gone. The budget for it for '02-03 was $3.9 million. In

addition to that, there was $1.2 million for the tribunal. Now there's a new

system in its place. Well, how much money is being put forward for the new

system? Is it the full $3.9 million plus the $1.2 million, or is it just $1.2

million? What is it as a ballpark figure, if the minister doesn't have the exact

amount?

Hon. G.

Plant: That was almost exactly the question that was asked of me a moment

ago, and I did try to answer it. I'm not in a position to give an exact num-

[ Page 4042 ]

ber, because we are still putting in place the transition into the new

system. While we have some pretty well-developed ideas about what the new system

will require, we are still doing the final work necessary to put the new system

in place. Then we will, of course, be on the cusp of a new fiscal year.

[1555]

But I am

quite confident that all of the money that was allocated for both the commission

and the tribunal will be available to ensure that we have funding for the new

tribunal as we move forward into the post-transition era.

Whatever is

left from the $3.9 million and the $1.2 million….

MacPhail: The post-transition era. When will that be — tomorrow?

The

Chair: Order, member. Let's listen to the response, please.

Hon. G.

Plant: Whatever is left from the $3.9 million and $1.2 million will be

available for the tribunal when the tribunal is up and running, which I expect

to happen before the end of the current fiscal year — some months before that.

J. Kwan:

It's astounding. Is the minister saying he has not gone to Treasury Board

with respect to this issue in terms of how much funding he needs to fund the new

model, the new system? It will be unbelievable if it's the case that he doesn't

know what the Treasury Board submission is.

Hon. G.

Plant: The legislation will come into force by regulation. One of the

reasons why that is so is that when we have the statutory framework in place, we

will then be in a position to design the finishing touches of the structure that

we believe will work. As we do that, we will then go to Treasury Board and

cement the funds that are necessary.

I've

already explained to the member that the dollars that are available now, I

expect, will be available and will be spent by the tribunal when the tribunal is

up and running, which I hope will be in the early part of the new year.

J. Kwan:

The minister doesn't know what education programs are going to be in place.

He doesn't know what research consultation is going to be in place. He doesn't

even know what the budget's going to be, yet he's brought in a new model. He's

eliminating the old Human Rights Commission. So he has no idea what this new

model really is going to do or how much is going to be in place for it to do its

work.

He says:

"Don't worry; trust me." It's stunning. It's unbelievable for the

minister to make such a suggestion. Have there been any negotiations with the

Human Rights Coalition on how much money will be allocated or provided to them

for them to do the tribunal work?

Hon. G.

Plant: I actually think it's reasonable to start with the statutory

framework. We, of course, have done a significant amount of work in anticipation

that the change will take place, but the final details are not in place, as the

member herself knows.

We were

engaged in a process of public consultation after Bill 53 was introduced, and

Bill 64 was introduced at the beginning of this week. It is different in some

significant respects from Bill 53. We are building a model for how the new

structure will work that will, I hope, be given approval by this assembly, at

least the framework will be given approval, and in the months to come — and

weeks to come; it's not going to take forever — we will put the finishing

touches on the institutional design. We'll sit down with Treasury Board to

ensure that we have adequate resources so that this tribunal can move forward

and do the work it will be required to do.

J. Kwan:

So the minister doesn't know. I asked a specific question around

negotiations and discussions with the new agencies that are supposed to take

over this work for direct access in terms of tribunals. Have there been any

discussions or negotiations with these agencies in terms of what role they might

take? How much would it cost the government for them to perform that task? Is

the minister saying he doesn't know and that there have been no negotiations

taking place?

[1600]

Hon. G.

Plant: It's 4 o'clock on a Thursday. I just hope that when I say what I'm

about to say, the member will understand that I'm trying to make sense of her

question.

I actually

was sitting in this chamber when they — it may even have been her, for all I

remember — stood up and announced they were going to spend $125 million on a

mental health plan. In fact, they made that announcement without actually having

secured any funding.

That's a

pretty remarkable way to do things. I think the better way to do things is one

step at a time instead of standing up and telling the people of British Columbia

that they're going to spend a concrete sum of money when you don't even have

permission to spend five cents of it. I'm not sure that's a model that works.

For me,

we're doing this one step at a time. Yes, we have had some discussions with the

coalition and with the Community Legal Assistance Society about their role, and

we've certainly worked with them. What I can say is that we are also beginning

the work to develop what I expect will be an RFP, or some process similar to an

RFP, and working with the Purchasing Commission to ensure that we take the steps

we need to take to ensure that as we move forward in the months to come, we put

in place a program and an institution that is on solid and sound fiscal footing

and that has the resources it will need to do the job we will be asking it to

do.

[G. Trumper in the chair.]

J. Kwan:

Isn't that fascinating? The minister has not gone to Treasury Board. He doesn't

know how much is

[ Page 4043 ]

going to be allocated for this work. He doesn't know what the process is

going to be. He doesn't even know what it is that they're going to do. Yet when

this piece of legislation passes, when this

section passes, the government is

going to eliminate the Human Rights Commission and the tasks and

responsibilities associated with it.

He has no

replacement. He doesn't know what the replacement is going to look like. He

says: "We're planning it."

Then he

brought up the whole issue around the mental health plan. I was just talking to

members in the community about how it's going. "Are you guys getting the

services? Is the funding in place that the government supposedly says is in

place?" Meanwhile, we see mental health services, agencies, living rooms,

counsellors, outreach workers being eliminated from the communities. Community

agencies are shutting down because they don't have the money.

I ask them:

"The government says the money is there. Where is it?" Maybe this is

what's happened. The Minister of State for Mental Health has forgotten to go to

Treasury Board. Maybe that's the issue here, just like the Attorney General who

has not gone to Treasury Board to get approval to fund the tribunal and the

clinic in the new model that is supposed to replace the Human Rights Commission.

Maybe that's what's happened.

You talk to

the people on the ground in the area of mental health, and they are saying that

they don't see the money. The money has not flowed. They have not received it.

If it has gone to the health authorities, they have not passed it on to the

arena of mental health. That's why you see living rooms closing and you see

counsellors and outreach workers being eliminated. People who have mental

illnesses do not have access to services all throughout British Columbia. That's

the reality of it.

Maybe

therein lies the problem. The minister forgot to go to Treasury Board to get

approval for it. Maybe that's the Minister of Finance's problem, actually. Is it

any wonder under the new Liberal regime that we have the highest deficit ever in

the history of British Columbia? Is it any wonder that they cannot manage their

finances? They, perhaps, don't know what the ministers are doing because they

haven't gone to Treasury Board. Or is it more plausible that the information is

available and the minister is not providing that information in the House?

Either way is equally bad. Either way it doesn't matter. The government is not

providing the information.

What about

the staff? I wonder if the minister would know what would happen to the staff.

Will the staff currently working at the Human Rights Commission have the

opportunity to be transferred to the tribunal model?

[1605]

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm informed that the workforce adjustment policy is being applied

here in the same way as it has been applied to other agencies in government that

are in a line-down situation.

J. Kwan:

In other words, no. The staff at the Human Rights Commission would not be

transferred to the new model or would not have access to the positions open in

the new model because in the new model, as I understand it, the Attorney General

is contracting out these services. I suppose the individual would be able to

apply through an open process just like everybody else who is lined up, but none

of the provisions around seniority, experience, etc., would apply to them. Those

workers would have the rights within government but not in the new tribunal

clinic model.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I think I answered the question by saying that the workforce

adjustment policy will be applied. Within the terms of that policy there are, as

I understand it, many different options about what may happen to individuals

that are employed in these agencies. No doubt a number of them will be let go.

That is a regrettable consequence, I suppose, of restructuring.

I think the

overriding public interest here is to move to the construction of a new

framework that will operate a little bit differently and, I hope, more

effectively. That, fundamentally, is the question raised by

section 5 of this

bill, which, as the member knows, will repeal the commission and the advisory

council.

J. Kwan:

There is a simple answer. The answer is just no. Why doesn't the Attorney

General just say that? The minister wants to hide behind notions of: "I

don't know. I haven't been to Treasury Board yet. I don't know what the funding

is going to be. I don't know what the new program is going to be. I don't know

anything." You start to wonder: what does the minister know, then?

We're

bringing forward a brand-new act, a brand-new model. We're throwing everything

out. This

section talks about eliminating the Human Rights Commission. Never

mind that. Let's just get rid of it. We don't know what we're going to replace

it with. The staff, quite frankly, who are working there now wouldn't have a

right to be transferred to the tribunal, to the clinic. There will be a variety

of workplace adjustment initiatives and so on within government, but the

government is going to contract out these services. That's the reality of it.

I don't

know why the minister just doesn't come clean. Maybe it's difficult for him to

admit what they are really doing. Maybe that's just hard for him to do. But if

you're doing it, stand up. Stand up and admit it.

What will

the intake process be like under the direct access model?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I think that we're not there yet, because the direct access

model really is part of the provisions around the new, expanded role that the

tribunal will have.

[ Page 4044 ]

The

section

that is before us is a

section that will eliminate the commission and the

advisory council. I certainly look forward to discussing the intake model when

we get to the sections of this act that deal with the tribunal.

J. Kwan:

So the minister is eliminating the Human Rights Commission and the advisory

council. That's the

section we are dealing with. In its place, the Attorney

General says there will be the direct access model and says: "Oh, can't

talk about that."

[1610]

Maybe the

minister doesn't know what that model would look like either, seeing as he

doesn't know how much is going to be required, what function or what education

programs, what research programs are going to be in place, what consultation

processes are going to be in place. Why not add this one too? Who knows? Let's

just throw the baby out with the bathwater, and then we'll decide later.

Then on the

process, he says: "Trust me; don't worry" — sort of like the

Minister of Education when she increased pressures for the school boards for

education. Sort of like that, Madam Chair. "Don't worry. I'm not cutting

education funds. It's just that schools are closing. It's just that classroom

sizes are increasing. That's all. Don't worry."

In this

case around the Human Rights Commission, the government is eliminating the Human

Rights Commission, eliminating the advisory council, but he has no answers on

what some of the programs would look like once this takes place. It's rather

astounding. He doesn't even know what the budget would look like once this

happens. It really is quite astounding.

How does

the removal of

part 2 of the Human Rights Code, which establishes the Human

Rights Commission and puts in place a chief commissioner, a deputy chief

commissioner, a commissioner of investigation and mediation, the terms of

appointment, its functions…? How does the removal of the Human Rights

Commission comply with the Paris principles?

Hon. G.

Plant: I respect that the member has interest in international law, but I'm

a bit loath to get into a line-by-line discussion of the Paris principles. One

of the requirements of the Paris principles is that there be an independent

institution capable of dealing with human rights issues. Well, we'll have that.

We have that now. It's called the tribunal.

There are

other requirements of the Paris principles: that the people who are appointed to

that agency be appointed for certain terms, that the agency be independent of

government, that the composition of the members of that agency be diverse. Those

are all aspects of this new structure that will be in place when the bill is

passed, assuming it's passed. I think they all comply with the basic

requirements of the Paris principles. I spoke about that in second reading

debate.

I also

spoke a little bit about the failure of the current model. Some will say I spoke

at some length about the failure of the current model. My view is I didn't speak

at enough length about the failings of the current model, because they were

many, and I think it's an exciting time here to move forward to a new model that

I believe will provide complainants and respondents with a process that's fair,

that's independent and that focuses on problem-solving.

I think

we're doing some good work here. We're doing work here that I think is

consistent with Canada's international obligations. I might point out that other

jurisdictions around the country and, I think, in other parts of the world are

wrestling with the problems of a model similar to the model we have in place

now. I think there is a reform movement growing and that the reform movement

that is building is a reform movement which will look to this new model as a

leading-edge example of a system that will do a better job of protecting

complainants and respondents than the current failed system.

I'm

confident that we are in compliance with Canada's international obligations. I'm

certain that the tribunal, in its operation, will continue to respect those

principles.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

So everybody else is wrong. The minister is right. The Greater Vancouver

Japanese Canadian Citizens Association, the BCGEU, the Canadian Centre for

Policy Alternatives, Amnesty International, the B.C. Association of Social

Workers, West Coast LEAF Association, the Canadian Association of Statutory

Human Rights Agencies, the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities and, I

would venture to add, even the B.C. Human Rights Coalition — they're all wrong

when they say that the government, by doing this, has stepped backwards in time

by taking away the independent role of the Human Rights Commission to advance

human rights, in violation of the UN Paris principles. All these agencies are

wrong. The Attorney General himself is right. All these people are wrong.

Let me just

put on the record, to remind the minister, the Attorney General, the premise of

the Paris principles, which establish minimum standards for human rights

agencies. Standards include independence guaranteed by statute or constitution,

autonomy from government, diverse membership, a broad mandate based on universal

human rights standards, adequate powers of investigation and sufficient

resources. The Paris principles make clear that the independence of human rights

agencies is important to ensure that human rights agencies are able to speak out

on important human rights issues, that complaints against government are dealt

with fairly, that they advocate for marginalized groups in society and that they

educate the public on the impacts of discrimination. In other words, issues

around independence, around education and around the promotion of human rights

all fall within the realm of the Paris principles.

Yet what we

see now under Bill 64 is the elimination of independence. The role now falls on

education, on the promotion of the understanding of the code — what's now

eliminated on the promotion of the accep-

[ Page 4045 ]

tance of the code. Those things are now gone. It's to be done by government,

done by the minister. It's no longer an arm's-length independent agency that

would do that work. Only government would. It's a fundamental violation. I would

argue, as other groups have — all the groups that I have read out — that

this is a violation of the UN principle.

The

government, the Attorney General also, under this part, would be eliminating

annual reports that were put forward by the Human Rights Commission. Will there

be annual reports from the new model? Who will be putting out the annual

reports, or will there be any?

Hon. G.

Plant:

Section 39.1 of the new act, which is in

section 20 of the bill, has

an annual report obligation.

J. Kwan:

What about special reports? Who will be doing special reports?

Hon. G.

Plant: There's no special report function in the new act. The commission, of

course, will cease to exist.

J. Kwan:

Nobody will be doing special reports. Under the old code, which the government

is now going to eliminate after this

section passes, is

section 19, on special

reports.

"

(1) The chief commissioner may submit a special report to the minister

concerning any matter regarding human rights in British Columbia that the

chief commissioner considers to be of such urgency or importance that it

cannot be deferred until the next annual report under

section 18.

"

(2) The minister must promptly lay the report before the Legislative Assembly if

it is in session or, if it is not in session when the report is submitted,

within 15 days after the beginning of the next session."

[1620]

There will

be no more special reports under this new model. Whose role, then, would it be

to monitor issues around human rights that are of such urgent nature — that

was formerly done by the commission, by the chief commissioner — that the

commissioner deems it important enough to put forward a special report? Whose

role would that be now?

Hon. G.

Plant: I am advised that the only occasion on which a special report was

ever prepared was in about 1998. There was a special report prepared by the

commissioner. It was submitted to the former government, and the member opposite

and her colleagues rejected the recommendations in the report. My view, looking

at that track record along with the overall institutional issues I described at

some length in my second reading remarks, is that for that particular function,

I think its removal will not represent any significant impact on the protection

of human rights in British Columbia.

J. Kwan:

The Attorney General misses the point entirely. The function was there under the

old Human Rights Code, and it was up to the commissioner to exercise that right.

Now the minister is saying: "You know what? I'm not even going to give you

that right to exercise." It's not there. There is no opportunity for any

body to do that, and that's precisely the issue of independence — an agency

separate from government is given these authorities to bring forward issues and

matters for the information of the Legislative Assembly.

That

function is now gone, and the government says it doesn't matter. It's sort of

like: "I don't know what the budget is. I don't know what the education

program's going to be. I don't know what the research capacity is going to be. I

don't know what the new direct access model is going to be. I don't really have

answers to all of that, and by the way, there's no need for special reports. It

was only exercised once. So what? Get rid of it — unimportant."

Maybe

that's all part of the Attorney General's vision of how British Columbia should

not promote equality and justice, not promote the acceptance of human rights.

Maybe that's the real approach: to eliminate all the tools that are available to

it so I could achieve that goal of not promoting acceptance of human rights in

British Columbia. That's the pattern that has been developed. It almost makes no

sense. Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that issuing special

reports was only exercised once and that the government of the day did not

accept the recommendations, so don't even give them the capacity to raise the

issues. It is unbelievable.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The Attorney General is saying: "There's no them." Yes, there is no

"them," because under this provision the Human Rights Commission is

being eliminated. It is being eliminated, and the minister is so proud of that.

It is just fantastic: "Hurray, hurray for us. We got rid of the Human

Rights Commission. No more Human Rights Commission for British Columbia. It's

the first jurisdiction to cancel human rights. Excellent. Isn't that just

fantastic?" The Attorney General is just so proud of that record. It's

another notch to add to his belt. Cancel legal aid. Cancel the Human Rights

Commission. "Gee, what else can I do? How else can I set the clock

back?" I'm sure the minister will think of many ways. I have no doubt about

it. But you know what? The public finds it quite reprehensible. Even people who

agree with some of the changes find it reprehensible. The Human Rights Coalition

finds it reprehensible. This is in violation of the UN Paris principles. That's

what we have right now.

[1625]

No special

reports. Does the minister not anticipate there would be human rights issues

which may surface that need urgent attention, that need to be brought to the

attention of the Legislative Assembly?

Hon. G.

Plant: On the general issue of how and when we'll…. As members of the

public learn about the

[ Page 4046 ]

human rights issues, the member repeatedly refers to the Paris principles.

One of the Paris principles, I believe, is a principle that an agency

responsible for adjudicating human rights disputes should make its decisions

public. In fact, the Human Rights Tribunal does make its decisions public, and I

have read a number of Human Rights Tribunal decisions over the years. Some of

those cases, obviously, concern government, and I know the member is

particularly concerned with human rights issues as they affect government.

This code,

of course, deals with human rights in the private sector as well, but I have

seen that in both cases the tribunal members, who often write very extensive

reasons for judgment, can speak at some length and do speak at some length about

systemic issues. They bring issues to the attention of government. They

criticize government for having failed to act in a way which respects human

rights. They create remedies which impose obligations on government, and in that

way, I think, do a lot to ensure that we as citizens know more about human

rights issues. Perhaps it's not a stretch to suggest that tribunal decisions,

which are rendered on a regular basis, would be a more effective tool than the

special report tool ever has been for ensuring that the public know about the

kinds of issues that the member is concerned about.

I know we

will continue to have published tribunal decisions as we move into the new

model.

J. Kwan:

Public tribunal decisions are different from special reports. They're two

separate matters altogether, Madam Chair. For the Attorney General to pretend as

though somehow they are one and the same is false. It's false. Special reports

are completely different, and that's why there is a special provision under the

code which the Attorney now is going to eliminate.

To fire a

human rights commissioner, to eliminate the Human Rights Commission, to

eliminate the advisory council somehow, according to the Attorney General, is a

good thing and advances human rights advocacy in the province. It's

unbelievable.

The

minister talks about one of the principles within the Paris principles that he's

abiding by, but the reality is that a fundamental premise around the Paris

principles is independence. There is no independence here under Bill 64. There's

no independence here around that, Madam Chair.

The

minister is fond of saying: "Trust me; trust this government. We know what

we're doing." So far, if they know what they're doing, then it's a targeted

attack on advancing human rights. That's what they're doing. Otherwise they're

simply working towards a dark tunnel where the minister doesn't know his budget.

He doesn't know the functions within it, who's going to do it and how it will be

carried out.

It's

astounding, as I said, either way. The opposition does not support the

elimination of the Human Rights Commission, one of the first Canadian

jurisdictions for that to happen. The first Canadian jurisdiction to fire the

human rights commissioners, to take away a very fundamental, important role that

ought to be part of our history, a history we want to build upon not dismantle.

[1630-1635]

Section 5,

part 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 38

Falcon

Coell

Hawkins

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

Nebbeling

Stephens

Coleman

Chong

Anderson

Harris

Nuraney

Chutter

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Wong

Suffredine

Cobb

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Section 6,

part 3, and

section 7,

section 21 approved.

[1640]

section

section 22.

MacPhail: This

section deals with a time limit for filing a complaint. The

Human Rights Code that's been in existence for a decade had: "A complaint

must be filed within one year of the alleged contravention." The Liberal

government's change to this

section now says that a complaint must be filed

within six months. Could the Attorney General explain the shortened time limit,

please?

Hon. G.

Plant: Across Canada the time limit for filing human rights complaints and

the ability to extend that time limit vary considerably. The time limit in

Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland is six months. The time limit in Alberta, New

Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and the federal time limit is a year. I'm

told there is a two-year time limit in Quebec and Saskatchewan and no time limit

in Nova Scotia. Clearly, a variety of approaches are available and have been

taken.

We think

one of the things that the human rights process urgently needs is an approach

that focuses on early resolution. This is a component in that new approach that

ensures that allegations can be dealt with quickly and promptly — among other

things, of course. If it's the kind of allegation and the kind of complaint that

will eventually lead to some measure of

[ Page 4047 ]

adjudication, it's always in the best interests of the administration of

justice to ensure that we move quickly so that witnesses are available and

memories are fresh.

I think

it's also important to point out in this context that there is a provision that

will give the member of the tribunal the discretion to extend the time limit in

certain limited circumstances. That's there to ensure that the process is fair

and the public interest is served. I think, on the whole, this is a good step in

terms of achieving our overall objective of trying to make the process — which

has been, sadly, riddled with delay — move a little bit more quickly.

MacPhail: Well, there's always been a right for the commissioner of

investigation to extend the time period for filing a complaint, so that's not

new. The only new aspect of this is the reduction of the time a complainant has

the right to file her claim from one year to six months.

I noted

with interest that the Attorney General did a survey of the time limits across

the country, and it turns out that British Columbians now will have the shortest

time line available to file a complaint. Government didn't decide to extend the

right of a British Columbian to file a complaint to the longest time limit

existing in Canada, but to the shortest time limit existing.

Once again,

unless you're a business person in this province, you get ratcheted down. If

you're a business person, you get the maximum benefit, when looking at a survey

across other jurisdictions. The bar is raised for business people, but if you're

an ordinary British Columbian just asking to exercise your rights, this

government puts you down to the lowest bar possible.

What has

the Attorney General prepared to inform the public of the difference in time

lines now available?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I didn't hear the question at the end of the

statement.

MacPhail: What preparation has the Attorney General done to inform the

public of the changed time lines available for filing a complaint?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, we haven't done that yet. We are about to decide whether to do

that. Of course, this debate is taking place in public, so that's part of the

process. As we move towards the implementation of the new system, we will be

preparing information and documents that will publicize the new model. I expect

that information will include information about the new time limit for filing

complaints.

MacPhail: I may be repeating a question that's already been asked, but it's

a short one. The act will be brought in by regulation. It sounds to me like none

of this work is being prepared as we speak, so I assume bringing it in by

regulation is quite down the road. Can the Attorney General tell us when it's

going to be brought in by regulation? Then that would allow us to continue to

ask the questions about informing the public about these changes.

[1645]

Hon. G.

Plant: We are hopeful that the new system will be up and running sometime

between the first of the new year and the end of March.

MacPhail: That's at the outside five months from now. Are there no thoughts

on how there's going to be a public information campaign about these changes?

Hon. G.

Plant: There are, I suppose, a variety of ways that this can be done. As

I've said, with respect, we're doing it now. There are TV cameras. People at

home are watching.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Plant: No, in fact, the former chief commissioner, I'm certain, is glued to

her TV screen at this moment. But that's neither here nor there.

There will

be widespread publicity of the implementation of this new scheme. If the member

has particular suggestions about the form that should take and whether she

believes government should undertake a campaign of public advertising or

notification, I'd certainly be interested in hearing her views. What I can say

is that we will do what is necessary to ensure that members of the public have

an understanding that we are changing the way in which the human rights system

works, and we will do what is required to provide the tools necessary for people

to understand what those changes are.

MacPhail: So I take it, with that vague answer, that there are no plans in

the making as we speak. The communications of the public affairs bureau, the

ministry of truth, hasn't actually prepared any initiative around this. Is there

nothing in the works?

Hon. G.

Plant: I am advised that the arrangement we have concluded or expect to

conclude shortly with the coalition will give them…. I'm told that what will

happen is that we will collectively start publicizing the new code once the bill

is passed.

MacPhail: What will the change mean for complainants? What's the history of

the time lines for filing complaints?

Hon. G.

Plant: I don't know if the commission kept statistics about the length of

time complainants took to file their complaints. In our view, six months is a

reasonable time line. It's a time line within which, for example, complaints

under the Employment Standards Act must be filed. It's also the same time limit,

for example, that charges that are being proceeded with under the Criminal Code

by way of

summary conviction must be laid. Six months is, I think, a reasonable

length of time for people who have been the victims of dis-

[ Page 4048 ]

crimination to step forward and at least initiate the process that is going

to be available to them to lead to a resolution of their complaints.

MacPhail: I just note for the record that the filing of employment standards

complaints within six months was a reduction brought in by this government in

terms of the time available to file an employment standards complaint. It is a

bit surprising that the minister did a survey across the country, chose the

absolute minimum time available to file a complaint that exists anywhere and

then has no statistics to back up how this would affect complainants. I assume

that on an application, one has to file the date when the alleged offence

occurred, and then there would be a date on the application. That would be the

length of time it's taken to file the complaint. Am I to understand there are no

statistics to that effect?

[1650]

Here's why

I ask, Madam Chair. It's because I would like to know whether the reduction from

one year to now six months…. How many complaints would that have affected in

the past?

Hon. G.

Plant: We have had some discussion over the past few hours and this week

about the institutional history of the commission. Those who followed that

discussion may not find it a surprise when I say that the commission actually

did not keep any statistics about the matter the member is asking about.

MacPhail: Was it just a survey of what's the least commitment the government

can make to people who have human rights complaints? Is that the basis on which

it chose six months? I'll tell you, it is not a legitimate reference to make to

the time that police can file charges, because police have institutional

resources. I'm sure the minister, if given a chance, will stand up and say it's

not the police who file charges. Whoever it is — the Crown…. If it's the

Crown who has to file charges, the Crown has institutional resources that are

not available to a complainant on a human rights matter.

Hon. G.

Plant: The rationale behind the reduction in the time limit has already been

explained. We have a process that was riddled with delay, a structure that bred

delay. Delay has the impact of reducing and minimizing the opportunities for

early resolution of the issues that give rise to these complaints.

We looked

at this structure from the perspective of how we could simplify it, streamline

it, make it more effective and achieve the goal of early resolution of disputes.

From that examination one of the things that we looked at was the time limit for

filing complaints.

The point

of referring to what other provinces are doing is simply to illustrate that

there are a variety of approaches taken across Canada. Other jurisdictions, I

know, are grappling with these issues of delay. It will be interesting to see

what they do, if anything, to reform their systems and processes over time.

This is not

something that sprung from a piece of statistical research. It was not something

that sprung from a survey. It sprung from a fundamental rethinking of this

— an orientation focused on problem-solving. We think that the reduction of

the time period to six months is a perfectly reasonable component of that.

I might add

that the process for initiating a complaint under the Human Rights Code is a

very, very simple and straightforward process. Of course what happens after that

traditionally has been extraordinarily complex, but that's largely because of

the way in which the institutions have functioned, which we are going to try to

repair. But the process of getting the matter started is very straightforward

and won't be made any more complex under the new scheme.

MacPhail: Two points. The initial filing of a complaint will do nothing to

assist in the deliberation of the complaint. So there have to be resources after

the filing of the complaint. It's not the initial filing of the complaint that

creates a backlog. Also for the record, the Human Rights Commission, over the

course of the period from about '98 to 2000 and beyond, substantially eliminated

the backlog — in fact, virtually eliminated the backlog.

Who did the

Attorney General consult with on this change in B.C.?

Hon. G.

Plant: In my second reading remarks I spent some time talking about the

process that we followed in developing the proposal that is before the House

now. I think at various times there were some hundreds of people who were

communicated with — in fact, more than once. Of course, that's just an

additional element that did not form part of my comments in second reading, but

the substance of the answer to the member's question will be found in my second

reading remarks yesterday.

[1655]

MacPhail: Yes, and I read those. But I'm asking about this specifically.

Did the

Attorney General consult with the human rights commissions in other

jurisdictions that have a six-month time limit in terms of whether, as the

Attorney General hinted, that assists in expediting resolution?

Hon. G.

Plant: The consultation process that we undertook was wide-ranging, and it

took the form I have described — albeit in actually a fairly short,

summary

way — in my second reading remarks. As I think those processes worked,

different people offered insight into different issues, and we received a

variety of input on issues. At the end of the day, government makes decisions,

and we made this decision. We made the decision to reduce the ti