2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 40)

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Role of grandparents

D. Jarvis

Powell River Regals hockey team

H. Long

Seniors housing

K. Stewart

Oral Questions

Funding for mental health services

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Cheema

Negotiations with physicians

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Circuit court services

D. Chutter

Hon. G. Plant

U.S. softwood lumber duty

R. Visser

Hon. M. de Jong

Kyoto accord

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Neufeld

Petitions

H. Long

Tabling Documents

Workers Compensation Board, annual report, 2001

Second Reading of Bills

Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23)

R. Stewart

Hon. G. Plant

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23)

Motions on Notice

Supplementary report to 2001 Judicial

Compensation Committee report

Hon. G. Plant

Tabling Documents

Supplementary recommendation of the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee

Committee of the Whole House

McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion

and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion

and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10)

Committee of the Whole House

Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30)

Hon. G. Plant

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30)

Committee of the Whole House

Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 29)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 29)

Second Reading of Bills

Food Safety Act (Bill 37)

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

[ Page 3149 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce in the House today two hard-working staff

members who make me look good.

Hon. G.

Collins: You need more staff.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Mr. Speaker, I think you heard the Finance minister say that I need

more staff, so that's on the record.

Anyway, I'm

pleased to introduce Barb Caldwell and Heather James. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: That was the most creative plea for more money I've heard in the

last year.

I want to

take the opportunity to introduce two people who are here visiting with us

today. My mother is here. She comes not infrequently, but she's here today —

Kay Collins, who lives in Sidney. With her today is someone who hasn't been here

before. It's my eldest sister's eldest daughter. My niece, Megan, is here. I ask

the House to make her welcome as well.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Cheema: I have two sets of introductions today.

First,

today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge a special visitor from

Slovakia. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Dr. Miroslav Mikolasik, the

Ambassador of the Slovak Republic to Canada. This is the ambassador's first

official visit to British Columbia, and I'm very pleased that he has travelled

to British Columbia to discover the many opportunities our province presents. He

is accompanied by his wife, Dr. Elana Mikolasikova, and Stanislav Lisiak, the

honorary consul general of the Slovak Republic at Vancouver. Would the House

please make them feel welcome.

I am very

proud to introduce a very important member of my family who is in the House

today. He did not want me to introduce him, but as his father, I overruled him.

Would the House please join me in welcoming my son, Anuraj Cheema.

Hamilton: It's my pleasure to welcome two dedicated members from my

constituency, Val Terry and Marilyn McIldoon, who are visitors here today and

are my constituency assistants. Would the House make them welcome, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: You'll know that it's not very often I get to stand up in the House

and introduce someone from northern British Columbia, but it's my pleasure

today….

An Hon.

Member: How are the roads up there?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: They're terrible. It's 7 degrees below, and it's snowing.

It's my

pleasure today to introduce someone who makes me feel really good — a lady

that I will have the pleasure of getting married to in August of this year,

Montana Currie.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

B. Kerr:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

B. Kerr:

Maybe I should wait for the appropriate response.

Before I

opened my constituency office, I was advised by people much wiser than myself to

make sure that I got a very good constituency assistant. I'm proud to say that

more by luck than by skill on my

part I accomplished that objective. I would

like to introduce her today, because she certainly forms the bulwark of the team

that provides the effective and efficient service to the community. That's Linda

Morton.

Also, I

have another important person in the House who's a member of our team. That's

our assistant legislative assistant, Jessica Terry. She's here today also.

J. Bray:

Joining us in the gallery, too, is my legislative assistant, Laura O'Connor.

Laura does a fantastic job of keeping me on

schedule and keeping me organized.

She's not responsible for how I look, thank goodness. She does a terrific job,

and she really keeps things moving. I appreciate her hard work. Would the House

please make her welcome.

Chong: Joining us today, as well, is a constituent of mine who's a good

supporter, a dedicated volunteer. He indicated to me that it's been some years

since he's been here. I was happy to share lunch with him, and now he's here to

watch question period. Would the House please welcome Mr. Ron Heaps.

Hon. L.

Reid: I'm delighted to welcome to the precinct today Mr. Mehmood Alibhai.

Mehmood is the director of health policy for western Canada for Novartis and is

someone who has worked actively in the community of Richmond on mental health

issues for more than a decade. I would ask the House to please make him very,

very welcome.

MacPhail: I'm so delighted to be able to rise…. I think this might be the

first time in this sitting that I'm able to rise and welcome some students here

from Vancouver who are educated in my riding. They are 15 grade 11 and 12

students in the Spectrum Alternative Program. They're accompanied by their

teachers, Laurie Finch, Kathy Thompson and Chris Johnston. I'm

[ Page 3150 ]

just absolutely delighted that they're here. May the House please make them

welcome.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 40 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Bill 40 includes a number of amendments to the Forest Act, both of

a housekeeping and a technical nature. More particularly, however, Bill 40

includes amendments to the Forest Act that will make provision for the

certification of timber that is offered to licensees through the small business

program administered by the Ministry of Forests. Beyond that, there are some

technical and housekeeping amendments.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ROLE OF GRANDPARENTS

Jarvis: I believe it's time to begin a conversation in this Legislature on

behalf of the youngest citizens of our province. We have, collectively, a

responsibility to honour the 40,000 babies that are born in our province every

year. Many of these babies will form durable relationships with their

grandparents, and many will not. Building capacity in our communities will

result in increased attachment between babies and their extended families. We

are on the road to building resilient families. The best outcomes will be

stronger communities and stronger families.

Mr.

Speaker, I am a grandfather, although you would never know it by looking at me.

My three grandchildren are Jake, seven; Emily, eight; and Diandra, nine. I pay

tribute to the joy and humour and the great curiosity that these grandchildren

share with me on a regular basis. Research shows us that children's development

from conception to age six is rapid and dramatic and affects lifelong learning

behaviour and health.

We know

children's future success in school and as adults is largely dictated by the

quality of emotional, physical, nutritional and intellectual care that they

receive in their early years. As grandparents in this Legislature, I believe we

have a special obligation and opportunity to be there for our youngest citizens.

To all of you, I say: enjoy these moments.

POWELL RIVER REGALS HOCKEY TEAM

H. Long:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with another great hockey story — a good-news hockey

story. I rise today to congratulate the efforts of the Powell River Regals

hockey team.

Recently,

the very proud tradition of Powell River's sporting community showcased one of

hockey's most prestigious amateur events. On April 9 to 13 the Powell River

Regals seniors hockey club hosted the Allan Cup Canadian hockey championships.

The teams from Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and our own Powell River Regals

competed for one of the oldest true amateur titles left in the country.

Replacing the Stanley Cup in 1908 gave a need for an amateur Canadian title that

took on the name the Allan Cup.

Of the 25

players on the Regals, an unprecedented 15 are locally born and raised in Powell

River. After a hard-fought tournament, the Powell River Regals lost the Allan

Cup championship this year to the Quebec Garaga. However, they have taken the

cup three times in the past.

[1415]

Following

their last win in 2000, they were chosen to represent Canada in Nagano, Japan,

for the 2001 Nagano Cup Team Canada. That was the first time since 1960 that an

amateur team was asked to represent Canada. Not only was this a highlight for

the 25 players on the team but also a proud moment for British Columbia. Our

boys wrapped themselves in Canadian pride. While pulling the red and white over

their heads and wearing the maple leaf over their hearts, they showed the world

once again that at a local and international level, the determination of a small

community in British Columbia can both thrive and excel at home and abroad

against insurmountable odds.

SENIORS HOUSING

Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as the demographics of our community change, we see

those on the front end of the baby-boom generation now entering their golden

years, with the majority to follow. Our mature seniors are living longer and

more active lives. As our society changes, our housing needs also will need an

adjustment. A majority of seniors now remain active and, hopefully, will

continue to live in their own homes. Improvements in health care allow many

seniors to extend their time and health to historical highs, but the reality is

that at some time their abilities will diminish and their housing requirements

will become more onerous. With minor building adjustments and assisted living we

will, as a society, be able to provide what

[ Page 3151 ]

most seniors want: to age gracefully in their own homes.

This

government has committed to providing better care, more comprehensive care and

more choices. We are not planning to do this alone. We are looking to our

community partners. Along with traditional non-profit agencies such as the

Legion, Kiwanis and Rotary, we will be looking for new partnerships. I would

like to touch on a few of those partners who have been very active in my

community: the Legion branch 88, with 271 units and more on the books; the ECRA

Society, 119 units built in conjunction with a new seniors centre, which

services many of the newer seniors residential facilities that surround it; and

Willow Manor, coming on stream on August 15 with 100 congregate care and 33

licensed care beds available.

We have to

recognize that to meet the challenges of our aging population, we are going to

have to change the way our health care delivery system works, working towards

improving the opportunities in housing. At the conclusion of this session, over

the summer I will be meeting with seniors groups in my community to discuss

these future needs. I believe this government will live up to its commitment to

build and operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term beds by

2006 and ensure that comprehensive transition plans are in place so seniors are

respected while changes are made to improve their condition of life.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MacPhail: Last week mental health services were hit hard when the government

announced its plans to reorganize health care in British Columbia. As part of

that announcement, the North Shore branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society lost

all of its funding. For a small investment of $65,000 a year, the society

provided a wide array of programs that help families, along with the patients,

cope with the unbelievable stress of the mental illness.

To the

Minister of State for Mental Health: will he please stand today and show some

leadership and step in and order the Vancouver Coastal health authority to

reinstate the funding for the North Shore branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia

Society?

Hon. G.

Cheema: We have made it very clear to the Vancouver Coastal health authority

that any reform in mental health must be consistent with this government's

commitment to improve the lives of those with mental illness, and nothing else

will be tolerated.

MacPhail: Well, the North Shore branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society is

just one of hundreds of mental health organizations around the province with

their funding now in jeopardy. When the Minister of State for Mental Health

fired the mental health advocate, many people predicted that that was exactly

what would happen. The Vancouver Coastal health authority alone is cutting about

$7 million from mental health services. In fact, virtually every health

authority is cutting funding for mental health services.

[1420]

Will the

Minister of State for Mental Health stand up in the House and either put his

money where his mouth is and have these funding cuts stopped, or, if he won't do

that, why doesn't he just admit that he is cutting mental health programs to

make up for all the other mistakes his government has made?

Hon. G.

Cheema: I don't think we need a lecture from that member on the mental

health issues. Mr. Speaker, if they were smart, can you imagine how much you

could do with the $463 million they wasted on fast ferries? They could have

supported 79,000 subsidized housing units for mental health. They could have

supported 4,000 emergency response beds for mental health. They could have

supported 2,000 day hospitals in this province. They could have supported over

$1.5 million of respite care for the families.

We made the

commitment, and we are fulfilling that commitment. We will be spending $263

million over a period of six years to meet the needs of patients with mental

illness.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS

J. Kwan:

This minister knows it. They have taken away $400 million from the basic

budget for mental health from the Health budget.

A month ago

the Minister of Health Services made much…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…about the agreement reached with the doctors. The Finance minister helped him

out by hiking MSP premiums. Then he hiked the PST. The Labour minister helped

him out by ripping up collective agreements. Now it looks like he's going to

need some help again. Tomorrow specialists announce job action commencing on

Monday.

Can the

Minister of Health Services tell us what backup plan he has to assure patients

that their health would not be jeopardized by any job action?

Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, I just wanted to correct the member's comment about

mental health funding. It has not been cut in this province; it, in fact, is

being unenhanced. We're, for the first time, actually funding the mental health

plan that the previous government committed to but then didn't budget for.

The

negotiations with the B.C. Medical Association have been proceeding well over

these last number of weeks. I recognize the fact that there are groups of

doctors in this province who have been quite anxious about this issue for a year

now, while the negotiations and mediation and arbitration process have been un-

[ Page 3152 ]

folding. I have certainly encouraged each of these groups of specialists and

other physicians to contact the BCMA if they're anxious about the progress of

negotiations and they'd like to get an update.

I'm very

confident that we will be able to resolve these issues in the very near future.

We put $392 million of additional money in the budget for physician

remuneration, and we are in the final stages now of sorting out exactly how

those dollars will be allocated.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

Just a word of warning. When this government says they're protecting services

for you…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…what it means is reduction and cuts in programs that you depend on. Seniors

feel that they have no recourse other than civil disobedience to protest being

moved against their will. Last week we saw that "health care where you need

it and when you need it" has become "health care down the road if you

can get it."

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

Now, once again, patients are being held hostage because negotiations with

the doctors are falling apart. To the Minister of Finance: it's almost been a

year, and tax cuts have not increased government revenues. Just where is the

money going to come from to pay for the settlement with the doctors?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I mentioned in my earlier answer, $392 million of additional

money has been put into the budget to provide for physician remuneration. That

has been funded out of increases to the Medical Services Plan premiums, which

nobody wanted to do and nobody likes to see happen, but we needed to find a

revenue source to fund the increases in physician remuneration. We also

increased the tobacco tax in this province, and those dollars went to cover that

$392 million.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Before I leave the issue of the MSP premiums, I do want to also

remind the members opposite that there are 230,000 British Columbians who are

going to see their MSP premiums actually reduced as a result of the changes that

were introduced.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

CIRCUIT COURT SERVICES

Chutter: My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has

indicated that he is looking to improve access to justice for all British

Columbians through the expanded use of circuit courts. Last week he announced

that 100 Mile House had been chosen for the circuit court option, and today it

is the city of Hope.

Can the

Attorney General advise my constituents of the arrangements that have been made

in Hope?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm glad to be able to confirm the announcement, which was made

earlier today, that court services will continue in Hope through a circuit court

model.

Under the

existing arrangements there are full-time staff, including a court registry,

present in Hope, even though court sittings were about three days a week. Under

the new arrangements, the judges and Crown counsel staff will travel to Hope on

an as-needed basis to ensure that court sits in Hope for those days when court

needs to sit in Hope.

I think

it's good news for Hope. I want to thank the district of Hope for the financial

contribution they made and thank the judiciary for the work they've done. In

particular, I know all members of the House will want to congratulate the member

for Yale-Lillooet for his strong advocacy on behalf of the citizens of his

constituency.

Mr.

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

Chutter: The option of circuit courts has raised considerable interest in

many communities across B.C. as a way to improve our justice system.

Can the

Attorney General outline steps taken to maintain access to justice in

communities affected by courthouse closures?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes, I'd be glad to do that.

We are

continuing to pursue circuit court as an option in as many communities as are

interested in having the conversation, recognizing that dollars are a real

issue. In communities where the local community is strongly behind the idea of

circuit court and willing to contribute financially, that certainly raises the

chances for success of that discussion.

We're also

particularly focusing on those communities where the establishment of circuit

court will maintain a level of access for the region around those communities.

We're

continuing to develop policy initiatives around fax filing. We've got the

agreement of the judiciary to expand the use of video conferencing.

There is

more that we are doing and will continue to do in the weeks and months to come

to ensure that we can maintain a reasonable level of access to justice for

people across the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 3153 ]

U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER DUTY

Visser: My question is for the Minister of Forests. This morning the

International Trade Commission in the U.S. handed down its ruling on whether the

U.S. lumber industry has been hurt by imports of softwood lumber from Canada.

Could the

Minister of Forests update British Columbians on the ruling and what it means

for our softwood lumber industry?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The ITC, or International Trade Commission — which is in fact an

arm of the American government — did make a decision this morning that is

disappointing but not surprising when you consider that at every step along the

way in this process, the forces of protectionism within the U.S. have prevailed

in the face of what is supposed to be a free trading nation and ethic down

there.

The

decision — a finding of threat of injury — is significant because only six

weeks ago American Senators and lumber interests were crying out that because of

action in Canada, their industry and mills were being put out of business. Even

the ITC has rejected that argument. That's good news for British Columbia.

What it

should mean in the short term, of course, is the return and release of bonds

that have been posted, dating back to August of last year, and it provides us

with a short window of opportunity between now and the 23rd when the U.S. will

actually be in a position to begin collecting duties from B.C. lumber interests.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Island has a supplementary question.

Visser: These crippling American duties have devastated forest-dependent

communities across B.C., including the ones I come from. Today's decision is

just a further blow to the many families in my riding that depend on the

softwood lumber industry.

Can the

Minister of Forests tell us what the next step is for our government and what

the next step is for these communities?

[1430]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, it's clear that notwithstanding the nature of the decision

— in fact, because of it — a bad situation is on the verge of getting much

worse.

We had a

summit meeting earlier this week convened by the Premier. We had a good

discussion. We've had lots of good discussions with the federal government about

the support that needs to be brought to bear for the people who are going to

bear the brunt of this dispute if this matter is not resolved prior to May 23.

The

challenge now is to get beyond the words and actually have the federal

government step up to the plate with a concrete offer of support — some real

dollars that we can put in the hands of the people who, as I said earlier, are

going to bear the brunt of this dispute if it continues unresolved. There are

thousands of them. It is time now for governments across the country and, most

particularly, in Ottawa to take decisive action in light of what has taken place

in Washington today.

KYOTO ACCORD

J. Kwan:

Yesterday the Liberal government was seen to be placing great stock in the

results of a stale-dated poll.

To the

Minister of Energy and Mines: a Decima poll tells that fully 78 percent of the

population back the Kyoto accord — a strong expression of the will of the

people. Perhaps, then, the minister can explain why his government refuses to

back the Kyoto accord and, in fact, is setting the stage for a massive expansion

of carbon gas–producing industry in this province.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The province of British Columbia — the Minister of Water, Land

and Air and my ministry — has attended about four meetings now where all

provinces come together, all ministers, along with the federal government to

talk about the Kyoto accord. The Kyoto accord is a federal government initiative

that they have not put on the table yet.

Interjections.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Well, if you know the answer, why do you ask it?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: If they will allow me to finish, what we have asked the government

of Canada to do is put forward to British Columbians and everyone in Canada what

is going to be in the Kyoto accord, what it's going to cost British Columbians

and what value it is at the end of the day. When we find that out and when the

federal government lives up to its commitment to tell all Canadians what it is,

then we will look seriously at what they're putting on the table.

[End

of question period.]

Point of Order

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your assistance on

resolving a question which is unique to this Legislature. It relates to a

question of privileges of members and reports of committees funded out of the

Legislative Assembly budget.

The act

that was amended by this government stipulates that the $6,000 stipend for the

chair of the offshore oil and gas government caucus committee is paid out of the

Legislative Assembly global budget. My question is for consideration by you, Mr.

Speaker. Are any of the privileges that are granted generically to all

[ Page 3154 ]

legislative members attached to the disbursement of legislative funding?

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. The point of order is noted. I will bring back a

decision in due course.

[1435]

Hon. G.

Collins: On what I think was the point of order, but it's sort of a point of

privilege…. I'm not sure. If the issue the member raises deals with privileges

of members, which is what she said, then the appropriate way to do that is

through a privilege motion. If she has a question about the way the budgets of

the Legislature work, she has been invited to be a member of LAMC to discuss how

the budgets are determined and how they're allocated.

Normally,

the longstanding practice in this House is for those issues to be raised at the

Legislative Assembly Management Committee, which is required by statute as well.

I would just argue that that's a far more appropriate way to raise that issue.

Those minutes are made public as well. I think the member knows that, but

obviously she chose to do it in this way. I know there are many issues which

could be raised that way, if that's the way the member wants to have them

raised.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Comments all noted.

H. Long:

I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr.

Speaker: No leave required. Please proceed.

Petitions

H. Long:

I would like to present a petition that I received from Gibsons Chiropractic in

my constituency. Collectively, I've received 132 signatures from Powell

River–Sunshine Coast constituents. The petition urges the B.C. government to

include chiropractor doctors in the medicare plan on a basis equal to medical

doctors.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the annual report of the Workers

Compensation Board for the year 2001.

Orders of the Day

Hon.

G. Collins: I call second reading, continued debate, on Bill 45.

Second Reading of Bills

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT

(continued)

J. Kwan:

Prior to the lunch break I was making comments regarding the bill that the

government has introduced, Bill 45, the Legal Services Society Act. The issues I

raised before lunch centred around the cuts with legal aid services in British

Columbia, the cuts in the courthouse closures, the impacts for the people who

need legal aid the most, who would not be able to access it. Of course, the cuts

are now accompanied with this bill, Bill 45, which takes away the independence,

in my view, of the board of the Legal Services Society.

It allows

for the government to overturn the budget that is set out by the Legal Services

Society Board. It changes the representation of the board with the majority to

be represented by government appointees, and it takes away community

representation, whereby formerly the community law offices and native law

offices would have representation at a 15-member board. It is now a nine-member

board with five members to be appointed by government.

In my view,

it allows for the government to fire the board much more easily than the current

piece of legislation, although even with the current legislation, it did not

stop the Attorney General from firing the board when the board challenged the

government on its cuts, when the board said that by making 38.8 percent of the

cuts to legal aid, it essentially means that legal aid would not be able to meet

the mandate as set out by the ministry. That is to provide access to justice for

all British Columbians.

[1440]

One of the

most important pieces around the change in legal aid with this bill, Bill 45, is

that it takes away the mandate of legal aid to provide services in the area of

poverty law. The former Legal Services Society Act, the original act, states:

"The objects of the society are to ensure that" an individual, under

item (d), "has a legal problem that threatens…."

Let me just

go back a little bit. Let me read this into the record as well: "The

objects of the society are to ensure that…services ordinarily provided by a

lawyer are afforded to individuals who would not otherwise receive them because

of financial or other reasons, and…education, advice and information about law

are provided for the people of British Columbia."

Then it

goes on to talk about how it needs to be made available for a qualifying

individual who meets one or more of the following conditions. The conditions

include criminal proceedings, proceedings that involve civil proceedings that

may result in imprisonment and issues that relate to domestic violence. The

piece that is being taken out with this change of the legal aid bill, the Legal

Services Society Act, is this: where people have "a legal problem that

threatens…the individual's family's physical or mental safety or health…the

individual's ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for himself or herself

and the individual's dependents, or…the individual's livelihood."

This area

that is being eliminated from the mandate of the Legal Services Society

essentially takes away the mandate of the Legal Services Society to provide

poverty law assistance. Other people may coin it with the term

"administrative law." Essentially, it is taking away the mandate of

the society to provide legal advice or legal assistance to individuals who,

quite frankly, need it the most. The reasons why the individual would

[ Page 3155 ]

need legal representation are because it threatens the individual's family's

physical or mental safety or health; because it threatens the individual's

ability to feed, clothe and provide shelter for himself or herself and the

individual's dependents; and because it threatens the individual's livelihood.

One would

argue that that mandate is the most fundamental piece in terms of the

individual's need to get assistance. When you're unable to address issues of

providing basic needs like feeding, clothing and providing shelter for yourself

or the individual's dependents, it threatens the well-being of the individual.

On that basis, the former mandate of the Legal Services Society Act is such that

in British Columbia, government is required to provide legal assistance to those

individuals.

Now, with

Bill 45, the new Legal Services Society Act introduced by the Attorney

General…. For this government to try and push through this debate with less

than 24 hours of the debate for second reading…. The government is going to

take away the most fundamental piece that underlies legal aid for those who are

faced with threats to their health and safety; to their ability to feed, clothe

and provide shelter; and to their livelihoods.

You may

ask: "What is wrong with that picture?" There was an

article that was

written in the Vancouver Sun by Ian Mulgrew. I'll just take parts of it to

illustrate what is wrong with this picture. I quote from the article, which is

entitled "Legal Aid Staffers Brace for Worst."

[1445]

"Attorney

General Geoff Plant announced in mid-January sweeping changes to the face of

justice and the virtual elimination of the province's legal safety net.

"The

number of staff lawyers and paralegals with the legal aid society is being

axed to 12 from 75, and all but seven of the agency's 60 offices are being

closed. As many as 40,000 people could lose legal representation and

support.

"Until

now, the province has provided legal aid to people facing any legal problem

that threatens their ability to feed, clothe or house themselves.

"To

qualify, you must be without financial resources, have a bona fide legal

problem that could leave you homeless or hungry, and have a reasonable

chance of winning your case.

"In

the Vancouver poverty law clinic high above Robson and Howe Streets, 11

lawyers and paralegals work in teams specializing in particular areas of

law. One deals with disability cases involving the Workers Compensation

Board, the Canada Pension Plan or the Criminal Injury Compensation Board.

Another handles income security cases involving employment insurance,

welfare or old-age security benefits. A housing team takes on landlord and

tenant disputes, including evictions, and a flying team picks up cases that

don't necessarily fit into any of the formal categories.

"At

any one time on the flying squad, Ward" — who is one of the lawyers

— "juggles between 45 and 55 cases involving disability insurance,

foreclosures, bankruptcies and professional licensing disputes involving day

care, taxi licences and union complaints.

"'You

name it; I've got it,' she quipped.

"Just

about all of that work, however, is being eliminated by Premier Gordon

Campbell's administration.

"Even

though Victoria imposes a 7.5 percent tax on lawyers' bills to their paying

clients to fund legal aid, generating nearly $89 million a year, the

province is diverting 40 percent of that money out of the system and into

general revenue.

"When

the legal aid society board refused to implement the cuts because of the

impact on the poor, Plant fired it and imposed a trustee."

Just skipping some of the quotes, the

article goes on to say:

"But

Ward and Puga say axing legal aid is a false economy.

"'You

have to look at poverty law and ask: is it expendable?' Ward said. 'The

government has said a lot of poor people will experience difficulty, and

that's too bad, so sad.

'"But

if people lose their homes, are unable to feed themselves, to talk about

efficiencies when you are talking about such basic rights and such basic

subsistence needs, to even say, 'Well, could we save money over here,'

is…."

The

article goes on to describe:

"She

rolled her eyes. 'If we look at the economy and the number of layoffs, this

is all happening at a time when demand for poverty law services is

increasing. So the combination of those two trends will produce results that

will be really bleak.'"

The

article continues:

"In

Vancouver the only parts of the system that will survive are the intake

clinic — someone still has to process the legal aid applications, even if

no one is there to handle them — and the family law clinic, which will

provide limited services in cases involving restraining orders or child

apprehensions.

"Other

work the legal aid staff does, such as providing supervision for community

advocates with organizations such as the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre or

delivering workshops or training programs across the province, is also being

eliminated."

From another lawyer:

"'Clients

are being assessed for intake, and if they are deemed eligible for our

services, they are sent over to us. Hopefully, we'll get through their

process far enough that they'll be able to carry it on their own.'

"Ward

added: 'There certainly are people going to be cut off midstream, and I

don't know how they are going to manage.'"

Then the

article has a little bit more to say in terms of the concerns around

cuts to legal aid.

That's

the mandate that this act is taking away — the mandate to provide legal

aid services in the area of poverty law. The minister, the Attorney General,

said earlier this morning: "Well, that's creating flexibility. The

society can decide what areas of law they want to provide legal aid services

to."

[1450]

The

Attorney knows very well that by underfunding legal aid, the only ability that

legal aid would have would be to provide assistance in the areas of criminal

cases and family law cases that involve violence. That's mandated in the act

itself. But without funding, they are unable to provide for support in the area

of administrative law. By deleting the require-

[ Page 3156 ]

ment that that service be provided, the government, the Attorney General, is

essentially saying: "We will no longer fund legal aid services in the area

of poverty law." It's not creating flexibility. It's limiting access to

justice. It is that simple.

The

Association of Community Law Offices of British Columbia and the Native

Community Law Offices Association of British Columbia have written a submission

to the Ministry of Attorney General, justice services branch, on the Legal

Services Society Act amendments discussion paper. I'm going to read some of

their comments into the record, because I agree with these comments:

"The

Association of Community Law Offices of British Columbia and the Native

Community Law Offices Association of British Columbia together represent 26

community law offices and native community law offices across the province.

On behalf of all 26 of their members' offices, the associations express

their strong opposition to changes to the mandate of the Legal Services

Society — in particular, any amendments to or removal of paragraph

3.2(d)."

This was the paragraph that I read out earlier from the original act, which

deals with the issues around services that will now no longer be mandated for

legal aid to provide: where it threatens the individual's family's physical,

mental health or safety; the individual's ability to feed, clothe and provide

shelter for himself or herself or the individual's dependents or the

individual's livelihood.

The

submission continues:

"This

paragraph mandates the provision of what is commonly referred to as poverty

law: the most disadvantaged of our citizens, including the aboriginal

people, seeking poverty law services in order to obtain the most basic

necessities of life. We fear an increase in homelessness and crimes if these

critical services are removed."

They go on

to say:

"Currently

all legal aid field offices are to be closed as of August 31. Offices may be

required to cease providing poverty law services even before then. The

removal of paragraph 3.2(d)" — which I read out earlier —

"would eliminate the Legal Services Society's obligation to provide

these services.

"We

point out that this may be contrary to the rights given to all citizens

pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any court challenges will be

defended at public expense, which we anticipate will increase rather than

decrease the ministry's overall expenditures."

The

submission continues:

"The

ministry comments that removing mandatory requirements will among other

things leave the provision of legal aid services to the discretion of the

Legal Services Society board. We point out that should another board be put

in place, given the current level of government funding in legal services,

the board's discretion will be illusionary only.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

"We

also wish to comment on some of the proposed objects of the society.

According to the ministry, legal aid should be administered in a

cost-effective and efficient manner and priorities and policies should be

established within the limits of available financial resources. We wonder

what happened to the ministry's prior commitment to a fair and accessible

legal system.

"Further,

in our view, service priorities and policies should not be established based

on the financial goals of the ministry. We're not arguing against the need

to work within a reasonable budget, but the budget must be reflective of the

legal aid needs. Service priorities and policies need to be based on those

needs, not the ministry's financial goals. Again, the issues of independence

and discretion of the legal aid system are relevant.

[1455]

"We

do agree, however, that the definition of legal services encompasses many

options between full and no legal representation. Our offices, some for

upwards of 25 years, have been providing a full range of services to our

clients and communities including

summary advice, public education,

information and self-help material, referral to alternative services when

appropriate, ADR, etc. Throughout the years, we have ensured that referrals

are only made to lawyers when absolutely necessary. Our offices have always

called upon the expertise of our paralegals whenever possible. Thus services

have been provided in the most cost-efficient manner possible."

On the

issue around accountability, the submission continues to say:

"Our

member offices are each managed by an independent community board of

directors. They have demonstrated their willingness to be accountable for

all aspects of service delivery to their clients, communities and funders.

We agree that there is an expectation that the LSS board should also be

accountable. In our view, however, what is being considered exceeds

accountability and, in reality, speaks to more control of the LSS board by

the ministry. This undermines the independence of the board and eliminates

its discretion."

It gives an

example:

"…the

ministry is considering enforcing a requirement that the board's budget must

be approved by the Attorney General. This would clearly undermine the

board's ability to allocate its resources according to the needs of the

different communities throughout the province. Further, the Attorney General

would be able to prescribe those services that cannot be provided. Again,

clearly, the board's independence and discretion would be illusionary

only."

On the

issue around governance model:

"The

ministry refers to the appointing power to the now-defunct LSS board of

directors and states that 'neither the size of the board nor the requirement

of stakeholder nominees is consistent with the principles of effective

governance.' We express the strongest disagreement with this statement. Many

of our members have been involved with the legal aid system for numerous

years. In our view, the current appointment process, ensuring that the

community has input into the decisions of the board, was a great step

forward. Over the past few years we have seen much more effective and

responsive governance than in the past. Yet the ministry would have us go

backwards and remove the ability of the community through our associations

to appoint members to the board. We voice our strong opposition to any move

to allow only the Attorney General and the Law Society to perform this

critical function."

Then,

skipping down a little bit, the submission continues:

[ Page 3157 ]

"If

the ministry proceeds in the direction stated in the discussion paper which

is now the bill, we wonder why a new board will be appointed at all. It

would appear to simply add an additional powerless layer of administration.

The ministry may as well avoid this window-dressing and run legal aid as a

direct arm of government."

Then the

society has some comments around revenue generation, which essentially states

that they don't have a problem with revenue generation. But let me just read

their words into the record:

"We

support some of the revenue generation proposals. For example, we have been

proposing for several years that the LSS be given the statutory authority to

place liens on property in appropriate circumstances. We also support the

LSS charging for products and services other than legal services for such

things as public legal education materials for clients who do not meet the

LSS's financial eligibility tests.

"We

are, however, opposed to any increase to the financial contributions of

clients who are eligible for legal aid. The current financial eligibility

tests are extremely stringent. Any requirement for additional contributions

would impede the ability of the LSS's clients to feed or house themselves

and their families."

Then the

submission provides for some closing comments. I'll just pick a few.

"We

agree with the statement that the province has responsibility for the

effective administration of the justice system and that legal aid is a

necessary part of that system. Proper administration of the justice system

demands that the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens have access to

it."

[1500]

Hon.

Speaker, the Association of Community Law Offices of B.C. and the Native

Community Law Offices Association of B.C. have voiced a strong opinion on the

proposed changes. Now the bill is before us, Bill 45, Legal Services Society

Act. This bill, in my view, is fundamentally flawed, as it penalizes the people

who are most vulnerable, who will now no longer be able to access justice. It

takes away what was formerly in the Society Act to provide for, in my view,

essential services for the poor — access to legal services and legal

representation in the area of poverty law.

Some of the

quotes that I'm going to put forward are from individuals who've made

comments…

Hon. G.

Plant: I thought you said you were nearly finished.

J. Kwan:

…and have been reported in the paper.

Maybe the

Attorney General is frustrated with debate in this House, because he just sat in

his seat and said: "I thought I heard the opposition member say she's

nearly finished." Maybe he's frustrated because we're engaging in debate in

this House. It is no wonder, quite frankly. What this government has tried to do

is silence opposition at every step of the way. They try to do that every step

of the way. Is it any wonder, when a bill as important as this was introduced in

the House less than 24 hours ago…? Now we're here doing second reading debate.

An Hon.

Member: It was 25 hours ago.

J. Kwan:

The House didn't rise until late in the evening last night. We had less than

24 hours to look and see what this government's doing — not just the

opposition members but the public as well. They didn't have access to this bill

until yesterday. Now the Attorney General's frustrated because there's debate in

this House.

God forbid

that someone challenge the actions of this government when they attack the most

vulnerable British Columbians — the poorest of the poor, people who need to

have access to justice, people who should have the right to access to justice.

The Attorney General himself admitted that with the changes he's bringing about,

there will be limitation to access to justice for some British Columbians.

I thought

we lived in a society where we pride ourselves, as Canadians, that what makes us

so great as Canadians, as British Columbians, is that we have compassion. We

know what is right, and we know what is wrong. In our hearts we know the

difference. When we know the difference, we act on those differences. Government

steps forward to make sure that the poorest of the poor have their rights

afforded to them. This act undermines that fundamental principle that makes me

proud as a British Columbian.

That is the

issue we're debating today. It's not just my view — not just me who shares

these opinions. Here's some other people who share this view as well.

The Law

Society president, Richard Gibbs, said that the firing of the board had

"terminated the independence of legal aid in British Columbia." Bill

45 further erodes any sense of the independence of the Legal Services Society

Act. That's exactly what this bill does — takes away the independence of the

Legal Services Society.

Here's

another quote: "We won't maintain the level of service. I expect there will

be people who will have an even harder time finding access to justice than

before." Guess who made that comment: the Attorney General himself, who's

sitting here making these cuts. How could it be that we have the Attorney

General, who is the person in this province who's been charged to ensure access

to justice is provided for all British Columbians, making such a comment:

"We won't maintain the level of service, and I expect there will be people

who will have an even harder time finding access to justice than before"?

Here's what

a criminal lawyer who provides service in the community had to say: "There

wasn't enough money as it was. There's going to be all kinds of people facing

jail, and no one will take them on."

[1505]

Another

lawyer, a front-line person who provides the services: "The bottom line is

that if someone does not have legal representation, they are being denied

justice. The government has imposed an impossible burden on the poor of the

province."

[ Page 3158 ]

These are

just some of the comments. There are many other comments that British Columbians

came forward and stated.

The

government and this Attorney General did not heed the words of the broader

community — not from the opposition, not from anybody. They're simply going to

plow ahead with the cuts. They're going to take away legal aid services for the

people who need it the most.

Hon.

Speaker, I intend to vote against this bill. I think it's reprehensible that

this government is attacking the poor the way they are today — this bill with

a combination of others: Bills 26, 27…. The list goes on. I intend to vote

against this bill and challenge the government every step of the way and attempt

to hold this government accountable, as they said during the election they

weren't going to attack the most vulnerable. We now see their actions are

different from their words during the election — yet another broken promise.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G.

Plant: Many of the remarks made by the opposition member go to funding

issues rather than the new structure of the society that is proposed in this

bill. The opposition member and I had a very long debate and discussion about

those issues during the estimates debate. Many of the points the member made

then she has made again today. I know these are issues that she feels strongly

about.

In terms of

the changes proposed in the legislation, they actually open up the mandate of

the society. They open up the capacity, the powers, the objects of the society

to ensure that the society has the greatest range of options available to it to

deliver on the most important areas of responsibility in the provision of legal

aid services.

This bill

preserves the independence of the society in those areas where the society needs

to be independent. I listened to the member's comments about that and, frankly,

waited for her to explain what she meant when she talked about the way in which

she believes the bill undermines the independence. After all, it's quite easy to

make the statement, but if you can't explain it, then I guess people who hear

the statement might wonder if in fact there's any foundation to it.

I tried to

make quite clear in my second reading remarks the way in which independence is,

in fact, an important value and how that value is preserved and enhanced in many

ways, in my view, in this act; how, in particular, the issue of independence

around the delivery of legal aid services is fundamentally an issue that says

the society must be independent around the decisions to provide counsel to

people who are engaged in matters where the government is on the other side. If

government were directly involved in the appointment or selection of counsel for

someone who has been accused of a criminal offence, I think there are people who

could then say: "Well, the government is there appointing Crown;

government's there appointing defence counsel. That doesn't look very

good." Indeed, the society will continue to have all the independence that

it needs in relation to those aspects of its operation.

When it

comes to that fundamental question of how much money the society should spend,

that is an issue for government. We make a decision as government about how much

money is available to the society. We have not just the right but the obligation

to be at the table with the society, sitting down and discussing in broad terms

the service priorities that the society should have. It is the taxpayers' money

that is being spent by the society.

In fact,

what this bill says, which I think is a marvellous innovation, is that where the

society has the ability to recover funds from other sources — which it has

done, I should say, in some cases, but it will be able to do more of because of

this bill…. Where the society has other dollars, they'll have greater freedom

of action, I think, because of this bill, in terms of how they spend those

dollars.

[1510]

The member

made some comments about her continued opposition to the spectre that there

would ever be any commercial activity anywhere in the province of British

Columbia, particularly her fear that the society would be in some way missing

its function if it engaged in commercial activities. Well, the society has in

fact been engaged in some forms of fundraising and other commercial activities

for some period of time. In fact, it was the society that came to government and

said: "Look, we are leading-edge developers of information technology and

management systems for how to manage the delivery of a wide range of litigation

services. People come to the society all the time from other parts of the world

and say: 'Can you teach us how it is you do what you do? We think we have much

to learn.'"

I think

that given that the taxpayers of British Columbia have made the investment in

creating that intellectual property, if you will, the society should be in a

position to share that with other parts of the world, with other places, with

other organizations. If there's an opportunity for them to do that in a way that

offsets their costs and gives them more tools to provide legal aid services to

people who need it, I think that's a good step. I think all members of the House

should applaud that part of this bill, which will give the society those tools.

Yes, the

bill very much also gives the society the opportunity to engage in a greater

degree of cost recovery. I know the society will take that responsibility very

seriously. There are many, many people who come searching for legal aid who

simply have no resources whatsoever. There are, however, many other people who

come for legal aid who do have the ability to provide some modest contribution

either up front or later. To give the society the tools to ensure that they

treat people fairly and that they give the taxpayers value for money in terms of

providing the widest possible range of service to people who need it, I think,

is a good part of this bill.

[ Page 3159 ]

We did

actually, as the member notes, undertake a discussion process with the

profession and others. It was a fairly compressed process — I concede that —

but circumstances required that we move forward quickly. In particular, the fact

that the old board of the society decided by a majority that they could not

implement a budget meant that we were put on a pretty accelerated timetable in

terms of making sure there were changes made.

Many of the

comments the member makes in terms of citing other statements made by people

about whether the society could have delivered on that budget were in fact

raised and dealt with by the courts, and all of the courts' findings are

completely contrary to the member's statements. The board was in fact able to

deliver on the budget. The fact that they chose not to put the government in a

very difficult position, because our responsibility as government is to provide

the service to the people who need it. The board wasn't willing to do that, and

that put us in a situation where we had no alternative but to appoint a trustee.

We're now

moving forward. We're moving forward to put in place a new governance structure,

a new mandate, a new range of powers that I think will make British Columbia a

leader in terms of the way we deliver legal aid services, the range of services

we provide and the range of people that will be affected by and will receive a

benefit from the provision of those services.

I think

this is a good initiative, and I'm glad to have heard the member's comments. I

look forward to continuing to discuss some of those issues — not, of course,

the funding issue, which has been dealt with in the estimates debate, but in

terms of her concerns around the mechanisms of the bill. I'm sure we'll have a

chance to pursue those in committee stage.

I would

move second reading.

[1515-1520]

Second

reading of Bill 45 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 42

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

Nettleton

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Stephens

Neufeld

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Long

Chutter

Johnston

R. Stewart

Bray

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

K. Stewart

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 45,

Legal Services Society Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage on Bill 23.

Committee of the Whole House

INTERJURISDICTIONAL

SUPPORT ORDERS ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:24 p.m.

On

section

[1525]

Stewart: The concern we've got with this kind of issue…. I've got a

constituent , for example, in my riding who has expressed serious concern about

the ability to enforce maintenance orders and such when the spouse has left the

country. In this particular circumstance, the spouse is out of the country, and

her ability to have those orders enforced she finds severely curtailed. I wonder

if there is a process in place that would allow us to raise specific issues

regarding the enforceability of orders.

particular, she has a couple of concerns: her ability to enforce interest

payment on an unpaid debt related to family maintenance. She finds that she has

no ability to enforce that if the spouse has left the country. That particular

concern is one that she's raised on a number of occasions — that where the

debt exists and the spouse is still in the country, there is interest payable,

but where the spouse has left the country, there is some inability to enforce

the interest payable on that. I wonder if such issues have come before the

Attorney General.

Hon. G.

Plant: I appreciate the member's question. The status quo as it may exist,

in terms of entitlement to recover interest, will not be affected by this bill.

I'm also told that British Columbia may be the only jurisdiction — if not one

of the only jurisdictions — where interest is recoverable on a debt for unpaid

maintenance. That would, clearly, make it more difficult to recover it from

someone who is resident in a jurisdiction that would not recognize the

obligation to pay interest on an unpaid support debt. Frankly, that is

something, at least at first impression, that is probably

[ Page 3160 ]

more an issue with respect to the substantive law in the jurisdiction where

the paying party resides.

There is

only so much we can do here in British Columbia to assist or even deal with

those issues. What this bill is primarily concerned with is putting in place

processes that will make it a little easier to obtain and then register an order

for support in a case where a party resident in British Columbia wants to obtain

an order against a party resident in some other province or jurisdiction.

The extent

to which these processes would be of assistance to someone seeking to obtain and

enforce a maintenance order against somebody resident in another country would

depend, in part, upon whether or not the other country is a reciprocating

jurisdiction. Many countries, as I indicated in my second reading remarks, are

reciprocating jurisdictions with British Columbia, but, of course, many are not.

Stewart: Therein, I guess, is the crux of the issue. I raise the interest as

an example only perhaps to illustrate that, clearly, it's a very complex process

to negotiate these interjurisdictional agreements to enforce the order of a

court in British Columbia upon someone living in a country in Europe or Asia.

I wonder if

the Attorney General could perhaps explain the process that B.C. enters into as

it negotiates these — or maybe it's not B.C. that negotiates such agreements

— and how such agreements can be changed, altered or expanded to include items

that aren't currently included in such agreements.

[1530]

Clearly, if

we can identify an expense that ought to be enforceable within Canadian

jurisdictions, it is just as likely that it ought to be enforceable when the

spouse moves out of Canada into another jurisdiction. I wonder: what is the

process that allows us to influence the way in which they can be enforced in

another country?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm advised that British Columbia takes the responsibility for

negotiating directly with other jurisdictions, even countries. The provisions

that would lead to an agreement whereby the two jurisdictions would become

reciprocating jurisdictions…. The member would, I'm sure, realize that to be

reciprocating means that the other country will agree to enforce our orders, but

we will agree to enforce their orders. The likelihood of achieving an effective

agreement for reciprocal enforcement is probably enhanced when the legal systems

are sufficiently comparable to make the dialogue an effective one.

I don't

know whether and how the specific issue of interest recovery might arise in

negotiations with other jurisdictions, but it's certainly something I would be

willing to take up with staff, recognizing that we are dealing here with

something that is going to always be a problem. One party to a relationship

leaves a jurisdiction and could be liable to provide maintenance and support to

the party living here in British Columbia, or the other way around.

The system

whereby you get an order and enforce it and actually maintain its enforceability

in a practical sense will always be much more complicated than it is if both

parties are resident inside British Columbia.

Stewart: I thank the Attorney General. Personally, I believe in the orders

of a court in British Columbia, and I believe that we have to, as a society and

as a government, do everything we can to ensure that someone cannot escape the

orders of a lawful court in British Columbia. In this particular instance, the

example I cited, there are a number of other complex issues that my constituent

faces. I've raised them with your ministry, and I've received some satisfactory

responses.

appreciate the efforts of ministry staff in the past months to work through some

of these issues, and I recognize the complexities of them. The Attorney General

undoubtedly shares my desire to continue to expand the way in which we as a

society and as a government can assist British Columbians in ensuring that

justice prevails through the enforcement of orders of the court.

Sections 1

to 56 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:34 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[1535]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23,

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Motions on Notice

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO

2001 JUDICIAL COMPENSATION

COMMITTEE REPORT

Hon. G.

Plant: I move Motion 15 standing in my name on the orders of the day:

[That the Legislative Assembly accept a supplementary

report to the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee report and

recommendations. The 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee report and

recommendations were laid before this Assembly on August 2, 2001, pursuant

section 13 (12) of the Provincial Court Act. The supplementary report has

been prepared, signed and submitted to the Attorney General by the chair of

the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee, on behalf of the Committee.]

[ Page 3161 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I have a copy of that supplementary report, which I will seek leave to

table at the conclusion of debate.

The motion

further is:

[That this supplementary report will correct an oversight

of the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee in preserving the pay

differentials between Chief Judge, Associate Chief Judges and the other

Provincial Court Judges.]

Motion

approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Plant: I seek leave, if leave is required, to table the supplementary

recommendation of the 2001 Judicial Compensation Committee.

Leave

granted.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 10.

Committee of the Whole House

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND TREATY No. 8

ADHESION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:38 p.m.

Section 1

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:39 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10,

McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment

Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1540]

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 30.

Committee of the Whole House

TRUSTEE INVESTMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:41 p.m.

On

section

Hon. G.

Plant: I just want to make this one note here for the benefit of people who

might be interested in this issue and this debate. This is an amendment act.

What will happen if the House passes this act is that a variety of statutes will

be amended to give effect to the basic principles that are being implemented

here. This particular bill will sort of disappear into other statutes of the

Legislature. The most important destination will be the Trustee Act itself,

where

section 15 is being repealed and a number of sections are being added that

will give effect to the heart of the principles in the bill.

Again, I'd

like to express my thanks to the Law Institute and, frankly, my own staff in the

ministry for having worked hard to bring this initiative forward, which I hope

will make a difference in the business of trustee investment in British

Columbia.

Sections 1

to 26 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:43 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 30,

Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 29.

Committee of the Whole House

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:45 p.m.

[ Page 3162 ]

Sections 1

to 44 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:46 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 29,

Securities Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I call second reading of Bill 37.

Second Reading of Bills

FOOD SAFETY ACT

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that Bill 37 be now read a second time.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. C.

Hansen: British Columbia's food safety system is among the best in the world

for ensuring safe, wholesome food for B.C. consumers. This bill enables

government to maintain high standards for food safety while providing

flexibility to meet the changing needs of consumers and the agrifood industry

now and into the future. It consolidates the food safety aspects of the Milk

Industry Act, the Fish Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Act and the Health

Act into one unified statute.

This bill

was developed by the Ministry of Health Services in conjunction with the

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to streamline and modernize food

safety legislation to meet the needs of consumers and the agrifood industry. For

consumers, the bill offers the assurance that government will continue to set

and monitor strict food safety standards with clear direction to the food

industry for meeting those standards. For industry, the bill demonstrates that

government is responding to its concerns about outdated regulations which

sometimes frustrate the ability of this vital and growing sector to improve

operations in regards to both product and food safety.

The sector

has raised legitimate concerns about restrictions on trade imposed by varying

food safety standards across the country. The frustration and cost of multiple

inspections and the regulatory burden of outdated provincial regulations are all

to be addressed within the scope of this bill.

It is time

to move from overly prescriptive regulations, which limit the sector's ability

to perform at the highest standards of food safety and production, to

outcome-based regulations, which focus on the safety of food and not the method

by which the food is produced. Outcome-based regulations reflect a shift from

detailed, overly prescriptive regulations to simplified goal-oriented

regulations that would allow industry more flexibility in how the goals are met.

A case in

point is the regulation governing dairy production that specifies the distance

between the milk tanks in a dairy and the walls on the outside of the building

that the milk tanks are in. Those, up to now, have been governed by the width of

a push broom when, in fact, the dairies have introduced new technologies to

perform the same function that meet higher safety levels. From here forward, the

dairy industry can decide whether to use a push broom, a vacuum system or some

other technology to keep their equipment clean, as long as the standards are

met.

[1550]

Revised

regulations will reduce the regulatory burden to provide industry with the

flexibility to use new technology and methods for production and processing.

This will encourage industry innovation while ensuring that food remains safe.

These outcome-based regulations will be developed in consultation with the food

industry to replace the existing regulations governing the dairy, fish and meat

industries.

This bill

also enables integrated federal-provincial inspection delivery systems. It

provides for greater flexibility in the appointment of inspectors, which means

that federal inspectors can be appointed to carry out provincial inspections in

addition to their federal responsibilities when that joint kind of inspection is

appropriate. This is already happening in the meat industry through agreements

between the federal and the provincial governments.

This bill

will assist our agrifood industry to stay competitive and effectively respond to

changing technology, consumer demands and the requirements of interprovincial

and international trade. It will ensure that government has the legislative

tools necessary to continue to protect the safety of British Columbia's food.

The motion

for second reading is on the floor.

Mr.

Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 37. The member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

I just have a quick comment on this matter on the issue around consultation.

I would urge that the minister, when he goes about developing regulation on the

food safety matter, not only consult with industry but rather consult with a

broader group of individuals who would have an interest in ensuring efficiency

but also that the standard of safety is maintained.

[ Page 3163 ]

That's the

only comment that I have. The minister, I'm sure, will be eager to move to the

next stage of this bill.

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading of Bill 37. The minister closes debate.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The point that the member makes is a very good one, and we will be

embarking on that very comprehensive consultation with consumers, with the

retail outlets, with the restaurant industries as well as the agrifood industry

itself. Certainly, that consultation will be very important as we proceed with

the drafting of those regulations. We'll make sure that her suggestion is

followed up on.

Mr.

Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 37.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 37,

Food Safety Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S.

Hagen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

The House

adjourned at 3:53 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright ©

2002: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175