British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, October 24, 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session) (H1024pm-07) (H1024pm 07)

H1024pm-07

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, October 24, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 9, Number 7 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Thursday, October 24, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 4027 Statements (Standing Order 25 B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 4028 Surrey Business Excellence Awards D. Hayer Reform of health care system J. Kwan Burnaby Cavalcade of Stars J.

Nuraney Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 4029 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 .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 4032 Office of the auditor general for British Columbia, annual report, 2001-02 Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 4032 Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant R. Stewart J. MacPhail

4027 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members K. 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 Brit- ish 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 com- petitions. 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 Secon- dary, 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 Chilli- wack; Johnson Ng and Jackson Jue of Port Moody Sec- ondary, 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 repre- senting British Columbia on Team Canada at the World Skills Competition this June in Switzerland. Congratu- lations to Brad and all of the Team Canada winners. Hon. L. Stephens: Visiting the precincts today are some other very excellent students. From Apex Secon- dary School in Langley there are 12 grade 11 students with their teacher, Mr. Johnston.

They're here to learn about government procedures, the legislative proce- dures of government and also the history of this beauti- ful, wonderful building that we all cherish and value so much. Would the House please make them wel- come. Hon. S. Bond: I want to join my colleague in con- gratulating the students. I want to recognize, in par- ticular, 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 stu- dents who are the future of the province of British Co- lumbia. 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 stu- dents: Matthew Greenless of Kwantlen University Col- lege, from Surrey; Desmond Hart of BCIT, from Bur- naby; and Paul Kettlewell of BCIT, from Langley. I'd a l s o l i k e t o r e c o g n i z e E r i c V a c h o n o f U B C , f r o m B u r - naby. 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. V.

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 intro- duce 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 cele- brate Ian's 25 years of gainful employment with the Legislative Assembly. Please join me in extending a warm welcome to her.

4028 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 Statements (Standing Order 25B) SURREY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS D. 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 envi- ronment this government has created for small busi- ness 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 ex- perience how hard our Surrey businesses work to suc- ceed. With that, I would now like to name the Surrey Business Excellence Award winners.

For small busi- ness, 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 Dev- onshire 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. My 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. Spon- sored 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 expres- sion 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 be- come a private commodity? Poll after poll shows Ca- nadians 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 govern- ments 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 pro- mote 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 medi- care'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 an- swer. 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 re- sponds 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 Coali- tion for their work. [1415] BURNABY CAVALCADE OF STARS J. 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 per- forming 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 re- leased 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 de- light. 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 per- formance on piano was a very impressive treat.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 author- ity. It's a frank assessment of the failure of the govern- ment'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 be- tween 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 accu- rate 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 rheto- ric, 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 im- prove 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 recruit- ing 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 author- ity in the province, including the northern health au- thority, has seen an increase in its budget over what was there a year prior.

W he n I wa s u p i n P r i nc e G e o rg e ju s t a f e w we e k s back, what I learned while I was there is that we now h a v e a n e m e r g e n c y r o o m t h a t ' s f u l l y s t a f f e d w i t h 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 Brit- ish Columbians from those communities in health pro- fessions 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 de- fenceless. No one was able to see her or help her. She was not even able to get assistance to use the wash- room. Why, Mr. Speaker? Ms. Madigan says it's be- cause of provincial cutbacks. The hospital administra- tion says it's the result of overcrowding.

If the minis- ter'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 in- herited as a government was one that saw emergency

4030 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 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: W e h a d I C U s i n c o m m u n i t i e s i n 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 work- ing because we're actually able to give more depend- able, 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 R. Sultan: My question is to the Minister of Trans- portation.

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 prov- ince'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 recog- nize 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. R. Sultan: A number of my constituents have ex- pressed 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 in- frastructure. Can the Minister of Transportation tell us how British Columbians can provide input into deci- sions being made by her ministry? Hon. J. Reid: It is important that as we move ahead making decisions in transportation, we do involve peo- ple 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 J. 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 work- shops 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 h a v e c o m e t o r e a l i z e , i n t h e 1 8 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 mod- ernize 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 increas- ingly, 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 im- provements. They're starting to see it actually working better throughout the province.

I'm the first one to ad- mit 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.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4031 J. MacPhail: Here's the notice. It says: "Delivering Difficult Messages." It's from the health authority, talk- ing about delivering difficult messages as a result of this government's action. The workshop is about telling sen- iors 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 initia- tives that we have undertaken in health care have been aimed at saving money in places where it's not neces- sary 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 D. Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Edu- cation. During this past summer, a special adviser was appointed to the Gold Trail school district to help man- age its budget and to address student needs. Last week the special adviser released his report.

Could the Min- ister 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 chal- lenges. They had some significant budget challenges that they had been struggling with for many, many years since amalgamation.

They have some other signifi- cant 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. I 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. D. 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 educa- tion 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 ad- visers 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 educa- tion is a priority and that making sure that every stu- dent, 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.]

4032 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 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. On

section 3, sections 5 and 6 (continued). J. Kwan: The issue we're discussing, of course, is about education and information programs. The minis- ter 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 re- quirement 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 propos- als 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 responsi- bility 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 Commis- sion. I don't think we're going to advance our under- standing of the basic decision that is before us by deal- ing 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 con- ducting 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 R i g h t s A c t i n t h e a r e a o f e d u c a t i o n i s b e f o r e u s n o w . 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 varia- tion 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 de- vote a significant amount of energy toward the antici- pated 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 responsi- bility for developing and conducting a program of public education and information designed to promote an understanding of this code.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 de- ciding 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 pro- grams. Right now the debate before us, Mr. Chair, is a

section about education programs. I'm asking the min- ister, 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 pa- per, 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 informa- tion — 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, be- cause 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 gov- ernment, this minister, is going to deal with accessing, providing, encouraging and including youth in ad- vancing human rights. Will the government conduct research into the human rights performance of gov- ernment, like the commission did, with respect to the lack of accessibility of government services and infor- mation 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 sec- tion 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. Sec- tion 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: W e l l , t he m i ni s t e r ju s t s ai d he d i d n't u n- derstand what I said. He was suggesting that my ques- tions were incomprehensible, and I am laying it out clearly for the minister so he can follow what my ques- tions 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.

4034 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 J. Kwan: Actually, Mr. Chair, I have not gotten an answer. If the minister does not understand my ques- tions, 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 pre- scribed 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 hu- man rights performance of government, like the com- mission did, with respect to the lack of accessibility of government services and information to persons with a disability? That's the first question I have for the minis- ter, 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 con- ducting 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 an- swer 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 under- taken 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 minis- ter 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 minis- ter this question: will he conduct research into the em- ployment 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 con- tracted 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 w e m a k e t h a t d e c i s i o n h e r e i n t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , t h e n certainly I will be interested in the member's views on what areas should be researched and what consulta- tions 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 pro- vide 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 dif- ferences, 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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 coali- tion. 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. T h i s i s f r o m a m i n i s t e r w h o s a y s : " D o n ' t w o r r y ; 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 educa- tion 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 dif- ficult 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 of- ten it happens when it's this member asking questions. It happens a lot. So the member's…. J.

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 min- isters, 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 re- quired to do it.

To hear those questions from the mem- bers 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 cer- tain 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 of- fice, and they said: "Why will this government do noth- ing to help ensure that the people who have visual im- pairment have access to the information that people need in order to form decisions about government pro- grams?" 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 mat- ter 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 con- cern to me. If she wishes to write to me to bring that issue of concern directly to my attention, I will cer- tainly 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 con- tract 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.

4036 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 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 ver- sion of the changes will be on the website, and it isn't. Maybe the minister should double-check his facts be- fore 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 re- search 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 employ- ment 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. R. Stewart: I w a n t t o r a i s e a n i s s u e h e r e , b e c a u s e we've heard a request several times for an exhaustive list, I guess, of the types of research the Attorney Gen- eral 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 consul- tations 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 minis- ter, 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 any- thing 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 Com- mission has not been fired. In fact, it continues to oper- ate as we speak. J. Kwan: Well, I have press releases from the minis- ter, 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 ac- countability 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. Saddle- myer 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 Commis- sion in British Columbia. It has a chief commissioner, and the chief commissioner is discharging his respon- sibilities. J. Kwan: Well, if the information I received is incor- rect, 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 informa- tion from. The minister has refused to answer the question on if he will conduct research into human rights perform- ance of the government, like the commission did, with respect to the lack of accessibility of government ser- vices and information for persons with disabilities.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4037 H e ' s r e f u s e d t o a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f i f h e w i l l c o n - duct 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 pro- gram 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 min- ister 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 al- ready of being critical of my cabinet colleagues when they do not discharge their obligations. J. Kwan: The question, to be specific, is about hu- man rights violations. That is the bill before us that we're talking about. It seems to me the minister is re- fusing 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 inter- ested 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 provi- sion — unimportant; don't want to be the Big Brother to be doing that. That's what the minister said. Who else wil l be doing the work of e ducation 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 func- tion? 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 contem- plated by the new

section 6. So as soon as I find out the answer to that question, I'll be in a position to deter- mine 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. J. MacPhail: I fully understand the rules of the House as well, and let me just try to rephrase the ques- tion that's acceptable to the Chair. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asked what other sources may provide education and re- search. She asked a question about whether there might be agencies that would provide that same educa- tion or research. The Attorney General rose up and somehow inti- mated 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 actu- ally 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 out- side 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 yester- day. Another such is the clinic that will be established, which will have responsibilities for training and educa- tion.

4038 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 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 provid- ing the same information over and over again. I under- stand the information is not acceptable to the opposi- tion. I understand that we have a difference of opinion on whether or not the minister should have these re- sponsibilities. 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 sec- tions 5 and 6, there are the responsibilities that the tri- bunal 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 mem- ber opposite, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleas- ant, was implying at one point in her remarks a few minutes ago, which was that to some extent, that au- thority may exist now without this provision. In fact, I have done that. I have conducted and encouraged re- search 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 Re- view, 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 hu- man rights issues, I have actually established a track record of showing my interest in and commitment to the conduct and encouragement of research into mat- ters 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 exam- ined pay equity issues, public sector pay equity gener- ally 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 consider- able 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 in- volved consultations with the public and with inter- ested 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 consulta- tions 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 col- leagues didn't trust him in a non-confidence vote. Col- leagues 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 state- ments 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 be- lieve they have been the victims of discrimination con- trary 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 re- quire the respondent to make answer and, if necessary, to move towards mediation, negotiation and adjudica- tion 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.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 in- stitutions that will be independent.

A tribunal will be as independent tomorrow as it is today, and the tribu- nal will continue to hear complaints against govern- ment 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 un- derstand the unique constitutional role that an Attor- ney 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 Gen- eral. The statutory obligation, as the minister says, is there. Maybe the issue is that people don't trust it, be- cause they haven't seen it practised in reality. Maybe that's where the problems lie. These questions come in, questions around a poten- tial bias issue.

The fact is that when the commission was in place, it was completely independent of gov- ernment. 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 moni- toring. I asked the question of the minister earlier: who's going to do the work of monitoring? There's n o b o d y , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e w o r k i s t o b e d o n e i n - 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 talk- ing about education and information and research. J. Kwan: Yes. My question, Mr. Chair — through you to the minister — is: where is the watchdog provi- s i o n t h a t s h o u l d b e r e q u i r e d a n d t h a t n e e d s t o b e i n 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 infor- mation 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 provi- sion that's required, which says the minister may con- duct or encourage research into matters relevant to this code and carry out consultations relevant to this code. I understand that she is opposed to these amend- ments. 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 cor- responding with her, in detailed questions about de- tailed 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 charac- terization 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 w e h a v e m a d e t h a t d i s a g r e e m e n t a s c l e a r a s i t c a n b e 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 pro- visions. J. Kwan: Why did the minister take away the re- quirement to hold public hearings that was in the pre- vious code? [1530] Hon. G.

Plant: The former act did not include any inquiry act or subpoena powers in relation to the pub- lic 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 consulta- tions regarding matters relevant to this Code." The

4040 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 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 ver- sus 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 hear- ings 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 show- ing 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 pub- lic 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 dif- ferently. [1535-1540]

Section 3, sections 5 and 6 approved on the follow- ing 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. On

section 5,

part 2. J. Kwan:

Section 5 is a significant one. The entire p a r t 2 o f t h e f o r m e r H u m a n R i g h t s C o d e i s b e i n g eliminated.

Part 2 speaks to the Human Rights Com- mission and the advisory council, and of course, this establishes the Human Rights Commission and its ad- visory 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 re- sponsibility 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 rele- vant 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 inter- ested 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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4041 expertise in human rights issues. There was an exten- s i v e a m o u n t o f t h a t s o r t o f i n p u t u n d e r t a k e n i n t h e context of the review we did as part of the administra- tive justice project, so I know there will be avenues available for people to provide advice on matters rele- vant 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 undertak- ing 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 min- ister. 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 what- ever program is put in place is at the discretion of the m i n i s t e r . I t ' s u p t o h i m t o d e c i d e b y w a y o f c o n s u l t a - tion. 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 commis- sion? [1550] Hon. G. Plant: One thing I might say as we are dis- cussing the advisory council, for the benefit of those who may be following the debate….

I think the advi- sory 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 pro- vided 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 un- derstanding 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 amend- ments 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 com- mission. 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 mil- lion. 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 At- torney 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 im- portant 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 infor- mation from the estimates process has it that the Attor- ney General's budget for '02-03 is $3.9 million for the commission and $1.2 million for the tribunal. It's a sub- stantial 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 mem- ber an exact figure at this point. We are still looking at what it's going to cost to operate the tribunal in its re- configured form, assuming this legislation passes.

I e x p e c t t hat m u c h o f w hat i s u ns p e nt f ro m t he c u rre nt 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 tribu- nal. 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 ques- tion 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-

4042 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 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 re- quire, 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…. J. MacPhail: The post-transition era. When will that be — tomorrow? The Chair: Order, member. Let's listen to the re- sponse, please. Hon. G. Plant: Whatever is left from the $3.9 mil- lion 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 ce- ment the funds that are necessary.

I've already explained to the member that the dol- lars 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 p r o g r a m s a r e g o i n g t o b e i n p l a c e . H e d o e s n ' t k n o w w h a t r e s e a r c h c o n s u l t a t i o n i s g o i n g t o b e i n p l a c e . H e 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 sig- nificant 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 per- form 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 mem- ber 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 announce- ment 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 Colum- bia 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 s a y i s t h a t w e a r e a l s o b e g i n n i n g t h e w o r k t o d e v e l o p 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 en- sure 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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 gov- ernment is going to eliminate the Human Rights Commission and the tasks and responsibilities associ- ated with it. He has no replacement. He doesn't know what the replacement is going to look like. He says: "We're plan- ning 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 get- ting the services?

Is the funding in place that the gov- ernment 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 hap- pened. 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 infor- mation 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 Commis- sion have the opportunity to be transferred to the tri- bunal 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 gov- ernment 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 ques- tion 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 effec- tively. 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 sec- tion talks about eliminating the Human Rights Com- mission. 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 ad- justment 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 di- rect 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.

4044 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2002 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 Attor- ney 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 m u c h i s g o i n g t o b e r e q u i r e d , w h a t f u n c t i o n o r w h a t 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 edu- cation. 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 investi- gation and mediation, the terms of appoin

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1024pm-07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1024pm 07
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	be333a47df95345934c059b8b9286cd678915f3f

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